Exposing The Truth

Hoppers Crossing Christian Church is a small home based church in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne. Over the past two to three years since inception, we have become concerned about the state of the Christian Church in western society and have therefore embarked on a mission to spread the truth about what we are seeing.

Please visit our blogg and weekly sermon pages to view some hard hitting truth about what Christianity is and what the Bible says about living as a Christian.

100% Bible Based Teaching

100% Bible Based Teaching

Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God

Latest Sermons

Latest Blog

The Westminster Confession – A scholarly critique

The Westminster Confession – a scholarly critique

After some serious study of that belief statement much beloved and much quoted of calvinists – the Westminster Confession – I have concluded that it is quite contradictory and encourages confused thinking. This is to be expected, seeing as it is based upon those likewise contradictory and confused teachings of Calvin.

Calvinism teaches that sin and evil are perfect and therefore good.

In “Calvinism is madness itself”, I pointed out that calvinists are forced by their doctrines to believe that all things in this world must be perfect, including sin and evil.

Yet sin can only be by the free will of man

Calvinism teaches that man has no free will to choose to sin. Spurgeon (that preacher much-loved-and-quoted by calvinists) said: “It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.” (“Free will – a slave”) Yet, Spurgeon was unable to provide any scriptural evidence to support this.

Free-will proves calvinism to be a lie.

Calvinism stands or falls on whether or not such free will exists. In particular, calvinists strongly oppose any freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey God. They teach that God created a class of people who could never seek after God and could never be saved.

Man sins by his free will alone.

The issue of who created sin is a much-argued subject, even between calvinists. The Bible teaches that man chooses to sin (to disobey God’s will) of his own free will. This alone is biblical; any option that takes man’s free will from him when sinning is to make God a sinner against His own will. God cannot sin against His own will; he cannot disobey Himself, nor will He cause or incite someone to sin against His will. He doesn’t even permit sin – He can only permit the free will of others to choose to sin in disobedience to His will.

The Westminster Confession teaches that God cannot be responsible for sin.

The Westminster Confession says: “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Ch.5 Part 4) This on its own is biblical.
It also says that “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6) That is, disobeying God’s will (as enshrined in His law) is sin. This, too, is biblical.

The Westminster Confession also teaches that God ordered sin for his own glory.

But this document also says “Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.” (Ch.6 Part 1)
That is, God has not only permitted them to sin, but has ordered it for his glory. Note that Calvin clearly stated thatGod is the author of all evils.

The calvinist God orders sin for his glory while also condemning it?

How can God “purpose to order” sin “for his glory” if he is not “the author or approver of sin”?

God cannot ordain, decree, nor even permit sin.

God cannot ordain or decree sin, ever. It would be the equivalent of decreeing that He disobey Himself. Nor can God even permit man to sin, for permission itself assumes approval of such action. Thus permitting man to sin would require God to approve of disobedience against Himself. Holy God cannot do this. In Genesis 2:16 God gave Adam permission to eat of all the trees in the garden, but denied him that same permission to eat of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17).

Sin is an act of disobeying God’s will.

Sin is defined as man disobeying God’s will. God is holy and cannot have anything to do with sin. Even the Westminster Confession admits this much: “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6)
Because God neither orders nor approves of sin (Ch.5 Part 4), it was impossible for Him to make Adam sin, or even to influence him in any way to cause him to sin. When Adam sinned, he was committing an act of disobedience by his will alone against God’s will. God told him to not eat the forbidden fruit; this was God’s law to Adam. Therefore, to eat of it was disobedience against God’s law and therefore sin. It could only be an act of Adam’s free will to choose to sin against God.

Everything God does must oppose sin.

It could never have been God’s will in any way that Adam should sin because then God would be inciting sin against Himself, and holy God cannot do that, ever. Adam’s sin was opposed to God’s will, and therefore an independent act of a will other than God’s holy will. God will at all times oppose disobedience against Himself. Everything God does must oppose sin (which is disobedience against Himself) or else He is no longer holy.

God did not create Adam with a sin nature.

Some calvinists, recognising that Adam has to have chosen to sin by his own free will, then say that it was Adam’s nature that caused him to sin. But this would require God to have created Adam with a sin nature that had to sin of necessity. And that would also require God to incite disobedience against Himself, thereby committing sin against His own will.

The calvinist “free-agency” makes man do only that which God has decreed that he do.

Others say that while Adam had no free will, he had a free agency to sin. But free agency merely says that while Adam was free to choose, he could only choose that option which God had already provided for him to choose, and no other. Effectively free agency is no freedom at all; free agency would still require God to provide the sinful option that Adam would be required to choose. And that would still make God a sinner against Himself.

The Westminster Confession says that man has liberty to choose between good and evil.

The Westminster Confession says: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” (Ch.9 Part 1)

The Westminster Confession also says that God foreordained all things that will ever happen.

It also says: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (Ch.3 Part 1)

Therefore it teaches that man has free will to choose, yet only what God has foreordained that he choose.

Literally, therefore, God has given man free will to choose between good or evil, yet God has also ordained all things that will happen, including all good and evil. Thus, God has given man free will to choose whatever God has already ordained that he should choose. This is the classic definition of the calvinist “free agency”.

Salvation is a free gift offered to all mankind.

God has offered a free gift of salvation and eternal life to all mankind. To reject such a gift would be to disobey God whose will is that all mankind be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Calvinists say that man does not have the free will to make such a choice; that God has ordained from the beginning who will obey and who will not obey God’s will here. Those who do not obey will be sent to hell for eternity for their disobedience against God’s will. However, according to calvinism, their disobedience can only be the consequence of not being ordained to obey.

Calvinism makes God complicit in man’s sin.

This makes the calvinist God at the very least a co-sinner alongside those whom he will send to hell for their ordained disobedience. And, at worst, the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe! The true God cannot make anyone sin, nor will He ever set up circumstances that inevitably send people to hell without any option of being able to obey Him.

The Westminster Confession teaches that God has predestinated most of mankind to hell without man having any say at all.

The Westminster Confession says: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” (Ch.3 Part 3) Not only does this teach double predestination, but in Ch.3 Part 5 it states that this was decided “before the foundation of the world”.

The Westminster Confession teaches that the calvinist God randomly selects who will go to heaven.

Ch.3 Part 5 also states that God’s decision regarding predestination was “out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto”, that is, unconditional. It doesn’t matter who you are or how you behave, for every single person has just as much chance of being chosen as anyone else (or else a condition would exist). And, noting Westminster Confession Ch.10 Parts 3 & 4, even Hitler could have been one of the elect. Or Judas (oh, that’s right, according to the Bible, he was one of the elect!). Unconditional election equals random selection.

Therefore in calvinism eternal life or death rests upon a celestial lottery of all mankind.

But if the election is unconditional, then all mankind is in this celestial lottery, and theoretically everyone has an equal chance of being drawn. But no, it does appear that white Caucasians are far more likely to be chosen than any other racial group. Maybe the calvinist God stacked the draw, or rigged it somehow so that those people were favoured? But then it wouldn’t be unconditional! Or, perhaps, unreached nations could actually have the elect among them too, only they do not produce the works and therefore we aren’t counting them, but maybe we should? Note that Tim Keller (a co-founder of the new calvinist Gospel Coalition), believes (along with C S Lewis) that God may have a back door somewhere for such unreached peoples to access heaven. And maybe many of those who claim to be of the elect because of their good works may not actually be saved! ………

The Westminster Confession teaches God’s foreknowledge doesn’t really exist.

Note that God’s foreknowledge is discounted in the Westminster Confession Ch.3 Part 5 (“without any foresight of faith”) as a means of selecting his election. Calvinists hate foreknowledge to mean God’s perfect knowledge of the future because it demands the free will of man to choose salvation which would then be known by God according to His foreknowledge. Genuine foreknowledge demands future decisions to be foreknown!

Even Calvin taught that foreknowledge was irrelevant for God.

…… or to just state that discussion of foreknowledge (or prescience) is futile because God would already foreknow all things by reason of having appointed them from the beginning. (eg Calvin – “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 (irrelevant) to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” – Institutes, Bk 3, Ch.23, Section 6) Yet the Bible says (in 1 Peter 1:2) that our election is by that “irrelevant” foreknowledge!

If God’s foreknowledge is true, then calvinism is heresy.

Therefore, prove foreknowledge to be God’s perfect knowledge of the future and you destroy calvinism’s “no-free-will”. If foreknowledge exists as such, then the free will of man to choose salvation must also exist.

Holy God will never have anything to do with sin.

God is holy, and can have nothing to do with sin at all, ever. All sin therefore is a free-will act against the will of holy God, an act that God condemns. If man has no free will to choose to obey or disobey, then the responsibility falls back upon God who must therefore be effectively making man’s choices for him. Either man has free will to choose to obey or disobey God, or God has made that choice for him. Whoever makes such a choice is responsible for the consequences of that choice. If man makes that choice to disobey, then he deserves God’s condemnation. If that choice were by God’s decree (as calvinism clearly teaches) then God has put himself into the awkward situation of putting himself on trial and being found guilty. God can neither ordain (decree) nor approve (permit) sin.

The Westminster Confession teaches that those without works can still be saved.

Please note that the Westminster Confession has a few more problems. Apparently there are those who live their lives without any outward evidences of salvation because of some alleged incapability who are also among the elect. This obviously would cover those calvinists who turn up to church when required but otherwise have no works to demonstrate their faith!
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Ch.10 Part 3)

And others who show evidences of being called by the ministry of the Word are not actually saved.

Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.” (Ch.10 Part 4)

This rests upon Calvin’s doctrine of a temporary faith.

Of course, Calvin taught the same: that by “an inferior operation of the Spirit” … “by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11) Some who were chosen for hell from the beginning could be made to think they were saved, and would even have the works to demonstrate to others that they were saved, yet would be dropped from God’s grace before they died.

The Westminster Confession is irrational, contradictory and unbiblical.

People can be of the elect even though they have no supporting works, and others can be not of the elect even if they do have supporting works. Sounds like none of them can actually know if they are saved or not until they die and stand before God. In fact, according to the Westminster Confession no-one can really be sure what their God has chosen for them until they stand before him in the judgment. So, which Westminster Confession set of options do you choose? And what if you choose the wrong options? And stand before God one day and be told to depart from Him because you were never one of His!

Matthew 7:22-2322Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.

Calvinists blame the internet for comments that oppose them

Calvinists blame the internet for comments that oppose them

(Excuses, excuses! Always excuses! All because they think they can never be wrong!)

Calvinists blame the internet for much of the opposition they get from biblical Christians. The fact is that calvinists do not want you to think for yourself! They want to tell you what they believe and to stifle all others who might oppose. Calvinism seeks to control people, and those who think for themselves are harder to control.

Calvinists allege that the internet has “contributed to the rise of anti-Calvinism in our church“. (This is certainly true; we who disagree with calvinism have a right to expose their heresies. It’s called “freedom of speech”!) They allege that anti-calvinists have “skewed sources that unfavorably misrepresented” calvinism. (We declare that calvinism uses skewed sources that misrepresent the Bible itself!) They blame “the intrusion of internet hotheads” for the subsequent division. (Yet, if those “hotheads” were calvinists, then they’d be declaring them to be “heroes”!)
Everyone should research as widely and as deeply as they can in order to arrive at their own conclusions without undue pressure from either side. Test all things for yourselves!

There is a growing list of websites today that openly oppose the heresies of calvinism. And many calvinists are quite upset about this. They don’t mind using the internet to ram home their own doctrines; in fact, they are often quite aggressive in their use of internet forums. (Just try opposing their doctrines on most forums and see how quickly the moderator will caution you and then shut you down if you don’t toe the correct doctrinal line!)  But when their opposition uses the internet to expose calvinist heresies, calvinists are very quick to cry, “Foul!” However, it’s just a case of you can’t have your cake and eat it! If they can use the internet, then others can too.

A lot of calvinists blame the availability of the internet itself for the opposition they face from non-calvinists. They say that the internet has fostered an age of “experts”.
They claim that everyone thinks he is an expert on calvinism just by reading someone’s opinion on a website post, and that such opinion is without basis because it is wrong (because they say so!). Of course, if the opinion favours calvinism, then, they claim, it must be true, but, on the other hand, it must be false if it opposes calvinism. That is, the internet can only be true if it agrees with calvinism. Any website that disagrees with calvinism can not be true. This is extremely biased thinking indeed!

So, is there any logical basis for such biased thinking? After all, we do tend to be very biased against such non-Christian cults as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If one side is very clearly biblical, and opposes doctrines that are just as clearly non-biblical, then such bias may be justified. If calvinists could biblically demonstrate clearly that their doctrines were true and that opposing non-calvinist doctrines were false, then fair enough. But can they??

You see, that would require biblically-sourced solutions (sola scriptura) that consistently supported their doctrines, and just as consistently denied the doctrines of non-calvinists. According to calvinist logic, my website consistently tells lies, while those who oppose my teachings must be consistently correct. However, if this were so, then it would be quite simple to demonstrate me wrong by quoting the Bible alone to demonstrate my errors. Any inconsistency between beliefs and the Bible always indicates such beliefs to be false. If the Bible were to consistently teach calvinism while consistently denying non-calvinism, then any inconsistency would expose my lies. But, after many years of challenging calvinists to try to prove my statements to be inconsistent with the Bible, not one calvinist yet has taken up the challenge.

Oh yes, I do get calvinists opposing me. Often they won’t even quote any Bible verses at all, probably considering it beneath their dignity to overstate the “obvious” (obvious to them, anyway!). And when they do quote verses, they rattle off a reference without much (if any) explanation, as if to say that the verse quoted is definitive proof of their doctrinal truth. I sometimes get a whole passage of many verses without any reasoning as to why it is good for calvinism.

For example, they’ll quote John 6:44, stating that it proves the unconditional election. MacArthur uses it to support his doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” But John 6:44 does not say that all who are called must come. Instead it says that all who come must have been called. (If you cannot see the difference, you must be a calvinist!) Think! If all dogs have four legs, that does not mean that everything with four legs must be a dog!

Others use John 6:39that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing” to prove that it is only those who are given unconditionally to Jesus who can be saved. However, when I ask how Jesus lost Judas who had been given to Him (John 17:12), they never answer this.

Again, they sometimes quote John 15:16 to demonstrate that we do not choose God; God chooses us. When I ask if they are aware that Judas was one of those chosen here, they refuse to go any further on that discussion. I also point out that Judas was one of the twelve chosen disciples in spite of him being a devil (John 6:70), and also chosen to be an apostle in spite of him being a traitor (Luke 6:13-16). They never answer this either.

Many other scriptural examples can be presented – just ask me!

In fact, often in my replies to comments, I point out the scriptural inconsistencies with their claims. (Just read the Comments on this website to find out just how many questions I raise about their claimed doctrines, over and over ad infinitum.) Why has not one made any serious effort to defend calvinism by refuting my statements? If they reply (of course they mostly will never reply to my comments) it’s to change the subject, trying to push another heresy which I then refute as well (and which they also refuse to argue with any further).

So, if the calvinists are always right and the non-calvinists always wrong on the internet, why has not one single calvinist ever been able to refute scripturally (sola scriptura) any of my accusations against them? Why do calvinists in general refuse to take me on in serious biblical debate concerning their doctrines? And does this, in fact, prove that they are the ones who are misusing the internet, not the non-calvinists?

To tell the truth, it was the internet that has given calvinists their greatest opportunity to spew forth their heresies. Calvinism has endeavoured to take control of as much media as it can: literature, video, internet etc. In particular, calvinism would like a monopoly on the internet where their views may be put forward without opposition. It declares its views to be the only acceptable ones, yet is unable to present any serious debate against those who refute their heresies. Calvinism does not desire any dialogue at all with those who oppose because many of those who oppose can effectively demonstrate the falsehoods of calvinism. They will steer well clear of those who know their Bibles well! So why should this be so, eh?

Calvinists want to be the only ones talking here. No-one else may join the discussion unless they support calvinist teachings. The internet is good if it supports calvinism and bad if it doesn’t. This is calvinist internet philosophy in a nutshell. Only their doctrines may be taught; all other views must be declared lies.

So, here’s the challenge for calvinists. If you disagree with my internet “opinions”, if you think that my views are misinformed and misleading, if you consider that I am misrepresenting calvinism, then say so. Make sure you use the Bible alone to demonstrate your views, for I will not pay much attention if any to your so-called “experts” such as MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Mohler, Edwards, Boettner, Pink, etc etc, people who make up opinions with little regard for biblical truth.

If you could refute me, you would, but because you cannot refute me, you remain silent. Your silence is deafening; it is your defeat. If my opinion is false, then refute it or admit that you cannot. (Your silence itself admits of your defeat.)

And those of you who are still considering whether or not calvinism is scriptural, ask yourselves: Where is the clear and indisputable demonstration of my “misrepresentation”? If there is none, it is because no such demonstration can be made. I have many documents on my website that demonstrate the heresies of calvinism. Not one has been biblically refuted yet. Calvinists just don’t want to know what I write because they are afraid of losing the debate. (I used to print all reasonable comments, both positive and negative, but now I refuse to reply unless the actual document is referenced, plus the exact wording quoted. Even then, if I have dealt with that issue already on the website, then I may choose to ignore you. I dislike stating the obvious more than once!)

And so I will continue to use the internet to proclaim the lies of calvinism in the hope that as many as possible will read and carefully consider its doctrinal claims, weighing them up against the truth of the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Please do not take anyone’s word for anything either but test all things against the truth of the Bible alone. It is you who has to believe one way or the other. Do not ever let anyone else at all tell you what you must believe. That also includes checking everything I write against the Bible.

It is you who will stand before God as judge one day and answer for what you believe. No-one can stand there for you. No-one else can believe on your behalf. (Ezekiel 18:20) So test all things against the Bible for yourself. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

And calvinists, keep in mind that one day you (yes, even you!) will stand before God as judge to answer for your actions. If you have taught falsely such that others are condemned for eternity, then you will be judged accordingly. (We will all be judged one day; no-one will be excused, even calvinists. (This is what the first half of John 6:37 actually means!)
Matthew 18:6But 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.

If you twist meanings using verbal gymnastics to cause people to be lost, then you will certainly face eternal condemnation.
2 Peter 2:3And through covetousness shall they (false teachers) with feigned (plastos = carefully sculpted) words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

If you don’t like the KJV, then your NIV says: In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
or in the calvinist-preferred ESV: And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
or the Amplified Bible: And in their greed they will exploit you with false arguments and twisted doctrine. Their sentence [of condemnation which God has decreed] from a time long ago is not idle [but is still in force], and their destruction and deepening misery is not asleep [but is on its way].

In fact, whatever version you read will condemn false teachers to eternal condemnation. False teachers, be warned now!


If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.

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

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.

© Copyright - Hopper's Crossing Christian Church