Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1)

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2)

In Part 1 I looked at some of the more-quoted passages often used to demonstrate the eternal security of the believer. The question was raised as to whether or not the believer could still exercise freedom of will, not only to accept salvation, but to also reject it after accepting it.
In Part 2 I looked at the passages that are used to demonstrate that a person may lose his salvation. I decided that, while it appeared possible for a Christian to lose his salvation, it wasn’t a clear-cut conclusion. It did appear that it might be possible for new (or immature) Christians to be drawn back into the world which they may not have fully let go of.

In the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage it is clear that The Writer to the Hebrews considers it possible for them to lose their salvation through God not permitting them (Hebrews 6:3) to renew their repentance, after falling away from what clearly looks like a description of a born-again Christian. But The Writer also makes it clear that a certain type of Christian is at risk here: the new-born baby Christian (Hebrews 5:12-14). The Writer also teaches that going on toward perfection will probably remove or at least greatly minimise the risk of losing salvation (that is, apostatising).

Of course, some will claim that an apostate is an unbeliever who has rejected the gospel, yet the word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word apostasia which is translated “a falling away” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. An apostate is someone who falls away from belief in the gospel and his salvation; it doesn’t define someone who never believed in the first place. You can’t fall away from where you never were in the first place!

The Writer to the Hebrews is teaching that in order to not fall away, one must grow as a Christian, and continue to grow, for it is the lack of growth that he associates with a falling away. On this basis, a more mature Christian should be better protected from falling away. But is this teaching consistent with other passages? In 2 Peter 2:18 it describes those who fall away as having firstly “clean escaped from those who live in error”. That word “clean” means clearly or obviously, yet some dispute this, claiming that the original word was “barely”. That is, those who have “barely escaped”. Either way, however, it is clearly talking about those who have escaped, either cleanly or barely. However, “barely” would be more consistent with Hebrews 5:12-14 which describes these people as new-born babes, ones who had barely escaped the world and its error.

But, are there passages that teach that less mature Christians are somehow more at risk than those of mature age? Look at Luke 9:23-25 – ²³ And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. ²⁴ For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. ²⁵ For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? Look at the choice in Vs 25 which is clearly part of taking up your cross daily and following Jesus. This passage (similar to passages in Matthew 16:24-26 and Mark 8:34-37) does tie this choice to whether or not you take up your cross.

Jesus also said that if you didn’t take up your cross and follow Him, you were not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:38) nor could you be His disciple (Luke 14:27). It is clear that taking up your cross somehow takes you across some line drawn in the sand that commits you fully to the task. So, what does it mean to take up your cross and follow Jesus?

Tozer wrote some very thought-provoking words on this in Ch.10 (The Old Cross and the New) of his book “Man – The Dwelling Place of God”.
The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.
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.

It seems that there are two kinds of Christian: (a) those who take up their crosses (thus they can be Jesus’ disciple and are worthy of Him) and (b) those who don’t take up their crosses (thus they cannot be Jesus’ disciple, nor are they worthy of Him).

There’s a choice that all Christians must make in order to be a disciple of Jesus, and to be worthy of Him, and that is to take up their crosses and follow Him. For unless you take up your cross and follow Him, you are what I would call a de facto or P-plate Christian, one who still has significant desires for the world (1 John 2:15-17). Too many become Christians for the benefits to themselves: forgiveness for sins, eternal life, heaven forever, etc, but fail to do it for what they can give to God. (See Romans 12:1-2) They want their salvation, but aren’t yet ready to give up the world. They will continue to have conflict in their lives, between Christ and the world. At some point they’ll have to make up their minds which one they really want, Christ or the world. This is the choice associated with taking up your crosses and following Jesus. To take up your cross you must make a choice to forsake the world. If you cannot forsake the world, then you cannot take up your cross and eventually you are likely to succumb to the love of the world (that is, you will have traded your soul for the world). “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26)

People today want to have Christ without losing the world. But we may only be a true follower of Christ by taking up our crosses and turning our backs on the world. Until a Christian turns his back on the world, it will always be there, tempting him and demanding his return. Such a Christian is unworthy of Christ, and is always going to be at risk of returning to the world (at the expense of his soul). Such a Christian cannot be Christ’s disciple, for he loves the world too much. He might declare himself to be a Christian, having repented with godly sorrow, and prayed the sinner’s prayer for salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10a – For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of).

His name is written in the book of life. He is one of God’s children, having called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). But he still has friends and a social life in the world, and so he shares his Christian life with those of the world, not to win the world for Christ, but to keep those things of the world that which he cannot afford to let go of yet. Note what Hebrews 2:1 says – Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them] slip. That “let slip” has the idea of having hold of a boat rope in your hand, yet through being distracted by something else, we let it slip out of our grasp without realising that it has gone. We then look up and notice the boat is drifting down stream, already out of reach. Too late!

Many teach that this applies to those who have heard the gospel, yet let it slip through not giving it the importance it deserves. They then quote Hebrews 2:3a – How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation. But that word “neglect” refers more to a careless disregard of something already in your possession, something which is a responsibility of yours, rather than being careless of something you don’t have yet. You either neglect your responsibility, or you ignore something that is not your responsibility. You have hold of your salvation, your eternal life, your future in heaven – it’s in your grasp right now. Yet, your attention is drawn back to the world that you never really left, and you fail to notice that your grasp on your salvation is slipping. Your love for the world is strong and quenches your love for Christ, and, when faced with the decision to take up your cross and really follow Jesus, you decide that your love of the world is more important. Like Demas who loved this present world, you gain this present world, yet lose your eternal soul, your salvation. That which was once yours is no longer in your grasp.

Demas, that one who, along with Paul and Luke, sent greetings in Colossians 4:14. Demas, that one whom Paul called a fellow labourer (Philemon 1:24). Demas of whom Paul then declared “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Timothy 4:10). Demas, who had now regained the world he had forsaken when he accepted salvation in Christ. Demas who gained the world yet lost his soul! Demas who let slip his salvation because of his stronger grip on the world. Demas who could never come back again to Christ!

Becoming a Christian is easy! Just receive Christ into your life and all your problems are over, forever! Or are they? Are you growing in Christ or are you constantly going back to new-born status through your love of the world? Have you matured enough to be able to test all things, especially the lies of the false teachers? Do you suffer as a Christian, keeping in mind that this is what Christians are called to do (1 Peter 2:21)? Remember that those who live Godly lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). Is the Christian life so tough that you would rather give it up?

Like the Hebrews who were hard-hit with persecution such that they desired to go back to the temple worship which they had left behind when they became Christians. In fact, this is a major theme of Hebrews, the need to fight on in spite of the persecution.
… let us run with patience the race that is set before us – Hebrews 12:1. Note that the word “race” actually means fight, conflict, contention, and is translated “fight” in 1 Timothy 6:12 and 2 Timothy 4:7.

Paul told the Romans, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:1-2) Being a Christian means all or nothing. You don’t hand over a part of your life; you hand over all your life! You take up your cross daily (that is, take up the suffering to which you were called). You give God the right to choose what happens in your life, much like giving someone an Enduring Power of Attorney to control all your assets. No longer should you demand the right to have a say in your future; commit to God everything in your future. (You should be, after all, “a living sacrifice“.)

In particular, this means giving up the right to choose what you should do or say. God does not force Christians to hand this right over, but if you give Him this right willingly, then he will take control and you will then see the victory God has planned for you. You may (and will) fall at times, but you will always turn to God for help at those times, knowing that He is in total charge. And it is hard to see how you would ever be able to give up your salvation now. (I would say impossible. For such people their eternal salvation should indeed be secure.)

It’s like grasping your salvation with one hand while grasping the world with your other hand. It’s a tug of war, and sooner or later one side will win the battle. And the other side losing out. For the Christian, it should be the world that he lets go of, to then grasp his salvation with both hands. But, what if he should let go of his salvation to grasp the world with both hands? (Like Demas did!)

Thus, my conclusions on eternal security? I have already outlined them in this Part 3. If you want to hold onto the world, want to keep your options open, want to keep your worldly friends and social life, and don’t want to suffer as a true disciple of Jesus, then you are at risk of losing your salvation. And, if you gain salvation and then forsake it again, there can be no second option, for if Christ’s first and only sacrifice were perfect yet still insufficient for you, then no further sacrifice can ever achieve any more. Your repentance can never be renewed again. It would be better to have not known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then turn away from it (2 Peter 2:21).

However, if you wish to be eternally secure in your salvation, to know beyond any doubt that you have a place in heaven because your name is written in the Lamb’s book of life, then you must take up your cross daily, follow the example of suffering set by Christ, forsake the world (that means burning all bridges that permit your return), and hand over to God all (that means all) your decision-making, that is, give to God an Enduring Power of Attorney. What you control, you can lose; what God controls, you can never lose!

Like the song (in part) says: I have decided to follow Jesus, No turning back, No turning back; Though none go with me, still I will  follow; The world behind me, the cross before me. 

Yes, you have free will to choose; sovereign God has given you that right. And it is as easy as believing in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9) and calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). If you genuinely desire salvation in Christ and desire to fully serve Him, then you are saved from this point on. You may fall again and again, confessing your sins for God to restore you to fellowship with Him (and He will do so, again and again!). But if your desire is to be holy as God is holy (and this means turning your back on the world and its pleasures), then you will remain saved to the uttermost, eternally.

If you desire to keep hold of your salvation, you must hand over your right to free will here. That is, by your own free will decision you must choose to forego any further free will decisions on your eternal future. You must give this right back to sovereign God. Permit God to lock down every option that could cause you to let go of your salvation (or even to think about it). Instead, let go of the world and its pleasures forever! “No turning back, No turning back!”

And, with God’s guidance you must grow toward perfection. (Despite never being able to be perfect in this life, you must nevertheless still strive for that perfection, or rather, give God the decision-making to get you there, to be conformed to the image of Christ – Romans 8:29.)

It really comes down to who is making the decisions in your life, you or God? It comes down to what your life is built upon, your dreams and aspirations, or God’s will for your life?

What you choose you can fail in. What God chooses for you can never fail you.
What you build, you can lose. What God builds, you will never lose.
Psalm 127:1 – Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2)

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3)

This is a hotly-contested issue upon which many will take sides largely based upon what they have been taught to believe. I have done some research on this matter over a number of years and was very surprised to find that what I had been taught (and had also believed) was not necessarily so. So often Bible passages are explained according to what the “teacher” already believes to be the truth, such that we get interpretations of verses and passages that are compromised by such beliefs before they are “proved” or “tested” according to 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Too many interpretations are made to fit what the person already believes to be true (and this occurs in more than just this particular doctrinal issue).

There are a number of “proof” verses that each side of the debate claim to “prove” their stand; these should all be looked at to determine if, in fact, they teach what they are claimed to teach, without any added preconceived ideas from beliefs already held by the teacher. I have, for a number of years now, settled upon my views on this matter, and I no longer fully believe what I had always been taught to believe. And, this is one of those topics that can only be seen in its proper light if one puts aside all previously held beliefs and investigates the issues with an open and rational mind. Also, all too often, a person is labelled with a particular “-ism” according to what they determine to believe, regardless of whether or not they actually are of that “-ism” belief. There should be room for allowance for Christians to actually read the Bible itself to determine what they perceive to be the truth independently of other doctrinal belief systems (with “-isms” such as calvinism and arminianism being thrown around like confetti).

At first glance, there appear to be two main camps of opinion, loosely described as “Yes, you may be assured of your salvation for eternity; you cannot under any circumstance lose your salvation!” (sometimes termed Once-Saved-Always-Saved) or “No, you cannot be assured of your salvation for eternity; certain circumstances may prevent you from continuing with your salvation!” Yet, on closer inspection, a third view may be understood: that you cannot lose your salvation unless you by your own free will renounce such eternal life. Of course, it is difficult to understand why anyone who had eternal life would ever want to give it away for the sake of the world, but nevertheless it may be seen as a doctrinal point of view on this issue.

There are even more views on this. They include the belief that you have to lose your salvation at least once. I never could understand this from any Biblical point of view; no doubt the person who told me this was certain that he was right. Another view states that all names of all mankind are written in the book of life and are removed at death if that person hasn’t made a decision to be saved by that time. Hal Lindsey in “There’s a New World Coming” P 48 says (of Revelation 3:5) that “his name will remain in the Book of Life. This Book contains the names of all the individuals ever born. If a person does not receive Jesus Christ as Savior by the time he dies, his name is blotted out of the Book of Life.” However, I’ll concentrate on the 3 main options as first listed above.

Firstly I’ll look at verses and passages which support the assurance of eternal salvation.

1/.  1 John 5:12-13 – ¹² He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ¹³ These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

This states two facts that cannot be denied: (a) that the one who has the Son of God (Christ) has life, and (b) that those who believe on the name of the Son of God have eternal life. It may be assumed that this means born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. In addition, this verse has clearly been written with the purpose of assuring such Christians that if they have the Son and believe on the name of the Son of God, then they may be assured of eternal life, and that they may continue to confidently believe in the name of the Son of God.

This verse appears irrefutable, yet some comments must be raised: (a) If life is attached to having the Son, and not having the Son means not having life, then all this verse is saying that having life eternally is dependent upon you having the Son eternally. Permanence of life is dependent upon permanence of having the Son. It really comes down to whether or not you can choose to stop having the Son at any time. Thus, personal free will may be an objection to the claim of assurance of having eternal life. (b) Why assure those who believe on the name of the Son of God that they may believe on the name of the Son of God, if in fact this is a permanent state of belief?

This verse is strong evidence of the assurance of salvation, yet does appear to rely upon continuing to have the Son and to believe on His name. Can a person choose to not have the Son after firstly having the Son? Or is it impossible to reject the Son once you have Him? If free will permits a person to choose to have the Son, can free will also permit that same person to then stop having the Son? Thus this verse teaches assurance of salvation as long as the Christian does not have a free will to turn away from the Son again.

2/.  John 5:24 – Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The question of eternal security rests upon the promise of having eternal life that can never be lost under any circumstances. So, this is an assurance of everlasting life as long as it is impossible for a person to choose to not believe. Does this verse require the person who believes on the Son to continue to believe on the Son for the rest of his life? Or does this verse allow the possibility that a person may cease believing on the Son? Once again, if free will permits a person to choose to believe on the Son, can free will also permit that same person to then stop believing on the Son? Thus this verse teaches assurance of salvation as long as the Christian does not have a free will to cease believing on the Son.

3/.  Jude 1:24 – Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Being able to keep the Christian from falling, and being able to present the Christian faultless before the presence of God’s glory does not actually promise that it will happen but is simply a statement of capability. God is able to keep a Christian from falling into sin, but does He actually do it without the Christian wanting God to do so? I may be able to jump into deep hot water, but does that mean that I will do so? The truth is that Christians do fall into sin when God commands them not to do so; therefore it is clear that personal free will is involved in this situation. This verse simply states what God is able to do, not necessarily what He actually will do. It’s the calvinist denial of personal freedom of will that makes what God is able to do the same as what He actually will do. Thus this verse does not necessarily assure the Christian of eternal security of salvation.

4/.  Romans 8:16 – The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

A very good verse to demonstrate eternal security of the believer, as long as we have the Holy Spirit eternally (and unquenched) in our lives. Ephesians 4:30 says that we are sealed by that same Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. But, we may also quench the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) in which case does the Spirit then continue to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God? Does that mean then, that if the Spirit (through being quenched) cannot bear such witness, that we are not the children of God? This verse appears to teach assurance of salvation, yet also appears to depend upon whether or not we choose to commit sin which may quench the Spirit of God. Once again, freedom of will may be a factor here.

5/.  Hebrews 7:25 – Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

As per the argument for Jude 1:24, this states the ability of God to save to the uttermost, yet does not actually say that he will do so. Again, if by our free wills we choose to disobey God, then we demonstrate that we do not love Him (John 14:15) So, can our disobedience jeopardise God’s ability to save us to the uttermost?

6/.  John 10:28-29 – ²⁸ And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.

This passage, along with Romans 8:38-39, does make it very clear that no-one may take us out of God’s hand. This is quite conclusive, except for one thing which must be noted. We do have eternal life and shall never perish while we are in the Father’s hand, and certainly He will not permit anyone to take us out of His hand. And, if God is infinitely more powerful than all His creation put together, then literally no-one may overcome God’s protection of His children. These facts cannot be denied. But, are we able to take ourselves out of the father’s hand?

7/.  Ephesians 4:30 – And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

This verse certainly looks like a bullet-proof defence of eternal security. A seal is just that: a seal, something that cannot be broken by anyone except an authorised person. And if it is the seal of God, then who can break it. It is definite that this is as strong a verse in support of eternal security as you can get, up there with not being able to be plucked out of God’s hand. After all, who is going to be able to overcome God’s authority?

But, does anyone other than God (via His Holy Spirit) have the authority to break this seal? A seal was put on a document or correspondence to ensure that only the authorised person could open and read it. Thus, only two people had the authority to break that seal, the one who put the seal there, and the one to whom the document was addressed (or two parties to a covenant or contract). In this case, a seal is placed upon the covenant that God makes with the Christian in ensuring the eternal salvation of that believer. There are two parties to this covenant, God and the Christian. It is clear that God will not break this covenant, but does the other party to this covenant (the Christian) have the authority to break that seal? Once again, this would rest on whether or not the Christian is permitted the freedom of will to make such a decision.

8/.  John 6:47b – He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

As with John 5:24 above, this assurance depends upon whether or not a Christian is permitted the freedom of will to cease believing? It is hard to understand why any Christian would wish to cease believing in the Saviour, but if he could, and did so, then he would lose his eternal life. But, can he cease believing in Christ? Is this a choice God permits him to make? Once again it really depends upon whether free will may be applied to our belief in Christ after as well as before we believed.

9/.  Romans 8:38-39 – ³⁸ For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, ³⁹ Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is the one verse which seems to be absolute in its support for the assurance of our eternal salvation. It covers just about everything. Absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Once we’re on that train to heaven, nothing whosoever or whatsoever can ever take us off it, because God will prevent every effort to remove us from His love. However, that one problem still raises its head: Are we able to get off that train to heaven if we should choose to do so? Unless you’re a calvinist who denies the free will of man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then you will believe that anyone who makes a genuine decision to be saved does so by their own free will. Does the person who chose to be saved by his free will, have the right to reject that salvation also by his free will? Can he choose to lose his salvation? Or is that prevented by God by not permitting man free will to choose the world once he is saved for heaven?

Two of the above passages (3, 5) have more to do with God’s ability to save to the uttermost, rather than whether or not He will actually do it. But many passages (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) do not allow for any possibility of loss of salvation/eternal life unless one is permitted to use freedom of will to recant one’s belief in Christ.

Basically this is what it comes down to: Can a person, after coming to Christ of his own free will, also have the right to leave Christ by his own free will. A major difference between calvinist and non-calvinist doctrines is that calvinism demands no freedom of will especially with respect to spiritual matters such as salvation and its consequences. Non-calvinist doctrine teaches the free will of mankind to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation. However, does salvation remove that freedom of will from the person once he is saved? This will be looked at in further posts.

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

Calvinists, in requiring that their God be the only sovereign will in the universe, have created a massive problem that will not go away, and at best can only be dealt with by huge cover-ups (lies) and verbal gymnastics (re-wording the Bible or false interpretations). For, if the calvinist God is the only sovereign will in the universe, then no other may oppose his will, ever. No other will can exist unless it is permitted by his sovereign will.

And for those calvinists reading this (and some do, I know), if you don’t agree, then demonstrate clearly (sola scriptura, of course) without going around in circles – all those brave enough to answer so far have clearly gone around in circles, just not brave enough to get straight to the point! List clearly the offending item and why it is not acceptable (remember – sola scriptura). Of course, if you have no way of refuting my statements, then you have my permission to hold your tongues; silence (that great “weapon” of calvinist heresy) is always taken as evidence of an inability to refute! So far, no-one has effectively refuted anything I’ve said (and I’ve been saying a lot of it online for almost 3 years now).

Calvin says “it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch. 23 , Section 6)
Calvin also teaches that all things are decreed by God, even criminal acts. “Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree.” (Institutes Bk 1, Ch. 16, Section 9)

That is, the calvinist God foreordained all things before creation; he wrote the complete script before the play began! The only problem here (and it is a massive problem indeed) is that no free will of man can be permitted unless it is completely subject to the calvinist God’s sovereign will at all times. No-one may ever do anything that the calvinist God hasn’t already foreordained as part of his sovereign will. This includes sin, for if man cannot oppose God’s sovereign will at any time, then he must sin whenever the calvinist God has decreed that he should do so. Sin must be committed according to the calvinist God’s will at all times.

But, sin is described as rebellion against God. MacArthur describes sin as wilful rebellion against God. “It is not only defiling; it is rebellion.  It establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.  It is, by its own nature, as Leviticus 26:27 says, “Walking contrary to God.”  It is just walking in constant opposition, in constant rebellion.  A sinner tramples on God’s law, tramples on God’s character, willfully crosses God’s will, affronts God, spites God, mocks God.  And the Hebrew word for “sin,” one of the Hebrew words, pasha, signifies rebellion.  Is it, at its core, rebellion.  That’s what it was for Lucifer.  That’s what it was for Eve.  That’s what it was for Adam.  That’s what it is for all of us.  Perhaps a good definition, Jeremiah 44:17, “But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth.”  That’s it.  God, we will do exactly what we want to do.  ……  So, sin is defiling, and sin is open, incessant rebellion.” (90-233 What is Sin? Jan 30, 2000)

Clearly MacArthur sees sin as an act of the free will of man, yet unless that man also has the free will to deny sin, then there is literally no free will at all. Free will requires a choice, in this case between rebellion against God, and obedience to God. MacArthur teaches that sinful man may choose his own poison, but may never have the right to choose to not sin. “But within the framework of our sinfulness we could pick our poison. When you talk about free will, we’re talking about the freedom that the sinner has to choose his iniquity. That’s what his freedom is, that’s the sum and substance of his freedom. The one thing he’s not free to do is to choose salvation, or to choose righteousness, or to choose holiness, or to choose God, or to choose Christ unaided and on his own.” (from “Answering the key questions about the doctrine of election” GTY 106)
And yet, if the calvinist God’s will is that which determines all events in the universe, then even the choice of poison (sin) must be fully controlled by his sovereign (and only) will. Free will never exists when it is totally controlled by another will!

How can sin be such rebellion against God and still not be seen as another will in opposition to God’s will. For, if sin is rebellion against God, then there are only two logical options here: either (a) the sin is wilfully opposed to God’s will [that is, the person has chosen, through his freedom of will, to oppose God’s will], or (b) God has decreed by his sovereign will that the person should sin [that is, the person has been given no freedom of will to oppose God’s will]. The first option (a) requires that man has an individual free will of his own in order to oppose sovereign God. The second option (b) excuses man from any culpability for committing the sin, but instead places all responsibility for that sin upon the sovereign will of the calvinist God who decreed it. Thus the calvinist God, in denying any freedom of will to oppose his will, is actually wilfully sinning against himself.

You can’t have it both ways. Either man has a free will to wilfully sin against God, or else God is dictating to man that he must sin against God without any free will to resist. The key to it all is free will, and it is why calvinism, in refusing the free will of mankind, has created a massive headache for all calvinists. Many, of course, will deny that man has no free will at all, claiming that man can make choices in his life. However, they always put in a codicil that in all spiritual matters, such as salvation, there is still no free will to make any choice at all, crying “There is no free will unto salvation”. (Note MacArthur’s illogical statement that man can choose his own poison, but is unable to choose to not take poison in the first place!)

There are, of course, many calvinists who actually state the truth without trying to do any cover-ups. Their words are unpalatable, even to many calvinists, yet at least they are not telling the lies that other calvinists tell. The truth is that the calvinist God decrees sin, yet punishes those who commit the sin, even though they had no say in the matter. The calvinist God who blames others for his decisions is both unjust and unrighteous.

From Sproul we read (in “Almighty over All”, P 53-54) that “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that He created sin. … God desired for man to fall into sin.” But, please explain, calvinists, how one may create sin without actually sinning?

From MacArthur we read (in “The Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe”, P 113) that “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.” So, according to MacArthur, God decreed sin which he (MacArthur) has defined as defiling and incessant rebellion against God. So, please explain how holy God may create that which “establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.” That is, MacArthur teaches that the calvinist God has decreed defilement, filth, pollution, corruption and rebellion, yet still claims to be holy! Such teachings would be blasphemy indeed if applied to the God of the Bible; however, MacArthur is defining a God who is not the God of the Bible.

Edwin H Palmer, a calvinist writer, says (in “The Five Points of Calvinism”, P 25) that “It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.”
(Palmer was educated at Westminster Theological Seminary and the Free University of Amsterdam, and was even an instructor in systematic theology at Westminster 1960-64. This clearly defines his calvinist standpoint.)
Then the calvinist God must love sin since he has foreordained so much of it. How can the Bible say that Christ knew no sin, yet the calvinist God knew so much about sin that he foreordained it.
2 Corinthians 5:21 – For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Boettner says (in “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, P 169 & P 172) that “The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of His glory.”
So sin is that which makes the calvinist God look good?
“And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity; otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption.”
And it was necessary for Adam to be made to sin to prevent the calvinist God from creating an unnecessary plan of redemption? What? Is the calvinist God unable to know what’s going to happen in the future? According the Boettner God cannot foretell the future unless he has foreordained it. “Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined.” (Ibid P 30)

Vincent Cheung says (in “The Author of Sin”, P 4) that “Those who oppose me stupidly chant, “But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin.” However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.  The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin.”
Of course, this is abundantly true if this particular God is actually satan.

Cheung also says on P 10 of that same book that “We are not using the word “create” in the same sense as God’s original creation out of nothing, but we are referring to God’s control over things that he has already created. Although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature, and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already created.
It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God who “creates” this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to function and the person to act according to it.”
Cheung’s God is an unrighteous sadist, because he actively creates man’s evil nature, yet punishes him for sinning according to his created nature.

Further to this, Cheung says (in “The Problem of Evil, God’s Sovereignty”) that “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory” (https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm)
Please explain, calvinists, how God can decree evil for his glory? Evil world leaders and dictators may make evil decisions for their glorious benefit, but they serve satan, don’t they?

A W Pink says (in “The Sovereignty of God”, & also “The Wisdom of Arthur W Pink Vol 1”, P 445) that “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed.”
The calvinist God willed that man rebel against him? That man be disobedient? Yet the Bible says that if we love God, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15 – If ye love me, keep my commandments.) So does this mean that it is the calvinist God’s will that we do not love him?

Piper says (in “Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?” and quoting from Jonathan Edwards) “Why Does God Ordain that there Be Evil? It is evident from what has been said that it is not because he delights in evil as evil. Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it. ….. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.” That is, God has ordained sin (evil) in order that He may produce good! And, without sin, God’s glory would be lacking (imperfect!). In fact, God’s glory could scarcely shine forth at all without sin! Does that mean that I have to sin in order to give God greater glory? Am I committing sin by not sinning?

Piper also says “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” (as quoted in https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin August 29, 2007)
So sin is glory? Vainglory? (See Galatians 5:26)

Piper also has co-edited a book (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God) which says (on P 42) that “(God) actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory. …. This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child.”
Any God who brings about such evil causing Hitler and his sadistic crew of Nazis to commit the atrocities of the 2^nd World War is himself sadistic! This is a sick belief system indeed!

Calvin says (in “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”) that “The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. ……
First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil. …… But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it. ……. For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. …… 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. ….. Many go astray in not holding that God wills what men by sinning do. …… Must we then impute the guilt of sin to God, or invent a double will for Him so that He falls out with Himself? I have shown that He wills the same as the criminal and the wicked, but in a different way.” That is, Calvin’s reasoning leads him to discover that God must be the author of all evils, yet when God wills the criminal to sin, God is not guilty of the sin; rather, the criminal is guilty of the sin he committed by the will of God. The calvinist God is either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for his own actions.

Calvin also says “But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service” (Institutes Bk 1, Ch.17, Section 11)
Please explain, calvinists, how the devil can only do that which is God’s will for him to do!

Charles Hodge (in Systematic Theology Part 1 (Theology Proper) Ch.9 “The Decrees of God”) says “The Bible especially declares that the free acts of men are decreed beforehand. ….. The Scriptures teach that sinful acts, as well as such as are holy, are foreordained. ….. It is therefore beyond all doubt the doctrine of the Bible that sin is foreordained.”
This is truly systematic satanic theology. Satan must love all these false calvinist teachings. Let’s put the record straight! It was satan, not the God of the Bible, who tempted Adam and Eve to sin!

Edwin Lutzer says (in “The Doctrines that Divide” P 220-221) that “Satan, regardless of how evil his actions, always serves the purposes of God. God frequently uses the devil to serve his higher ends. …. (the devil) always stands in opposition to God even when he does what God ordains.” Lutzer says (Ibid P 210) of God and evil that “Nonetheless, his (God’s) permission (for evil to occur) necessarily means that he (God) bore ultimate responsibility for it (evil). After all, he could have chosen ‘not to permit’ it.”
So satan opposes God yet always according to God’s will? God ordains that the devil commit sin?

Yet another calvinist explanation says that God by permitting sin has effectively predestined it. “If God knows that Adam will sin—or that you and I will sin—and could keep it from happening, but does not, and God’s knowledge is infallible, then it is just as certain as if he had predestined it. In fact, it is the same as being predestined.” (https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2011/11/does-calvinism-make-god-a-moral-monster/)
That’s a big leap in poor logic indeed! Permitting sin is the same as predestining it? Giving permission for an action is the same as ordering that action to be carried out?

And then, from the Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist “club”) we get the following:
“If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.
But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?
….. The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.
One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.
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.”
(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall/)

In other words, the sin of Adam (and consequently the rest of mankind) was necessary for the calvinist God to exhibit his full glory. Without sin, the calvinist God is lacking in glory!! The problem for the calvinists is that in making their god’s will unique in the universe, they have to make him the reason for sin. Effectively the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe. Otherwise there would have to be another will in the universe that could wilfully oppose him. To the calvinists man is still a sinner, but he can never sin wilfully unless he has some measure of freewill. Without free will, he can only sin according to God’s decree or will.
Therefore, to allow man as the wilful author of sin would have to allow man the free will to do so. Therefore, the calvinist god logically has to be the only wilful sinner in the universe.

And, did you notice the lack of scriptural support for their claims? They claim sola scriptura, yet use everything else but the Bible!

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

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Is it true that only calvinists can be saved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Free will proves calvinist doctrine to be false

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Calvinism – the losing debating team!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In similar fashion, I have been told by the same person: John 3: 3. (man must be born again first before he can repent and believe.) In this super clear verse our Lord and saviour himself tells Nicodemus that he cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he is born again first, surely that puts to rest that regeneration must take place first and foremost.
What the verse does say that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But calvinists then redefine “see” to mean “believe in” or “have faith in”, and suddenly the verse says what they want it to say. And this person has then stated that a man must be born again before he can repent and believe, based on this bit of verbal gymnastics.

Note the following from another calvinist teaching on John 3:3:
Further, Christ places regeneration by the Spirit as a requirement before one can “see,” i.e., believe or have faith in the Kingdom of God. He states quite emphatically that a sinner who is born of the flesh cannot believe the good news of the Kingdom until he is born by the Spirit. Thus according to the teaching of Christ, we believe because we are “born again.” We are not “born again” because we believe!
(P 8, Studies in the Atonement, Robert A. Morey)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

It is apparent from the number of hits that this website is attracting people from a wide range of religious backgrounds. Many of them are certain to be calvinists looking for another victim to hit on. I have noticed that other non-calvinist websites often have a lot of angry and aggressive verbal attacks, with most of the calvinists defending calvinism largely by insulting the non-calvinist writer. Very few actually attempt to defend from Biblical grounds, and not one of those (that I have seen) has ever succeeded in demonstrating logically and truthfully their point of view from the Bible. Still, it seems that to be a non-calvinist is to attract the vitriol and ire of those self-appointed calvinist teachers who know everything (with the non-calvinist apparently knowing nothing!). In fact, one point seems to stand out in all of this: calvinists can never be wrong! No matter how carefully one might document the truth from the Bible, if it offends a calvinist, then the calvinist is always right.

I have spent more than a year now challenging calvinists. I have labelled them false teachers, cultists, counterfeit Christians, even demonic, and yet have had little opposition. (And even what opposition I’ve had hasn’t defined at any time just what it is that I’ve stated incorrectly. I have accused them of teaching oxymorons and have heard not a whimper from any self-respecting calvinist – are there any?). I’ve been accused of misrepresenting calvinists, and yet not one example of such has ever been documented. If I quote what other people say and use that to define their errors, then that can never be misrepresentation, especially when they’re the ones who make the statements that I use! I have been told that I am the problem, but what problem that might be I have no idea because it wasn’t defined at all. I have challenged calvinists to just try and refute what I say, using the Bible to support their accusations, yet not one has, to date, managed to refute even one of my accusations. Not one has made an effort to use the Bible to demonstrate my errors.

Is this the best that calvinists can do? Are they only able to refute those who have little grasp on Biblical doctrine and how it applies to calvinist teachings? And those out there who are genuine Biblical Christians: do you search the Scriptures daily to see if what others say is true? There’s one thing a calvinist seems to fear, and that is a Christian who knows his Bible well. If they think you have a good understanding of the Bible, they are unlikely to pick an argument with you. Or else they’ll just state what they want to say and totally ignore what you have to say. They just don’t seem to want to be drawn into a discussion on doctrines using the Bible alone in case they are left without any support for their stand, especially if you do know your Bible well. If you know your Bible well and refuse to let them introduce other calvinist “teachers” to demonstrate their beliefs, then they will usually pack up and leave, refusing to discuss things any further with you! Having a rule that says Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) generally scares off the aggressive calvinist who might then be heard to say that you lack spiritual discernment and therefore just don’t understand!

So, this is for all those calvinists out there who think they’re right (and therefore I’m wrong). Just tell me where I’m wrong by demonstrating from Biblical truth the errors of my ways (my beliefs, that is). I have laid down the gauntlet; are there any who might just dare to take up this challenge? The ground rules are simple: only the Bible may be used in defining your particular brand of truth, and no Biblical verse or passage may be taken out of context or out of consistency with the rest of the Bible. Simple, isn’t it? It should be so easy for all you such knowledgeable calvinists!

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Calvinist Non-Biblical Copouts!

That is, When will calvinists become Biblical?

I am amazed at the number of times allegedly calvinist apologists (I daren’t call them teachers!) make bold statements about the error of the non-calvinist views without any Biblical documentation to support their assertions. For example, Spurgeon (a dubious calvinist at best, anyway) says, “It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.” (“Free Will – A Slave”), yet he provides not one supporting Biblical fact for this wide-sweeping statement. How is it nonsense? Who has indeed proved it? Where is their apparently non-existent evidence for such extreme claims? Yet, all too often, I have been told (or have read) calvinist words to the effect that the doctrine of no free will is consistently taught in the Bible.

Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion as to what the Bible teaches, but if that opinion is to carry any credibility at all, it must be supported by properly documented evidence from the Bible itself. What amazes me (well, I shouldn’t really be amazed, actually) is that I cannot recall any time ever when such a calvinistic denial of free will has been accompanied by some genuine effort to explain this from the Bible. They will aggressively state their opposition to the doctrine of free will, and then launch into a full-scale sales pitch on the lack of free will for man.

Of course, it is essential that calvinists set in concrete their assumption of no free will, because every one of their heretical teachings would come tumbling down like a house of cards if free will for man were to be added to their sales pitch. Note that well-worn verse of theirs that so many calvinists claim to literally put an end to all discussion on the free will of man: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (John 6:44a) It is clear that no-one may come without that drawing, but is it also clear that all who are drawn must come? The answer is, “No!” The only way they can claim that all who are drawn must come is to deny all mankind the right to resist God’s drawing. That is, they have made the assumption that man has no free will to resist that drawing. However, if you add free will to the mixture, their teaching becomes somewhat non-Scriptural! No small wonder that they have to deny any doctrine of free will for mankind at any cost! (By the way, that same word for “draw” in the Greek is used in John 12:32 where Jesus says He will draw all to Himself when He is lifted up on the cross. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. If Jesus draws all to Himself and none may refuse such drawing, then this verse demonstrates calvinists to be universalists!)

In order for calvinists to push their false teachings, they have to knock out inconvenient Biblical truths first. They do this by firstly aggressively denying the Biblical doctrine (without any genuine Scriptural evidence, of course, because no such evidence exists). Then, while hopefully some significant doubt has been bullied into their opponents, they leave this attack on Biblical truth hanging while they then push their own alternative which now becomes the “truth” once the real Biblical truth has been “shot down”. Most genuine Christians are not prepared for such aggressive tactics; under such an onslaught they tend to back down somewhat and try to take some middle ground in order to defuse the situation. The calvinist is usually quite happy to accept middle ground for the time being; he can always build on this foundation more strongly the next time. The key to it all is to aggressively deny any inconvenient Biblical truth, and then apply their own heresy as “truth” and seek, if at the very least, some agreement to begin with.

Look at the following from MacArthur (on 2 Peter 2:1). These false teachers — watch this — can be recognized because they characteristically say no to whom?  To the Master who bought them.
There are two ways to understand this, apart from the analogy.  The analogy simply says “unthinkably, unimaginably, having been bought by a master they refuse to submit to his authority.”  In the spiritual dimension you would ask the question: In what sense did Christ buy these false teachers?  Two ways to view it.  First of all, you can view it as universal provision for the redemption of sinners, even though they refuse it and are damned.
But I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this, that they have made an earthly identification with Christ’s redemption so that they claim Him as the one who bought them and they claim Him as their Redeemer, testifying that He indeed has bought them and their word then is taken at face value.  No matter what they say, though they say they are Christ’s, they refuse to say yes to His sovereign lordship and thus they are false teachers. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/61-17/a-portrait-of-false-teachers-part-2

Do you see how MacArthur firstly says that this verse can be viewed in two ways? The first option is that these false teachers are part of a universal provision for the redemption for all sinners (which is clearly not the calvinist point of view!). But, MacArthur then adds his opinion on what he thinks it means, with the assumption that he must be right, so therefore those who believe the first option must be wrong. He doesn’t actually demonstrate in any way at all that the first option is incorrect. He gives no Biblical support to oppose the first option; he just pushes his own opinion (“I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this”), similarly without Biblical support. Everything either stands or falls on the opinion of MacArthur, and thus, because MacArthur has taught such (regardless of any Biblical support or otherwise) then MacArthur must be right, and therefore the other view must be wrong. This is typical calvinist “teaching” methodology.

If MacArthur’s good standing as a “teacher” of the Bible is questioned, then other “heroes of the faith’ such as Jonathan Edwards, A W Pink, Calvin, Hodge, etc are called upon to add their vote of confidence to MacArthur’s “opinion taught as truth” (note Matthew 15:9). And, if those poor traditional fundamentalist Christians won’t accept such “erudite teachings” from such “great” men, then they can label them (shock! horror!) Arminians or even Pelagian! (Or maybe, if they are feeling kind, they might just call them “semi-Pelagian”!) It doesn’t matter if their opponents haven’t a clue what an Arminian or Pelagian is, the name-calling does seem to make calvinists somehow feel better. It’s a bit like MacArthur saying that he wouldn’t feel special if all those sinners going to hell also had their sins paid for on the cross; it would just spoil MacArthur’s day no doubt.

You hear people say, “Well, you know, when you say the atonement is limited, people don’t feel very special.” Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, “Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.” That doesn’t make me feel very special. That’s kind of a hard way to do evangelism. Christ died on the cross for your sins and all the people in hell, too. That’s not special. That’s anything but special. You mean to tell me He paid for my sins and I’m paying for them forever? Then I’ll tell you, whatever His payment was, it was bogus.
(https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-277/The-Doctrine-of-Actual-Atonement-Part-1)

Genuine Biblical Christians are often ill-equipped to defend true Biblical doctrine and often end up giving some ground in order to retreat and regroup. Instead, they should be taking the high ground of Biblical truth and requiring that calvinist false teachers demonstrate from the Bible alone – Sola Scriptura – why traditional Biblical truths (such as the free will of man) must be dismissed as untenable. The doctrine of the free will of man should never be dismissed just because some calvinist says so. Only the Bible may demonstrate such doctrines to be true or false, and when it comes to opposing such doctrines as the free will of man, the calvinists are almost always quite tongue-tied concerning Scriptural evidence. But the time has come for genuine Christians to stand up to these bullies and demand that they give clear Scriptural evidence for their dismissal of such basic Biblical doctrines.

If you were to establish the Biblical doctrine of free will, then not one single false calvinist teaching would be able to stand; instead all calvinism would be demonstrated to be the lies that it is. Every time a calvinist makes a statement that can only stand in the absence of free will for man, then ask him to demonstrate from the Bible that free will in salvation just cannot exist under any circumstances at all. If he dismisses your request as trivial, or says that it has already been shown beyond all doubt that free will does not exist, or that it is nonsense, or that the Bible consistently demonstrates that no such free will exists, then continue to demand that he show this clearly from the Bible. Ask him to prove it. Ask him to show from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that such free will is nonsense. Do not accept any waffling on about this, that and everything else, avoiding the issue; demand that he just stick to the point and demonstrate it! But, he won’t because they can’t!

And, it’s not only free will that is denied by them, either. They also deny that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 can possibly mean “the whole world”! Most calvinists teach that “the whole world” can only include Christians, or those who believe, or only the elect or anything else that only allows the calvinist Jesus to die for the sins of only those whom God has chosen for heaven from the beginning. They vary in their documentation and explanations as to why they say that the calvinist Jesus only died for the sins of believers; in fact, they can go to great lengths to push their views home to their opponents. However, I have never once heard (or read) a calvinist actually trying to convince non-calvinists (especially from the Bible) that “the whole world” can never mean “the whole world without exception”.

In general, calvinists, having “established” by their own belief that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”, then proceed post haste to ram their non-Scriptural doctrine of limited atonement down their opponents’ throats. At this point, genuine Christians should demand of those calvinist “teachers” that they firstly demonstrate from the Bible that “the whole world” just cannot ever mean “the whole world without exception”. Don’t be put off by wild talk that suggests this and that, but never gets to the point of it all. Don’t be distracted by their talk of great calvinist authorities who support their views. Don’t be bullied by accusations that you aren’t spiritual enough to understand, or that you are Arminian or whatever they think might put you down. Just keep bringing them back to the point: where does the Bible teach that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”? If they cannot demonstrate their opinions satisfactorily from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura – they love those words!) then inform them that they are out of order and have no right to teach you anything unless they can show you clearly that what you believe is non-Biblical.

And, of course, another doctrine they side-step so adroitly around (in order to leave it behind) is that of the foreknowledge of God. They will tell you that God cannot use foreknowledge because common sense tells us so (Boettner – The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), or that it is futile to discuss foreknowledge because God has already foreordained everything (Calvin – Institutes Book III Section 23 Part 6) or that the calvinist God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in Him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know (Piper – What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism 1998). They might even tell you that God’s foreknowledge refers to the establishment of a love relationship with that person (MacArthur – Considering Election Not Politics) or that it is an intimate predetermined relationship between God and His people (MacArthur – Chosen by God Part 2). And so on ad infinitum!

There are many times when calvinists so confidently inform you that you are wrong (with little or no scriptural documentation for their accusations) and then proceed to give you all the “benefits” of their “superior” intellects and understanding, after which, if you have been paying attention, you might be confused enough to think that some of what they so aggressively threw at you might be right. So, next time this happens, work out what it is they are not telling you, or what it is they have dismissed without any Biblical basis for doing so. Just keep on bringing them back to the real question: please explain from the Bible why my belief in the free will of man in salvation is wrong. Please show where the Bible teaches that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”. Please tell me why God is not to be allowed to have a perfect knowledge of the future (= foreknowledge). Do not let them get onto their bandwagon of lies, but force them to demonstrate why you should listen to them in the first place. Compel them to tell you why your traditional fundamentalist beliefs are wrong, using Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone. Be single-minded in your adherence to Biblical truth. Don’t be distracted by aggression, bullying, name-calling, mud-slinging and other derogatory behaviour against you. If you believe the Bible to be true, do not let someone else come and tell you that there’s a new truth called calvinism that redefines Biblical truth into greater truth. What they really mean is that you believe a lie, so now they will reveal the truth. Esoteric knowledge? Yes! Biblical? No!

My next post will focus on why Christians should consider treating calvinists as they would Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormans etc. After all, their man-made commandments are not compatible with the doctrines of the Bible alone, so how can light have fellowship with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14-17a – ¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ¹⁶ And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ¹⁷ Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing];

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.

The Seventh Day Adventist connection to new calvinism

I have documented this connection to some extent elsewhere; however, it is necessary to demonstrate the extent to which the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) teaching on daily justification has influenced the development of new calvinism.
“Seventh Day Adventists Believe …..”
Daily Justification. All believers who are living the Spirit-filled sanctified life (Christ-possessed) have a continuing need for daily justification (Christ-bestowed). We need this because of conscious transgressions and because of errors we may commit unwillingly. Realizing the sinfulness of the human heart, David requested forgiveness for his “hidden faults” (Ps. 19:12, RSV; cf. Jer. 17:9). Speaking specifically of the sins of believers, God assures us that “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).
(https://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-10.htm)

SDAs believe that it is necessary for them to continue to obey the Law of God in order to demonstrate that they are saved. They do not necessarily believe that the works of the Law save them; rather, they believe that if they are truly saved, then they will indeed obey the Law. Effectively it results in their obedience to the Law of God being that which saved them, because that is what they have to demonstrate in order to be considered saved. Obedience to the Law is theoretically a consequence of their salvation, yet in practice it becomes the cause! Therefore, if you sin, you may demonstrate your lack of justification and so you must repent, confess and renounce your sin in order to be restored to justification with God. The act of repentance remains the responsibility of the SDA believer, though.

The SDAs were not the only ones to perceive a need for daily or ongoing justification to maintain their salvation. Luther also taught that justification was ongoing: On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. (Luther’s Works Vol.34, p.167.)
Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured. (Luther’s Works Vol.34, p.191.)
Of course, Luther was still very catholic in his doctrines, being an Augustinian monk, and hadn’t quite broken free of the need for daily or regular confession for justification.

Even Calvin couldn’t clearly rule out ongoing justification when he claimed that justification and sanctification couldn’t be separated. “Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.” (Institutes Bk 3 Ch 11 Section 6)
Reformed writers such as John Murray also taught (in his document “Law and Grace”) that continuing obedience to the Law was necessary to maintain your elect status.
Puritan Anthony Burgess in 1654 wrote Thus it is here, God out of his mere grace did upon our believing put us in a state of Justification, from which favour we should fall every moment, did not God continue us therein. Hence in the Text its (unclear word) God that is continually justifying of us; ….. thus it is in our Justification, we need a constant remission, we want a perpetual imputation, because our sins and imperfections are renewed daily. (The True Doctrines of Justification Asserted & Vindicated – Anthony Burgess)

And the Gospel Coalition (of new calvinist leaders) states:
As we sin daily, so he justifies daily, and we must daily go to him for it. Justification is an ever-running fountain, and therefore we cannot look to have all the water at once.
(Quoted from puritan William Fenner, by Ray Ortlund, Renewal Ministries, www.ortlund.net, at the The Gospel Coalition National Conference, 13 April 2011. Ortlund’s website states that he is a Council member with The Gospel Coalition.)
It is reasonable to assume that the Gospel Coalition believes in both a once-off justification when born again, and an ongoing justification (by God) to maintain our righteous status before a holy God.

It was the SDA teaching of an ongoing justification process that Robert Brinsmead (an Australian who declared himself to be a Reform SDA) would take to USA with the Australian Forum around 1970. It was also in 1970 that Jay Adams, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (USA) wrote “Competent to Counsel”, a book that would abruptly change the direction of church counselling. And it was Jon Zens’ connection with Robert Brinsmead through Westminster Theological Seminary where he completed studies in 1972. It was at Westminster that he read Brinsmead’s Present truth magazine (which outlined Brinsmead’s views in the Australian Forum). Zens was reformed Baptist, but saw no real conflict with Present Truth which was reformed SDA.

It was Zens who was to do much of the pioneering work in the development of New Covenant Theology, which would play a major role in the development of Sonship Theology, which would, in turn, become known as new calvinism.
Zens’ groundbreaking articles in the late 1970s, “Is There a ‘Covenant of Grace’?” and “Crucial Thoughts on ‘Law’ in the New Covenant,” were highly instrumental in developing what came to be called “New Covenant Theology.”
(https://frankviola.me/jonzens/)
The Sonship movement finds its roots in the ministry of the late Dr. Jack Miller, founder of World Harvest Mission, a sending missions agency.
(Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church’s position on Sonship Theology)
(Jack Miller) served as pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, and taught practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. Miller founded World Harvest Mission (now named Serge) and the New Life Presbyterian network of Orthodox Presbyterian churches. He was known for emphasizing the Christian’s status as a child of God, a view known as sonship theology. (Wikipedia)

However, it was Prof Jay Adams who would be the pivotal person in the development of counselling that would support this new theology at Westminster. His ground-breaking book “Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling” came around the same time as the SDA input from Brinsmead, and the New Covenant Theology of Jon Zens. From Adams’ input came nouthetic counselling which was designed to provide counselling support for the new thinking that was developing at Westminster Seminary.

But the new nouthetic counselling movement apparently wasn’t as supportive of the developing Sonship Theology as it could have been. Jay Adams himself appears to have had strong views on the justification being a once-off event; thus his counselling methodology was going to be a problem for a theology that had taken the SDA doctrine of an ongoing or daily justification on board. If nouthetic counselling were to be an integral part of the new theology, then it had to be able to counsel for ongoing repentance and restoration by God’s grace. Nouthetic counselling allowed for God’s forgiveness, but it also assumed that God’s elect were justified once at regeneration, and that such people would demonstrate this by their puritan lifestyles. A puritan lifestyle didn’t really permit those with serious sin to continue to be declared God’s elect. If you sinned badly, you were out, off the list of elect! The nouthetic counselling of Jay Adams was therefore more suited for keeping people living within the puritan lifestyle, rather than counselling for restoration back to the puritan lifestyle if they had departed from it!

Adams didn’t actually see a problem with the name Biblical Counselling; rather, it appears that his disagreement would eventually be over its application to a doctrine of an ongoing justification for ongoing restoration.
In a 1976 book, What About Nouthetic Counseling, Adams said he actually preferred the title “biblical counseling.”
Powlison was to take over Adams position in the development of Biblical Counselling. Note that “Pastoral Practice” now becomes “Biblical Counselling”!
The next big leader in Adams’s counseling movement was David Powlison, who succeeded Adams as the editor of The Journal of Pastoral Practice and immediately renamed it The Journal of Biblical Counseling.
The new Biblical Counselling movement was then developed further by Powlison, Welch and Tripp into the Biblical Counselling in churches today.
Biblical Counsellors identify with second-generation leaders like David Powlison, Ed Welch, and Paul Tripp.
(All these quotes from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/two-sides-of-the-counseling-coin/)

All of this (that is, Sonship theology/new calvinism) has come about as a result of the fusion of ideas at Westminster, ideas such as (a) the ongoing justification of the SDA, (b) the traditional calvinism upon which Westminster was commenced (but which same doctrine was losing popularity to the young evangelical fundamentalists), and (c) the need for a church counselling model that was supportive of the doctrines taught. In fact, new calvinist John Piper says that There would be no New Calvinism without Westminster Seminary. (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-reasons-why-the-new-calvinism-is-worth-supporting/)

The fusion of these ideas initially produced nouthetic counselling which was to become Biblical Counselling, and from these counselling models developed the Sonship Theology which would then become new calvinism. It was the early development of Biblical Counselling which came first, which then required a new theology framework in which to present the new counselling model. Biblical Counselling was not greatly supportive of any theology which required living a good life (which automatically cancelled out traditional calvinism). Instead it was more supportive of a theology that catered for people who sinned regularly. Traditional calvinist theology strongly discouraged people from committing sin in the first place, and frowned upon a lifestyle that appeared to condone, even encourage sin among God’s people. But Biblical Counselling was best used to restore sinful people back to a righteous relationship with God. And, best of all, people who sinned badly didn’t have to be removed from church membership, that is, if they repented and were restored again (by God’s grace, naturally).
See New Calvinism is Biblical Counselling

The most effective theology platform for Biblical Counselling to use was therefore one that permitted God’s people to sin, yet also to repent and be restored, all by the grace of God. Such theology may not actually openly encourage people to sin – it was always accepted that proper theology should appear to discourage sin – but it should make it much easier for people to repent and be restored to fellowship in the event of them sinning.

The New Covenant Theology of Jon Zens was indeed supportive of Biblical Counselling. New Covenant Theology was refined further to become Sonship Theology, which taught that no matter how much God’s elect sinned, God’s grace would always be sufficient to overcome their sin. Basically, no matter how much you sin, you cannot ever lose your salvation if you are one of God’s elect.
Sonship Theology is an attempt to elevate grace, the assurance of salvation we have in Jesus Christ, and the intention of God to preserve Christ’s sheep so that not one is ever lost. (https://covenant-presbyterian.church/articles/from-the-pastors-desk/sonship-theology)

Sonship Theology was a perfect consequence of the development of Biblical Counselling. Sonship Theology was an effective tool for Biblical Counselling. But many calvinists were not as supportive as they could be. It just didn’t have the right image to get people’s attention. It needed a new marketing image in order to escape the obvious accusations that it was only an excuse to be able to sin without penalty from a holy God. New Covenant Theology had been seen as a development of traditional Covenant Theology; it wasn’t an alien theology but just a “new” upgraded version of the “old”. And likewise, the new marketed image of “new” calvinism (instead of Sonship Theology) was seen as an upgraded version of the “old” calvinism. And in the past 12 or so years, new calvinism has become the name of the theology that was developed to support the doctrines of Biblical Counselling in the church today. The marketing has indeed been very successful, so far.

For further related reading please go to:

New calvinism is Biblical Counselling

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

The New Calvinism Gospel

Biblical Counselling & New Calvinism today

The Gospel of New Calvinism

Also try these:

The False Calvinist Gospel blog

The False Calvinist Gospel

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.

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

This is part of a larger document called The Gospel of New Calvinism which covers both the gospel and Biblical Counselling of new calvinism today.
New calvinism is a term loosely applied to a syncretistic belief system based upon the merging of Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) beliefs and traditional calvinist beliefs. It was a Seventh Day Adventist with calvinist leanings named Robert Brinsmead who was largely responsible for kick-starting what we call new calvinism today. Brinsmead led the Australian Forum (a think tank group of people to discuss calvinist SDA beliefs). In 1970 the Australian Forum commenced to spread its reformed or calvinist SDA views, and these views were taken up by Westminster Theological Seminary (USA).  

Also, in 1970 Jay Adams of Westminster Seminary published “Competent to Counsel”, a document that would eventually lead to what we know today as the Biblical Counselling movement. But, the views of the Australian Forum were to also merge with the traditional calvinist views of Westminster Seminary to lead, firstly to Sonship Theology, which was then adapted and relabelled as new calvinism. The traditional calvinist views were to be transformed into the new calvinism of the Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR), a phrase apparently coined for new calvinists by Christianity Today in 2006.

So what are the distinctives of new calvinism? It is clear that Brinsmead (with his Australian Forum) and Jay Adams (with his new direction on counselling) both played a major part in this new calvinist belief system. New calvinism is a fusion, a merging together, of traditional calvinism and SDA beliefs. Take the traditional calvinist gospel of the unconditional election which taught that if you were one of God’s elect, you were guaranteed your salvation forever. But if you didn’t persevere in the works of righteousness, then you were not one of God’s elect and therefore you were not going to heaven, ever. That is, one major sinful strike and you’re out!

However, add the SDA gospel which taught that if you fell into sin, you could choose to repent, confess and renounce your sin. In this way God would provide regular sanctification so that you could be regularly justified. Thus, you add the SDA fusion of an ongoing justification based upon an ongoing sanctification (which resulted from your ongoing repentance, confession and renouncing of sin).
This is a major tenet taught by new calvinists today, that we need an ongoing or daily justification.
As we sin daily, so he justifies daily, and we must daily go to him for it.
(Justification Vs Self-justification, The Gospel Coalition National Conference 13/04/11)

Calvinists could now sin and regain their justification and still have a guarantee of salvation at the end. And, the SDAs gained from this a guarantee of salvation which their old gospel didn’t give them.
(For further reading, see The New Calvinism Gospel post and The Gospel of New Calvinism.)

This new gospel of the new calvinists was a seller. That it wasn’t scripturally correct didn’t matter; when did being scripturally correct matter today in an age of such consumerism? (That is, you deliver the goods that the population wants, and they’ll beat a pathway to your door!) No longer did they have to, as calvinists, kick out those who sinned badly, and declaring them to be not of God’s elect. No, that was a thing of the past. Now, if a person could be convinced to repent, confess and renounce his sin, then he could remain in the church, for God would only have granted repentance to his elect. Losing members due to sinful behaviour had been a problem in the past. Not only did it lower the numbers in church (and, very importantly, the offering!) but it prevented the scandal of having sinful church members being the cause of others not coming to their church. But now even the sinners could stay (and play and pay!).

This was to form the basis of 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. Now the demonstration of your election had gone from living a puritan lifestyle to a willingness to be able to repent of and renounce any sin you committed!

But how do you administer such a loose belief system? If people may be permitted to sin, then repent, confess and renounce such sin in order to remain acceptable to their God (often for the sake of the church and its leaders!), then what’s to stop them from abusing this system? What’s to stop them from committing sin as and when they like, knowing that they’ll be still able to get up and continue running the race? What checks and balances are there in such a system? You don’t want to kick people out because a good business never kicks out its better customers. But you do need some form of control to prevent it turning into a sin free-for-all. You need “control”!

Enter Biblical Counselling! Over the centuries the catholic church has used the confessional to control its members. Originally known as nouthetic counselling, Biblical Counselling has now taken the place of the catholic confession. New calvinism theology required an ongoing repentance leading to ongoing justification, and Biblical Counselling would provide the practical means by which God’s “elect” would demonstrate their election by the repentance allegedly given to them as a gift from God.

Biblical Counsellors often encourage people to confess sins, telling them that sin is the basis for their problems, and that the removal of such sin is the first step toward solving their problems. If you have a problem, then sin is responsible somewhere, and that includes you. What sin might you have committed that could have helped cause the problem? If you have a problem with another person, for instance, what is your particular responsibility for what has happened. If your husband has been unfaithful to you, then what might you have done to lead to this happening? Perhaps if you’d been a better wife, then maybe this mightn’t have happened. Biblical Counsellors are seemingly more interested in keeping the peace in the church than they are with seeking actual truth. In fact, truth becomes a problem if it might get in the way of reconciliation!

Church leaders want their churches to be big, rich and successful. This means lots of people putting lots of money into the offering plates! Sinful behaviour and scandals aren’t helpful. Reconciliation for all is the name of the game, even if some truth has to be sacrificed for the sake of the unity of the brethren!
Of course, if these sinners had sinned against another member of that church community, then it required that those alleged victims of the sin (or crime as it would often turn out) also should forgive and forget such sin. If God had forgiven such sin, then those offended church members should be able to do no less than to also forgive and forget. The sinner was now reconciled to the new calvinist God and therefore the victims should likewise be reconciled to the sinner who had offended them – even if that sin was a crime such as child abuse or rape, wife-beating or being unfaithful to one’s spouse.

All this was usually dealt with under the heading of Biblical Counselling, in an effort to get the sinner to repent, confess and renounce his sin. And, of course, the victims were also counselled (biblically, of course!) to give up their feelings (of anger etc) that were not helping in the process of reconciliation. Biblical Counselling became a means by which the church and its leadership might try to retain control over a church which was breaking up due to the aggravated sin of some members.

But many victims of such crime became upset, when they saw the church accept the repentance and renouncing of the sin of the perpetrator. They couldn’t understand why the church was refusing to hand it over to the police, preferring to deal with it within the church body. The victims felt that the church had sided with the perpetrator at their expense, all for the sake of keeping the church “clean” from scandal. The sinner might have been “rescued” for God, but the victims were expected to deny justice to their family because it might harm the eternal security of the sinner. And it was best to keep it out of the hands of secular authorities too. The victim all too often then became the criminal, being treated as such by many churches. The anti-“whistle-blower” mentality is strong in churches that strive for success rather than the gospel. The catch-cry was the fight to maintain the unity of the church, even if it meant creating division to achieve such unity! Divisive elements could easily be persuaded to leave.

Because ongoing justification was dependent upon ongoing sanctification, and because it is to be expected that all will commit regular sin (even church members in good standing), then Biblical Counselling requires that all should be ready and willing to regularly confess sin, repenting and renouncing it. In this way all sin would hopefully be brought out into the open (and dealt with). If a Biblical Counsellor perceived (rightly or wrongly!) a problem with someone, he or she could report such confession to the church for possible disciplinary action. Such disciplinary action could lead to the one confessing a sin to be approached by the church, often in the public forum of a church members’ meeting or church service, in order to challenge that alleged “sinner’ with his or her sin, and a requirement that they deal with it. (Even if they had actually been the victim!)

Public naming and shaming is a part of the discipline of many new calvinist churches. Many also have discipline agreement documents that prospective members are required to sign before they may be permitted to join. Biblical Counselling can be used as a means of control of church members, especially in new calvinist churches such as C J Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries (which has also been extensively exposed as having child abuse problems within its ranks with alleged evidences of cover-up by church leaders – see https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/14/the-sex-abuse-scandal-that-devastated-a-suburban-megachurch-sovereign-grace-ministries/).
The confidentiality of the confessional has also been used to attempt control in new calvinist churches – see https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/has-god-foreordained-an-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up-in-sovereign-grace-ministrieschurches-is-that-why-cj-mahaney-is-so-sacred/ to see how C J Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries tried to blackmail one of his members.

It is good that a church should be able to counsel its members and good also that such counselling be Biblical. However, counsellors accredited with Biblical Counselling Australia (as most accredited church counsellors in Australia are today) are neither Biblical, nor good counsellors. And if you feel you have the need of a Biblical Counsellor, be very careful what you say, for what you say may be taken down as evidence and used against you. (Except that they don’t have to read you your “rights” before they start the interrogation!)

In conclusion, when looking for a suitable church to attend, try to avoid those who advertise Biblical Counselling, as it is all too often a euphemism for overly strict discipline and control of its members. And don’t sign a discipline agreement before joining a church. Church discipline is certainly a necessary part of a Christian’s life; all of us must be accountable to someone somewhere for our actions. But when counselling is used for the purposes of establishing authority, rather than helping the person, it becomes a controlling whip in the hands of the church. Control without compassion is a dictatorship.

See also

Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today

The New Calvinism Gospel blog

The Gospel of new Calvinism

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.

Local Fundamentalist Pastor Heresy

The day and age in which we live is rapidly defining itself as the Laodicean age (Revelation 3:14-22). The Laodicean church was a lukewarm church, neither hot (representing fervour for God) nor cold (fervour for the world). God says that He would prefer it to at least come out in the open and proclaim just exactly what it believed in, either for or against Him. But the Laodicean church couldn’t commit itself one way or the other. No doubt, like many churches today, it regularly taught one thing and practised another, or held back on any controversial teachings because they might cause conflict, rock the boat so to speak. Getting along with your fellow Christian has become so important today that even truth must be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the peace! Community overrules truth! People these days are so afraid to rock the church boat that they will put up with borderline (or worse) heresy rather than create a disagreement with another “Christian”. Of course, that’s when they actually know that what’s being taught is not the complete truth of the Bible. However, all too often they trust their pastors and teachers so much that they are seemingly reluctant to test everything they say against the truth of the Bible. And ignorance is no excuse! “What you don’t know can’t hurt you” appears to be the catch-cry of so many “Christians” today. And they’re wrong!

It is essential that each genuine Christian ascertain the truth of what he believes directly from the Bible. To this end he is encouraged to make use of the experienced teaching of pastors and mature Christians, whether personally or via media such as books and DVDs, etc. However, never should Christians accept any teachings without also assessing them against the truth of the Bible.
Acts 17:10-12 – ¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. ¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. ¹² Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

So, if you desire to see many around you believe in the truth of the Scriptures, then you must search the Scriptures daily to see if those things that you have been taught are actually true! By doing so, you may then declare yourself to be a fundamentalist believer, one who believes in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, rightly dividing the word of truth as taught by the Bible.

But, many alleged fundamentalists are only that because they claim to be such. For instance, John MacArthur is often proclaimed to be a respected theologian and Bible teacher, therefore a fundamentalist. He has produced many books and other documents including a book called Fundamentals of the Faith which may be found in many church libraries and in the homes of many church-goers. However, MacArthur is far from being fundamentalist; in fact, his doctrines include many serious unacceptable heresies. Being a calvinist, MacArthur teaches a false gospel that is in conflict with the gospel of the Bible. Read MacArthur Teaches Works Salvation, The False Calvinist Gospel blog, The False Calvinist Gospel, Calvinism is the Non-gospel and Calvinists Born Again before they are Saved.

MacArthur claims to be a Christian, yet he has no testimony of when he was saved at the cross of Jesus. He appears to claim that he has never been lost!
PHIL: How old were you when you first recall sensing your need for Christ?
JOHN: Well I always believed the gospel. I don’t ever…I don’t ever remember a time when I didn’t believe the gospel.
(MacArthur’s Life Testimony Code 80-33)
Apparently MacArthur has been so good all his life that he’s never needed to be saved!

He claims his ministry to be the consequence of a godly heritage, yet his immediate ancestors were apparently more involved with freemasonry than Christianity. He claims that his spiritual fruit and harvest has come through from his great grandfather who was a Presbyterian minister and a Freemason Grand Master, both at the same time! Read Is MacArthur a Freemason?

MacArthur also teaches as if he is an expert scholar of Greek and Hebrew, yet he gets even basic interpretations wrong. Read MacArthur is Wrong where MacArthur misquotes a Greek rule to “prove” from Acts 2:23 that God’s foreknowledge is the same as God’s predetermined counsel. In MacArthur is Wrong – Again! MacArthur teaches that, because of Hebrew parallelism, “many” cannot mean the same as “many” if they are both used in the same verse (Romans 5:15), and that “all” cannot mean the same as “all” if they are both used in the same verse (Romans 5:18). Is MacArthur incompetent or is he a liar? Each of these documents has extra links to other calvinist documents for further reading.

Many churches worldwide have taken MacArthur’s false doctrines on board, demonstrating a distinct lack of discernment in doing so. A local church, Grace West Bible Church, is a clone or franchise of MacArthur’s church, having almost identical doctrinal statements. Thus, it claims to teach the same false doctrines and heresies as MacArthur’s church, including the same false gospel. This false calvinist gospel states clearly that God has from the beginning unconditionally chosen a small group of people (the elect) to go to heaven, while also choosing the vast majority of the world’s population to go to hell. “Unconditionally” means that no-one has any say in the matter, whether they are going to heaven or (most likely) hell. For all people, it is your destiny to be chosen by God to go to either heaven or to hell! Read The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 1.

In fact, MacArthur, being a calvinist, has to teach that Jesus only died for the sins of God’s chosen elect. The calvinist Jesus didn’t die for any of the sins of the vast majority of the world. Even if one of those not chosen by God wanted to be saved, the calvinist God would still reject them, because their sins were never paid for on the cross. They literally can’t be saved, ever! (Read The Big Lie of the Calvinists.) MacArthur says that it was never the intention of God to save everyone anyway! Read The False Calvinist Gospel blog and The False Calvinist Gospel. Also read The Calvinist God created most of Mankind for Torment in Hell and MacArthur Teaches Works Salvation.

Of course, God of the Bible does choose an elect group of people, the election. However, it is dependent upon Him knowing by foreknowledge who will call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (which is the true gospel of the Bible). (Which is why the calvinists cannot accept that God’s foreknowledge means His perfect knowledge of the future!)

If you want to get saved, don’t go to Grace West, for if their God doesn’t want to save you, then according to them you will remain lost, even if you wanted to be saved! In fact, they have to teach that if you prayed a prayer asking God to save you, then you are still lost, unless the calvinist God has already previously decided that he wants you on that list of elect, regardless of your goodness or evil! If you are not on that list, no prayer can, or ever will, save you! They are forced to teach that you do not choose God; God chooses you! You have no say in the matter at all! If God has chosen you to be saved, then you will be saved; nothing you can do will ever prevent you from being saved. And, if God has chosen you for hell, then you will go to hell! This is truly the Non-gospel of the calvinist. Read Calvinism is the Non-gospel.

Another local church, Living Springs Baptist, while pretending to be a fundamentalist church, claims on its website to be a like-minded sister church to Grace West Bible Church. Therefore Living Springs has, by their own admission, a false doctrine similar to Grace West, and thus they likewise teach the same heresies, including the same false gospel. Otherwise they could not be a like-minded sister church! Living Springs has used materials by calvinist Todd Friel (as advertised on the Living Springs Baptist website under Ministries/Small Groups), who teaches that if you prayed the sinners’ prayer, you are not saved and you are still going to hell. No Christian ministry should be teaching their members such heresy as Todd Friel teaches. Read The Heresy of Todd Friel.

But wait! That’s not all! Living Springs also apparently considers Gary Thomas to be a good Christian teacher. According to their website, they have been studying Thomas’ book “Sacred Marriage” which claims to be Christian. However, it quotes favourably from “Conjugal Spirituality” (by Mary Anne Oliver), a book that teaches how to use kundalini yoga and tantric sex, both involving demonism. Thomas also quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche (who teaches nihilism, and that God is dead). Gary Thomas elsewhere also advocates heresies such as contemplative and centering prayer (which is little more than crying out endless mantras to demons, a very un-Christian practice). Read Gary Thomas – New Age Teacher.

In both of these churches, it is the pastor who ultimately must take responsibility for the doctrines taught in his church. Pastors have an awesome responsibility to serve God by shepherding His flocks. This demands that they be called by God to do so, or else they will certainly fail. And if such pastors cause such heresy to be taught to their church members, then those pastors are guilty of offending those little ones of God as per Matthew 18:6 – But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
That is, it is better to not be a pastor than to pretend to be a pastor called by God and offend His little ones by teaching such heresies.

Yet another pastor of a supposedly fundamentalist church in our area has allegedly chosen to use Paul Tripp study materials. If this is true, he has shown a distinct lack of discernment. Paul Tripp, a calvinist, focuses upon what he would call Biblical Counselling, yet much of his teachings are far from Biblical. He teaches that when we become Christians we are infected with a terrible disease called identity amnesia. What’s worse, we don’t even know we have this disease until a friendly neighbourhood “Biblical Counsellor” comes along to tell us all about it and to be “healed” by this counsellor. It sounds far too much like snake-oil salesmanship to me! That is, you need to sell your snake-oil medicine, but no-one wants it, so you persuade them that they are actually sick and have need of your snake-oil. Consequently they buy it, thinking they’re now going to be healed of a sickness which they most likely don’t have, never had, or doesn’t even exist at all! These so-called Biblical Counsellors of the Paul Tripp type create the problem that they then try to “cure” for you! This creation of a problem in order to solve it is called the Hegelian Dialectic. Read Paul Trip – Heretic or Tare?

This same church now advertises Biblical Counselling as one of its ministries, which is quite interesting considering that Paul Tripp material is used extensively by Biblical Counselling Australia (BCA) – see https://www.biblicalcounselling.org.au/training-in-biblical-counselling/ where workbooks and DVDs produced by Tim Lane and Paul Tripp are advertised as part of their “biblical counselling” training. The four directors of BCA (as noted on their website) have all done courses through CCEF (Christian Counseling & Education Foundation) which is closely affiliated with Westminster Theological Seminary (USA) which is (and has been for many years) a training and resource centre for calvinism and reformed theology. Much of today’s aggressive marketing of “New Calvinism” (embraced by such as Piper, MacArthur, Mohler, Keller) has been initiated at Westminster Theological Seminary, including what is widely known today as “Biblical Counselling” (although much of its teachings are far from Biblical!). Biblical Counselling was for many years known as nouthetic counselling which was originally developed by Prof Jay Adams of Westminster Seminary through the writing of his book “Competent to Counsel” in 1970. Nouthetic counselling was developed further into Biblical Counselling by David Powlison along with others such as Tim Lane and Paul Tripp. For further information, please read Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today.

If this local supposedly fundamentalist church is using BCA materials to support its Biblical Counselling ministry, then such a ministry is based upon the corrupt calvinist (reformed) teachings of Westminster Theological Seminary. Such a counselling ministry cannot be acceptable to the God of the Bible, for calvinism itself is a doctrine without an effective gospel for mankind’s sin. Although, if they have chosen to use Paul Tripp materials in the past, then they would probably see no problem with continuing to use Tripp’s heresies under the pretense of calling it “Biblical” Counselling. And the use of Paul Tripp (and related) materials can only lead a church into apostasy.

I am told that when this supposedly fundamentalist pastor was challenged (in the past) regarding the use of Paul Tripp materials, he allegedly said that he took the material on the recommendation of another church pastor. This might be so, perhaps, although it does seem possible that it could have arisen from studies in Biblical Counselling. Of course, a genuine pastor should be very wary of following up the recommendations of another without firstly testing all things. He has a responsibility to shepherd his flock, which will always overrule making agreements with pastors of other churches!

However, the truth remains: that if he has taught heresy through the use of Tripp’s materials, whether or not on the advice of another pastor, he has offended those little ones of God. And, could the alleged “another pastor” be a friendly neighbourhood calvinist pastor who cannot see any conflict between his own calvinist heresies and Tripp’s false teaching, consequently recommending Paul Tripp to other local pastors? In any case, any pastor who cannot discern danger (such as Tripp’s heresies) for his church members should reassess his calling to be pastor. And God will hold all pastors responsible for their leadership of their flocks, and not for how well they get along with other pastors of other churches! For information on Paul Tripp, read Paul Tripp – Heretic or Tare? and The Gospel of New Calvinism.

And finally, it’s ironic that just a generation ago, fundamentalists were quite rightly condemnatory of the heresies taught via the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV), yet today they use a revised version of the RSV in many supposedly fundamentalist churches. And what is that version called? Well, just to throw fundamentalists off the scent, they have renamed this version the English Standard Version (ESV).
The English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible. It is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version (Wikipedia)
With this name change and the backing of the calvinists (who had a significant input into the ESV), that which was rightly despised has now become highly desirable! Funny how views can change if you’re not doing your homework properly, isn’t it!

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.

John 6:44 – Does it really prove calvinist teachings?

Calvinists are quite fond of taking hold of a verse (usually in isolation) and using it, often aggressively, to “prove” that they are right and therefore all others are wrong. They will teach in such a way that makes it difficult at times to oppose them without openly accusing them of heresy. If you have some respect for the person who is pushing his calvinist views largely to the exclusion of other views, it can be uncomfortable to argue without feeling as if you might be offending that person. And many good Christians are reluctant to think that they might have offended another “Christian”.

All too often, calvinists will imply, suggest or even openly state, that to not believe as they do defines the other person as a somewhat lesser Christian, or even, perhaps, lacking spirituality because they are bereft of God’s spiritual guidance. If you disagree, then they will quote their “experts” in books and articles written by calvinist “teachers”, many of whom may be well-known, if not necessarily correct. It can be quite overwhelming, even daunting, for a Christian to be inundated with such a flood of opposing teachings. All too often those Christians will tend to agree in order to avoid an argument, and, if they “agree” as such for long enough, they may even start believing what the calvinists are saying. It’s a mild (or not so mild) form of brainwashing.

(Jehovah’s Witnesses use a similar form of aggressive argument: they are taught to answer most opposition by using suitably impressive references including Bible verses that, in isolation, appear to support their views. Their Watchtower Society constantly trains them for such debate.)

John 6:44 is one of the classic calvinist verses that is used to “prove” that (a) those who come to Christ are the only ones called by the Father, and (b) therefore man has no free will to choose to be saved.

John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The calvinist will interpret this verse to say that if the Father draws a person, then that person will come to Christ. They teach that if a person doesn’t come to Christ, then the Father did not draw him. Therefore, says the calvinist, this demonstrates that no-one has the free will to choose for himself, for this verse “proves” that God chooses for all people. (That is, unconditional election or choosing by God alone, rather than an election or choosing conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of future decisions to be saved.)

And, in fact, if this calvinist teaching is presented aggressively, it can appear to be correct, unless you test all things. It is not always easy to oppose views when they are presented so forcefully, even when you feel that such views might not be consistent with what you believed concerning the Bible. When opposing such forceful and aggressive teachings, it is essential to know exactly what you believe and why.

For instance, MacArthur’s church (Grace Community Bible Church, California) states “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” (John 6:44 is one of their supporting verses.) That is, everyone who is called by the Father will come in faith and be received. If you are called, you will come; therefore, if you do not come, you were not called. To the unthinking Christian, this interpretation of John 6:44 can appear correct. But such teaching is actually false. That is not what John 6:44 is saying at all! All it is saying is that every person who comes must have been called by the Father, yet it doesn’t say that every person who is called by the Father must come.

In Jesus’ day, to refuse a gift or invitation was to offend the one who offered it. Even if you didn’t want the gift or invitation, you would usually accept unless you desired to offend the one who offered it. In the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) many are called but these refuse the invitation, some violently. So, the king punishes them and then calls others to the feast. The passage ends with “For many are called, but few [are] chosen.” (Matthew 22:14) Being invited (or called) to a wedding feast was an important event not to be treated lightly. But you could still refuse that invitation!

You couldn’t attend a wedding feast unless you had an invitation, a calling to be there. (Matthew 22:3 says “bidden” which means to be called or invited by name.) No-one might come unless they had been personally invited by the father of the groom. But getting an invitation did not mean you had to go; you were greatly obligated to go, but you could still refuse the invitation.

Now look at John 6:44 again: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him. But, the calvinists say, the word “draw” means to drag or force. Yes, in many cases it actually means that. But what about John 12:32 where Jesus says “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.” That is the same word “draw” used here. In order for calvinists to explain this, they are forced to teach that “all” does not mean “all” but perhaps “all the elect” or similar. The word “draw” can mean to use debate to persuade someone, that is, to draw someone to your point of view, or to draw their attention to something.

Take another look at John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Where does it say that a person cannot refuse or resist the drawing of the Father. The calvinist then says that the grace of God is irresistible and cannot be refused. (This is one of their basic calvinist doctrines.) But that assumes man has no free will to be able to choose to resist. It assumes that God forces the person to come, and that person cannot resist. But does this verse teach such or is it an assumption based upon calvinist heresy?

Paul taught that man could indeed resist what God has ordained.
Romans 13:2 – Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[ordinance = a law set forth by a governmental authority; Merriam Webster says that an ordinance is something ordained by fate or a deity (such as God).]

And Stephen, sitting in the council of the religious leaders, said to them:
Acts 7:51 – Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.
Thus it is scriptural to teach that man has a free will to accept or resist God. Of course, the calvinists then have to teach that God foreordained their acceptance or resistance of Him, because it cannot be by their free will! (And they do teach such!)

So what John 6:44 is really saying is that you cannot come to Christ unless the Father has drawn you. It cannot deny that all have been drawn to Christ (see John 12:32) with many people consequently resisting that drawing.
All who come must have been drawn, but it cannot equate to all that are drawn must come. That’s backward logic, like saying that because a dog is an animal with four legs, then all animals with four legs must be dogs.

John 6:44 does not deny free will to mankind, especially noting that free will to choose between good and evil, between God and the world, is taught consistently throughout the Bible. Therefore, in order for calvinists to demonstrate that John 6:44 “proves” their definition of the election, they must also demonstrate that free will of mankind is consistently denied throughout the Bible. This they cannot do. Only without the existence of free will can calvinists teach that all whom the Father calls must come in faith! Their teachings are based upon false premises and are only as truthful as the lies upon which they are based.

For further reading on the subject of John 6:44, go to John 6:44.

As a postscript, here’s some more questions for calvinists:

1/. Why did Jesus say to His disciples further down, in John 6:72, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” where “chosen” is the verb form of the adjective form used in 1 Peter 1:2 – Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
Why did Jesus choose Judas when He knew Judas would serve satan?

2/. Why did Jesus say to all His disciples in John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” when Judas was still one of that group? Judas has been chosen, ordained, to bring forth fruit, yet he doesn’t.

3/. Why does Jesus say in John 6:39 say, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”
Yet, after having chosen a devil (Judas) in John 6:72, and ordained that they should bear fruit (including Judas) in John 15:16, why does Jesus say of His disciples in John 17:12, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
What? Jesus kept them all, none of them is lost, except Judas. If John 6:39 is teaching about all the elect of God being given to Jesus, that He should lose none of them, then how is Judas lost after he has been chosen as per John 6:72? Clearly, to be consistent, calvinists cannot interpret John 6:39 as they do.

4/. If “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), then why is the number chosen less than the number called. Why would God call a large number of people to the wedding feast, yet only choose some of them? How can this be explained without the free will of mankind? How does this compare with MacArthur’s church doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” if in fact not all who are called will be chosen! (Of course, MacArthur says that Matthew 22:14 is “the general call of the gospel, the general outward invitation of the gospel” and that only the elect or chosen of God get the efficacious or effectual call to be saved. (https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call)
Clearly, to the calvinist, the gospel is merely the general outward invitation which, according to MacArthur, will be ineffectual to save!

That brings us to question 5/. Why does God make a general call for all to be saved when calvinism teaches that Jesus only died for the sins of those who will receive the effectual call? Isn’t this deviousness at best from the calvinist God, to invite people when he has no intention of letting them in the door? Truly the calvinist God is no better than a politician who makes many promises but only delivers a few (if any)!

6/. Why does God say (in Jeremiah 32:35), “And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” if He has ordained such decisions from the beginning (as calvinists would have us believe)? God says here that He did not command them to do such things, nor did it even come into His mind (mind; knowledge; thinking; reflection; memory; inclination; resolution; determination of will). How can Judah do such things unless it is by their own free-will rebellion against God?

If calvinism is true doctrine, then why are there so many anomalies in their “explanations”? And why, after having asked such questions many times, has not one calvinist been able to refute these statements from a Biblical viewpoint? In fact, my arguments have been read by many people, some of whom must surely be calvinist, yet not one has been able to refute satisfactorily from the Bible alone any of my challenges to them! Clearly they don’t believe in sola scriptura (the Bible alone)!

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.

As I read through the Bible I keep finding things that don’t add up with what Calvinists such as John MacArthur and John Piper, etc, try to tell us. That people have no free will to choose God, and that they are already ordained to either heaven or hell before they are born. And that foreknowledge doesn’t mean that God knows the future before it happens because He can see from outside of time and therefore knows who will choose to follow Him, but instead they say He knows who the Christians will be because he’s already written the script!!  My current reading is from Jeremiah 6 and I will put in relevant parts to show what I mean:

The LORD speaking through Jeremiah to the people of Israel and in particular those in Jerusalem. In the previous chapter also there are relevant verses quoted.

“O LORD, are not Your eyes on the truth? You have stricken them, but they have not grieved; You have consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to return. Therefore I said, ‘Surely these are poor. They are foolish; for they do not know the way of the LORD, the judgment of their God.'” – Jeremiah 5:3-4

“I will go to the great men and speak to them, for they have known the way of the LORD, the judgment of their God. But these have altogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds. ………………..Because their transgressions are many; their backslidings have increased.

How shall I pardon you for this? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by those that are not gods when I had fed them to the full, then they committed adultery ………….every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the LORD.” – Jeremiah 5:5-9

“And it will be when you say, ‘Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?’ then you shall answer them, ‘Just as you have forsaken Me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve aliens (strangers) in a land that is not yours’.

“But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; they have revolted and departed. They do not say in their heart, ‘Let us now fear the LORD our God’. ………………….Your iniquities have turned these things away (the good seasons and harvests etc.), and your sins have withheld good things from you.” – Jeremiah 5:23-25

“Be instructed, O Jerusalem, lest My soul depart from you;” – Jeremiah 6:8

“To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? ……..the word of the LORD is a reproach to them; they have no delight in it. Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD…………..Everyone is given to covetousness; …………everyone deals falsely. ……Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;”  – Jeremiah 6:10-15

“Thus says the LORD: ‘stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls’. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’ ………………..Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not heeded My words, nor My law, but rejected Me.” – Jeremiah 6:16-19

“The smelter refines in vain, for the wicked are not drawn off. People will call them rejected silver, because the LORD has rejected them”. – Jeremiah 6:29-30

The more I read different passages of the Bible, the more I see clearly that man was given free will. Calvinist stand on the doctrine of man having no free will (or only free will to choose their evil in the words of some well known Calvinists).

Let’s go to Jeremiah chapter 7 today and see what the prophet Jeremiah says about what the Lord God says (We cant argue against the words of God Himself can we?). I will include a number of verses from Jeremiah 7 but please read and study yourself to see if it is so. Do not ever take the words of a preacher as truth. Check God’s word and see if what they say is truth.

Jeremiah Chapter 7 (KJV):

1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,

3 Thus saith the Lord of host, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.

4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD are these.

5 For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;

6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:

7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.

9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;

10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices;

23 But this thing commended I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

28 But you shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

So here we have clearly written that God commanded them NOT to do all these abominations which provoke God to wrath, neither did it come into His heart! It wasn’t on His mind for them to do this. Yet Calvinists would have you believe God ordains evil? Or would a simpler approach be to be consistent with the entire bible in believing the truth that man has free will. This free will given by God and man will be held accountable for their free will choices. God giving man free will in no way makes God less sovereign nor does it add one bit to Salvation as a work of man. Accepting a gift as any dictionary can tell you, does not add to the gift. If your parent gifts you a new car, you accepting it is not adding to the car. It is still a car whether you receive it or not. All you have to do is choose. All we have to do is tell people about the free gift so they can choose.

In the passage above and other passages in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32) it is clear that the people of Israel rebelled against God and chose to do things which God did not intend for them. He had no desire for them to do abominations which would provoke Him to anger and cause Him to have to punish them. God has made it clear throughout the entire bible that He desires the salvation of man. He sent His son Jesus Christ to die in our place to redeem us. And as clearly stated throughout the Bible, the payment on the cross was for all (all of course not meaning anything other than all – unlike what many Calvinists will teach).