100% Bible Based Teaching
Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God
Clear distinction between worldly and Christian music
Aim to fulfill the great commission as commanded by Jesus
Seeking to find answers to your faith based questions from God’s Word
So why did I start this website?? Part 1
So why did I start this website? Part 2
So why did I start this website? Part 3
So why did I start this website? Part 4
It’s been a busy year writing comments on a number of topics, mostly to do with the heresies of calvinism, although I cover many other topics in other ways. For example, in our home church we completed our studies in Hebrews, then looked at Revelation Ch.4 – 22 in detail, and are presently studying the first 11 chapters of Genesis. (Most of these have been posted on our website although some may be a few weeks late arriving online.)
I have posted 26 comments so far during 2018, an average of 1 per fortnight, not necessarily evenly spread, though. Posts generally get written when I notice something not quite right with doctrinal issues in whatever we are involved with at the time. In fact, this website commenced because of a need to expose some of the doctrinal heresies being used to control good Christian people in our local allegedly biblical, fundamentalist churches. Our area (on the edge of a state capital city of Australia) has a large immigrant population, and a wide range of beliefs, many of which are not remotely Christian. And many who claim to be Christian fail to believe what the Bible teaches.
When we moved to this area over 20 years ago, even then there were only a few local churches that had beliefs we felt comfortable with. Before this we had spent many years in an independent Baptist church in a small rural town, and had considered its doctrine to be good, and although not perfect, it was very good. It was a conservative church, with preaching expected to be from the Bible alone (fundamentalist, not calvinist), and the music reasonably free from rock music influences (we didn’t have the ubiquitous rock band out the front, and we avoided Hillsong-type hype music like the plague).
When we moved to the city we found a limited number of churches that matched what we were used to. And, as some of these added loud rock bands with earth-shaking drums, that number of acceptable options decreased. I could never see how such music could honour the creator God of the universe – it all seemed so disrespectful. And, rock music’s origins were very anti-God into the bargain. The old (and much-loved) hymns were being replaced by Hillsong rock, and the organs and pianos turned into drums and amplified guitars.
Note that I do play the guitar (both 6 and 12 string acoustic, non-amplified) and I don’t mind a bit of beat in music. But the off-beat of rock music (like people clapping on the off-beats in some songs) was off-putting indeed. I had been church organist for many years at our rural church and felt that rock bands had done away with so much good music. (I had also been secretary of this church which, more often than not, hadn’t had a pastor, so in many ways I had been doing much of the day-to-day running of this church, including a lot of preaching when needed.)
So when we arrived at our present location, we commenced at one church, only to leave after a year when the rock music became too pronounced (that is, painfully loud; it hurt my ears!). We went to a second fundamentalist church (Living Springs which my sons attended) only to find them creeping inexorably toward the rock band model as well. We then went to the local Presbyterians who, at this stage, were actually evangelical, with a pastor who genuinely believed in the free will of man to choose his salvation. (In fact, too evangelical, it seems, because they then replaced him with one who better-supported their calvinist origins.) At that time the Presbyterian church in Australia was going through a renewing of its Westminster catechism foundations, and is now back firmly in the clutches of calvinism. When they asked us (after being absent on a 6 month outback trip) if we could give any reason why they shouldn’t remove us from their membership roll, we agreed to resign. (In the Presbyterian church, you are not permitted to be a good Christian if you happen to not go near your local Presbyterian church for 6 months, because that somehow proves you are no longer a good puritan. It matters little that you are just not in the area for that 6 months!)
So, on the recommendation of a pastor-friend, off we went to yet another allegedly biblical fundamentalist church, Open Door. (The list of possible options in our area was growing rather thin by now!) For a little while we were reasonably happy and satisfied there. The music was not loud, not rock, and the old hymns were appreciated. The preaching appeared to be reasonably on the ball, although occasionally a bit vague. However, after a year or two, this vagueness soon clarified itself into calvinism rumbling just below the surface. The previous pastor (who had stayed on until a replacement was found) finally admitted that he believed MacArthur’s brand of calvinist heresy to be really quite scriptural (according to him, anyway). I asked him what was the point of the Great Commission then – to preach the gospel to all nations. His answer was simply that Christians did that because that’s what Christians were commanded to do. (It was the typical calvinist statement on this passage, because, to the calvinist, there is no point to preaching the gospel to anyone unless they have already been regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit. Their only justification for it is that God commands them to do so.)
We stayed there for a bit longer, however, because the calvinism wasn’t obvious, and at this point in time we hadn’t seen the full picture of what calvinism really represented. At that time, calvinism was, to us, an awkward doctrine that had some incorrect beliefs about evangelism. However, we were still prepared to declare calvinists fellow-Christians even though we could not believe in it ourselves.
Then I was told that the church where two of my sons still attended (Living Springs) was looking for a pastor, and had advertised for one, in fact. So I applied, having done my apprenticeship in running a church in a country town for many years, including much preaching and pastoral care work. One of the deacons at Living Springs then invited me to preach, after which I was told they’d get back to me. But, eight months went by without any getting back to me, so I contacted them again. This appeared to stir up some immediate action: (a) Living Springs started making their building available to a near-by calvinist church (GraceWest), apparently through contact with the deacon, and (b) I was offered some preaching, firstly being asked to name as many days as I wished, an offer that was quickly downgraded to: Here’s four Sundays in the next few months that we haven’t managed to fill yet; take your pick. (I picked all four!)
I was also told that I was applying for a part-time position, and therefore it would be unworkable. Yet, this same deacon who had said this then put his own name down for the pastor position just a month later. I did my four services and then was told that they’d selected that church deacon as pastor. (And, yes, it was still a part-time position, apparently only unworkable if someone other than the current pastor were appointed!)
By this time it was ultra-clear that the local calvinist church (GraceWest) was getting quite involved with Living Springs, including regular use of their property for meetings and services, and providing pastoral messages on some Sunday mornings. So, with Living Springs doctrinally unacceptable now, and because the options for local Bible-believing churches were fast disappearing, I started up our home church. We were small then, and are still small, yet we have managed to learn Bible truths more effectively now we aren’t encumbered with doctrinal hindrances from established church dogmas. I also started to look more seriously at calvinism, because it was clear that calvinism had been able to infiltrate Living Springs so effectively that not long after this, the Living Springs website declared GraceWest to be a like-minded sister church. Therefore, if GraceWest is MacArthur calvinist (which it is, having an almost identical doctrinal statement to MacArthur’s church), then Living Springs, being like-minded, must also be a calvinist church (after the doctrines of MacArthur) now. (Of course, they denied this, but then, why are they like-minded sister churches?)
Since then we have had communications with one of Living Springs’ members who has become so full-on with calvinism that he has now spouted forth MacArthur heretical teachings in an effort to try to convert us. We have also been told (by Living Springs officialdom) not to have any contact with Living Springs members; all communications must be made to the pastor alone (who then, to my knowledge, has never answered any of the enquiries made). It is indeed a strange situation, where a church (Living Springs) that allegedly disapproves of hyper-calvinism should be so much in agreement with the MacArthur calvinism of GraceWest.
And what of the last church we left? We left Open Door (in September 2013) initially to commence our home church. At that stage we had intended returning once we had sorted out things through our home church. We had enjoyed attending their services. However, a few months after we left, their newly-appointed pastor came to visit us, apparently with one aim in mind: to pressure us to send our son back to Living Springs (which he had left to attend our home church). The pastor offered to be mediator between my son and the Living Springs pastor so that my son could return without prejudice. When I said that Living Springs had loud rock music, he said that was unfortunate but nevertheless my son should return. (This, of course, was from the Open Door pastor who just 2 months earlier had informed me that he was doing a series of studies on the problems of rock music!) It was clear that we would not come to a satisfactory agreement on this issue.
Then, after some more disagreements, he then accused me of having the imaginations of an over-sensitive nature. (I wonder if that is legalese for “You’re mad!”) I said that perhaps it would solve all our problems if we resigned from membership of Open Door. (He did not appear to be happy about this.) After we finished our “discussion”, he left. Just over a week later we sent in our resignation email. No response was ever received to this. We have never returned.
Then in 2016 I was informed that Open Door was doing studies by Paul Tripp, a neo or new calvinist who is heavily involved with Biblical Counselling, an active arm of the new calvinist movement (with its foundations largely at Westminster Theological Seminary in USA). After making enquiries I was told (14/05/16) that “Pastor took material on recommendation of another church pastor” and “Pastor is trying to repair damage in Sunday School by going over the material again but no admission of why as yet.” I then questioned why a pastor would want to go over this material again; why not just throw this heretical material in the bin where it belongs? However, I backed off at this point in time, willing to give maybe some benefit of doubt. But, earlier this year I noticed that Open Door now had Biblical Counselling advertised on their website. If the counsellor is affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia, then he or she would probably have done their training through CCEF (closely affiliated with Westminster Seminary USA), or one of the Presbyterian theological colleges in Australia, or through a person allegedly qualified to train such counsellors (such as the current calvinist pastor at GraceWest might indeed be, having allegedly done Master of Arts studies in Biblical Counselling through The Masters College in Los Angeles). All these options have calvinist or reform doctrines. Therefore, if the counsellor at Open Door is registered with Biblical Counselling Australia, then he has probably studied new calvinist doctrine such as that which Paul Tripp adheres to. Of course, there might be an alternative, even innocent, explanation for all of this, but if the Biblical Counselling is registered with Biblical Counselling Australia, then it could look like the alleged Tripp studies in 2016 might be connected here.
So, how many churches in our area are untainted by happy-clappy dancing, and/or unbelievably loud rock music, or the calvinist threat to many of our biblical fundamentalist churches? The answer is that very few even moderately acceptable churches now remain within out local area (encompassing a population of maybe ½ million). No wonder home churches are popping up all around the world, in an effort to escape the doctrinal pollution being taught by so many churches today, claiming to be Christian, while preaching another gospel. And even if your church claims to be non-calvinist, does it have Biblical Counselling available? If so, then it is likely to be affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia which is a very active tool for the spread of new calvinism. Even biblical churches can be deceived by the insidious heresy of calvinism, accepting it at face value. If only they had tested (proved) all things according to the scriptural admonition!
So now I run a small home church, and I constantly research what appears to be the biggest danger facing our fundamentalist biblical churches in our part of the world today (other than loud rock music). Calvinism has the appearance of being ultra-Christian on the surface and many good Christian people including church leaders are being hoodwinked by its devious claims of sola scriptura (the Bible alone), when they actually rely more upon calvinist authors for doctrine than they do the Bible. I believe God has let me see the danger of this heresy labelled calvinism, reform belief etc. This website is now my means of warning those Christians who genuinely seek the truth of the Bible, warning them of the danger of accepting at face value the teachings of any person just because they say they are biblical (and use biblical-sounding terminology). This is clearly happening to churches around the world. And the worst thing about it all is that most people who are deceived never actually see what is happening to them until it is too late. So often calvinists enter your church by stealth, pretending to be good biblical Christians, only revealing their real agenda after they have built a good support base in that church. They pretend to be ultra-fundamentalist biblical Christians, they use all the right terminology, yet most of their doctrine is not Bible-based, but instead defined by Calvin and other writers. Once they have revealed their calvinist standing, they quote their calvinist authors and teachers as if they are infallible, and when anyone disputes their views, they fall back upon the teachings of such as MacArthur who is far from being scripturally correct.
They will often come into the Bible-believing church, appearing as mature Christians who are willing and able to take up leadership roles in the church, such as deacon, elder, study-group leader, prayer-group leader, or even pastor. They avoid declaring their support for the more extreme doctrines of calvinism, preferring to appear moderate in their beliefs. They often seek out immature Christians, offering to mentor them toward a higher view of God’s sovereignty, a more biblical view of doctrines, in fact, offering to lead young Christians to be better Christians. All this is attractive to those young Christians who genuinely desire to be better Christians, to be better used in service for God. Calvinism appears to offer all this, yet deceives instead. I have personally witnessed such a change in one of the local Christians who probably desired to be a better Christian yet is now brainwashed with all the doctrines of MacArthur. And the worst thing is that he just cannot see that his calvinist beliefs do not make biblical sense at all.
Calvinists do not make many converts through their calvinist teachings. Their doctrines don’t make Christians; instead they make good puritans (who are not necessarily Christian, just doers of pure or good works). Most calvinists who are also genuine Christians became Christians before they were converted to calvinism. If you belong to a Bible-believing fundamentalist non-calvinist church, watch, be vigilant, for this attack is being carried out on churches like yours in many places already.
So why did I start this website? Part 2
So why did I start this website? Part 3
So why did I start this website? Part 4
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.
Calvinists declare their God to be a liar!
The God of the Bible gave man free will when He created him, and gave him dominion over the earth with the command to subdue it. Then how can calvinists say that their God created man with dominion over the earth, commanding man to subdue it, yet declare that their God never gave man the free will to enable him to do so? This deception makes the calvinist God a liar!
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” So commences the Biblical record of creation. On the sixth day God created man, an event that went far beyond any other act of creation, for man was created in the image of God. This is a stupendous statement that focuses upon man as something quite different from anything else that God created. For, to be created in the image of God meant that in man we could be able to see something of the nature of God Himself.
Of course, when Adam sinned, this image of God was broken down, corrupted and subverted by satan who took over the rule of earth on man’s behalf. Man, by sinning, had obeyed satan rather than God, and now satan had somehow taken charge of mankind. Man was now sold out to satan, and it was to take the sacrificial death of Christ – God as the perfect man – to buy back – redeem – man from the power of satan. God’s special creation in His own image had been alienated from God by one single act of rebellion from man who was made in God’s image. Of course, God knew (by His perfect knowledge of the future – “foreknowledge”) that Adam would sin, despite being created the perfect man in God’s image. Therefore, before Adam was created, the plan of redemption was already in place to buy back (redeem) man from the bondage of satan.
But man was indeed created perfect, in the image of God, in fact. As part of man’s special place in God’s creation, he was given dominion (rulership) over the earth and its animal-life. And, not only was man given the rule over the earth, but he was also to subdue it, something that would require the taking of control of the earth, by force if necessary, for this is what that word “subdue” involves.
Genesis 1:26 – And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:28 – And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
have dominion – to have dominion; rule; subjugate. That is, Adam (as the first man) was to be ruler over all creatures, plant life and the earth in general, and through Adam, all mankind (“and let them have dominion”) were to be rulers.
let them have dominion – and let them be rulers over. This in itself is a statement of free will, for how may anyone govern without the freedom to make decisions for that which he then is to take responsibility? Is it even possible to rule over something yet have no freedom of will to make decisions? We have a word for a ruler who can’t make free will decisions concerning his rule: we call him a puppet ruler; puppet king; puppet government etc.
subdue – kabash (to bring into bondage; make subservient; subdue; force; violate; dominate; tread down)
If one is to subdue anything, it requires the ability to consider the options. “subdue” has to firstly assume that an opposing force or will is being applied. “subdue” also has to assume that this opposing force or will is not under your control and that it is required (by you, of course) to be under your control. The word involves bringing something or someone under bondage, by force if necessary. You do not need to subdue that which is already under your control. You subdue in order to bring something under your control. Control involves the ability to manipulate that which is controlled, like a puppet is controlled by its strings. Control therefore means having the strings to pull on whatever you are controlling. The puppet dances to the tune of the puppeteer. Likewise, all creation on earth was to dance to the tune of man the puppeteer. And, a puppeteer is the will of the puppet! What a ridiculous idea to consider that man, the puppeteer, is likewise manipulated by strings attached to him by God, that man himself is both puppeteer and the puppet of God!
And God said (Vs 26 & Vs 28 above) – That word “said” is ‘amar (to say; to answer; to say in one’s heart; to think; to command; to promise; to intend). The term “emir” (ruler; leader; commander) appears to be a related word derived from the same root word as ‘amar.
An emir, sometimes transliterated amir, amier, or ameer, is an aristocratic or noble and military title of high office used in a variety of places in the Arab countries. (Wikipedia).
Here in Genesis, ‘amar demonstrates that God, as sovereign of all, said it as an order that could not be disobeyed. The speaking of the order is the same as the action being carried out.
God said to man: subdue the earth! That is, God commanded it with every expectation that it would be carried out without question. This is an order that cannot be countermanded. Man is ordered to subdue the earth, and therefore man is to be given the authority to do so. You don’t order a puppet to do anything; you just make it do it and it will do it. There can be no suggestion at all that the puppet could ever oppose the will of the puppeteer. The order itself clearly demonstrates that man is not a puppet, that he does have a choice to obey or not to obey.
In the same way, God said “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) If man is merely a puppet, then God would have to pull the strings that prevent man from eating of that tree (or else He lied). Anything that is a puppet cannot oppose the puppeteer. But man opposed God and ate of that forbidden tree. It is ridiculous to assume that God in some way made man sin, because that also assumes that God pulled the “sin” string on man to make man sin. God is not a puppeteer who just pulls the strings and man moves accordingly. And a puppet itself can never be blamed for any of the alleged “crimes’ it commits, for, like Punch and Judy, the puppet just does what it is manipulated to do. Likewise, man, if merely a puppet, can only do that which he is manipulated to do, without any option of his own will being imposed, ever. (A puppet has no will at all.)
Just as Calvin said: If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment. (Institutes, Bk 3, Ch 23, Section 6) That is, God has no need for foreknowledge (= prescience) because He has already decreed everything that is to happen. All events for all time take place by God’s sovereign decree. Thus the calvinist God is the puppet-master, and man is the puppet!
A puppet may have no life and will of its own, unless God should give it life, and order it to have dominion over the earth, and to subdue the earth (by force if necessary). And, therefore, man has to have the freedom of will to make his own decisions, even if they oppose God’s will, for unless he can have the option of opposing God’s will, then man is merely a puppet in the hands of God.
Of course, if God is to remain absolutely sovereign, then ultimately His will cannot be denied. If He should permit man to have free will, then He must also demand a full accounting of man as to every free will decision man has made. And God does indeed demand that.
2 Corinthians 5:10 – For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
Calvinists do make such a song and dance about man having no free will (although some in an effort to placate those who know their Bibles well, will say that man has free will but not unto salvation, which is pointless, for unless a man has free will in salvation, there is no point in having free will otherwise!). But, if man has been given dominion over the earth, and is commanded by God to subdue the earth, then either man has free will to do so, or else he is a puppet who cannot be responsible for any of his decisions, for the puppeteer makes all decisions for him. And a puppet cannot be truthfully accused of disobeying his puppet-master (and therefore cannot be justly punished for such). And, if God is truth (like His word), then God will not unjustly accuse man of crimes that He, God, has made man do. For if God were to make man sin against Him, and then called such sin an abomination against His holy nature, then such a God himself is to be accused of the sin against himself! Either man sins by his own free will or God must be punished for the sin He makes man do.
However, the God of the Bible who created man did not demand to be puppet-master of man. He gave man some measure of free will to decide for himself, and to take responsibility for every one of his free will decisions. In this way, man has freedom of will to rule, yet God remains totally sovereign in requiring a complete accounting for all man’s free will choices. Man is held responsible for his decisions, and God justly and righteously punishes man for the wrong choices he (man) has made. (Even to the extent of sending His own Son to die in order that he might buy back mankind after mankind sold himself to satan.) God is sovereign.
Tozer wrote wisely when he said: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. (Knowledge of the Holy, Tozer, P 76)
If man has free will to determine his eternal destiny, then God will honour all free will decisions by man: obedience to life, and rebellion to death.
Deuteronomy 30:15; 19 – See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; …..
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:
If man is created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth and told to subdue it, then man can only do this with free will decision-making. If the calvinist God cannot permit man to have free will to choose between good and evil, then either man cannot be permitted to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it, or the calvinist God is deceiving man, promising dominion with one hand and taking it away with the other.
Any who believe that I have not stated Scriptural truth are welcome to challenge anything I have said, using the Bible alone as their authority (sola scriptura). Please attempt to keep your arguments consistent with all Biblical truth, and please do not resort to childish name-calling. Silence, name-calling, and derogatory statements are always taken to mean an inability to properly refute my statements. I present my views on Biblical grounds, both clearly and openly, but not one calvinist has yet been able to present his views likewise.
For example, when I stated to one calvinist that God chose His elect according to His foreknowledge based on 1 Peter 1:2 (Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father), he wrote back saying that this foreknowledge could not be defined as God’s perfect knowledge of the future, and that if I could present just one verse that clearly said that God chose His elect according to His perfect knowledge of the future, then he’d back down completely. You just can’t get through to some people!
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.