How to be a good calvinist without being a Christian!

How to be a good calvinist without being a Christian!

Calvinists blame others for ignorance and lack of understanding of their doctrine.

I often get told that I get calvinism wrong because I do not understand its theology. For example, from an email: “your argument there does not stack up because you have misunderstood the theology of Calvinisim (sic)”.

It is understanding, not lack of it, that proves calvinism wrong.

But such people are so wrong, because I understand calvinism very well indeed. In fact, I spent the first 19 years of my life being a good calvinist before I called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (as per Romans 10:13). I know exactly what it’s like to be an accredited elect person heading for an eternity in heaven, in spite of not actually being saved.

I grew up being told by my calvinist church that I was one of the elect.

You see, for the first 19 years of my life I thought I was saved, and everyone around me at my calvinist church declared the same. In fact, even for a while after I was saved, I still considered the calvinist Presbyterian church to be Christian.

Proper research led me to question and reject calvinism, especially its corrupt gospel.

It was only after I started to look seriously at their doctrine that I realised that their doctrine was faulty. By then I was attending churches where the doctrine was more acceptably biblical. But it was to be a long time before I was able to see that the calvinism I grew up with was not in any way compatible with biblical doctrine. It was when our reasonably biblical local churches were overtaken by calvinists that I was forced to assess whether or not calvinism was compatible with the Bible, and discovered that it was a non-Christian doctrine, especially its gospel.

I was brought up to be a good calvinist.

I was born into a good (calvinist) Presbyterian home with church-going parents who would never miss out on church attendance without very good reason. (The Presbyterian statement of faith is the very calvinist Westminster Confession.)

Many calvinist leaders were also freemasons.

My father was an elder. He was also a freemason, as were most Presbyterian elders that I have ever known. I knew that many of our local Presbyterian ministers were also freemasons, and that many of their churches exhibited freemasonry symbols carved into both wood and stone. (And if you think freemasonry is in any way Christian, then think again!)

Calvin taught that baptism purified us from all sin.

We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.” (Institutes Bk 4, Ch.15, Section 3) Therefore good calvinists must be baptised (christened) as early as possible to establish their elect status. Calvin was proud of his catholic baptism.

I was baptised very young as befits a good calvinist elect.

I was christened at an early age (thus adopted into the church as one of the elect). Presbyterian doctrine assured me that I was now properly cleansed for acceptance before God.

All good calvinist Presbyterians must be confirmed in their elect status.

Presbyterian teachings require this baptismal “faith” to be confirmed at their Confirmation later on, at which time they are admitted into full membership of the church. This is similar to the catholic confirmation ceremony. (Calvin never actually left the catholic church. His intention was always to reform the catholic church, not commence a new church, thus the term “the Reformation”.)

My Confirmation certificate “proves” my elect status.

In my early teen years I did a series of lessons which led to the church confirming my status as one of the elect. In this respect calvinism is little different to the catholic church which baptises its infants into the church, requiring this to be confirmed later on in order to become members of the church.

Until I was 19, as one of the elect, I was guaranteed to go to heaven.

Therefore, up until I was 19 years old, I was declared “saved”, one of God’s chosen elect, heading for heaven, and all I’d had to do was to be born into a good calvinist Presbyterian household, be baptised and confirmed, and follow the church rules. To break one of their rules without good reason was to be declared non-elect.

Calvinist Presbyterian rules existed to maintain one’s elect status.

I had to attend church regularly and to take communion at least once each 3 months. This was required to maintain my elect status. Not attending church regularly would prompt the church to require that you give good reason for your non-attendance or else be struck off the membership roll (and effectively also off the list of elect, too). In particular, non-attendance at more than two communion services in a row would also require good reason or else lose your elect status.

Keeping these rules proved one’s perseverance.

This rule-keeping demonstrated your perseverance, without which you could never endure to the end and therefore you were not one of the elect and would not go to calvinist heaven! Good calvinist Presbyterians demonstrated their perseverance by their continued attendance especially at communion services. Not attending was interpreted as a falling away, and the elect could never fall away!

If you didn’t endure to the end, you were never saved in the first place.

The Presbyterian doctrine was based upon obedience to the rules. Disobedient people could not be elect and therefore obedience became the measure of your salvation.

Therefore obedience to rules becomes your salvation itself.

The calvinist Presbyterians with their adherence to the Westminster Confession teach a salvation based upon the works that you do. In all my younger years, I heard little or nothing of biblical salvation. It was through obedience to the rules that you were declared one of the elect. You had to be baptised as a child, be confirmed in that faith when a teen, and thereafter attend all required church meetings and fulfill all church requirements. Calling upon the name of the Lord was never one of those requirements.

How do I know all this?

I know all this because I grew up learning all about how to be a good calvinist (as a Presbyterian). I experienced calvinism; I was immersed in calvinism; but I was never saved until I was finally asked if I had called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (and this didn’t happen in any Presbyterian church!). It happened after I had left my family home to get an education elsewhere, and at the age of 19 I found salvation in Jesus Christ, something that I knew nothing about all the time I was growing up in the Presbyterian church.

So how can you be a good calvinist without being a Christian?

Easy, far too easy, in fact. I managed to be a good calvinist without being a Christian for 19 years, and never in those 19 years realised that this was in any way unbiblical. It is true that many calvinists have also called upon the name of the Lord and been saved, yet never realising that calvinism is a burden, not a blessing, on their salvation. They are still saved, in spite of being calvinist, not because they are calvinist, but because they have also called upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

But there are many, many calvinists out there who don’t actually realise that they are not saved, and will only find out when they stand before the judgment throne of God. They will be told that their names are not in the Lamb’s book of life because they never called upon His name to be saved! Where do you stand today, calvinist? Please do not wait until the judgment to find out if you are right or not!

By the way, have you ever wondered just what calvinists mean when they say they believe in the Doctrines of Grace? Take this link or scroll down further to discover the real truth behind this.


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 may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.


Here’s something extra to think about:

On a “” thread, I read the following from someone who declares himself to be a Presbyterian:

How do you respond to the common criticism of Calvinism such as God being the author of evil?
I simply remind them that Calvin never taught that God is the author of evil.

But Calvin did teach that God was the author of evil, in fact, all evils.
He wrote 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 – John Calvin)

I just wish that calvinists could be a bit more educated, enough to be able to actually know what their doctrine really teaches!


The real truth about the doctrines of grace

Calvinists love to declare their beliefs as the doctrines of grace. But do you know why? You see, calvinists used to believe in the doctrine of puritanism, where if you fell off your spiritual horse and couldn’t get back on again, you were declared non-elect, not having persevered to the end. This is bad news for those calvinist pastors who desire mega-salaries from their mega-churches. It’s very bad for business to offload all those who aren’t able to persevere as good puritans. Dismissing the failures as non-elect removes money from the offering plate.

Enter new calvinism, where the emphasis is no longer on being good obedient puritans, but on being restored sinners. Now it is good to fall off your spiritual horse, because if you get up and in the running again, then you are said to have been restored by God’s grace. In fact, the only way for calvinists to experience God’s grace is to sin in order to confess your sin so that you can be restored to fellowship. That is, new calvinism requires that you fall off your horse regularly so that you then have the opportunity to demonstrate God’s grace in restoring you. Hence the name: the doctrines of grace.

New calvinism now encourages its elect to confess their sins regularly to one another. If you do not confess sin regularly (particularly to your friendly church biblical counsellor), then you may be harbouring sin, and therefore not the recipient of God’s grace, and thus at risk of being judged not one of the elect. Sounds a lot like the catholic confessional, doesn’t it? Then note carefully that Calvin never actually left the catholic church; he merely tried to reform it, thus the name “The Reformation”.

New Calvinism derived from Sonship Theology which many (even calvinists) declare to be a licence to sin. For example, from Covenant Presbyterian Church: “I heard of one preacher who said that as sons, we are free to sin. …. The freeness of our Father’s grace should never be turned, even slightly, into a license to sin. ….
Sonship Theology is an attempt to elevate grace.” (7th Oct 2007)

Sonship theology teaches that there is no sin that any child of God can possibly commit that could ever prevent that elect person from entering heaven. That is, if you are one of the elect and commit a sin, then you will be the recipient of God’s grace in restoring you to fellowship. (Note that according to calvinism, God has foreordained your sin anyway!) The calvinist God will always show grace to his elect, no matter what sin they committed; to not be restored means a lack of God’s grace due to not being one of the elect. Only the elect of the calvinist God may have such a licence to sin!

So, “the doctrines of grace” can be re-worded as “a licence to sin”, as long as it translates to sufficient money in the offering plate to justify it.

Calvinists lack good debating skills

Calvinists lack good debating skills.

Calvinist comments to this website are, in general, irrational and disorganised. Very few would be able to present an acceptable debate. They are either incapable of intelligent rational discussion, or pretending to be so.

Good post-writing is like a well-presented debate

You see, I do a lot of research and study before putting any of my documents and posts online. I check reference details, I assess biblical consistency, and I definitely focus on the specific point I am trying to make. All in all, it takes a lot of time and effort to write something properly. Like a good debate, I seek to present my views clearly and accurately.

Calvinists totally lack good debating skills

However, calvinists on the other hand appear to totally lack any idea of good debating skills. They rarely try to refute my views, and often try to change the topic. Their statements lack cohesion, and they rely far too much on merely quoting some alleged “expert” (verbatim) or give unexplained lists of biblical references to check out. They will even quote large amounts of scripture without any explanation, obviously assuming (quite falsely) that the Bible must always be read according to their interpretations alone. In any debate, such behaviour would score very low, if at all.

Calvinist comments disagree with me yet are so vague that defence is impossible

You only have to check the Comments page to discover that calvinists regularly disagree with me, yet never actually clearly specify exactly what it is that I have written that they disagree with. It is impossible to effectively defend against such vague statements, and they know this. In fact, they prefer this.

Calvinists do not like to commit themselves too much for fear they might be refuted

The more specific a statement is, the more easily it can be accepted or refuted. Vague statements merely suggest certain things without presenting a clear topic that can be refuted. Calvinists hide behind such vague statements because they are afraid of being shown up as incorrect. This is a sign that calvinists do not fully trust their own doctrines as being biblical. They are afraid to go out on a limb in defence of their doctrines.

Calvinists attack the person, not the belief

Most calvinist comments are focused upon the person and not the actual belief itself. This is poor debating and not worthy of refuting. It demands that their opponent defend his/her own reputation rather than their beliefs. One only has to read many comments posted on my website to see the truth of this statement.

Comments must be made according to good debating practice

Calvinists do not appear to have much understanding of good debating practice. Keep in mind that it is my website and that the comments must be based on an agreement or disagreement of what I have written. Anything else is an irrelevancy.

I will state some basic rules.

1/. The topic must be clearly understood and reinforced by those who debate.

If calvinists disagree with anything I have written, they must clearly define what I have written that they disagree with. This will usually be a reference to a specific document, even quoting what it is that I have stated that they disagree with. Without the establishment of the topic in this way, there can be no debate.

2/. A good debater must be able to refute his opponent’s claims.

If a calvinist cannot refute anything I have written, then there is no point in presenting any counter claims of his own. If he cannot destroy opposing statements, then he is effectively agreeing with them. Calvinists tend to ignore or make light of opposing claims. They may say that my opposing claims could be right but that their claims also could be right. For example, a recent comment stated “The 1 Pet 1:2 verse could mean God’s foreknowledge of a sinners repentance and faith in Salvation and Jesus as Lord”. Could mean? Could be right? Since when is a debate won on “could mean”? If they are to be right, then they must demonstrate me to be wrong! Otherwise I remain right! Debaters must be definitive, not vague!

3/. A good debater must produce proof statements directly related to the named topic.

Calvinists are far too prone to presenting topics that they feel more comfortable with rather than dealing with what I have actually written. They do tend to avoid trying to directly refute what I have written because that so often takes them out of their comfort zone (something they very much dislike). And, as well as avoiding directly refuting my statements, they attempt to divert attention to topics that keep them in their comfort zone. Therefore, instead of sticking to the named topic, they would rather select one of their “calvinist proof passages” as a substitute topic. And, if they quote a verse normally used to “prove” calvinism, and I counter with a question that undermines them, they will quickly move on to another topic again.
For example, one calvinist stated that John 15:16 demonstrated that God chose us (and not us Him). I then asked if he realised that Judas was one of those chosen here. His next correspondence totally disregarded this issue and went onto another unrelated topic. My query regarding Judas went unanswered!

4/. A good debater must express himself personally.

A good debater will use references judiciously to support his own views of the topic. He may name expert references that support his stated views, but should always concentrate on said references supporting his own views. The quoted references should not be independent views in themselves. The debate is focusing on the skills of the debater, not the skills of his references. His references should always be in support of his own views. The debater should avoid quoting long passages verbatim from some alleged “expert” reference; otherwise it would be that expert reference who is debating, and not the debater himself. Expert references should only be used as support and not as extra debaters on the team.
Too many calvinists think that presenting a list of Bible references and/or long passages quoted verbatim is sufficient in itself to prove their views. Therefore, comments may only use Bible references demonstrated to be directly supporting the debater’s views. Long Bible passages should be avoided; the debate is not a lecture or sermon.

5/. A good debate is concise.

A good debate should be limited in size. Most debating competitions have a time limit on the time each team member may speak. Many debating teams may have perhaps 3 members on each team, with each person limited to 3 or 5 minutes. (Team numbers and time limits may vary.) No-one wants to sit listening to a speaker drone on for ages; such people can quickly lose the attention of their listeners. So keep it short and sweet, and straight to the point – no waffling on.
Unfortunately, calvinists tend to be long-winded and vague; by the time they get to the end, most listeners have forgotten where they started. In particular, calvinists rarely get straight to the point. Being too specific permits opponents to home in on indefensible points, so calvinists tend to be vague on purpose, making it more difficult for others to point out specific errors.

6/. A good debater always focuses on the topic, not the opponent.

A poor debater who has little to offer in support of his topic will be tempted to make personal comments about his opponent. It is a tactic often used by lawyers: that if you are likely to lose the case, throw some dirt and some might stick. Discredit the opposing counsel and/or his witnesses.
Time after time, calvinist comments focus on me as a poor example of a Christian. (Just check the Comments page to see this!) According to them, I am a satanist (actually a good one, too!), I have pride, I am arrogant, I am not humble, I disdain and abuse other Christians, I am clueless, rude, a slanderer, non-elect, etc etc.
(Of course, they provide little to support such claims other than they have been unable to demonstrate me to be wrong doctrinally.)

7/. A good debater avoids deception in his statements.

If a debater thinks he is fighting a losing battle because the topic favours his opponents, then he may hope to get in first by taking the high ground before his opponents get a chance to speak. That is, to take a great weakness and present it as a great strength. This is deception. The idea is to make the first move and hopefully put your opponent on the defensive from the start, making your opponent defend what they should be attacking with. It is effectively using lies to cover up your weaknesses. Deception may win debates but only if the opposition fails to recognise the untruths being told.
Calvinists make use of this tactic so often that it is amazing more have not seen the pattern. For example, they will regularly claim Romans 9 to be a most definitive passage in support of calvinism. And yet, if you look at Romans 9 carefully, it is clear that it opposes calvinism. (Just look at Romans 9:1-3 to see that Paul himself could not have been a calvinist!) Every one of their claims re that chapter is actually a weakness and not a strength at all. Note that this lying tactic is not likely to work with those who have a good knowledge and understanding of the Bible.

8/. A good debater does not use the debate as his soapbox.

A good debater sticks to the selected topic and does not let himself be distracted onto personal views unrelated to the topic.
Calvinists often commence by stating a vague opposition to something I have written, only to then go onto another topic that is probably more to their liking. (That is, probably a topic more easily discussed vaguely than the one I have presented.) I have accused a few of trying to treat my website as their soapbox. If they want a place to air their own personal views, then they should start their own website!

In future all comments will have to adhere to good debating rules.

Future comments will need to be focused on the topic (as defined by one or more of my documents). They will be concise, rational and logical.
If calvinists make vague, unintelligent and irrational discussion, then they will not be published on this website. In fact, this requirement will apply to all comments. If you disagree with any statement I have written, then clearly define that statement and why you are opposed to it. (Or, in fact, why you are in agreement with it.) Do not change the topic. Keep your debate concise.
You may use Bible references where they are integrated into your debate. Please do not quote Scripture verbatim, especially long passages. Keep in mind that any Bible quoted must be public domain. Any literary references must be properly documented.

If I had used these requirements to assess Comments up until now, many who write in disagreement would not have been published.
I will be more lenient with those who agree, of course. This is not unfair; it is, after all, my website (I pay all costs without using advertising). I may choose how I assess any incoming mail. Note that all people tend to accept emails more readily from supportive people, and this is no different to that. To any who disagree with this policy, I would ask how many of you move unwanted emails to the trash or spam folders rather than dealing with them. Naturally you prefer friendly emails; so do I. Therefore, any unacceptable Comments (that do not adhere to the above listed requirements) will be moved to the trash or spam folders. Thank you.


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 may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.

The Westminster Confession – A scholarly critique

The Westminster Confession – a scholarly critique

After some serious study of that belief statement much beloved and much quoted of calvinists – the Westminster Confession – I have concluded that it is quite contradictory and encourages confused thinking. This is to be expected, seeing as it is based upon those likewise contradictory and confused teachings of Calvin.

Calvinism teaches that sin and evil are perfect and therefore good.

In “Calvinism is madness itself”, I pointed out that calvinists are forced by their doctrines to believe that all things in this world must be perfect, including sin and evil.

Yet sin can only be by the free will of man

Calvinism teaches that man has no free will to choose to sin. Spurgeon (that preacher much-loved-and-quoted by calvinists) said: “It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.” (“Free will – a slave”) Yet, Spurgeon was unable to provide any scriptural evidence to support this.

Free-will proves calvinism to be a lie.

Calvinism stands or falls on whether or not such free will exists. In particular, calvinists strongly oppose any freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey God. They teach that God created a class of people who could never seek after God and could never be saved.

Man sins by his free will alone.

The issue of who created sin is a much-argued subject, even between calvinists. The Bible teaches that man chooses to sin (to disobey God’s will) of his own free will. This alone is biblical; any option that takes man’s free will from him when sinning is to make God a sinner against His own will. God cannot sin against His own will; he cannot disobey Himself, nor will He cause or incite someone to sin against His will. He doesn’t even permit sin – He can only permit the free will of others to choose to sin in disobedience to His will.

The Westminster Confession teaches that God cannot be responsible for sin.

The Westminster Confession says: “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Ch.5 Part 4) This on its own is biblical.
It also says that “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6) That is, disobeying God’s will (as enshrined in His law) is sin. This, too, is biblical.

The Westminster Confession also teaches that God ordered sin for his own glory.

But this document also says “Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.” (Ch.6 Part 1)
That is, God has not only permitted them to sin, but has ordered it for his glory. Note that Calvin clearly stated thatGod is the author of all evils.

The calvinist God orders sin for his glory while also condemning it?

How can God “purpose to order” sin “for his glory” if he is not “the author or approver of sin”?

God cannot ordain, decree, nor even permit sin.

God cannot ordain or decree sin, ever. It would be the equivalent of decreeing that He disobey Himself. Nor can God even permit man to sin, for permission itself assumes approval of such action. Thus permitting man to sin would require God to approve of disobedience against Himself. Holy God cannot do this. In Genesis 2:16 God gave Adam permission to eat of all the trees in the garden, but denied him that same permission to eat of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17).

Sin is an act of disobeying God’s will.

Sin is defined as man disobeying God’s will. God is holy and cannot have anything to do with sin. Even the Westminster Confession admits this much: “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6)
Because God neither orders nor approves of sin (Ch.5 Part 4), it was impossible for Him to make Adam sin, or even to influence him in any way to cause him to sin. When Adam sinned, he was committing an act of disobedience by his will alone against God’s will. God told him to not eat the forbidden fruit; this was God’s law to Adam. Therefore, to eat of it was disobedience against God’s law and therefore sin. It could only be an act of Adam’s free will to choose to sin against God.

Everything God does must oppose sin.

It could never have been God’s will in any way that Adam should sin because then God would be inciting sin against Himself, and holy God cannot do that, ever. Adam’s sin was opposed to God’s will, and therefore an independent act of a will other than God’s holy will. God will at all times oppose disobedience against Himself. Everything God does must oppose sin (which is disobedience against Himself) or else He is no longer holy.

God did not create Adam with a sin nature.

Some calvinists, recognising that Adam has to have chosen to sin by his own free will, then say that it was Adam’s nature that caused him to sin. But this would require God to have created Adam with a sin nature that had to sin of necessity. And that would also require God to incite disobedience against Himself, thereby committing sin against His own will.

The calvinist “free-agency” makes man do only that which God has decreed that he do.

Others say that while Adam had no free will, he had a free agency to sin. But free agency merely says that while Adam was free to choose, he could only choose that option which God had already provided for him to choose, and no other. Effectively free agency is no freedom at all; free agency would still require God to provide the sinful option that Adam would be required to choose. And that would still make God a sinner against Himself.

The Westminster Confession says that man has liberty to choose between good and evil.

The Westminster Confession says: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” (Ch.9 Part 1)

The Westminster Confession also says that God foreordained all things that will ever happen.

It also says: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (Ch.3 Part 1)

Therefore it teaches that man has free will to choose, yet only what God has foreordained that he choose.

Literally, therefore, God has given man free will to choose between good or evil, yet God has also ordained all things that will happen, including all good and evil. Thus, God has given man free will to choose whatever God has already ordained that he should choose. This is the classic definition of the calvinist “free agency”.

Salvation is a free gift offered to all mankind.

God has offered a free gift of salvation and eternal life to all mankind. To reject such a gift would be to disobey God whose will is that all mankind be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Calvinists say that man does not have the free will to make such a choice; that God has ordained from the beginning who will obey and who will not obey God’s will here. Those who do not obey will be sent to hell for eternity for their disobedience against God’s will. However, according to calvinism, their disobedience can only be the consequence of not being ordained to obey.

Calvinism makes God complicit in man’s sin.

This makes the calvinist God at the very least a co-sinner alongside those whom he will send to hell for their ordained disobedience. And, at worst, the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe! The true God cannot make anyone sin, nor will He ever set up circumstances that inevitably send people to hell without any option of being able to obey Him.

The Westminster Confession teaches that God has predestinated most of mankind to hell without man having any say at all.

The Westminster Confession says: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” (Ch.3 Part 3) Not only does this teach double predestination, but in Ch.3 Part 5 it states that this was decided “before the foundation of the world”.

The Westminster Confession teaches that the calvinist God randomly selects who will go to heaven.

Ch.3 Part 5 also states that God’s decision regarding predestination was “out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto”, that is, unconditional. It doesn’t matter who you are or how you behave, for every single person has just as much chance of being chosen as anyone else (or else a condition would exist). And, noting Westminster Confession Ch.10 Parts 3 & 4, even Hitler could have been one of the elect. Or Judas (oh, that’s right, according to the Bible, he was one of the elect!). Unconditional election equals random selection.

Therefore in calvinism eternal life or death rests upon a celestial lottery of all mankind.

But if the election is unconditional, then all mankind is in this celestial lottery, and theoretically everyone has an equal chance of being drawn. But no, it does appear that white Caucasians are far more likely to be chosen than any other racial group. Maybe the calvinist God stacked the draw, or rigged it somehow so that those people were favoured? But then it wouldn’t be unconditional! Or, perhaps, unreached nations could actually have the elect among them too, only they do not produce the works and therefore we aren’t counting them, but maybe we should? Note that Tim Keller (a co-founder of the new calvinist Gospel Coalition), believes (along with C S Lewis) that God may have a back door somewhere for such unreached peoples to access heaven. And maybe many of those who claim to be of the elect because of their good works may not actually be saved! ………

The Westminster Confession teaches God’s foreknowledge doesn’t really exist.

Note that God’s foreknowledge is discounted in the Westminster Confession Ch.3 Part 5 (“without any foresight of faith”) as a means of selecting his election. Calvinists hate foreknowledge to mean God’s perfect knowledge of the future because it demands the free will of man to choose salvation which would then be known by God according to His foreknowledge. Genuine foreknowledge demands future decisions to be foreknown!

Even Calvin taught that foreknowledge was irrelevant for God.

…… or to just state that discussion of foreknowledge (or prescience) is futile because God would already foreknow all things by reason of having appointed them from the beginning. (eg Calvin – “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 (irrelevant) to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” – Institutes, Bk 3, Ch.23, Section 6) Yet the Bible says (in 1 Peter 1:2) that our election is by that “irrelevant” foreknowledge!

If God’s foreknowledge is true, then calvinism is heresy.

Therefore, prove foreknowledge to be God’s perfect knowledge of the future and you destroy calvinism’s “no-free-will”. If foreknowledge exists as such, then the free will of man to choose salvation must also exist.

Holy God will never have anything to do with sin.

God is holy, and can have nothing to do with sin at all, ever. All sin therefore is a free-will act against the will of holy God, an act that God condemns. If man has no free will to choose to obey or disobey, then the responsibility falls back upon God who must therefore be effectively making man’s choices for him. Either man has free will to choose to obey or disobey God, or God has made that choice for him. Whoever makes such a choice is responsible for the consequences of that choice. If man makes that choice to disobey, then he deserves God’s condemnation. If that choice were by God’s decree (as calvinism clearly teaches) then God has put himself into the awkward situation of putting himself on trial and being found guilty. God can neither ordain (decree) nor approve (permit) sin.

The Westminster Confession teaches that those without works can still be saved.

Please note that the Westminster Confession has a few more problems. Apparently there are those who live their lives without any outward evidences of salvation because of some alleged incapability who are also among the elect. This obviously would cover those calvinists who turn up to church when required but otherwise have no works to demonstrate their faith!
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Ch.10 Part 3)

And others who show evidences of being called by the ministry of the Word are not actually saved.

Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.” (Ch.10 Part 4)

This rests upon Calvin’s doctrine of a temporary faith.

Of course, Calvin taught the same: that by “an inferior operation of the Spirit” … “by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11) Some who were chosen for hell from the beginning could be made to think they were saved, and would even have the works to demonstrate to others that they were saved, yet would be dropped from God’s grace before they died.

The Westminster Confession is irrational, contradictory and unbiblical.

People can be of the elect even though they have no supporting works, and others can be not of the elect even if they do have supporting works. Sounds like none of them can actually know if they are saved or not until they die and stand before God. In fact, according to the Westminster Confession no-one can really be sure what their God has chosen for them until they stand before him in the judgment. So, which Westminster Confession set of options do you choose? And what if you choose the wrong options? And stand before God one day and be told to depart from Him because you were never one of His!

Matthew 7:22-2322Many 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.


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 may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.

Calvinists blame the internet for comments that oppose them

Calvinists blame the internet for comments that oppose them

(Excuses, excuses! Always excuses! All because they think they can never be wrong!)

Calvinists blame the internet for much of the opposition they get from biblical Christians. The fact is that calvinists do not want you to think for yourself! They want to tell you what they believe and to stifle all others who might oppose. Calvinism seeks to control people, and those who think for themselves are harder to control.

Calvinists allege that the internet has “contributed to the rise of anti-Calvinism in our church“. (This is certainly true; we who disagree with calvinism have a right to expose their heresies. It’s called “freedom of speech”!) They allege that anti-calvinists have “skewed sources that unfavorably misrepresented” calvinism. (We declare that calvinism uses skewed sources that misrepresent the Bible itself!) They blame “the intrusion of internet hotheads” for the subsequent division. (Yet, if those “hotheads” were calvinists, then they’d be declaring them to be “heroes”!)
Everyone should research as widely and as deeply as they can in order to arrive at their own conclusions without undue pressure from either side. Test all things for yourselves!

There is a growing list of websites today that openly oppose the heresies of calvinism. And many calvinists are quite upset about this. They don’t mind using the internet to ram home their own doctrines; in fact, they are often quite aggressive in their use of internet forums. (Just try opposing their doctrines on most forums and see how quickly the moderator will caution you and then shut you down if you don’t toe the correct doctrinal line!)  But when their opposition uses the internet to expose calvinist heresies, calvinists are very quick to cry, “Foul!” However, it’s just a case of you can’t have your cake and eat it! If they can use the internet, then others can too.

A lot of calvinists blame the availability of the internet itself for the opposition they face from non-calvinists. They say that the internet has fostered an age of “experts”.
They claim that everyone thinks he is an expert on calvinism just by reading someone’s opinion on a website post, and that such opinion is without basis because it is wrong (because they say so!). Of course, if the opinion favours calvinism, then, they claim, it must be true, but, on the other hand, it must be false if it opposes calvinism. That is, the internet can only be true if it agrees with calvinism. Any website that disagrees with calvinism can not be true. This is extremely biased thinking indeed!

So, is there any logical basis for such biased thinking? After all, we do tend to be very biased against such non-Christian cults as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If one side is very clearly biblical, and opposes doctrines that are just as clearly non-biblical, then such bias may be justified. If calvinists could biblically demonstrate clearly that their doctrines were true and that opposing non-calvinist doctrines were false, then fair enough. But can they??

You see, that would require biblically-sourced solutions (sola scriptura) that consistently supported their doctrines, and just as consistently denied the doctrines of non-calvinists. According to calvinist logic, my website consistently tells lies, while those who oppose my teachings must be consistently correct. However, if this were so, then it would be quite simple to demonstrate me wrong by quoting the Bible alone to demonstrate my errors. Any inconsistency between beliefs and the Bible always indicates such beliefs to be false. If the Bible were to consistently teach calvinism while consistently denying non-calvinism, then any inconsistency would expose my lies. But, after many years of challenging calvinists to try to prove my statements to be inconsistent with the Bible, not one calvinist yet has taken up the challenge.

Oh yes, I do get calvinists opposing me. Often they won’t even quote any Bible verses at all, probably considering it beneath their dignity to overstate the “obvious” (obvious to them, anyway!). And when they do quote verses, they rattle off a reference without much (if any) explanation, as if to say that the verse quoted is definitive proof of their doctrinal truth. I sometimes get a whole passage of many verses without any reasoning as to why it is good for calvinism.

For example, they’ll quote John 6:44, stating that it proves the unconditional election. MacArthur uses it to support his doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” But John 6:44 does not say that all who are called must come. Instead it says that all who come must have been called. (If you cannot see the difference, you must be a calvinist!) Think! If all dogs have four legs, that does not mean that everything with four legs must be a dog!

Others use John 6:39that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing” to prove that it is only those who are given unconditionally to Jesus who can be saved. However, when I ask how Jesus lost Judas who had been given to Him (John 17:12), they never answer this.

Again, they sometimes quote John 15:16 to demonstrate that we do not choose God; God chooses us. When I ask if they are aware that Judas was one of those chosen here, they refuse to go any further on that discussion. I also point out that Judas was one of the twelve chosen disciples in spite of him being a devil (John 6:70), and also chosen to be an apostle in spite of him being a traitor (Luke 6:13-16). They never answer this either.

Many other scriptural examples can be presented – just ask me!

In fact, often in my replies to comments, I point out the scriptural inconsistencies with their claims. (Just read the Comments on this website to find out just how many questions I raise about their claimed doctrines, over and over ad infinitum.) Why has not one made any serious effort to defend calvinism by refuting my statements? If they reply (of course they mostly will never reply to my comments) it’s to change the subject, trying to push another heresy which I then refute as well (and which they also refuse to argue with any further).

So, if the calvinists are always right and the non-calvinists always wrong on the internet, why has not one single calvinist ever been able to refute scripturally (sola scriptura) any of my accusations against them? Why do calvinists in general refuse to take me on in serious biblical debate concerning their doctrines? And does this, in fact, prove that they are the ones who are misusing the internet, not the non-calvinists?

To tell the truth, it was the internet that has given calvinists their greatest opportunity to spew forth their heresies. Calvinism has endeavoured to take control of as much media as it can: literature, video, internet etc. In particular, calvinism would like a monopoly on the internet where their views may be put forward without opposition. It declares its views to be the only acceptable ones, yet is unable to present any serious debate against those who refute their heresies. Calvinism does not desire any dialogue at all with those who oppose because many of those who oppose can effectively demonstrate the falsehoods of calvinism. They will steer well clear of those who know their Bibles well! So why should this be so, eh?

Calvinists want to be the only ones talking here. No-one else may join the discussion unless they support calvinist teachings. The internet is good if it supports calvinism and bad if it doesn’t. This is calvinist internet philosophy in a nutshell. Only their doctrines may be taught; all other views must be declared lies.

So, here’s the challenge for calvinists. If you disagree with my internet “opinions”, if you think that my views are misinformed and misleading, if you consider that I am misrepresenting calvinism, then say so. Make sure you use the Bible alone to demonstrate your views, for I will not pay much attention if any to your so-called “experts” such as MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Mohler, Edwards, Boettner, Pink, etc etc, people who make up opinions with little regard for biblical truth.

If you could refute me, you would, but because you cannot refute me, you remain silent. Your silence is deafening; it is your defeat. If my opinion is false, then refute it or admit that you cannot. (Your silence itself admits of your defeat.)

And those of you who are still considering whether or not calvinism is scriptural, ask yourselves: Where is the clear and indisputable demonstration of my “misrepresentation”? If there is none, it is because no such demonstration can be made. I have many documents on my website that demonstrate the heresies of calvinism. Not one has been biblically refuted yet. Calvinists just don’t want to know what I write because they are afraid of losing the debate. (I used to print all reasonable comments, both positive and negative, but now I refuse to reply unless the actual document is referenced, plus the exact wording quoted. Even then, if I have dealt with that issue already on the website, then I may choose to ignore you. I dislike stating the obvious more than once!)

And so I will continue to use the internet to proclaim the lies of calvinism in the hope that as many as possible will read and carefully consider its doctrinal claims, weighing them up against the truth of the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Please do not take anyone’s word for anything either but test all things against the truth of the Bible alone. It is you who has to believe one way or the other. Do not ever let anyone else at all tell you what you must believe. That also includes checking everything I write against the Bible.

It is you who will stand before God as judge one day and answer for what you believe. No-one can stand there for you. No-one else can believe on your behalf. (Ezekiel 18:20) So test all things against the Bible for yourself. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

And calvinists, keep in mind that one day you (yes, even you!) will stand before God as judge to answer for your actions. If you have taught falsely such that others are condemned for eternity, then you will be judged accordingly. (We will all be judged one day; no-one will be excused, even calvinists. (This is what the first half of John 6:37 actually means!)
Matthew 18:6But 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.

If you twist meanings using verbal gymnastics to cause people to be lost, then you will certainly face eternal condemnation.
2 Peter 2:3And through covetousness shall they (false teachers) with feigned (plastos = carefully sculpted) words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

If you don’t like the KJV, then your NIV says: In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
or in the calvinist-preferred ESV: And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
or the Amplified Bible: And in their greed they will exploit you with false arguments and twisted doctrine. Their sentence [of condemnation which God has decreed] from a time long ago is not idle [but is still in force], and their destruction and deepening misery is not asleep [but is on its way].

In fact, whatever version you read will condemn false teachers to eternal condemnation. False teachers, be warned now!


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 may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.

What qualifications does a calvinist need?

What qualifications does a calvinist need?

This post came about because calvinists who make comments on this website generally make wild accusations without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims.
The latest one simply said, “You are clueless”. So, what was the point of his comment? Absolutely no point at all! With an abundance of such point-less comments from calvinists, I have now concluded that a lack of rational thinking must be a prerequisite for being a calvinist. So here’s a short-list of my observations after a few years of receiving calvinist comments.

Here’s some suggestions on what a calvinist should attach to his resume.

(Of course, many calvinist prospective pastors will refuse to acknowledge much of the following to any church which might use the Bible to select their pastor. These resume points below are only going to look right to a non-biblical calvinist church.)

1/. He must always be right.

He must have an unshakeable confidence in the rightness of his beliefs in the face of much logical opposition. He must know he is always right and therefore anyone who disagrees is always wrong. To admit that he could be wrong would be to accept that others who believe differently could be right. This is unacceptable to a calvinist, that someone else might actually be right!

2/. He must have an ability to believe what the Bible cannot teach.

Even if the Bible says that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, he must still stubbornly state that Jesus only died for a few that their God has chosen for heaven. Even when the Bible says we must choose whom we will serve, he must maintain that choosing never means to actually have a choice!

3/. He must be able to ignore anyone biblically challenging his beliefs.

Time after time I get calvinists quoting verses that “prove” their doctrines. Yet, when I point out questions the Bible raises against their interpretations, they will not reply, or else they will change the topic. A few have quoted John 15:16 to “prove” that God chooses us and we do not choose Him. But when I ask if they realise that Judas was one of those chosen there, they either do not reply or push on with a different set of “proof” verses.

4/. He must believe that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.

For example, “all” often means “some”, “many” often means “all”, “the whole world” often means only Christians, and “does not” means “cannot”!

5/. He must believe that his God has divine schizophrenia (multiple personality disorder).

He must teach that God desires one thing (the salvation of all mankind) yet decrees something quite different (most of mankind goes to hell). You have to ask why Piper should want to defend his God against a charge of divine schizophrenia! He says: “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.” Yet “his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia

6/. He must have a lack of ability to engage in meaningful and intelligent debate.

When others oppose his doctrines, the calvinist must stick to his guns and maintain that he is right because (a) he has been to an approved Bible college, or (b) he reads books by calvinists who teach the same “truths”, or (c) only calvinists are qualified to assess the deeper truths of the Bible, or (d) there are mysteries that God does not want us to know, or (e) you cannot be one of the elect! If you will not play his game by his rules, then he won’t talk to you again!

He must have a supply of names he can call biblical non-calvinists who dare to use the Bible to refute him. Because he cannot abide using the Bible alone for his debates (because he knows he would lose), he must have an arsenal of names and epithets to fire at his “enemy”. These include “clueless”, “non-elect”, “misrepresenting”, “rude”, slander”, “out of context”, “unbiblical”, “you are trying to twist things to fit your own agenda”, “you are teaching heresy”, “both your name and qualifications could very well be an issue with what I believe”, “unbecoming of a brother in Christ”, “very arrogant and hostile”, “lack discernment”. I have been declared the servant of satan, of the devil, evil, hateful, and worse. Yet not one of these people actually demonstrated why they said it. They declare me wrong yet are unable to say why.
The latest comment, by the way, accused me of tirades, yet all he could do was present a tirade of his own soap-box variety! Of course I won’t reply, nor will I print his heresies. Let him commence his own webpage and say what he wants on that. See lower down for my conclusions on his tirade!

7/. He must be unable to present logical debate when refuting said opposition.

In fact, he will usually refuse to engage in any serious debate with someone who knows the Bible well. Those who know the Bible well and quote it in support of their beliefs are considered to be not playing the game by the rules (their rules!). Mormon Joseph Smith had special glasses that only he could use to interpret the extra-biblical writings of the angel Moroni and therefore considered himself above human debate. Many calvinists have their own special set of such “glasses”. They claim that only calvinism categorises the Bible such that only calvinists may understand the deeper “truths” of the Bible. In fact, calvinism is an esoteric knowledge system where only those who are initiated may be permitted to know its deeper truths!

8/. He must declare non-calvinists to be theologically untaught.

He must be prepared to call out non-calvinists as theologically untaught with man-centred thinking, such as stated by calvinist Steven Lawson who said of those non-calvinist Christians that: “In my earlier years, the greatest challenges I faced were preaching the doctrines of grace to congregations that were theologically untaught. To say the least, it was difficult and demanding to try to establish God-centered truth and a biblical philosophy of ministry where there had previously been a stronghold of man-centered thinking concerning the work of God in salvation. Though it was obviously a painful process, the only way to meet such an obstacle was head-on, unashamedly preaching the full counsel of God.

9/. He must be willing to teach that only calvinists are biblically correct.

He must declare that calvinists are the only evangelical, biblical, theologically correct Christians, such as calvinist Al Mohler states: “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

10/. He must be good at verbal gymnastics.

That is, he must be good at interpreting the Bible to mean the opposite to the clear straight-forward meaning. He must be persuasive, believable, even when telling lies. Like the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:3, he must use “feigned words” (verbal gymnastics) to mean the opposite of what he appears to be saying.

11/. He must be good at mentoring gullible Christians.

He must be able to choose the right people to mentor into the philosophy of calvinism. He has to be careful not to get into a debate with those who might show him up to be the charlatan that he is. Young, immature, naïve, gullible Christians are ideal for his purposes. When he joins a church, he’ll set his sights on such people in order to do the “I am biblical” boast in front of. He’ll talk very biblically-sounding talk, and walk a very biblically-acceptable behaviour, in order to convince these naïve Christians that he is a mature Christian who has all the answers. Of course, he’ll work on individuals or small groups only, in order to better ensure that he will not be opposed by one of those nasty biblical Christians who know their Bibles well.

12/. He’ll boast of the superiority of his God.

And, therefore, will boast of his own superiority in believing in a more sovereign, more gracious (though also more judgmental and less loving) calvinist God. He’ll claim to have experienced a higher view of God that clearly must make him a better Christian.

13/. He might even teach that only calvinists can be saved.

It does sound like those in many Pentecostal churches who boast of the superiority of their spiritual experience because they have spoken in tongues etc. And like such people who claim to be real Christians because they have spoken in tongues (I have met a few), there are calvinists who maintain that it is only calvinists who may be of the elect. Even if I say I have called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) calvinists have to say that unless God chose me, then I still cannot be saved.

14/. He must believe that God ordained or decreed sin.

Because the calvinist God makes all the decisions in his universe, then the calvinist must believe that his God is responsible for the existence of all sin. Many prominent calvinist “theologians” acknowledge that God created/decreed/ordained/authored sin. Even Calvin stated “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)

15/. He must believe that satan is an obedient servant of God.

Calvin said that “Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God” (Institutes Ch.1, Bk.14, Section 17)

16/. He must believe that his God created most of mankind to go to hell.

Calvin said “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” (Institutes Ch.3, Bk.21, Section 5) And because most of mankind will go to hell according to the Bible, then they were predestined to go to hell by the calvinist God.

17/. He must believe that God hates most people.

While God tells us to love our enemies, the calvinist God creates his enemies by predestinating them to hell for no other reason than he doesn’t love them enough to want them in heaven. The calvinist God hates most of the mankind he has created.

18/. He must believe that prayer is ineffectual.

If the calvinist God has foreordained all things from the beginning, then no amount of prayer can ever make any difference at all, because no-one can ever change what the calvinist God has willed should happen.

19/. He must believe that preaching the gospel is not to save people.

Calvinists will often say that they preach the gospel in obedience to God, for if God has already established from the beginning who will be saved (and no-one else), then no amount of evangelizing can ever change what God has predetermined.

Calvinist Bryan Liftin (professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute) saysBut then why evangelize anyone if God’s decree is already fixed? The mistake is thinking that we evangelize in order to save people. That is incorrect. …. The right reason to evangelize is to be obedient.

20/. He must believe that the gospel is completely irrelevant.

He must believe that it is impossible for anyone to respond to the gospel until after he has been born again (they call it being regenerated). You cannot be saved until after you have been regenerated.

21/. He must believe that only those chosen from the beginning will go to heaven.

And he must believe that there is absolutely nothing that he or anyone else can do that can ever make any difference at all regarding who goes to heaven or hell. If you are not on the list for heaven from the beginning of creation, then you were always earmarked to go to hell.

22/. He must believe that it doesn’t even matter what you believe.

In calvinism it doesn’t matter how good or bad you are, because if you are one that God has chosen, you will go to heaven, and if you were not chosen, you will go to hell. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell.

23/. He must believe that God has a celestial lottery to choose his elect.

Calvinism teaches that God unconditionally chooses his elect to go to heaven. The rest he chooses to send to hell. An unconditional election means a statistically random selection. It is a celestial lottery that determines where you go when you die. Most of course will go to hell, unless you are one of those special ones whom he loves. And the calvinist God chooses whom he will love via his celestial (unconditional) lottery. Everyone has an equal chance of being drawn out of the barrel. Unfortunately, 99% or more will remain in that barrel. And those names that remain in the barrel will be sent to hell. No matter how good a life you live, if you were not chosen in that lottery, you will go to hell.

24/. He must believe in a temporary faith, an inferior operation of the Spirit.

There are those who appear to be of the elect yet fall away before the end. Calvin taught that these had been given a temporary faith, “an inferior operation of the Spirit”. Calvin also says that “Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes Bk.3, Ch.2, Section 11)

25/. He must believe that no-one can know if they are saved until they die.

Calvinists must believe that a proof of their election to heaven is that they will persevere until the end. If they do not persevere to the end, then they had a temporary faith only, and were never programmed to persevere to the end. Not one calvinist can ever be sure that he is one of the elect until he dies and stands before God in judgment. Only perseverance to the end proves your faith!


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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

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

The tirade mentioned above claimed a belief in predestination. Keep in mind that if God has predestinated all mankind to either heaven or hell, then
(a) praying for anyone’s salvation cannot change where that person goes when they die
(b) evangelisation and mission work are a total waste of time
(c) even doing good works is of no benefit at all to you