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
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.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.
It is interesting (at least to me it is) to note that I have received not one challenge to my many criticisms of calvinist doctrines, especially noting the extreme teachings of new calvinism. I have accused calvinism of being a false gospel (The False Calvinist Gospel; The False Calvinist Gospel blog), of containing lies (The Big Lie of the Calvinists – Limited Atonement) of being a counterfeit Christian cult (Calvinism is a Counterfeit Christian Cult) and of having serious limitations in Biblical interpretation (Calvinism and Biblical Interpretation).
I have accused the calvinist God of creating the vast majority of mankind for the single purpose of creating most of mankind evil, then condemning them to hell for their sin which they were created to do (The Calvinist God created most of Mankind for torment in Hell), and that in spite of the calvinists claiming that their God is more sovereign (than what??), their God will only take responsibility for the small number he chooses for heaven (Calvinists deny God His Full Sovereignty).
I have demonstrated that the calvinist God ordained that mankind (through Adam) would sin, yet condemned mankind for that sin which the calvinist God ordered him to commit. In fact, I have shown that calvinists even teach that God decreed sin (Calvin, White), ordained sin (MacArthur, Piper), willed sin (Pink), authored sin (Cheung), ordered sin (Westminster Confession), and that in no way could man ever have made the decision himself that sin should enter this world (The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 2).
And as if this isn’t already more than enough to demonstrate extreme heresy, I have shown that the calvinist God randomly selects a group of people to go to heaven, that it is the luck of this heavenly lotto that permits a small group of mankind to go to heaven, and that the calvinist Jesus didn’t bother dying for even one of the sins of any of the others who didn’t win a prize in the heavenly lotto. I have shown that the calvinist God (according to such as MacArthur) only uses foreknowledge to demonstrate love to the ones he has chosen, and thus the calvinist God’s foreknowledge cannot apply to most of the world – he either doesn’t want to know about them, or even cannot know anything about them by using foreknowledge! (The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 1)
All of these comments so far clearly show that most calvinist beliefs are oxymoronic in that they teach one thing and mean something totally different! For instance, the calvinist God created sin and then blamed Adam for it. The calvinist God also taught that we are saved by the gospel of salvation through Christ, yet requires that we have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we can believe in Jesus Christ! (The Oxymorons of Calvinist Doctrine)
A further oxymoron is that calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet cannot effectively preach the Biblical gospel to the lost until after they have been born again (they prefer the term “regenerated”). (Calvinism is the non-gospel; Calvinists born again before they are saved)
The calvinist God only loves his chosen ones with agape love, not those who are going to hell, yet commands Christians to love their enemies! It seems that Christians can be more loving than the calvinist God! And in spite of Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), the calvinists teach that the whole world actually means only the Christians in the world! (The Big Lie of the Calvinists).
Over and over I have demonstrated, in many documents on our website, that calvinism makes so many claims that just cannot be supported from the Bible; that, in fact, calvinism cannot be considered a Christian belief. Many calvinist “teachers” attempt to teach heresies as truth, while twisting facts and using verbal gymnastics to side-step any obvious issues. For example, MacArthur misuses the Granville Sharp rule (of Greek) to try to make foreknowledge the same as the foreordaining of God (MacArthur is Wrong) and misuses Hebrew Parallelism to teach that when the same word is used twice in a verse, then they have to have different meanings (MacArthur is Wrong – Again!). Like all calvinists, MacArthur teaches that no works can save a person, yet also teaches that the calvinist Jesus died for God’s chosen people because they were special enough; of course, the rest were not chosen for heaven because they were not special enough (MacArthur teaches Works Salvation)! As well as this, MacArthur teaches that if Jesus died for all mankind, then all He could offer would be a “potential” salvation, not an “actual” salvation. He says that a potential salvation is only a half-way salvation, not an actual salvation. Does that mean that a savage tiger, a potential man-eater, is only able to half-kill you, but not actually fully kill you? Is “potential” really any less potent than “actual”? Is a potential bullet from a gun any less deadly because it is not yet actual? (Potential Vs Actual Salvation? What’s the Difference?)
By the way, MacArthur, while condemning freemasonry as evil, incongruously also praises the spiritual harvest of his freemason grand master great grandfather (Is MacArthur a freemason?).
So far, in perhaps 12 months of placing such documents online, not one person has been able to make a reasonable comment on why anything that I have written is not true. Currently this website is attracting a good number of genuine hits every day, yet seemingly not one person has been able to refute any of my statements. People are reading my documents, and apparently are either in agreement with the information, or, at least, have no significant dispute with my comments (judging from the total lack of disagreement!). However, I am certain that some of those reading would call themselves genuine calvinists (or new calvinists) yet not one has considered it reasonable or necessary to actually comment.
I realise that when calvinists are confronted with truths that they cannot refute, they are very likely to just ignore them, giving them the silent treatment! I’ve had this reaction from calvinists a few times already: that when they cannot effectively and truthfully answer what is said, they will turn away from you, and go back to their lies. Like Winston Churchill once said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened.” That is, they will turn away and pretend that it (the truth) never happened in the first place.
But the Bible is truth! If the calvinists stuck to what the Bible said, they wouldn’t be calvinists, though. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their Watchtower Society, the Seventh Day Adventists have their writings of Ellen White, the Mormons have their book of Mormon, and the calvinists have Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Without their extra writings of enlightenment they would probably have to believe in the Bible alone. But they cannot worship their Gods without these extra revelations, and they correspondingly condemn others who don’t believe (as they do) of being somehow not spiritual, or unsaved, or unenlightened, etc.
So, here’s the challenge: can any calvinist actually demonstrate to me, by the use of the Bible alone, and without referring to Calvin or any other of their “learned teachers”, any of my writings that are not Scripturally correct? Remember that the Bible has to be consistent throughout; any inconsistency therefore has to have a lie somewhere. And, if they wish to prove that their interpretation is the only one, they will have to absolutely disprove any alternative teaching that gets in the way of their “truth”! No-one has taken up the challenge yet, probably because it’s not easy to disprove a Biblical truth! But, I’m listening!
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.