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, (b) then 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 is 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.

Beware of calvinists seeking common ground!

Beware of calvinists trying to find common ground

(And the next morning after posting this, another swathe of hit-run lockouts because once again they’ve tried hacking my login page. But we’ll just continue to proclaim the truth about calvinism while we can. Clearly some people (particularly calvinists) do not appreciate my expose of calvinism, and just as clearly I’ve hit some raw nerve of truth in their lies. If they were right, of course, I’d expect some quality Bible study to demonstrate my errors, but no, that appears to be out of their reach. These calvinists do not acknowledge sola scriptura – the Bible alone. So they resort to violence, the last refuge of the incompetent. May God open your eyes to His truth before it’s too late.)

My documentation says that a website alleged to be a scam and adult content business is involved in a number of these lockouts. If this is true (and it does appear to be so), then it certainly puts an interesting label on the alleged calvinist opposition that appears to be harassing our website. If calvinists are behind this lockout harassment, then they should know that this would identify them as anti-Christian, opposed to all biblical principles. No genuine Christian would ever stoop so low! They are welcome to comment on this using the proper channels of communication as presented on this website. And we praise God that we are considered worthy of the enemy’s opposition. To God alone be the glory!

Reading the Bible alone doesn’t produce calvinists. Calvin was probably the only calvinist who ever became a calvinist by reading the Bible, and yet even he acknowledges that it was Augustine’s teachings that greatly influenced his thinking. Calvinism is a false teaching that does not come naturally from the Bible; instead the Bible has to be interpreted according to Calvin’s (and Augustine’s) teachings before calvinism can be understood. It is an esoteric knowledge system, where those who are initiated into the belief system may understand things that the uninitiated cannot understand. And, those who are more qualified in the belief system may have the greater knowledge of the system. In this it is the same as freemasonry and kabbalah.

I have been told by one calvinist that your argument there does not stack up because you have misunderstood the theology of Calvinisim. So I need to understand calvinism before I can fully understand the Bible? I need to understand calvinist theology to be fully discerning? This in itself proves calvinism to be a lie! (For some of calvinism’s blatant heresies, see “Calvinisms”.)

Calvinism is not biblical; it actually denies much biblical truth including the most important biblical truth – the gospel of salvation for all mankind through freewill acceptance of the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. But the calvinist gospel won’t accept any freewill decision to accept God’s gift of salvation by faith. The calvinist gospel is quite different: the calvinist God has either chosen you for heaven or for hell, and you have absolutely no choice in the matter; end of story! That might be good for those chosen for heaven, but the calvinist God has chosen to send most of mankind to hell simply because he didn’t intend saving any of them.

As MacArthur says in “The Doctrine of Actual Atonement Part 1”: God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited. There you are folks. The calvinist God didn’t want to save everyone! Even though the God of the Bible says For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4) It’s funny how God wants all to be saved, yet according to calvinism God doesn’t intend saving most of them!

However, if calvinists taught their doctrines openly and honestly, on-the-ball evangelical Christians would never accept them as fellow-Christians. I mean, when’s the last time you heard a calvinist evangelist preaching to the lost and saying, “God did not intend saving most of you here. Jesus died for some of you and you are going to heaven anyway; the calvinist God will not take “No!” for an answer. The rest of you are going to hell. Your sins were never paid for! The calvinist God couldn’t save you even if he wanted to!”

Calvinists have a doctrine that is alien to the Bible, one that denies God’s salvation to the vast majority of mankind. And the calvinist God also does not offer any gift of salvation to anyone. He forces it upon a small number of people, and never made any such gift available for anyone else. (See “Calvinisms” for further information, plus many other documents on this website.)

If the calvinist taught the whole truth of calvinism, it would come across as heresy much like JW teachings are dismissed by Christians as unbiblical. For, like the JWs with the Watchtower Society, calvinists have a false doctrine that can only be explained satisfactorily by using Calvin’s teachings as a guide. All the cults have extra-biblical “revelations” that “explain” the “truths” of their heresies. The SDAs have the teachings of Ellen White, the Mormons have the writings of Joseph Smith, the JWs have their Watchtower Society, the Catholics have Augustine, and the calvinists have Calvin’s Institutes (which are based upon Augustine’s teachings anyway).

So why do so many Christians accept calvinism as an acceptable yet opposing way of believing biblical doctrines? It’s because calvinists will never start by telling you the whole truth concerning their false doctrines. Like tares among the wheat, they desire to be accepted by the Christians in the churches they infiltrate. And like tares they will tell you just enough for you to think they are Christians just like you. Like tares they will research the doctrines you hold strongly to and seek to find common ground upon which both you and they will agree. This is basic activity for tares, to find the common ground upon which you both agree, and then to use that common ground to stretch it a bit further and further toward eventual full agreement with their doctrines.

Tares are satan’s followers who infiltrate the church to destroy it from within. They are most effective when the church thinks they are genuine Christians. They will always build common ground of agreement and then seek to extend that common ground, always toward their heresies. Bit by bit, the common ground grows, and only the discerning Christian who tests all things has a hope of standing firm on scriptural high ground.
Ephesians 6:13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
The only way to recognise tares is by their fruit. They can say what they want, but what they do will eventually reveal them. (See Matthew 13: 24-30 and 36-43)

Of course, not all who believe in calvinist doctrine are necessarily tares among the wheat. Many Christians hold the truth in high regard and merely need to test all things (as per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.) in order to sift out the lies from the truth. Genuine Christians should use biblical truth to assess their beliefs.
It is those who do not hold fast to that which is true that are likely to be the tares. Such people are likely to see non-calvinists as lesser Christians, or even lost. They see those non-calvinist believers as a mission field, seeking to convert them to calvinist heresies. These calvinists see themselves as the only on-the-ball Christians around. This includes such as Al Mohler who says 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. http://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/ That is, according to Mohler, only calvinists are fully right! But, if calvinism is a doctrine of devils, then Al Mohler is a tare among the wheat.

Jesus taught that these tares (sons of the wicked one) would be planted in the church among the Christians, and that they would often be hard to pick out from the real Christians. And because tares will be trying hard to look like real Christians, they are hard to recognise. (Like good spies, good tares can deceive many Christians!) Satan wants his tares to destroy the church, and to do this they need to be accepted as real Christians. They also try to work toward leadership responsibilities because that is how they will destroy the church: by leading the gullible Christians to destruction. Tares may often be found in positions of leadership in the church.

So briefly, a tare is a false teacher who has to look like he is a genuine real-deal Christian (or else he’ll be caught out). He will appear to teach good doctrine while really encouraging false doctrine. He will seek to establish common ground for agreement in order to build upon and extend that common ground with Christians into heresy. For example, the calvinist aggressively pushes the doctrine of the election of God’s people. Now the election (the choosing) is biblical, but once they have established that Christians should believe in the election, they will then tell you that the election is unconditional, which is the false extension of this teaching. God does choose an election; 1 Peter 1:2a says we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father but note that it is through the use of God’s foreknowledge (God’s perfect knowledge of the future). God offers salvation as a gift, and those who accept this gift by faith are foreknown by God who then puts them on His list of chosen ones (His elect ones).

The calvinist election lie is that God chooses his elect ones without foreknowledge, that God just selects a few for heaven and the rest for hell unconditionally. That is, there’s nothing you can do to change God’s choosing in any way. The Bible teaches an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of your choice; calvinists teach an election unconditional upon any decision you can ever make. The common ground is the election; the extra calvinist lie added on is that God does not use foreknowledge to determine your election.

Why do calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet preach the biblical gospel to the lost. Why don’t they preach the actual truth of calvinism to the lost until after they are saved? Calvinism teaches that you cannot respond to the gospel until after you are born again with new life by the Spirit (they call it “regenerated”). So why bother being saved if you already have eternal life before you can respond to the gospel and be saved? Why do calvinists hide from non-calvinists their teaching that the calvinist God decreed sin? Why are calvinists reluctant to admit that if their God’s will is the only will in the universe (and that man has no free will to choose good or evil), then their God has to have (ordained / created / decreed) all (evil / sin).

As MacArthur teaches (in his book The Vanishing Conscience)
Page 112 – Scripture clearly teaches that God is utterly sovereign over all things. Or, as the Westminster Confession 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.” (Chap.3 Sec 1)
Page 113 – 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. (Emphasis MacArthur’s)

You see, if calvinism is right, then man has been created incapable of choosing between good and evil. Man can not be permitted to have a will that may oppose the calvinist God’s will at any time. Therefore if sin exists, then the calvinist God must have created it. Calvinism cannot deny that this is their clear teaching. Therefore they are forced to teach that the calvinist God created sin in order to increase his glory, and that without sin God’s glory would have been less God-glorifying!
A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.

When is the last time you heard a calvinist teach the blasphemy that God created sin for His glory? And yet they have to either tell lies to deny this, or preferably just not mention it and hope you don’t ask awkward questions. And, if all mankind has been chosen for either heaven or hell before the beginning of the world, then what is the point of claiming to be so evangelical when their teaching is that no amount of evangelism can ever change the end-result? How often do you hear calvinists claim to be the most evangelical of all Christians, preaching the gospel to all mankind? And yet, if they are to be truthful, they must admit that they cannot preach to the lost that Jesus loves them when the calvinist Jesus probably didn’t die for any of their sins. As MacArthur says (in The Sacrifice that Satisfied): Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood.
So the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for the sins of those whom He asked the Father to forgive for they knew not what they did? Clearly the calvinist Jesus didn’t think it was his responsibility to be the means of their forgiveness. Sounds like the calvinist Jesus and the calvinist Father are not in agreement with each other!

If a calvinist tries to convince you of his doctrines, he will often commence by establishing common ground. Beware of calvinists who say that we agree in some areas, or have some common ground for agreement. They are softening you up for the kill! Any common ground established will then be used to build lies upon. The common ground will be truth to which lies are added. It’s often difficult to deny the lie when it has some measure of truth in it, and the calvinist, like all cult-believers such as JWs, will know this well. Never be tempted to believe something because it has some measure of truth. Sift out the lies first. This requires that you know your Bible well for yourself and are able to discern lies from truth. If you do not understand what is said, do not agree but instead go away and meditate upon it. Ask God to give you clarity of thinking to determine His truth. But don’t ever be tempted to tentatively agree because they have established some measure of common ground.

Like all tares and cults, the establishing of common ground is essential in gaining the attention of non-cult members. JWs do it all the time. SDAs also will usually say they are Christian before admitting that they are SDA. It’s like getting a foot in the door. But don’t let them get a foot in the door. Don’t let their talk of common ground or “we have some agreement on this” or “even non-calvinists should affirm this much of this doctrine” or “for we both surely agree” or (an actual quote from an email) You say that man is totally unwilling to come to God (we agree there) but that it cannot be translated into total inability, you also say that no man can come to God unless God intervenes (we agree there as well) and you say that the intervention is through the gospel of Christ. But then the lie gets added on to the common ground: I say that scripture clearly states that man is also unable to come to Christ and that the intervention is through the Holy Spirit.

Calvinists can only really effectively teach their lies if they have established some measure of credibility, generally through the formation of common ground areas of agreement. Their lies cannot make sense unless attached to some truth that you have already agreed to. They will then agree to that truth of yours before building their lies upon it. This is calvinist tactics at their most devious. Be warned, be alert! Or as the Bible puts it: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9)

For a brief expose of calvinist lies, please go to this link at “Calvinisms”.

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.

Spiritual warfare

Spiritual warfare

Since we put our post “Calvinisms” online, we have apparently suffered a lot of efforts to crash or otherwise act violently against our site. Of course, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, but the incompetent carrying out the equivalent of online road rage can and do still hurt others. However, Christians should not fear him who can hurt the physical body, but instead fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell.
Matthew 10:28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
In fact, all mankind, no matter what side they’re on, should fear Him who has the authority to cast them into everlasting torment in hell. The tragedy is that most will not fear God until it is too late!

It is clear that anyone who is in a genuine Christian ministry (in obedience to sovereign God) will suffer opposition and attacks. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that the more a person desires to serve Jesus Christ, the more they will be opposed by the world for doing so.
2 Timothy 3:12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Christians are definitely called to suffer. We are called to follow the suffering example of Christ.
1 Peter 2:21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
On this basis it’s impossible to justify a Christian life where we are able demand to have every blessing of health and wealth laid on by God merely because we want to enjoy life. Too many who call themselves Christians expect, no, even demand of God that He give to them what they ask of Him!

Why did Jesus say that any who did not take up his cross and follow after Him was not worthy of Him?
Matthew 10:38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
And any who did not take up his cross and follow Jesus could not be His disciple?
Luke 14:27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Quite bluntly this means that if you are not prepared to be called to suffer for Christ, then you are not a true disciple of Christ; you are literally not worth being a disciple! That is, you are not a genuine Christian! If you want to enjoy the world then you cannot be a genuine Christian. The best you can be is a “wannabee” Christian, a de-facto Christian, a P-plater Christian. You cannot be the real deal if you cannot accept suffering!

Taking up your cross was to forsake the world. To take up your cross you have to make a serious decision to lose the world.
Matthew 16:24-2624Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
If you take up your cross, you will lose your life for the sake of Christ, yet if you choose to lose your life for the sake of Christ, you will find real life in Christ. The life you get is not the life that the world gives, in much the same way that the peace Christ gives is not the peace that the world gives.
John 14:27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Christians have an enemy in satan and his demons whose main desire is to oppose anything that is of God. They hated God from the time of their rebellion, and oppose anyone who opposes them in God’s name. In particular, satan has made genuine Christians a special target of his anger, and tries to do his best to prevent Christians from properly carrying out their ministries for God. This opposition is generally from all those in the world who have chosen to serve satan rather than God. Such people are still in bondage to satan by their own choice to oppose the people of God.

If a Christian is not suffering opposition for ministry work, then he must seriously consider if his ministry is actually a calling from God. If suffering marks the true Christian, then a lack of suffering may mark the lesser or even non-genuine Christian. Suffering therefore is likely to be an indication that your ministry is important enough for satan to oppose in any significant way.

But genuine Christians have some powerful weapons at their disposal. All things that independently come into their lives (excluding things that they have chosen or influenced themselves) will work together for good.
Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
This good is as seen from God’s perspective, an overall view that even permits suffering to occur for the sake of God’s plan for mankind.

We endure all things so that others may be saved to the uttermost.
2 Timothy 2:10Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
We suffer all things so that the gospel will not be hindered.
1 Corinthians 2:12bNevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Not only do all things work together for good for genuine Christians, but they are more than conquerors over the opposition because of Christ who loves them. No matter how much Christians are persecuted, God’s promise is still that they will win the battle, which means that their enemies (led by satan and his demons) are more than losers. No matter what it looks like on the surface, Christians can only lose if they choose to lose!
Romans 8:36-3736As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

For this reason, Christians are to give God thanks for all things. This does not mean only those things that we think are good, but all things without exception. If God has permitted it into our lives to work together for good, then we must thank and praise Him for everything that permits this good to be worked through us.
Ephesians 5:20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

What all this means is that all who oppose genuine Christians in ministry for God are taking on more than they can chew. No matter what it appears like, the reality is that behind the scenes God will still be working His plan out for His glory and those who oppose are taking on sovereign God Himself. This may not seem serious to some, at least, not for the moment, but when you stand before God in judgment one day, you will answer for it all. In fact, everything that everyone has done, whether good or bad, will be judged one day, Christians and non-Christians alike.
2 Corinthians 5:10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

Those who have trusted in their own understanding and have refused to acknowledge God’s right to their lives will be judged on their works and found in debt. Those who have trusted in God’s promises for forgiveness and eternal life will be counted righteous by their faith.
Romans 4:4-54Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
This is the choice for all mankind. You will be the servant of whomever you choose to obey, either God or the world (mammon, satan etc). Your eternal future depends upon the choice you make.

Those who oppose God’s children will wish they had been stopped before they did so.
Matthew 18:6-76But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Harsh words indeed, but if the Bible is right, if Jesus is speaking the truth here, then one day those who think it good to serve satan by opposing God’s people with violence of any sort will wish they had been drowned before they could have done such atrocity. Christians do indeed have powerful weapons with which to oppose those who persecute them in any way.

If you wish to see the plain truth about calvinism as a cult, please follow this link – “Calvinisms”. My challenge is to test all things, think them through for yourself. Do not disbelieve anything I say simply because some expert says I’m wrong. Everyone will stand before God one day and He won’t forgive you if you have believed something wrong on the advice of another whom you trusted. Don’t accept it because I have said it, either. Do your own research and test what I’ve said. Be responsible for your own beliefs.

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.

Is the Karl Faase gospel a rehash of the corrupt Lausanne gospel?

Is the Karl Faase gospel a rehash of the corrupt Lausanne gospel?

Before we start, just a note to say that the efforts to crash our website (see the last 2 posts) have failed so far; they appear to have given it up as a lost cause. Without any other viable suspect I continue to look at militant calvinist interests as the cowards behind it all, throwing a temper tantrum because of my outline of some of their basic doctrinal heresies as noted in “Calvinisms”. It seems that if they can’t “hack” the opposition, then they’ll hack their websites! Clearly those who are incapable of arguing on biblical grounds do have limited options! Violence is the last resort of the incompetent!

Research suggests that Karl Faase (of Olive Tree Media) teaches a non-biblical gospel based upon the politically-correct social false gospel of the Lausanne Movement (ecumenicalism as per the World Council of Churches). This should be checked out thoroughly before touching any of his materials, such as Jesus the Game Changer.

The saga here all started at least as early as 10th August 1846, when the Evangelical Alliance was formed by a meeting of 800 delegates from 50 denominations held in the Freemasons’ Hall (United Grand Lodge of England), London. Later the Evangelical Alliance was to become the World Evangelical Alliance in Britain in 1923, known as WEA. However, despite its name, it was more of an alliance for church solidarity than an evangelical outreach for the sake of the gospel. It was formed mainly with the desire that as many churches as possible band together for solidarity, especially involving Presbyterian and reformed denominations (most notably in America).
In England the progress of the Tractarian Movement led many distinguished Evangelical Nonconformists to desire “a great confederation of men of all Churches who were loyal in their attachment to Evangelical Protestantism in order to defend the faith of the Reformation” (Dale, History of Eng. Congregationalism, 637). At the annual assembly of the Congregational Union held in London, May, 1842, John Angell James (1785-1859), minister of Craven Chapel, Bayswater, London, proposed the scheme that ultimately developed into the Evangelical Alliance. He asked: “Is it not in the power of this Union to bring about by God’s blessing, a Protestant Evangelical Union of the whole body of Christ’s faithful followers who have at any rate adopted the voluntary principle? … Let us only carry out the principle of a great Protestant Union and we may yet have representatives from all bodies of Protestant Christians to be found within the circle of our own United Empire” (Congregational Magazine, 1842, 435-6).
And the fact that this 1846 meeting was held in the hall of the most influential English freemasonry lodge does strongly tend to deny the presence of Almighty God with their deliberations! 2 Corinthians 6:14aBe ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

The following also supports the political and social agenda of such a gathering of churches, rather than for actual evangelical purposes.
From the onset of Evangelicalism in Great Britain in the 1730s to the United States in the nineteenth century and now as a global phenomenon, Evangelicals have had great influence in many spheres, most notably religion and politics. Throughout the twentieth century a series of gatherings and movements converged into the Lausanne Movement and the World Evangelical Alliance, arguably the two most active global bodies of Evangelicals today.
In fact, the various Council of Church groups worldwide today mostly stem from that meeting in Freemasons’ Hall in 1846.

In 1974 the WEA would help bring about the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (commonly called the Lausanne Movement) through a partnership between Billy Graham and John Stott.
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, more commonly known as the Lausanne Movement, is a global movement that mobilizes evangelical leaders to collaborate for world evangelization. …. The Lausanne Movement grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) and promotes active worldwide evangelism. The Lausanne Covenant provides the theological basis for collaborative work in the area of mission and evangelism.

The evangelist (Billy Graham) partnered with John Stott on the Lausanne Movement and helped revive the World Evangelical Alliance.
In 1974, Billy Graham convened an enormous conference in Lausanne, Switzerland. Graham wanted to assess the way political, ideological, and theological world issues affected evangelism, and to bring evangelical leaders to a common vision for both evangelism and social justice. He invited about 2,400 evangelical leaders from 150 countries. The meeting turned out to be outrageously important. Not only did the participants make up “possibly the widest-ranging meeting of Christians ever held” and signal the rising strength of conservative Christians worldwide, it also delivered unity on the most divisive issue of the day—whether social justice should be as highly prioritized as evangelism.
And it kicked off the Lausanne Movement.


The Lausanne Covenant is a July 1974 religious manifesto promoting active worldwide Christian evangelism. One of the most influential documents in modern evangelicalism, it was written at the First International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland, where it was adopted by 2,300 evangelicals in attendance.
The drafting committee for the 15-point document was chaired by John Stott of the United Kingdom.

Stott was the main contributor to the Lausanne Covenant …
The Lausanne Covenant is widely regarded as one of the most significant documents in modern church history. Emerging from the First Lausanne Congress in 1974, with John Stott as its Chief Architect (It sounds almost freemason, doesn’t it?)
… and his emphasis was more in line with the social and political priorities of the World Council of Churches, a group more known for politics than the gospel.
The year was 1974.
2500 evangelicals from 150 countries and 135 denominations were in Lausanne, Switzerland for the International Congress on World Evangelization. In his biography of John Stott, Godly Ambition, Alister Chapman describes the background for the confrontation:
The central purpose of the congress was to galvanize evangelicals to finish the task, to ensure that the gospel finally reached every corner of the earth. Its theme, emblazoned above the podium, was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.”
By the time of Lausanne, Stott had come to the conclusion that God called his people to care about society and politics as well as evangelism. Many at Lausanne agreed with him, especially people from churches associated with the WCC (World Council of Churches), where social and political issues were high priorities.


The gospel of Christ has always been in conflict with the world. We are to love not the world as per 1 John 2:15-16. Many who lived godly lives would be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). Paul would suffer all things that the gospel might not be hindered (1 Corinthians 9:12). And Christians are called to suffer, as per 1 Peter 2:21.
Preaching the gospel has always been fraught with danger, trials and testing. Many have been martyred for their faithful teaching of the Biblical gospel. But the Lausanne gospel was to be more conformed to the world such that it didn’t force conflict with those hearing it. This is the “positive” gospel without any “negative” ideas in it, like sin, evil, condemnation etc. Conforming the gospel to the world does mean less conflict, but it also involves much compromise concerning the truth. Paul warned us against being conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), thus defining the Lausanne gospel to be false. Jesus said so clearly that we had to forsake the world before we could be considered worthy of being His disciples. We were to take up our crosses daily, leaving the world behind us. The song says “The world behind me, the cross before me”, yet today’s gospel says you can have the gospel without giving up the world.

As Tozer wisely taught (in “Man – the Dwelling Place of God”) All unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental. From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique – a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.
The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamouring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better. The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said goodbye to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The biblical gospel teaches the old cross; the Lausanne Covenant teaches the new cross. The gospel was now to become more user-friendly, more world-friendly. You could be a Christian without giving up your enjoyment of the world. No more “love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” of 1 John 2:15-16, for now you could have both your salvation and love the world at the same time.

So let’s take that next step in our narrative here. From evil hearts come evil thoughts; likewise from evil beginnings comes evil fruit. The Evangelical Alliance in 1846 spawned an apostate gospel that is with us today under the guidance of the Lausanne Movement and the World Council of Churches. Evil surely begets evil. Stott was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant, and, true to form, Stott was truly corrupt. The whole movement commenced under the watchful eye of the freemasons in 1846, and is still in the hands of satan and his demons.

For a start, Stott is in favour of meaningful dialogue between muslims and Christians.
An event which tells us much about Stott’s theology occurred in October of 2007 when a large number of Muslim clerics signed a letter calling for peace between Muslims and Christians. A Common Word urges the followers of the two faiths to find common ground between Islam and Christianity. A Christian Letter of Response entitled ‘Loving God and Neighbor Together’ drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School was featured in the New York Times in November of 2007. The Christian Letter of Response was signed by John Stott, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, and about 300 other Christian leaders (see https://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response). It affirmed that what is common between Christians and Muslims lies in something absolutely central to both: the love of God and love of neighbor.
Yet what common ground is there between such opposed belief systems? Isn’t this just an example of the Lausanne’s compromise so that we may preach a gospel without offense? That the gospel must be conformed to the world to remove its offense to the world? Truly it is a doctrine of demons.

Stott also taught non-Christian, non-biblical attitudes toward our relationships between one another, especially sexual relations.
(The following is based on John Stott’s book: “Same-sex partnerships” in which Stott refers to the Kinsey report as his authority for his conclusions drawn.)
John Stott refers to the American zoologist Alfred Kinsey’s famous investigation into human sexuality as the authority on sexual orientation.
But how can a Christian quote from someone who is as anti-Christian and perverted as Kinsey? Kinsey had a special interest in the sexual nature of children. He concludes that children are sexual beings, capable of enjoying sexual contacts with other children and adults. He implies that it is unfortunate that natural childhood sexual activity is being suppressed by a moral code which prohibits sex with children. He argues that it is natural for children to enjoy sexual contact with adults, and that it is only cultural conditioning that prevents children from enjoying genital sex. These views represent an open encouragement to paedophilia.
Kinsey saw it as at great problem that Christian teaching on sexual morality had influenced the whole of society.

And this is the same Stott that MacArthur says is one of the most influential authors in his life with his book – John R. W. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait ???
MacArthur also has at least 65 documents on his website that either mention or quote from Stott.

So we continue our paper trail toward Karl Faase, now heading to Australia where the Lausanne movement held a conference to extend the Lausanne ministry to the training of new leaders for the cause. It was called Arrow Australia, and Karl Faase was one of the leaders of this conference, becoming its director in 2002. (It’s one thing to participate in a conference; it’s another to actually lead the conference. The latter does strongly imply agreement with Lausanne policy.)
History of Arrow Australia
In July 1994 the Australian committee of the Lausanne movement held a conference for emerging Christian leaders in Melbourne. It was led by the Rev Stephen Hale and the Rev Karl Faase. The conference brought together 300 key emerging and senior leaders from around Australia.
Our statement of faith is the Lausanne Covenant.
Well, well! It’s a bit like a family tree with all the descendants listed under the family patriarch, only the patriarch here is the ecumenical Evangelical Alliance and the line of descent goes down here to Karl Faase who seems to be the consequence of that which was given to him by his forebears in this “family tree”. Concerning the gospel, can we assume that Faase is of the same mind as Stott who was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant? Does Faase have the same “progressive” views on Islam that Stott apparently has regarding the common ground of love of God and neighbour?
Does MacArthur, in quoting Stott so much, realise that he is giving at least tacit approval to Stott’s clearly non-biblical standpoints?

So finally, I decided to take a look at the Olive Tree Media website (of which Faase is CEO). https://www.olivetreemedia.com.au
The olive tree itself is an interesting choice of symbols, for it represents the offer of submission to another for the purposes of keeping the peace. In effect, the olive tree depicts a gospel which must be subject to the world in order to avoid conflict with the world. This is eminently in keeping with the Lausanne Covenant (of John Stott!). The gospel is to conform to the world so that Christians may not offend that same world and thus in this way they may avoid the persecution and suffering that is unavoidable when preaching the true biblical gospel. (This is the Seeker Friendly church model as presented by Rick Warren. Warren’s seeker friendly model has good intentions but an unbiblical basis for most of its practices. http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac25.htm)
The true gospel, however, refuses to conform to a sinful world, but instead condemns a wicked world (with consequent conflict!). The true biblical gospel is certainly no olive branch to the world!

So where might Faase be found in the church scene today? He produces a number of documents and DVDs that churches may purchase; is this an effort to spread the false gospel of Lausanne even further? He has produced such titles as Towards Belief and Jesus the Game Changer. The latter has the following topics: Jesus, Equality, Forgiveness, Women and Children, Democracy, Care, Leadership, Education and Health, Wealth, Reason and Science, all of which could fit in admirably with a politically-correct social gospel. It is therefore likely that churches which use his materials could be steadily pushed toward an acceptance of the values of Lausanne and its false gospel, a goal that I’m sure Stott and his forerunners in the “family tree” would find very acceptable. Certainly social justice is an admirable and commendable cause to seek; this in itself is not a matter for condemnation. However, it must not subordinate the biblical gospel of salvation to a lower level than social justice; the biblical gospel of salvation must never be made to conform to the social requirements of the day.

I also checked the Olive Tree Media website to see what they believed in, but could find nothing concerning the actual biblical gospel of salvation; this might be expected from people who apparently work on conforming to the world’s gospel, thereby avoiding any conflict that might arise from having any definite point of view on biblical doctrine. If I wanted to check out his materials before using them, how would I assess their suitability? I would at the very least desire to see a statement of his doctrinal beliefs, but perhaps Faase does not appear to want people to test his doctrines too much. And to me the biggest danger seems to be the Lausanne connection.

So who would choose such teachings for their church? Such people may either be totally lacking in discernment, or desire that their church members fall into the apostasy of the ecumenical gospel. It comes as no surprise at all to find that it includes Living Springs Baptist Church as per https://www.lsbc.org.au/calendar. Discernment has not been one of their strong points in the past!  Discernment may not one of their strong points here!

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.


So who are the cowards?

So who are the cowards?

In recent days this website has been hacked fairly consistently now, so far without any success. Every attacking IP that I’ve checked was listed as abusive, with just about all being serious repeat offenders. This means that our website has attracted a significant amount of attention from those who think it’s acceptable to be violently aggressive against anyone that offends them in any way. Such people do not consider it a problem to hit out at their opponents, in much the same way that we have road rage, house invasions and gang bullying. They will generally only attack if they feel they have superior numbers and greater fire power than those they pick on; that is, they do not believe in fighting fairly but consider that the most important requirement is to hurt the other person without risking getting hurt themselves. Such people never attack if they think they themselves might get hurt; they are chickens in every sense of the word. They also run and hide before they can be discovered; this demonstrates their fear of retaliation. Like cowards they fight from cover because they fear the consequences if they become known to their opposition.

There’s nothing of any real value on our website, unless you consider biblical teaching to be a saleable commodity. But they still consider it necessary to hit out. So why? (Of course, I did put a post online – “Calvinisms” – that spelled out the basic heresies of calvinism just a week or so before this occurred. It is likely to have caused some wrath among that self-declared righteous mob, so logically it could strongly suggest irate calvinists behind this.) Like road rage low-life, they hit out because they have been personally offended somehow. No-one has actually done anything to them except perhaps hurt their feelings, yet this can be a huge issue for those with low self-esteem. And like bullies who hit out to boost their own self-esteem, these people find strength in their ability to hurt others. The more that others get hurt, the more these people feel “empowered” by their bullying. (All dictators are imbued with similar personalities.) Such people are generally incapable of standing their ground intellectually, so in their incompetence they hit out physically. As the saying goes, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

It may not be those who are offended who are actually doing the attacking, but if you have enough money or influence (or both), you can always find mercenaries who will do the dirty work for you. In that way such people somehow believe they are “keeping their hands clean”. They may be able to convince others (and perhaps even themselves) that they are not responsible for such cowardly activities, yet effectively their hands are covered in blood guilt. When they come to worship God, he will not hear, for they are covered with the guilt of their sin. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (Isaiah 1:15)

But what people would feel so threatened by our website, yet feel so incapable of debating the issue up front and out in the open? What people would think it necessary to destroy the work of anyone opposing them? Just recently I was asked (via a comment to this website) – Did you express your concerns personally to the preachers that you are labeling as heretics prior to making public online statements about them? But I would rephrase that question to ask the cowards who are trying to destroy this website – Did you express your concerns personally to the person whose opinions you find offensive before just attempting to do a hit and run on the website?

You only have to look at who is challenged by our website statements, for the only logical answer here is that those attacking the website are people who (a) feel threatened by our information and (b) believe they are incapable of defending themselves using sola scriptura (the Bible alone). (Or else these people are irrational, incapable of rational thinking, people that we would term “insane”; many road rage attacks are seemingly by such people!)

Now who could these people be, I wonder? Who have we opposed that might have found it too difficult to defend their views rationally and objectively using the Bible alone? Because whoever has been attacking our website will be associated in some way with such people. Could it, perhaps, be calvinists who don’t approve of what we say about their beloved beliefs? But calvinists are such nice, easy to get along with people, aren’t they? So biblical, too; one would expect them to get into their Bibles to study and demonstrate my faults, wouldn’t they? And, of course, they are the epitome of graciousness, for their God is the God of grace, isn’t he? Calvinists are so loving, so caring, so kind, so biblical that they would feel ashamed to be seen as trouble-makers, wouldn’t they? Or would they?

Calvinists, especially those of the new calvinist variety, are often seen (even by their own) as aggressive, arrogant, abrasive, know-it-all, sneering, etc. Within the SBC of USA, the battle lines are being drawn over calvinism’s aggression.
However, there is now a “New Calvinism” movement, “committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (‘TULIP’), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.”

Even SBC calvinists see the new calvinist aggression as excessive.
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
I, yes even as a Calvinist, firmly stand with these men in opposing this “New Calvinism”. …. I am especially opposed to those that “are characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (TULIP).  I’m opposed to that because aggressive insistence goes against “teaching with gentleness and respect”.  Furthermore, I do not support an aggressive insistence that others be Calvinists because it denies the very sovereignty and power of God that it claims to uphold.

Another comment in a forum: Calvinists I have met …. seem to be very pushy, arrogant and aggressive about what they believe and can’t seem to let it go until people believe them. They try really hard to convince people. It was worse in bible college, but that’s another story. They just don’t come off as people at ease or at peace with God, like something is bugging them or something like that. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to believe in something that causes you to have to defend that point of view so aggressively.
And from a calvinist soon after on that same forum: As a Calvinist, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, there are many Calvinists that do exactly what you are describing.

Or from Derek Rishmawy, a new calvinist writing here for The Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist group)
Let’s be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won’t admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace.
This was my final reason for being put off from Calvinism: really arrogant, thickheaded, (often young) know-it-all, sneering Calvinists. Who wants to be planted in soil that yields such fruit? In the long run that isn’t the best reason to reject a doctrine, as it’s just another version of the common atheist objection: “But if Christianity were true, then Christians should be great, but all the Christians I know are jerks so it must be false” (see C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity). Still, there’s something to it given Christ’s own declaration that people are known by their fruits.

It is fairly safe to assume that calvinists (especially of the new calvinist breed) are condescending, abrasive, unhelpful, aggressive, arrogant, thickheaded, know-it-all sneering calvinists. After all, it’s a new calvinist who states this clearly on a new calvinist website. So, even they admit this. What happens, then, when they get into a situation where they cannot freely hammer their arguments down their opponents’ throats because they are not able to do this without losing credibility? Do they then try to destroy their opponents merely because they cannot defeat them any other way? Would these people crash a website simply because it was the only way to shut it up? You may be the judge here, although if I were the jury, I would probably bring in a verdict of guilty, that the calvinists are guilty as charged.

I’ll finish with what I wrote on my previous post assuring all that we are confident of victory in Christ because of God’s great and precious promises. We who are Christians may be assured that we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37), and that all things that sovereign God permits into our lives will work together for good (Romans 8:28). Our response to these great promises (through our faith in the One who promises) is to give thanks always for all things to God in the name of Christ our Saviour (Ephesians 5:20), and, like Jesus’ disciples, rejoicing that we are called by our sovereign God to a ministry that the enemy persecutes. And they (the disciples) departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41) It is truly a blessing to be called to such a ministry. We praise God for His faithfulness and we pray for those who, greatly misled, consider it necessary to spiritually oppose us. May God bless them with an understanding of His love that sent Christ to die on the cross for all mankind (1 John 2:2) that those who choose to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved will truly  be saved (Romans 10:13).
Romans 5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

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.

Just another day at the office!

Just another day at the office!

So this website seems to be attracting some attention from people who do not wish it to say such nice things about their beliefs? I say some lovely home-truths about calvinism and they want to hack my site? Well, it does confirm one thing: that some people just do not appreciate my writings. You know, if they really wanted to defend their doctrines, they’d get out their Bibles (yes, that’s right, sola scriptura – the Bible alone – as the calvinists so love to boast about) and they’d find all those teachings that consistently demonstrate the truth of their doctrines, wouldn’t they! (Or would they find that the Bible could even deny their “truths”? Possibly calvinists do not want to look too carefully at the Bible as it might just prove them wrong and that’s something they couldn’t face at all. It is said that the calvinist is always right, and you can always tell a calvinist – but not much!) It’s only those who cannot debate rationally that have to resort to bullying tactics. As the saying goes, violence is the last resort (or refuge) of the incompetent. But, hey, what better way could you have to increase awareness of this website!

Before we continue, here’s the real truth, the real issue of any conflict regarding this website. We who are Christians may be assured that we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37), and that all things that sovereign God permits into our lives will work together for good (Romans 8:28). Our response to these great promises (through our faith in the One who promises) is to give thanks always for all things to God in the name of Christ our Saviour (Ephesians 5:20), and, like Jesus’ disciples, rejoicing that we are called by our sovereign God to a ministry that the enemy persecutes. And they (the disciples) departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41) It is truly a blessing to be called to such a ministry. We praise God for His faithfulness and we pray for those who, greatly misled, consider it necessary to spiritually oppose us. May God bless them with an understanding of His love that sent Christ to die on the cross for all mankind (1 John 2:2) that those who call upon the name of the Lord can truly  be saved (Romans 10:13).
Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Over the past few days we have had a large number of IP addresses trying to hack into our website. Why would it be so important to do this, you might wonder. After all, we mainly discuss the problems of calvinist doctrines and that surely cannot be matter of great concern to the average person in the street. How many people would you have to talk to on the street before you got one who could actually converse intelligently on the topic of calvinism? This website really largely exists to inform those who might be considering calvinism as a belief system, to assist them to make a biblical decision concerning the claims made by calvinists. And because our website offers nothing of value other than advice on certain biblical issues, it is clear that only those offended by such biblical issues should have any logical reason to seriously oppose our website. After all, who else other than those interested in the calvinist debate are likely to have any interest in hacking our site?

Of course, I don’t expect the perpetrators to confess openly about their attacks on my website. That would be too much to expect of those who hide behind anonymity, those who are too afraid to come out in the open and face issues honestly. I would be ultra-surprised if someone were to actually admit to this activity, for in general such people tend to prefer to wear white feathers than to be openly truthful with those they attack. There are just too many chickens in this world! So unless someone confesses to this otherwise cowardly activity, then I’ll just have to assume that it was someone who has a gripe about the views of this website. And that logically suggests that calvinists are the most likely to be involved somewhere here.

But why would calvinists choose to do this now? Well, just over a week ago I put another post online – “Calvinisms” – after which the number of visitors and visits to the website increased significantly. Many of those are likely to have been calvinists who would, no doubt, have got hot under the collar at some of the home truths I mentioned concerning their incompatibility with biblical doctrines. I did expect some calvinists to attempt to assist me to see the error of my ways through good sound biblical exegesis. Or, at the very least, some irate comments depicting me as the lowest of low people, someone who cannot believe in calvinism because I cannot understand it (or so they say!).

But no, their silence was deafening indeed. I did say in that document that silence would be taken as a sign of agreement with my statements, and that if any disagreed, they should then demonstrate the error of my ways through sound teaching from the Bible alone (sola scriptura). However, calvinists cannot be told that they are wrong in any way. If they do teach something that is demonstrated to be totally illogical according to biblical truth, then they immediately claim that it is a mystery hid within the secret counsels of sovereign God. In other words, anything they cannot explain becomes a mystery that we are not to probe; calvinists certainly do come up with a lot of mysteries!

So I was not totally surprised when our website began to be hacked by a large number of outside sources, all of them being acknowledged (listed) as abuse sites, and most of them serious repeat offenders in the abuse and hacking of websites. (Something similar happened in January, although then it wasn’t quite as obvious who might have been behind it all.) Someone is organising the hacking attempts, because otherwise why would there be so many white feathers flying around just by coincidence? So no wonder I start pointing the finger at those who have so totally failed to defend themselves against my statements that they appear to have resorted to cowardly aggression! But, all things work together for good (Romans 8:28) so I just praise God for His victory and keep on with the ministry He has called me into.

No-one hacks like that for legitimate reasons – after all, if they were legitimate, then they’d knock on the front door. But these are more like the low-life house invasions of today,  often in gangs so they can ensure they have the numbers; such people are not brave enough to take people on one-on-one! Therefore the only logical assumption here is that some people do not like what I am saying. Like road rage, these people just try to see if they can cause some damage to those who oppose them. My website has no intrinsic value, nothing to steal that would encourage anyone to crash for logical reasons or financial gain. No-one can gain anything of value except, like a bully, to regain some measure of lost self-esteem. This is more of a statement that if I say something they don’t like, they’ll hurt my site so that I cannot say it. It is an effort to remove freedom of speech from those who speak against them. It is a statement from those who demand freedom of speech only as long as it agrees with them.

And, because they do not have any way of opposing what I say from the Bible (for if they did, then logically they’d do so), they must resort to violent and aggressive behaviour. The only thing I am doing that could possibly seriously offend anyone is to demonstrate the lies and deceitfulness of the teachings of calvinists. Thus, it is safe to assume that this hacking was done by people who do not like what I say, and therefore the only people who are likely to feel offended by my writings are those calvinists who cannot be told that they are wrong, yet can only hit back with aggression and violence.

Other websites have been hacked and crashed in the past and no doubt there’ll be more hacks and crashes in the future. Those who have enough money and/or influence will sometimes use their “power” to “squash” the little guy. There will always be Goliaths who want to put down their Davids. I also don’t blame calvinists in general for this aggressive behaviour, as hopefully most of them would respect my freedom of speech as I respect their freedom of speech. I have no intention of crashing another site just because I cannot believe their views, and I am sure this is also generally applicable to those who oppose me. But someone caused this hacking and for some reason perhaps only known to them. (Or else such people are irrational, not in full control of their senses, commonly described as insane.)

But, by the grace of our sovereign God we’re still online. While we are here we’ll continue to teach the truth of the Bible, and that it cannot support the false teaching called calvinism (or reformed, or doctrines of grace, or whatever they like to call it, it’s still the same heresy). (See “Calvinisms” for a summary of their false teachings.) It’s likely that these same aggressive people would vigorously defend their own right to freedom of speech, yet they cannot understand why they should also defend the right of others to that same freedom of speech. Perhaps it’s because they are unable to effectively argue for their calvinist beliefs using the Bible alone, but whatever the reason, calvinists do appear to believe that they are the only ones who have the truth and therefore the only ones who may have the freedom to share this with others. (Maybe I should have said to impose their dogma upon others.)

Are calvinists so insecure concerning their beliefs that they have to put down everyone else for merely opposing them? Do they realise that such behaviour is usually the consequence of low self-esteem, an effort to feel more “empowered” against those who threaten that self-esteem? They claim that they believe in the doctrines of grace, yet show little or none of that alleged grace to others around them who might disagree with them.

Therefore such activities only serve to give me evidence of the spiritual battle we are in and that there can be no victory without a battle and no battle without a cost! If God is in this ministry, then victory will not only result despite the cost but because of the cost.

So here’s the challenge! If you are a calvinist and you disagree with what I have written, then try writing back with your point of view, including support from the Bible (sola scriptura) to demonstrate your arguments. I will always respect those who try to properly debate, even when they oppose me. And, finally, I praise God for His promises that all things work together for good and that in Christ we are more than conquerors.

And on that line here’s the real message of today! We who are Christians may be assured that we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37), and that all things that sovereign God permits into our lives will work together for good (Romans 8:28). Our response to these great promises (through our faith in the One who promises) is to give thanks always for all things to God in the name of Christ our Saviour (Ephesians 5:20), and, like Jesus’ disciples, rejoicing that we are called by our sovereign God to a ministry that the enemy persecutes. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41) It is truly a blessing to be called to such a ministry. We praise God for His faithfulness and we pray for those who, greatly misled, consider it necessary to spiritually oppose us. May God bless them with an understanding of His love that sent Christ to die on the cross for all mankind (1 John 2:2) that those who call upon the name of the Lord can truly  be saved (Romans 10:13).

Thus, I am emboldened to pursue even more vigorously the heresy of calvinism. It will only be by God’s permission if they mange to crash this site, and therefore the victory will be God’s victory and His alone. His truth will triumph, not in spite of the attacks, but because of the attacks.

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.