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
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.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.
You can always tell a calvinist, but not much!
Are calvinists so arrogant that they cannot even bear to listen to others properly before they then attempt to shove their lies down our throats? I answered a calvinist with my last post (Reply to a calvinist) but received a reply that demonstrates that he either does not read anything properly or he is incapable of reading anything properly. He did not answer most of my questions, and those he did answer were not actually answered anyway; they were more of the “please can we change the topic” variety.
He also copied out a whole lot of stuff from somewhere else (probably some calvinist self-proclaimed teacher) without any personal notes to explain what points he was really trying to make, other than I was wrong. Can’t he think for himself and produce his own thoughts as supported from the Bible, or does he have to run to his calvinist heroes to get answers every time someone offends his calvinist heresies. I wish more of these calvinists would just say what they think, rather than quoting some calvinist “hero”. Are these calvinists so immature in their Scriptural understanding that they cannot come up with what they actually think for themselves? Do they always have to let others think for them? Of course, that’s probably how they became sucked into the quagmire of calvinism in the first place. They didn’t know enough of the Bible to defend themselves from something that was targeting poor defenseless Christians with insufficient understanding to know that they were being drawn in like gullible fish on hooks of heresy!
When previously putting his case to me his arguments were so vacillating and vague that it was almost impossible to answer them clearly. He kept on putting in personal views that said nothing, yet expected me to be swayed by such. But how can I be swayed by vague and inconsistent rhetoric when I find it difficult to know just what point he is trying to make. I refuse to accept something another says unless I can see some rational and logical way to check it out in the Bible. But if I cannot understand just what the calvinist is trying to get through to me, then I cannot test it against Scripture, and therefore I have to reject it. This is standard behaviour from any Christian who desires to test all things as per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 – Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I like to say something straight forward; I don’t like to beat about the bush in getting to the point. I can’t see how anyone can fail to understand what I am saying, even if they disagree. If they do not understand, they should ask me to clarify it, which I will do, because they have asked me to do so. This is how Christians should treat others who are seeking answers. They must be allowed the means by which they may check what I am saying against the truth of the Bible. They might disagree with what I am saying, but at least I prefer to be logical and rational with my statements. I guess it comes from having a Maths degree; I have to see everything set out in order.
However, with this post, I wish to demonstrate the typical calvinist profile.
1/. Calvinists rarely like to stand on their own two feet. Instead, whenever they are challenged on some point of Biblical doctrine, they’ll run to one or more of their calvinist heroes such as Calvin, Boettner, Hodge, Piper, Sproule, MacArthur, etc. I can’t remember the last time I came across a calvinist person who didn’t use other calvinist references to make his point.
The calvinist has to accept that such men are great teachers and therefore cannot be wrong on matters of Biblical doctrine. They will often act as though these calvinist heroes are even superior to the Bible. (For instance, I have personally never heard any calvinist ever acknowledge that MacArthur could ever be wrong in any way. If I say one thing and MacArthur says something else, then he is always right and therefore I am always wrong.) This behaviour rarely changes. Calvinist teachers are always right when they discuss Scriptural matters with non-calvinists. Therefore, calvinists who trust and quote their calvinist teachers can never be wrong because their teachers are always right.
By the way, we are told to test all things according to the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21). But, calvinists test all things according to their calvinist teachings which apparently override Scriptural truth. A recent email comment said: He (Calvin) merely helps to magnify theology. Now, that sounds like he is claiming Calvin’s writings to be extra-Biblical revelation, like the Book of Mormon is extra-Biblical revelation to the Mormons. So we never knew what the Bible really said until Calvin came along?!!
No Christian ever has a 100% correct doctrine. We are always learning until the day we die, so anyone who can never learn from another is arrogant enough to think that he has passed the stage of having to test all things, because he now knows all things!
2/. Calvinists are often reluctant to give straight-forward answers to straight-forward questions, especially when their straight-forward answers might cause them to be less trusted as a fellow Christian. If a non-calvinist asks direct and specific questions that require an answer, the calvinist will only answer them if he can do so without compromising his already “fully-correct” doctrines. He will often avoid answering direct questions if they might involve some fancy sidestepping of facts, or verbal gymnastics (MacArthur is good at this one) or where the other person appears to have a much better grasp of the Bible than he does. At such times, vague answers are the order of the day.
3/. Calvinists do not like to go face-to-face with those who might trip them up with superior knowledge and understanding, especially when they are on their own. They do prefer to be supported by other calvinists alongside them or backing them when they are dealing with someone who knows the Bible well. They do far prefer to deal with those who are reasonably new Christians, those who might not be as sure of their doctrines as they should. They also prefer Christians who are pliable, those who can be manipulated by the more aggressive tactics of the calvinists.
In fact, the people most likely to be converted to calvinism are generally young or immature Christians with a poor understanding of the major doctrines of the Bible. Such people often do not have the skills to be able to test all things, often never having been taught this necessary skill by their churches. That is, they do not have sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the Bible to be able to readily check those things which the calvinists thrust upon them. They are often confused by calvinist aggression and tend to tentatively and meekly submit to the new beliefs unless they can see certainly that they are wrong. Often new or immature Christians don’t have the experience to determine many heresies because their churches are failing to teach them properly from the Bible. It is hard for such Christians to stand up to a more mature person who appears to be very assured about his Biblical knowledge!
4/. Calvinists rarely (if ever) announce their whole doctrine from the start. If they were to do so, more Christians might be aware of their heresies. But it is more difficult to detect false doctrines when they are progressively taught over a period of time. What they teach always seems to be on the ball; it often takes an alert and experienced Christian to notice the small discrepancies in doctrinal truth. However, a lot of small pieces of false doctrine finally build into a heresy. And, like a bushfire, heresy is always easier to stamp out in its early stages.
By far the most common practice is for the calvinist to firstly establish the lines of agreement. If the non-calvinist tends to agree with the calvinist, then he is likely to think that the calvinist is a good Christian with whom he might fellowship. If the non-calvinist is not a mature Christian, then he may look upon the calvinist as a kind of mentor. He may consider that the calvinist has an understanding that the non-calvinist might desire. The calvinist does not usually state any of the major calvinist teachings at first, but may vaguely appear to state doctrines that sound like they are in line with the Bible. If he appears to know the Bible well, then he may eventually be trusted enough to be able to commence strengthening some of his more questionable doctrines, such as limited atonement – always a hard one to “sell” to non-calvinists at first. Finally, when the calvinist feels he has enough trust of the non-calvinist, he will then lead that person into the esoteric belief system of calvinism – a belief system that only permits you the knowledge according to the level you have reached in their organisation.
Note that people never become calvinists by just reading the Bible. Every calvinist has learned calvinism from another calvinist. It is a belief system propagated by people, not the word of God. The Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) can never teach people to be calvinists!
5/. Calvinism, like many Christian cults, teaches its members by requiring them to learn calvinist interpretations of Biblical doctrine, rather than training them to study the Bible for their own understanding. Far too many churches teach facts. They fail to teach Christians how to seek truth from the Bible, but instead tell them what they should believe from the Bible. The emphasis is upon the leadership determining what the congregation should know, rather than teaching the congregation to seek truth for themselves. And, like many cults, they know a lot about what they believe, but not much about why they believe as they do. It is difficult to explain Biblical truth to such people because their knowledge overrides understanding. Like many cultists, they can only parrot off what their revered calvinist teachers have taught them. When faced with opposition to their beliefs, they will fall back upon what they have learned as their safe ground. Explaining the Bible to them often only strengthens their belief in their learned doctrines. In many ways it is like talking to a Jehovah’s Witness; you just don’t seem to get the Biblical message past their cultist teachings.
Calvinists will often demonstrate an almost unshakeable belief in their doctrines, even when you consider that you have proven them wrong ten times over. So often they just don’t seem to see the truth that is right under their noses. I define this unshakeable level of belief as cult-like in its intensity.
6/. Calvinists cannot put up with competition. They must be the ones who lead the discussions on doctrine. They are never comfortable with listening to others teach doctrines differing to their own. This is especially true if the other person is teaching from the Bible; this labels the other person as someone who may know the Bible and therefore someone to avoid if possible, unless the calvinist is doing the talking! As new calvinist Al Mohler said: 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 (https://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/)
Clearly Mohler doesn’t appreciate competition. Either you are with him (as a new calvinist) or you are not a proper Christian! This is a common attitude with calvinists today.
Calvinists will often demonstrate an air of superiority because of this “better” view of Christianity. They believe their God is more sovereign, more gracious, more this, more that. You just don’t know you’re living unless you’re a calvinist!! I fail to understand, however, just how the calvinist God can be more sovereign, more gracious, than the God of the Bible! If a calvinist says that he has a higher view of God’s sovereignty, just ask him if he is worshipping the God of the Bible! Those poor non-calvinist Christians are so often the lesser beings in a church which favours calvinism!
7/. If a calvinist cannot win a debate with you (usually because you know the Bible too well and can’t be shaken), then name-calling often becomes the order of the day. The non-calvinist becomes a “problem”, or he is “non-spiritual”, or “Arminian” or “Pelagian” (either semi or full), or he is “misrepresenting the calvinist” (which is unlikely if he quotes their actual statements), or he is “misled by his views on the free-will of man”, or he is “non-elect”, or he is a “universalist”. Now, that last one is one that MacArthur levels at non-calvinists (who believe that Jesus died for all the sins of all the world without exception, which is actually what the Bible says – see 1 John 2:2). MacArthur says that all those whose sins were paid for on the cross will go to heaven; so, if you aren’t going to heaven, your sins were not paid for! As A W Pink (a calvinist “teacher”) said: Not one for whom He died can possibly miss heaven. Note that if you don’t make heaven, then Pink is saying that Jesus didn’t die for you. But, if Jesus died for all people, and if all for whom Jesus died go to heaven (as per MacArthur), then MacArthur is really teaching universalism!
8/. Calvinists see non-calvinist churches as their mission field. Calvinism does not have a viable gospel of salvation; they teach that you must be made alive (born again) by the Holy Spirit before you may hear the gospel, believe in Jesus and be saved. They cannot preach the gospel (unless you have already been born again) because it would be telling lies to most of the world (for whom the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for on the cross). They believe that you must first be drawn by God into the body of the church and made alive (regenerated or born again) before you may be considered one of the elect, and only the elect will be permitted by the calvinist God to respond to the gospel. Note that they may only hear and respond to the gospel after they have been firstly regenerated (born again).
Thus, those who are already attending churches are seen as the elect of God. Therefore non-calvinist churches are filled with likely recipients of the calvinist gospel. In particular, if you are a fundamentalist evangelical church, you may one day be targeted for takeover by a calvinist church group in your area. They may infiltrate your small study and prayer groups, even giving the impression that they are like-minded fundamentalists like you. However, if you are not careful, they may be able to “convert” some of your more impressionable members, making it more difficult to withstand their onslaught on the whole church when it comes. They may initiate debates or discussions on issues related to calvinism without showing where they stand; such discussions may serve to introduce calvinism without appearing to threaten the non-calvinist members.
9/. Calvinists like a church that permits strong leadership, as long as they are that leadership! A W Pink, a calvinist author, teaches that the silence of the people as they marched around the walls of Jericho proved that the common or lay person was to keep quiet and leave all the teaching to the leaders. The forbidding of “the people” to open their mouths signified that the rank and file of Christians are to have no part in the oral proclamation of the truth―they are neither qualified for nor called to the ministration of the Word. (P 10, Studies in the Scriptures, A W Pink)
Calvinist churches like to declare their teachers as teaching elders, while the common workhorse servants (non-teaching leaders) of the church are often the deacons. If your church has deacons and the pastor wants elders to be appointed as well, ask if they are the teaching elders as opposed to the non-teaching deacons. This may be a sign of calvinism sneaking in the back door.
10/. New calvinism (a particularly aggressive form of calvinism today) is building a strong power base in many fundamentalist evangelical churches, such as among the Southern Baptists of USA (although this infiltration is a largely world-wide phenomenon now). They seek to take control of the Bible colleges and seminaries (have already done so in many places) such that the new generation of pastors and church leaders is sympathetic to calvinist teachings. Bible college students are quite susceptible to pressure being brought to bear by aggressive calvinist Bible teachers. With new calvinism has also come the Biblical Counselling movement; both new calvinism and Biblical Counselling were largely developed alongside each other at Westminster Theological Seminary in USA. Biblical counselling is used by many churches as a means of control of their members. Beware of signing a membership agreement that includes a discipline clause. Many churches already have such clauses and those who sign them may find that the church can and will dictate to them how they should live in order to remain acceptable to God. Biblical counsellors usually work in with the church leadership, advising them of potential threats to the stability of the church. Church members may be publicly named and shamed in church services if the church finds them guilty of sin (as the church defines it).
Conclusion
Be very careful and alert in your church. Your freedom to worship Biblically might be under fire from people whom you might trust, yet shouldn’t. Test all things your church teaches you; do not accept any doctrine unless you can understand it for yourself from the Bible. Watch for those who might be using small church study or prayer groups to reach out to individuals or small groups. Remember, vigilance is the cost of your freedom to worship. Calvinism is an insidious evil that should not be permitted into your church group. Calvinists are like wolves who, if admitted to your sheep fold, will rapidly spread their heresies, soon taking over the sheep-fold if not stopped in their tracks.
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.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.