Comments 2020 Archived
If you wish to make a comment, make a query, or just to say hello, please follow this link. Comments and contact page. If you disagree with what I’ve written, please tell me clearly where the problem is (preferably by quoting what I’ve said) and reasons (especially biblical) why you disagree. Likewise, if you agree with me, also please let me know clearly what it is that you agree with. Genuine comments are always appreciated, yet so many are simply attacking without any clear indication of what their points really are. I will reply to all genuine comments where possible. Comments and contact page.
Click here to go to index list of Comments.
Click here to go to go directly to the most recent Comment on this page. (Most recent is 35/. 19/12/20 From: Kim; Subject: Calvinism)
Comments will appear here (on this page) once moderated, with replies where considered appropriate. Those of a trivial nature may not be entered. Your email and website details will not be printed. Links within comments may be removed. Private information will not be printed. If you quote Bible verses, please use public domain versions such as the KJV. Please use Bible verses as support for your comments in the same way as many church statements of faith have their doctrines stated with supporting Bible verse references in brackets. For the sake of conciseness of comments, please only directly quote verses when necessary. Say what you think and put reference verses in brackets to support your views.
At times, small insignificant comments have been sent in with advertising seemingly attached to their addresses. I do not print such comments. Only those comments that have direct application to the material on this website will be printed. Please, when making a comment, clearly explain the reason for your comment. If it is something I have written, then please quote me that part (and the document in which it is found) which you wish to draw my attention to. I cannot effectively reply nor help without a suitable reference point to look at.
The 2018 comments have been archived now. They may be accessed at this link. – Comments 2018 Archived
The 2019 comments have been archived now. They may be accessed at this link – Comments 2019 Archived
List of comments on this page.
1/. 30/01/20 From: Robert; Subject: General (Todd Friel)
2/. 9/02/20 From: Aaron; Subject: Hoppers Crossing Christian Church
3/. 12/02/20 From: Kyle; Subject: Does Paul Washer’s ‘shocking’ message contradict reformed theology
4/. 18/02/20 From: Craig; Subject: Election
5/. February 2020 From: Anonymous; Subject: Salvation and the sinners’ prayer
6/. 24/02/20 From: Bill; Subject: John MacArthir and Paul.washer
7/. 25/02/20 From: Bill; Subject: Re: John MacArthir and Paul.washer
8/. 2/03/20 From: Malcolm; Subject: The Truth about the Reformation article
9/. 7/03/20 From: Warren; Subject: Macarthur-works
10/. 11/03/20 From: George; Subject: salvation
11/. 3/04/20 From: Gabriella; Subject: YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT TODD FRIEL
12/. 3/04/20 From: Gabriella; Subject: SUNDAY WORSHIP
13/. 12/04/20 From: Allyson; Subject: Great work!
14/. 15/04/20 From: Steven; Subject: Calvinism vs. Arminianism
15/. 17/04/20 From: Kyle; Subject: Limited Atonement not in the Bible
16/. 18/04/20 From: Nathan; Subject: Your article on Todd Friel’s “Ten Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart”
17/. 18/04/20 From: Nathan; Subject: An answer to Question 46
18/. 22/04/20 From: Doug; Subject: Hoppers Crossing Christian Church “Your identity”
19/. 29/04/20 From: Jon; Subject: Armenians
20/. 4/05/20 From: tim; Subject: calvinism
21/. 4/05/20 From: tim; Subject: a response
22/. 22/04/20 From: Doug; Subject: Free will of man
23/. 15/05/20 From: Nathan; Subject: A response to a response.
24/. 12/06/20 From: Charles; Subject: Calvinism Vs Arminianism
25/. 1/07/20 From: This website; Subject: MacArthur’s anti-Christian heresies
26/. 3/07/20 From: This website; Subject: Limited atonement explained
27/. 5/07/20 From: This website; Subject: Demonstrating Todd Friel’s non-biblical teaching
28/. 30/07/20 From: Kyle; Subject: Isaiah 63:17 and Acts 13:48
29/. 21/08/20 From: Lee; Subject: Heresy?
30/. 23/08/20 From: Sevi; Subject: Response to This essay
31/. 2/10/20 From: Craig; Subject: Rapture
32/. 4/10/20 From: Neal; Subject: Faith
33/. 20/11/20 From: Colin; Subject: Calvinism
34/. 30/11/20 From: Lawrence; Subject: Romans 9 Calvinist?
35/. 19/12/20 From: Kim; Subject: Calvinism
For the past few months my friend and I have been looking a lot into Calvinism and all the false teaching. My daughter has faithfully been listening to MacArthur for several months and she thinks he’s the best preacher of our time. She cites his quotes all the time. She is deep into his false teaching. I really believe the Holy Spirit has revealed this to us and we have been studying. I honestly cannot believe how this has spread all over. I recently watched Robert Congdon about the impact of Calvinism. I feel like I’m not fully equipped yet to hit this head on. I have gathered a lot of information and I have been study scriptures. I just want my daughter to open her eyes but I do not want to argue. Any ideas recommended on how to approve. Thank you. I have been in prayer.
1/. It’s not just MacArthur; calvinism itself is false teaching.
2/. An example of MacArthur’s blasphemy: “God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.” (The Doctrine of Actual Atonement Part 1)
3/. An example of MacArthur’s confused logic: “Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood.” (The Sacrifice that Satisfied) So why did Jesus pray of that “mob”: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”? Or, who did He really pray for according to MacArthur?
4/. MacArthur’s besotted followers place his teachings above that of the Bible itself. When I clearly refuted MacArthur’s misuse and deceit concerning the Granville Sharp rule, one of those besotted followers said: “I’m thinking perhaps the rule itself can be interpreted in a way to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across.” That is, twist the Bible enough and it will say what you want it to say. MacArthur is the master of Bible-twisting!
5/. MacArthur is the false Messiah of the cult called MacArthurism. Those ensnared by his cult cannot see anything else outside their leader’s beliefs. They are the blind being led by the blind!
6/. You may have to consider praying against satan and his demons who are the real enemy of your daughter here. MacArthur is merely their faithful and obedient servant.
Return to top.
Subject: Romans 9 Calvinist?
I’m not a Calvinist. In fact I despise the absurd Calvinst corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But t his article is over the top. They are grave and unreflective errors to be sure. But these are not lies. A lie from Satan yes. But Calvinists are not intentionally positing untruth..
1/. Which article are you talking about? I have 2 articles about Romans 9.
2/. You claim that there are errors (plural!) but haven’t been able to name even one! You didn’t actually find any errors, did you? Did you even read the article?
3/. How can something be “not lies” yet also be a “lie from satan”?
4/. You have also admitted that they are “positing untruth”, yet they are “not lies”? What absurdity is this? “Untruth” that is “not lies”??
5/. You declare calvinism to be an “absurd … corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ” with “grave and unreflective errors”. But then you claim that these “errors” are “not lies“. What? Are these errors actually truth? And if true, then how can they be errors?
6/. You say that calvinists teach a corrupt gospel with grave errors that are not lies (except when satan tells them) yet these same calvinists who don’t tell lies posit untruth. Are you seriously expecting me to believe a word you say?
7/. Here’s some good advice. (a) Find this allegedly “over the top” article. (b) Actually read it! (c) Quote offending statements (if any!), verbatim where possible. Make sure you clearly name the article you have allegedly read. (d) Explain succinctly and biblically why these statements are allegedly incorrect. (e) Send this amended comment to me and I will review it accordingly.
8/. Calvinists (and their apologists) rarely respond to my replies, probably because they are unable to do so. Silence is always taken as an admission of inability to respond satisfactorily.
Return to top.
I completely agree with you that the core teaching of Calvinism is not biblical. Its like a spider web that entangles the more you struggle with it. Not until you use the sword (the word of God) can you free yourself from this stuff. That is why it is so hard for those caught up in it to get out of it…there sword is blunted because they read “reformed theology books – blunt sword” to bolster their beliefs…as soon as the word of God is believed on for what it says…Calvinism dies in the face of the truth. Many a time I have heard “We stand on the shoulders of mighty men” – there is the error! These mighty men were also involved in the same errors…it needs to be thrown out and then the bible needs to be read from cover to cover by the individual and then we need to stand on “the shoulders of Jesus” and be instructed by the Holy Spirit on what is true and what is a lie…then we can see it for what it is.
Thank you for your encouraging words.
1/. Calvinists love to claim “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone) yet either use passages they can manipulate to fit calvinism or quote calvinist authors (with obvious bias).
2/. They claim to be aggressively mission-driven but so are the Mormons and JWs. It’s the heresy they preach that is the issue, not how much preaching they do.
3/. Calvinists have had an agenda of taking control of publishing houses and internet forums for some time now. This gives the false impression that most people agree with them. However, just shouting louder and more often than the rest does not qualify them as experts! The Bible is never assessed by popular vote!
4/. A huge problem for calvinists is that they accept conflicting teachings as compatible. There are many different versions of calvinism, many of which are logically incompatible with others. Some say that God created sin, others vehemently deny this. Yet doesn’t biblical integrity stand or fall on God’s holy stance against sin?
5/. If New Calvinism is fundamentally different from Old Calvinism, then the two must be incompatible or else they cannot be fundamentally different! So why differentiate?
6/. Calvinism must believe in limited atonement (“L”) which the Bible clearly denies (1 John 2:1-2). However, any calvinist who believes that Jesus did die for all mankind must also believe that unconditionally electing (“U”) people to either heaven or hell is an illogical act of stupidity, for why would God die for the sins of anyone he had determined to send to hell? And if unconditional election is out, then total inability (“T”) must also be an illogical act of stupidity; imagine dying for people you had created unable to go to heaven! And the irresistibility of the Spirit’s call (“I”) also becomes absolutely irrelevant. Think on this very carefully.
7/. To cap off this idiocy, the calvinist Perseverance of the saints (“P”) can only be assured after you have died (hopefully having stayed the course to the end). After all, the only proof of being one of the elect is if you persevere to the end. No calvinist can be assured of eternal security until he dies!
8/. Most importantly, the Bible is the measure of truth, not the beliefs of any person. It is not what anyone says that counts, but what the Word of God states; that is the truth. “Thy Word is truth!” (John 17:17) You are right when you say we should not “stand on the shoulders of mighty men” with “the same errors” but instead read the Bible for truth. I commend your stand on this. Always check out all teachings against the Scriptures, not man! (Acts 17:11)
Return to top.
i would like to take the time to express my gratification in the work you are doing. You have brought me comfort and grounded me in the belief that i in my heart. I am attending a church in …… that supports new age music that I find unGodly, especially when they sing songs written by Bethel and Hillsong. The BUNT (Baptist Union in Norther Territory) find nothing wrong with the music and don’t agree with my views. I even pointed out that music they reproduce is covered by copyright which means they have to give money to the Bethel Church and to Hillsong Church (in actual fact it is money for Bill Johnson and Brian Houston).
There doesn’t seem to be much of an option for folk in …… to go to Church and not receive true Bible teachings.
I do receive comfort from your website, which is not the same as celebrating the Word of God with fellow believers in Christ.
Thank you for your encouragement. I am glad to have been of assistance.
I have researched Rock music and can confidently state that it is largely based upon witch-doctor drum-beat rhythms sourced from Africa, and that the name Rock and Roll is derived from a term used after WW1 to describe sex. Rock music can be understood as placing a strong or loud beat on traditionally weak beats in a bar of music, thus creating a feeling of uncertainty. People can become strongly addicted to its off-beat, and can suffer deprivation when kept from this beat for any period of time.
I haven’t had much to do with Bethel music but I do know Hillsong is taking over the music in just about all the churches around where I live. And you are right, Hillsong is all about making money, nothing else.
I agree too that a website is not the same as meeting with and fellowshiping with other believers. However, while our website is mainly for education regarding certain false teachings, we also endeavour to provide scriptural teaching on various biblical passages. So thank you once again for your kind words.
Return to top.
There is no pretrib rapture. The Bible in Daniel and Revelation tell us we will be persecuted by the Beast, Antichrist. These are not “Left Behind” saints.
Oh dear, another person who makes wide-sweeping statements without a shred of biblical evidence provided! I would be curious to see how you could prove your claim.
So why don’t you please explain (from the Bible alone – sola scriptura) your objection to the following:
Israel will be blinded until the Gentile Church is fulfilled (Greek pleroma – completed with all on board), after which “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:25-27). Unfortunately you seem to think (like most calvinists) that Israel was dead and buried a long time ago and therefore you think that “Israel” in the end times is really the Church. Wrong!! It is Israel who will face the beast & antichrist in the tribulation, not the Church.
May I recommend that you search the scriptures to see if these things be so. Paul commended those noble Bereans for their diligence in doing so (Acts 17:11).
Please let me know what you think about this. Of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to answer. It seems that all too often calvinists do not wish to get involved in a debate they do not think they can win.
I would suggest, however, that you present clear biblical support for your beliefs. Or, you could read my biblical presentation on The Rapture (also see a Special report on Daniel 9:24-27) and explain where my statements are in error.
Return to top.
Subject: Response to This essay
Thank you. You are absolutely correct here and it is something I have suspected for quite some time. There’s something very superficial and in some cases theatrical, about these preachers like JMacA, and none of them, NONE OF THEM, have the manifest presence and countenance of Christ. They’re more like corporate CEOs. Then there’s the occasional false doctrine they spout and mishandling of prophecy. In recent years I have seen people profess to be earnest in this way and that, act all pius in public etc.., then as soon as the door shuts, they turn into a red-faced hideous demon. When someone like JMacA denies, almost delusionally, the darkness in others, you can be sure he is concurrently denying it in himself. He is definitely “one of them” and just sent out to control the way the church thinks, moves, votes, believes, practices, so that masons can control the church. ……
I was shocked to find out two years ago, that the lovely elder man who led me to Christ back in 1989, was also a freemason. I found out because I asked him directly. Wow, that almost blew me away, he’d talk about Christ with such enthusiasm and joy… oh, but just don’t try to prophesy anything negative to him, like the end being near, he shuts that right down. Ok, thank you again. God bless you and keep you. In Christ our Lord, Amen.
Thank you for your comment. My apologies for not presenting it all as I do not publish political comments. I hope you will understand.
1/. You are right when you state that “There’s something very superficial and in some cases theatrical, about these preachers” So much of their preaching and teaching is scripted beforehand, like a carefully sculpted soap opera. 1 Peter 2:3 talks about “feigned words” which literally translates as “carefully sculpted words”, or speech that is designed to deceive. It is literally “designer-speech”!
2/. You said “masons can control the church”. Yes, especially in certain denominations. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church of Australia where it was common for half or more of the elders to be freemasons as well. (My father was both a freemason and an elder!) Happily I was saved at 19 after which I attended more evangelical and scriptural churches. (Clearly the Presbyterian Church failed to “save” me as they had already considered me one of the elect once I had been christened as a baby.)
3/. Freemasonry is a demonic organisation which, in its higher levels, worships Lucifer (but not satan – many claim that Lucifer is the light-bearer, while satan is on the dark side, a lot like the two sides of Star Wars beliefs). They say that members must worship a higher power, no matter who or what that higher power might be.
4/. MacArthur’s great grandfather (Thomas Fraser Fullerton) was a high-ranking freemason (Provincial Grand Master), and MacArthur credits this freemason ancestor with commencing a spiritual ministry that MacArthur is part of today. (“A Diagnosis of the Soils, Part 1” 22/11/09)
Return to top.
In all kindness it is not heresy that Todd Friel is teaching …he’s teaching the pure Bible so, that means you are teaching heresy since you are challenging GOD’S Word..
Yikes, that’s scary…beware, you are trying to twist things to fit your own agenda ….
Remember Revelation 22:19 “and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
1/. You raise many questions yet fail to answer even one of them! What point are you trying to make and where is your scriptural basis for such? Remember Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone)? Just what have I written about Friel that is not scriptural? What have I twisted to fit my own agenda? And can you demonstrate my “agenda” scripturally? And, where have I challenged God’s word? is it “all kindness” to accuse me of heresy without any scriptural evidence at all?
2/. You quote Revelation 22:19; you could also quote Deuteronomy 4:2. But be brave and tell me: What words have I added or taken away from the Bible??
3/. Does your comment say something about those who listen to Friel?
4/. You have presented no case at all to answer. I rest my case!!
Return to top.
Subject: Isaiah 63:17 and Acts 13:48
Hi Hoppers Crossing Church,
From my previous comments on your site you will know that I do not support Reformed Theology.
But I do come across verses in the Bible that sound very Calvinistic.
Can you please provide some thoughts on Isaiah 63:17 and Acts 13:48
Thank you for your enquiry.
1/. The context of Isaiah 63:17 refers to the rebellion of Israel, and God’s response to wage war against them because of their sin (Isaiah 63:10). It doesn’t mean that God literally forced them to (or decreed that they) err, but instead removed His presence from them causing them to be unable to know the right way to take. They now had to work out what to do for themselves.
The Hebrew term for “made us to err” is ta‘ah which means “caused us to wander”. That is, God’s actions against them are the cause for their wandering from God’s ways. Yes, God caused them err by removing His guidance and grace which they needed to walk according to His will, but this can not equate to forcing them or making them sin against Him.
According to Barnes’ commentary, Calvin said that “when the pious thus speak, they do not intend to make God the author of error or sin, as if they were innocent ….. or to take away their own blameworthiness.”
And according to Gill (calvinist commentary) this was “the truly godly, lamenting and confessing their wandering from the ways, commands, and ordinances of God, the hardness of their hearts; their want of devotion and affection for God; and their neglect of his worship; not blaming him for these things, or complaining of him as having done anything amiss or wrong”
2/. The key to Acts 13:48 is that in Acts 13:45-46, the Jews have rejected that very same eternal life (Acts 13:46) that the Gentiles were then offered. The Jews, as God’s own people, were the ones who were originally appointed to hear the gospel. But they rejected the gospel with blasphemy in Acts 13:45, so Paul turned to the Gentiles who had come specifically for the purpose of hearing the gospel for themselves. And when the Gentiles are given the gospel message, it is no wonder that they all believed, for this is why they had all come in the first place – just read the passage! They had wanted to believe!!
If God had ordained or decreed that the Gentiles should all be saved, then He must also have ordained that one day the Jews would reject that same message. This is frankly ludicrous!! If that were so, then what prevents God from likewise rejecting those calvinists who claim their election based on God’s election of Israel? Could God have also ordained that his unconditionally chosen elect (calvinists) will be rejected one day? Calvin did teach a temporary faith (which he called “an inferior operation of the Spirit“) where God would choose, then reject those he had chosen. (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11) This is blasphemy which makes Calvin a blasphemer!
Please study carefully and let me know if you have a logical and biblical objection to what I’ve written here.
Return to top.
From: This website
Subject: Demonstrating Todd Friel’s non-biblical teaching
And here’s another conversation starter from this website.
Todd Friel says, “There is not a single verse that even hints we should say a prayer inviting Jesus into our hearts.” and “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment.”
Then is not the following in his Bible? “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (Ephesians 3:17)
Sounds like Friel doesn’t know his Bible very well, doesn’t it? Or maybe his Bible leaves out the verses that demonstrate his lies? Or maybe he just lacks understanding in general? What about it??
Return to top.
From: This website
Subject: Limited atonement explained
Read this paragraph: “A woman has 5 children. She tells them all to eat their food. Only one child eats his food; the other four do not eat their food.”
Calvinist interpretation: “The woman makes one child eat his food and makes the other four not eat their food. Because she never intended to feed them all, she only provided food for the one that she made to eat. She didn’t provide any food for the other four because she never intended feeding them in the first place, even though she told them all to eat their food.”
MacArthur says, “God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.”
Thus the woman never intended to feed them all. She is boss. She could have intended to feed them all. She could have fed them all. She would have if that had been her intention. The feeding is limited.
Comments anyone?? Of course, the truth doesn’t really need comments to be true, does it?
Return to top.
From: This website
Subject: MacArthur’s anti-Christian heresies
Here’s a comment from this website. I invite you to comment on what you think of this.
How many people realise the extent of John MacArthur’s anti-Christian heresies? He says, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” We’re not talking about what we could call the general call of the gospel, the general outward invitation of the gospel. We’re talking about something that comes only to the predestined and results in justification. And that is why it is called an efficacious call, or an effectual call.” He also says, “It (the effectual call, not the gospel call) is the call to salvation.” (The Doctrine of God’s Effectual Call)
Do you realise that MacArthur is teaching the inability of the biblical gospel to save here? That only the effectual call of the Holy Spirit (not the gospel call) results in justification? Do you realise that MacArthur teaches that one must be born again with eternal life from the Holy Spirit before he may be justified, and given gifts of faith and repentance in order to come to Christ for eternal life (which he has already before he comes to Christ)? Isn’t it clear that MacArthur denies any effectiveness or relevance for the biblical gospel call?
Any serious (and biblical!) comments?? You must demonstrate clearly why you say what you do. Comments just agreeing or disagreeing without documentary evidence may not be published.
Return to top.
Subject: Calvinism Vs Arminianism
My comment will not be long because we come to the issues with our different theological classes on. So, it is really hard for both of us to see each others understanding fairly. All I want to say as a reformed christian, to me the most important part is to remember that Salvation as a whole comes from God. There is absolutely nothing we can do to be saved. (Saying a prayer is not what saves you, God saves you). Let me say how I have came to my understanding of the calvinist (reformed) understanding. I was 100% in the Arminianism camp till I was about 34. The my wife, girl friend at the time, asked me to listen to a sermon by Matt chandler called the two wills of God. …. and something resonated with my soul. Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:29, Romans 8:28, John 15:16, 2 Peter 3:9 ( there is a different between the word wish and Chose). God can wish everyone to be saved even when he has predestine them to hell (this is just my thought. I see a difference and a co existence that does effect God’s character. Calvinism also puts more emphasis on salvation being about God and not man’s doing. To me that is freeing. It frees me from the struggle of assurance. Knowing God Chose me, Adopted me, Predestine me gives me Hope in my salvation. When I thought my salvation came through a prayer I said. When I walked down the Aisle so that MY life can be change. The emphasis become on us. When you realize that God grace is before you and it is irresistible and you can run from him because He chose you, that is love. When you realized that he adopted you as a son. Wow. Beautiful. I believe human choice comes in when we chose to serve him. When we chose to be about his work. So predestination deals with salvation and I get to choose if I am going to be obedient to serve him. The way Matt chandler says it open my eyes. I encourage you to listen to it with an open mind. Just because you are reformed doesn’t mean you do not have choices to make. It just means the emphasis on salvation is on God and not Man.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your honesty, yet I have many questions regarding your beliefs. I look forward to hearing your biblical answers.
1/. Note that Comments are for what you believe about the Bible, not what another believes for you. However, calvinists so often use other “experts” to tell me what they think. I do not care what Chandler thinks here; it’s you who is making this comment, not Chandler. Does Chandler believe for you or do you think for yourself?
2/. I generally remove all links to other websites. And, I don’t watch videos – it’s better to read and absorb the information. Listening to speakers prevents you from having time to digest some statements before moving on to the next statement. You have to listen and absorb at the rate that they talk!
3/. I am not arminian, never have been. So such comparisons are irrelevant here.
4/. I have no objection to salvation being wholly of God. But God asks us to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) so that’s what we must do. Take up that argument with God, not me.
5/. You quote verses without saying what your point is. Why not? For example, why have you quoted Romans 8:28?
6/. Regarding John 15:16, what exactly is your point? Are you aware that Judas was one of those chosen here by Jesus to bear fruit? And that Jesus called Judas a devil that He had chosen as one of the 12 disciples in John 6:70-71?
7/. No doubt you use the calvinist ESV Bible. The ESV is based on the corrupt 1971 RSV text, and has many mis-translations. In the ESV, “not wishing” (in 2 Peter 3:9) is the Greek word boulomai (= to will deliberately; have a purpose; be minded; to desire). It has the sense of purpose in all its uses. Nowhere can it be translated as “not wishing”, as if God could make wishes! How do you answer this?
8/. In Ephesians 1:4-5, isn’t predestination by God’s foreknowledge (Romans 8:29)?
9/. You said: “I believe human choice comes in when we chose to serve him.” …. “I get to choose if I am going to be obedient to serve him.” You say “if”?? Does that mean that you can choose to not serve God after he has “regenerated” you? A choice must have alternatives or else it is no choice at all! What if you choose to not serve him? Does that mean you were never saved in the first place?
10/. How do you know God chose you? Why does Piper teach (in “When is saving repentance impossible?”) that if you do not persevere to the end, then you were never saved in the first place! Isn’t it true that a calvinist can never be assured of his salvation until he has persevered to the end? What about Calvin’s teaching of a temporary (not real) faith? (Institutes Bk 3; Ch.2; Section 11)
11/. What are you talking about when you say, “I see a difference and a co existence that does effect God’s character.” And is it biblical?
Return to top.
Subject: A response to a response.
On April 22nd you responded to Doug claiming:”It is not my name that matters, nor my qualifications, but instead this website seeks to focus your attention on seeking truth from the Bible for yourself.” I think It’s a good thing for him to question your identity and especially your biblical qualifications. People cannot blindly follow someone who they believe to be unqualified.
Titus 1:5-9 King James Version (KJV) (Passage omitted as per stated policy above on quoting verses. Please note my policy of not printing a lot of Bible verses, instead just noting the passage reference. It is preferred that you state your views in your own words with supporting verse references from the Bible in brackets.)
It is important for you to meet these qualifications. You go on to say: “Neither my name nor my qualifications should be an issue with what you believe, for it is the Bible that is truth!” Sure, the Bible is the truth. Both your name and qualifications could very well be an issue with what I believe.
1/. I have already dealt with this issue in my reply to Doug on 22/04/20. I maintain that my name and qualifications are not the issue; instead we seek to persuade others to seek the truth from the Bible and not from popular “teachers” such as MacArthur or Piper etc.
2/. Why might my name and qualifications be an issue with what you believe? Or rather, how might they be an issue here?
3/. Instead, please focus on the issue of calvinism, whether or not it is heresy, rather than on personal issues which distract.
4/. I write on behalf of Hoppers Crossing Christian Church, and our beliefs are stated on the website. If you need further clarification of those beliefs, then ask! Our beliefs are biblical rather than denominational, although I would consider myself a biblical fundamentalist.
5/. If you consider that my writings are non-biblical, then please bring it to my attention. Please explain in your own words why you think thus, adding Bible verse references for support. These are comments, not sermons.
6/. You said, “People cannot blindly follow someone who they believe to be unqualified.” Nor should they blindly follow church leaders such as MacArthur without testing all things from the Bible, thus showing no discernment whatsoever. MacArthur has swept his great grandfather’s satanic freemasonry under the mat, while instead praising his spiritual harvest. MacArthur says that freemasonry is satanic yet ignores the satanism of his high-ranking freemason great grandfather.
Return to top.
Subject: Free will of man
(This comment was initially identified by our email as spam and was only seen for the first time today. My apologies for this omission.)
Man can only exercise his will in accordance with his nature – in his unregenerate state his will can only be exercised between one sin act or another
To be able to exercise his will towards God his nature his to be changed beforehand / it’s called the regeneration of the Holy Spirit
In the parable of the sower we see several areas where the seed fell with no lasting fruit – where the soil was prepared – free of weeds free of rocks – the sown seed yielded fruit – that soil was prepared by The Holy Spirit – the seed sown – in clean soil – yielded fruit – the Holy Spirit knows who is to be saved and works accordingly. The regenerated man can exercise his freed will
The same applies to the efficacy of Christ’s death – he died only for the elect ( his sheep) otherwise he didn’t secure the salvation of anyone – he didn’t just die to provide the way of salvation but secured the salvation of believers only
Your criticism of Todd Friel and John MacArthur reeks of jealousy
Thank you for your comments. I note your points but believe that they are biased toward calvinist teachings.
I replied to your other comment on 22nd April. You haven’t replied to any of my questions. Does this mean you do not have answers?
1/. Where does the Bible say man “can only exercise his will in accordance with his nature”? And how can man “exercise his will” without any free will to exercise it?
2/. In fact, man chooses by his free will to not exercise his will in obedience to God. Where does the Bible disprove this?
3/. If Jesus only died for His sheep, then did He die for His sheep (Isaiah 53:6) who rejected Him (John 1:11)?
4/. Jesus died to make all mankind saveable (1 John 2:2); otherwise Romans 10:13 would commence with “If the elect” rather than “Whosoever”.
5/. Where does the Bible say that one must be born again (regenerated) before he may have a free will to choose to obey God? That is, he must be born again before he is able to respond to the gospel, receive Christ and be saved?
6/. Jealousy is not necessarily wrong, especially if God can be jealous against those who worship false gods (Exodus 20:5). If Friel and MacArthur are serving false gods, then God is righteously jealous against them, and so may I be also.
7/. In Deuteronomy 30:19, how can God ask His people to choose between obedience and disobedience if they don’t have free will to choose?
8/. Why was Judas one of those chosen to bear fruit (John 15:16)?
9/. Why did Jesus choose Judas even though He knew he was a devil (John 6:70-71)?
10/. Why did Jesus lose Judas (John 17:12) if He couldn’t lose any (John 6:37-40)?
11/. By the way, where does the Bible say the soil was prepared by the Holy Spirit independently of man’s free will? And do you realise that, yes, there is an election, but conditional upon the foreknowledge of God? (1 Peter 2:1; Romans 8:29)
Return to top.
Subject: a response
It is sad that in your response to me (and to others), you choose to use ad hominem comments and arguments. This does no credit to you or your position on calvinism, and is unbecoming of a brother in Christ.
It is indeed sad that you have chosen to focus attention on side-issues instead of sticking to your subject of yesterday’s comment: “calvinism”.
1/. It is typical calvinist behaviour to attempt to devalue my statements by trying to establish some sort of personal fault in me or my writings. Usually this takes the form of personal insults of some kind. Yesterday you accused me of incorrect use of a mathematical term and then tried to suggest (by association) that “being as inaccurate as this suggests that the rest of your material may be just as inaccurate!” (A clear case of an ad hominem argument on your behalf!) Although, it is impossible to see how any alleged misuse of the term “exponentially” could have somehow “proved” my criticism of calvinism to be likewise inaccurate. Of course, as it turned out, you were not able to demonstrate any fault in my use of the term “exponentially”.
2/. After having failed to establish any fault in any of my documents anywhere, you now accuse me of ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is “a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” (Wikipedia) In fact, yesterday you (not I) attempted an ad hominem argument by trying to focus attention on an insignificant side-issue in order to devalue the rest of my writings by association.
3/. A favourite calvinist tactic is to use “ad hominem comments and arguments” because they do not feel sufficiently qualified to oppose those who both know their Bibles well and are not afraid to use them to define the truth.
4/. In both your comments you have made no effort to demonstrate that anything I have written is in any way false! I therefore rest my case!
Return to top.
“Can you refute this (sola scriptura), calvinists? At least try, or is it the impossible question for you?
In Why are calvinists afraid to answer simple straightforward questions? I have asked so many questions with only one response so far (as of 20/04/20). The list just kept on growing exponentially; “
I am currently looking into calvinism – coming from a position where I find the consequences of believing in calvinism (eg doctrine of reprobation) to be seriously scripturally flawed – although there are sill some scriptures which align well with a calvinistic view and which are difficult to explain away – and hence it’s useful to read veiws on this from websites such as yours. However, grace is always needed imo towards those who are of a dfferent opinion. The above quote from your calvinism blog on the home page I’m afraid is not one that is very gracious – it is in fact rather insulting and emotive, and therefore undermines what may be well reasoned arguments. There may be many calvinists who have well reasoned responses – but they just don’t happen to have seen/responded to your site. Also if you’re going to use words, you need to understand what they mean – when you say the list keeps growing exponentially, I’m afraid you clearly don’t understand the meaning of the mathematical term. An exponential increase would eg mean number of questions on sequential days to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 ……… and so on. You might think this is trivial – but being as inaccurate as this suggests that the rest of your material may be just as inaccurate!
1/. Any normal person would have known what I meant by “exponentially”! It sounds more like you are diverting attention from an apparent inability to answer any of my questions about “calvinism“. I could draw your attention to your spelling and grammatical errors but that might be seen as “trivial”. After all, your stated subject is “calvinism”, something you haven’t said much about at all.
2/. However, please note carefully, I did not say the list keeps on growing exponentially. I said the list kept on growing exponentially. To quote you, “if you’re going to use words, you need to understand what they mean”. If you are going to be pedantic about “exponentially”, then at least get your facts straight, and please do not misquote me in your seemingly futile efforts to find fault somewhere! “kept” is a past participle, a completed action in the past. To use your words, “I’m afraid you clearly don’t understand the meaning of the” tense used. My statement was certainly true when I commenced writing these questions. I started off with a few questions and the number of questions that continued to arise as a result of my initial questionings did (past tense!) indeed increase exponentially. At the time of writing those initial questions the rate of increase was accelerating. To quote you, “You might think this is trivial – but being as inaccurate as this suggests that the rest of your material may be just as inaccurate!” Here’s another question: have you read Matthew 7:5 lately?
3/. You said, “there are sill (sic) some scriptures which align well with a calvinistic view and which are difficult to explain away”. So why not tell me which ones you are talking about? Are there really any? Please enlighten me!
4/. If calvinism is a heresy, a doctrine of devils, then my comments about it are well-justified. Some genuine Christians are probably calvinists, yet even Christians can be deceived. Therefore, test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
5/. If there are “calvinists who have well reasoned responses”, then I’d advise them to present those “well reasoned responses”.
6/. Thank you for your comments but please do try to stick to your topic (“calvinism”) rather than trivialities.
Return to top.
You are mistaken about Todd Friel. You believe man decides but the Bible Clearly teaches it is God. I know you know these verses but I still thought that I should write. Acts 13:48, “And as many as HAD been appointed to eternal life believed.” Also, Eph. 1:5, 9, 11. John 1:13, “ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” It is willful ignorance that you say what you say, You take things out of context, the verses about I stand at the door and knock aren’t about salvation, they are about relationship. They were written to believers not unbelievers. It is easy to go to a church and parrot what someone told you, that is not how you find truth, quit following man. God bless and keep you.
My apologies for such a long reply, but there were a lot of issues to deal with in this comment. I acknowledge that the writer no doubt genuinely considers his views to be correct, yet I challenge him to research the Bible for himself without Calvin’s Institutes (or MacArthur/Piper/Sproul/Friel/Comfort/etc) being used to explain things. Sola scriptura! (The Bible alone!)
1/. Why is your subject “Armenians”? Did you realise Amenians are an ethnic group of Armenia in western Asia?
2/. If you meant “Arminian”, then obviously this comment has nothing to do with me. I am not Arminian; I merely claim to be biblical.
3/. Arminius was a less-than-five-point calvinist scholar (of Beza)! Do your research!
4/. A major fault of calvinism is that it strongly tends to teach one verse at a time, ignoring the context. You can teach almost anything you want one verse at a time!
5/. Please do not take verses out of context, for if you checked the context of Acts 13:48, you’d realise that the Jews were offered the same eternal life in Acts 13:46. It is clear that Paul was at first speaking to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. He had been appointed to preach the gospel to the Jews (as God’s chosen people), but the Jews refused (with blaspheming) Paul’s appointment to hear about eternal life. Paul then turned to the Gentiles who were anxiously waiting for the opportunity to have this same gospel of eternal life preached to them. (The word in Acts 13:48 is correctly translated as “appointed”.) What had been appointed to the Jews (which they had rejected) was now appointed to the Gentiles (who had come along that day hoping to hear the gospel that had until then been denied to them). The Jews despised the gospel; the Gentiles on the other hand yearned so much to receive the gospel that when it was given to them, they eagerly grasped that which up until then was out of their reach. Please do your research carefully on this!
6/. It is God’s will that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). But God also requires that we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). God desires man to choose this day whom he will serve, therefore man must cry out for salvation in faith, trusting that the God who promises so great salvation will also choose then to save to the uttermost. And when man calls out to the Lord for salvation, God (by His sovereign will) does honour His promise and saves that man to the uttermost. Man has to make his choice, but it is God who honours His promise by then accepting that man for salvation. Man chooses but God will still have the final word! (Or, “man proposes, God disposes!”) And God has said that He will save all who call upon the name of the Lord to be saved! Please think about this before parroting off any more calvinist platitudes!
7/. You said, “It is easy to go to a church and parrot what someone told you, that is not how you find truth, quit following man.” Yes, very true indeed. The truth is in the Bible, not Calvin’s Institutes! So why don’t you start reading the Bible for yourself instead of parroting the doctrines of that man, Calvin!
8/. Thank you for presenting your views, but do carefully consider what I have written before rejecting it.
Return to top.
Subject: Hoppers Crossing Christian Church “Your identity”
I can’t seem to find your name anywhere – a mobile phone yes but who are you
And what is your education/training/ for your so called discernment ministry
Please note that our identity (as clearly depicted on our website homepage) is “Hoppers Crossing Christian Church”. Our church name is clearly portrayed. And what we believe is quite transparent.
1/. Why is it so important to find my name somewhere? Does not having a recognisable name mean less credibility?
2/. Why is it so important for you to establish my credentials? Of course, calvinists do condemn anyone who hasn’t a qualification approved by them. This is in line with their teaching which is demonstrated by calvinist A W Pink who said of the fall of Jericho: The priests blowing with the trumpets of rams’ horns pictured the servants of God preaching His Word. 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. Nowhere in the Epistles is there a single exhortation for the saints as such to engage in public evangelism, nor even to do “personal work” and seek to be “soul winners.” (STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES July, 1948)
3/. It is not my name that matters, nor my qualifications, but instead this website seeks to focus your attention on seeking truth from the Bible for yourself.
4/. If you have any discussion relating to this website’s content, you are welcome to comment via the correct channels. You are free to agree or disagree according to your views. Neither my name nor my qualifications should be an issue with what you believe, for it is the Bible that is truth! Perhaps you could ask God for His qualifications to speak His truth!
5/. What is your qualification/education/training that appears to make you a judge of those who teach?
Return to top.
Subject: An answer to Question 46
(Note: I do not print any copyrighted Bible versions so have replaced with KJV excerpts . KJV is public domain not subject to any copyright rules. Your first 2 quotes were NIV and the third doesn’t appear to be exactly from any normal translation.)
46/. On the Internet calvinist Bryan Liftin says “But then why evangelize anyone if God’s decree is already fixed? The mistake is thinking that we evangelize in order to save people. That is incorrect. ….. The right reason to evangelize is to be obedient.” That’s right, folks, calvinists don’t preach the gospel in order to save people because their God has already chosen who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell. Evangelising makes no difference at all! Can calvinists please explain why they bother to evangelise the lost when the only ones who can be saved will go to heaven without their preaching?
We do it to be obedient. Liften says it right there. James 1:22 says: “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only ….”
Do you really think that mere man can determine their eternal salvation?
John 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain …”
Proverbs 16:4 “The Lord hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
Thank you for making the effort to defend your beliefs from the Bible. It makes a pleasant surprise from the standard calvinist fare of name-calling and failure to use the Bible when making a point. I appreciate your effort.
However, note the following:
1/. At least Bryan Liftin was honest enough to admit that calvinists do not evangelise in order to save people, for calvinism declares that God has chosen from the beginning and therefore nothing man can do can change the calvinist God’s decision, ever. This is entirely consistent with calvinist doctrine.
2/. James 1:22 does teach us to be obedient in all aspects of our Christian life. However, where does this demonstrate that we only evangelise in order to be obedient? And don’t we choose to be obedient? After all, if we are foreordained to be obedient, isn’t that coercion? Obedience still requires free will to choose to obey! (Or disobey!)
3/. John 15:16 does say that Jesus chose the disciples to bear fruit. Please note that Judas would have been among this group. Jesus also said that He had chosen (as one of the 12 disciples) Judas who was a devil (John 6:70-71). Was Judas therefore one of the elect?
4/. Proverbs 16:4 says that God has made all things for Himself. His creation demonstrates this truth, and that if you do not depart from evil (Proverbs 16:6), then your day of reckoning will come. God has committed evil men to their day of reckoning (evil; calamity; disaster). This doesn’t say anything about evangelism being merely an act of obedience and nothing else. Also see Jeremiah 17:18.
5/. If God’s will is that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), then it is inconsistent to also teach that the same God wills that most of mankind be predestinated to hell without any hope of salvation. How can God have two wills that do not agree with each other?
Return to top.
Subject: Your article on Todd Friel’s “Ten Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart”
So, You make the arguement that when Todd Friel says “Now here is the scary one. People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the day of judgement.” He is talking about ANYONE who prays the sinners prayer will perish. Here is what you said to Robert in the comment page on the 30th of January: “You claim you prayed some non-genuine sinners’ prayers before praying an effective sinners’ prayer from the heart. Friel would still declare that you “will perish on the Day of Judgment” because good calvinists do not pray the sinners’ prayer. You do not choose your God; he chooses you! Remember?” Friel is making an irrational and massive generalization. I am willing to admit that. However, he does make a point. He is saying that most people that pray the sinner’s prayer (Or claim to be Christians at all) fall away from the faith. Jesus says in Matthew 13:3-6 (NIV quote removed here for copyright reasons) … Friel is talking about the seed on rocky soil. He makes the point that praying the sinner’s prayer promises Health and Wealth (If you have been evangelized, promised that Jesus will make you happy, and you will never experience hardship) With modern evangelism, people preach that false gospel. That false gospel is the prosperity gospel. Friel is being unwise in posting this article, because it is unnecessary and controversial. (The rest of your comments were not relevant to the discussion on Friel.)
1/. You said: He (Friel) is saying that most people that pray the sinner’s prayer fall away from the faith. That is, most people who pray the sinners’ prayer are saved by faith, then fall away from it? But you also said: He (Friel) is talking about ANYONE who prays the sinners prayer will perish. That is, none can be saved, so how can any fall away again? Please be rational! At least you got one thing right when you said: Friel is making an irrational and massive generalization. I am willing to admit that.
2/. Friel cannot acknowledge the sinners’ prayer because he is a calvinist. The basic calvinist doctrine is that the calvinist God chose from the beginning who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. Nothing you can do can ever change the calvinist God’s decision here. No amount of prayer, evangelism, preaching the gospel, etc, can ever change the calvinist God’s decision, ever. You will end up where he tells you to go!
3/. Calvinism is forced to deny the sinners’ prayer, declaring it to be an effort by man to change the calvinist God’s decision. Thankfully the calvinist God is not the God of the Bible who says that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
4/. Many can and will pray non-genuine sinners’ prayers. However, this can never deny salvation to those who genuinely call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). It’s what God requires us to do, so take up your disagreement about the sinners’ prayer with Him.
5/. Friel says that if I ask Jesus into my heart, I will perish on the day of judgment. It seems that Friel judges all sinners’ prayers to be a waste of time. But the God of the Bible says to do it, so why not demonstrate some faith and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved?
6/. In Friel’s document “Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart” I am not aware that he ever talks about the seed on rocky soil or any other soil for that matter, nor does he appear to mention the health and wealth gospel anywhere. It seems that this may be your personal opinion and not necessarily Friel’s view.
7/. I have deleted your quote from the NIV Bible for copyright reasons. I also limit passages of multiple verses to keep comments concise.
Return to top.
Subject: Limited Atonement not in the Bible
(I have taken the liberty of removing direct Bible quotes which may be considered copyrighted. For conciseness, I also prefer to have points made with reference verses in brackets. My apologies for this, please.)
I think Limited atonement is the easiest TULIP point to refute.
Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus tasted death for EVERYONE.
Titus 2:11 says that the grace of God has appeared to ALL men.
If Calvinism were true, then the plain teaching of Scripture is called into question.
2 Peter 2:1 shows us that people for whom Christ died can still go to destruction. This contradicts Calvinism which claims that everyone Christ died for will be saved.
Romans 5:18 says that through one man’s offense judgment came to ALL men and that through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to ALL men.
Calvinists irrationally argue that the first ALL does indeed mean ALL, but the second ALL means ALL OF THE ELECT only”.
I will simply trust what the Bible says.
Thank you for your insightful comments. It is good to hear from people who can think for themselves. I recommend that anyone reading this take note of his points.
It amazes me just how calvinists can convince people that they are so biblical, especially when they refuse to refute anything I’ve said using the Bible alone (sola scriptura).
1/. Limited atonement is so clearly non-biblical that many calvinists refuse to accept it, declaring themselves 4-point calvinists.
2/. However, why would someone reject limited atonement yet still believe that God chose some people for heaven and predestinated the rest to hell? Why would the calvinist Jesus die for those who could never be saved? Therefore, rejecting limited atonement requires also rejecting unconditional election.
3/. You rightly said, in reference to Romans 5:18: “Calvinists irrationally argue that the first ALL does indeed mean ALL, but the second ALL means ALL OF THE ELECT only.” MacArthur, in order to demonstrate such irrational calvinist argument, says in his Bible Commentary on Romans: “Rather, like the word many in verse 15, Paul is using “all” with two different meanings for the sake of parallelism, a common practice in the Hebrew OT.” This is rubbish! And, when it suits him, MacArthur says that two terms must be interpreted the same each time. He says (in his commentary on Romans 8:29) that “predetermination” equates with “foreknowledge” in Acts 2:23, so “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 must also equate to predetermination! Talk about being irrational!
4/. You are absolutely right in trusting what the Bible says. The best way to refute calvinism is to rely upon the Bible alone (sola scriptura). Calvinists are afraid to tackle those who know and use their Bibles well.
Return to top.
Subject: Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Todd Friel, John MacArthur and the like are far from teaching works salvation. Arminians and Calvinist believe that we all must “Believer on the Lord Jesus Chris” in his death and resurrection. They both teach that repentance and a contrite heart is inclusive (God’s kindness leads us to repentance Romans 2:4) Both believe that there must be some prayer or chat with god about these things. Both would agree in the dirty of Jesus, his virgin birth, the 2nd coming, the trinity of god, the sufficiency of scripture, any many more things.
You seem to be creating division and not unity. I don’t want to argue with you. These men you call heretics are good Christians, men of God as I assume you are. They want to preserve the truth in this post Christian Era. They like you care deeply about preaching the full Gospel that leads to salvation. They adhere to Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola ScripturA, etc. Psalm 133:1 ESV
(Some comment omitted as irrelevant to this website agenda. Spelling and grammar all his.)
Please note that I am neither Arminian nor calvinist! Creating division from heresy is biblical! (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Revelation 18:4).
1/. Arminius held to most of Calvin’s teachings, being a disciple of Beza who in turn was a disciple of Calvin. Effectively Arminius was a reformed calvinist! (Do your research!)
2/. Arminius had 5 articles of disagreement (remonstrants) with calvinism, and the calvinist TULIP was presented in reply. Apparently in all other areas he was in agreement. After the Synod of Dort, Arminian believers were forbidden by law to exercise any freedom of religious belief. (Calvinists have never liked competition! They still don’t!)
3/. I haven’t done much study on Arminians so will not comment any further on their beliefs.
4/. Calvinism teaches that one must be born again before one may hear the gospel and believe in Christ.
5/. Calvinism believes that the elect must receive eternal life before coming to Christ to receive eternal life.
6/. Calvinists may only be assured of eternal life if they persevere to the end with good works.
7/. Calvinism teaches that their God predestinated (from the beginning) every person to either heaven or hell. Nothing anyone can do can ever change the calvinist God’s decision.
8/. Calvinists teach that Jesus only died for the sins of those chosen to go to heaven. Only the chosen ones may call upon the name of the Lord to be saved! (Romans 10:13 says “Whosoever”! That is, “Anyone”!)
9/. No matter how much calvinists preach the gospel, the Bible, witness, evangelise etc etc, they can never ever change where anyone has been predestined to go by the calvinist God. The only teaching that matters in calvinism is that your unchangeable destiny is for heaven or hell. You cannot do anything about it. Get used to it!
10/. Consistent calvinism must declare anyone who opposes calvinism as unsaved! Calvinist “expert” Boettner (“The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”) says that “there is no consistent middle ground between Calvinism and Atheism”. That is, according to calvinism, only calvinists may be brothers in Christ!
Return to top.
Subject: Great work!
I want to thank you for standing against the false gospel of calvinism!
This disgusting heresy is infiltrating MANY once sound, biblical churches!
Shame on the church leaders who either lack discernment or are too afraid to rebuke this false teaching for fear of “losing members”, etc!
Thank you for your encouragement. Actually, if calvinism hadn’t aggressively and arrogantly taken over our local Bible-believing churches, we would never have taken to the internet to seek and portray the truth (or otherwise) of their doctrines. We had never agreed with calvinism but on the other hand had not openly spoken against it either. Once upon a time we were happy to leave them alone as long as they left us alone. But they weren’t satisfied knowing that others taught something different. Apparently demanding a monopoly on biblical interpretation, they set about making sure that no-one would be permitted to have an opposing view. So we’d had enough; we decided that we had to stand our ground on what we saw as a vicious attack on the truth of the Bible itself.
1/. In our local area it is apparent that calvinist churches see non-calvinist churches as their mission field to be converted to what they declare to be the “truth”.
2/. Our overriding aim was to seek what the Bible taught about calvinism independently of any church statement of faith or doctrinal stand.
3/. Thus we determined to compare calvinist statements with biblical truth alone. This revealed a huge number of inconsistencies of calvinism, both with the Bible and even within its own doctrines.
4/. A calvinist in a non-calvinist church will often appear to be biblical at first, yet once accepted into the church will then start to reveal his heresies bit by bit.
5/. Non-calvinists, often afraid of offending a “Christian” brother or sister, will try to avoid confrontation for the sake of keeping the peace. Calvinists will use this desire to keep the peace to their advantage.
6/. If you desire to stand against this heresy, always stick to the Bible alone to refute their lies. They claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone) but are fearful of those who know their Bibles well enough to oppose their heresies. (Not one calvinist has ever used the Bible alone to refute anything I’ve said against them. This speaks for itself!)
Return to top.
Subject: SUNDAY WORSHIP
Good afternoon! I’ve looked at your statement of beliefs and agree wholeheartedly that any Christian should follow the Bible ONLY, not manmade doctrines. Yet do you realize that Sunday worship is a manmade doctrine? The Fourth Commandment states to remember to keep holy the Sabbath — the seventh day, Saturday. That never changed.
Many Christians say that the reason for Sunday worship is because Christ rose on a Sunday, a collection was taken up for disciples on a Sunday, and various other reasons. Yet the first reason, the Resurrection, is a manmade CONCLUSION, not a direct command from God.
Constantine changed Sabbath worship to Sunday — in honor of the sun god, which he still worshiped. …… Yet he did, and the Roman church followed. The other reason given is that the Christians met on the first day of the week and took up a collection. That can be done on ANY day of the week, just as worship can. But this doesn’t mean that that is the day of the Fourth Commandment, the seventh day, the day the Lord rested and made holy. Some quote Rev. 1:10, but that is a REFERENCE to the Lord’s Day, but does not identify WHICH day — this is an assumption by these individuals based on their preconceived and erroneous belief that Sunday is the day of worship. They have that backwards.
1/. There is no evidence that Constantine actually changed the day of worship to Sunday but instead it says he merely established Sunday as the day of worship as a law of Rome. “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (History of the Christian Church P 380 Schaff, P) Where does it say he actually changed the day?
2/. Taking up the collection on the first day of the week cannot be used to demonstrate that they did not worship on that day also.
3/. You said: “Some quote Rev. 1:10, but that is a REFERENCE to the Lord’s Day, but does not identify WHICH day”. Can you demonstrate that the Lord’s Day (as per Revelation 1:10) could not have been Sunday?
4/. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians says (in Ch.9): “If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death …” Ignatius was born in 35 AD, and died long before Constantine was born, and long before the catholic church commenced. The Lord’s Day here is noted as taking the place of the Sabbath.
5/. Not one point you have raised demonstrates your claim that Constantine changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. He merely established it as Roman law.
6/. Please explain Romans 14:6 which says He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it].
7/. Explain why the Tongan Seventh Day Adventists worship on Sundays.
Return to top.
Subject: YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT TODD FRIEL
Your article expressing outrage at Todd Friel’s message of asking Christ into your heart, saying his comments are un-Biblical, may be misunderstood. You quote many passages to support this. I’m not here to support him one way or the other. Yet, when i looked at your “About” page, I noticed that you believe in the trinity of three divine persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no trinity. There are only the Father, and His only-begotten Son, Jesus — TWO individuals. The “holy spirit” is NOT the “third person” but is the spirit of the Father and the Son. …..
There is no Biblical basis for it (the Trinity).
1/. I have limited your comment to part only. Please do not use my web page as your sounding board. And please stick to your stated topic!
2/. Friel’s message was actually to not ask Christ into your heart!
3/. You have stated that the subject was Todd Friel, and then do not want to discuss him. This is illogical. You say “I’m not here to support him one way or the other.” So here endeth the conversation on Friel!
4/. You said that God is two persons, not three, and that there is “no Biblical basis” for the Trinity. Please note carefully that in John 14:16-17 Jesus says He will send another Comforter (intercessor; advocate; helper), the Spirit of truth.
“another” (Greek allos) means a separate entity other than the original one. That is, the Spirit of truth (the Holy Spirit) is a separate entity to Jesus Christ. In John 14:16-17, Jesus Christ cannot be the Holy Spirit because He cannot be two separate entities at the same time!
5/. Matthew 28:19 says Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Sounds very much like three separate personages to me!
Return to top.
George Whitefield consider one of the greatest evangelist of church history was a Calvinists…thousands upon thousands were brought to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel but Whitefield recognized it was Christs pre-ordained work saving people therefor God is the only one that gets the credit for redeeming a sinner…not a sinners free will….so if your going to beat up on Calvinists please remove your bitterness and logs that are in your eyes!
Could you please explain what you mean by “beat up on Calvinists”? What do you mean by “bitterness” and “logs”? What are you talking about? At least do it properly by quoting what I have said to elicit such erudite observations!
1/. If the level of evangelisation is the measure of biblical correctness, then the JWs and mormons should be teaching Whitefield! Preaching his lies over and over again can never turn his lies into truth.
2/. Whitefield preached the calvinist heresy that you have to be born again (regenerated) before you are able to believe in Christ. But God says in the Bible to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:19). If Whitefield’s gospel is wrong (which it is), then his “thousands upon thousands” were saved for nothing! He produced calvinist (or puritan) converts, not necessarily Christians!
3/. In calvinism, preaching any gospel can never change where the calvinist God has unconditionally decreed that all mankind should go, to heaven or to hell.
4/. The calvinist gospel in a nutshell is that the calvinist God has either chosen you for heaven, or not chosen you for heaven. No matter whatever else you do in life, no matter how much someone preaches at you, you will end up where the calvinist God has chosen for you to go; end of story! It is your destiny.
5/. In calvinism, it’s not your sin that condemns you to hell but instead it is the unconditional choice of the calvinist God which condemns you.
6/. Between 1748 and 1750 Whitefield campaigned for slavery to be legalised in Georgia because he considered that it made farming more prosperous. (It was legalised in 1751.) When he died in 1770 he left 50 slaves to the Countess of Huntingdon. Great Christian, eh?
7/. If you disagree with what I have written, please refute it logically and scripturally (sola scriptura!). But you probably won’t because that might be asking for the impossible.
(In fact, calvinists just don’t seem to be able to rationally and logically (sola scriptura, of course) debate their views. It would be a pleasant surprise to have a calvinist actually try to present supporting evidence and facts (not opinions) for a change! But no, all they want is to get in my face which only proves that they are unable to refute my statements.)
Return to top.
He does not teach a works gospel. Here is a paragraph from one of his sermons from his website.
Today we live in the same kind of world that Paul lived in and the Galatians lived in; it is a world where there’s singular truth. The gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed on the pages of Holy Scripture: God’s plan of salvation through faith alone, apart from works. And there is the endless heresy that salvation comes by works: some works, all works, some ceremonial works, some ritualistic works, some philanthropic works, some moral works, some religious works, but some works. Satan can only corrupt the gospel one way. It is salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works.
1/. Can you please quote what it is that I have written that offends you, where it is written, and why you consider me wrong (hopefully sola scriptura). Without due context, your statement is quite meaningless. I cannot defend the unknown accusation!
2/. You have not documented your quote from MacArthur either (I assume “He” refers to MacArthur?); this is also essential for proper discussion. What is the context of the alleged MacArthur quote? And what exactly does it prove anyway?
3/. Assuming MacArthur was quoted above, can you explain why this quote should prove that the writer does not teach a works gospel? Anybody can quote others (a favourite activity for most calvinists) but very few actually can think for themselves. In other words, please explain the point you think you are making (using the Bible for support).
4/. salvation by grace alone – Calvinists claim falsely that praying the sinner’s prayer to be saved is a work of that salvation. Yet calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) is what God requires sinners do to be saved. And how may one call upon the name of the Lord without praying? If God requires it, then to deny the sinner’s prayer is to deny God’s sovereignty (and your salvation!).
5/. through faith alone – Calvinists only have faith if their God gives it to them. However, faith is not a gift of God but instead is man’s response to the character of the God who promises so great salvation. Demonstrate otherwise (sola scriptura of course) – and do not quote Ephesians 2:8-9 because that cannot demonstrate faith to be a gift!
6/. in Christ alone – How can the calvinist gospel claim that it is through Christ alone when calvinism says that you have to be born again with life from the Holy Spirit before you may come to Christ?
7/. apart from works – How does MacArthur know he is saved other than by the works he does until his dying day? In fact, not one calvinist can be assured of salvation in this life. He has to rely upon his God’s unconditional election and he can’t know for certain whether he has been chosen for life or death until after he dies.
Return to top.
Subject: The Truth about the Reformation article
I just finished reading your article above (“The Truth about the Reformation”) and I really enjoyed it. It gave me a different perspective on the reformation. It makes sense that period in history was about reforming the Catholic Church, not starting some breakaway new movement.
I have been pondering the reformation recently, and the state of those churches that resulted from it, in particular Calvinism. I am not real keen on the Lutherans either, Martin Luther was a tad anti-semitic from what I can see, and he was wish washy on whether mankind had free will.
Anyway, just thought I would let you know I enjoyed that post. I also noticed that the comments section is a little busier this year, this is great, that means your blog is becoming more well known. Good stuff.
Thank you for your encouragement.
1/. Much of the material for “The Truth about the Reformation” article was sourced from “History of the Christian Church” Vol 8, by P Schaff. This book can be downloaded from CCEL, a calvinist website supported by Calvin College.
2/. Some time ago I wrote a document about similar issues: “Calvinism is a counterfeit Christian cult.” in which I described calvinism as actually a carefully disguised Roman Catholicism, an alternative catholic option for the many catholics who were upset at the excesses of the catholic church at that time (such as simony and indulgences).
3/. The Reformation was the result of an effort to modify or re-form the corrupt catholic church with its heresies (including simony and indulgences). Calvin did not commence a new church but reformed (modified) the existing catholic church.
4/. Therefore the Reformation produced reformed catholic church groups.
5/. Those of Calvin’s day who favoured the start of a new church were called the Radicals. They wouldn’t accept a merely reformed catholic church, but attempted to build a new church from the Bible. These included the Anabaptists who were persecuted by the catholic church along with all the reformed churches and their leaders (including Calvin and Luther).
6/. For Calvin and Luther, you were only permitted religious freedom if you agreed with what Calvin or Luther taught!
7/. If you refused to obey Calvin’s teachings, you were banished from his city, or imprisoned, or even executed.
8/. Martin Luther seemingly refused to believe in the free will of man after Erasmus told him he should believe in it! Luther just couldn’t be told what to do!
Return to top.
Subject: Re: John MacArthir and Paul.washer
so where do you stand on Washer and his preaching of Regeneration and not salvation and his idea that unless you are one of the fold of theres most Pastors and Congregations are going to hell and his stand on Lordship salvation?
I believe in ” Easy Believism” repentence acceptence and confession of Christ for salvation. However I also believe as we grow there should be changes but it is not a legalistic budensome change but one of 1 John 5 where we love him because his commandments are not grevious.
My problem with Lordship salvation is The Holy Spirit deals with each person differently. and with different sins at different times. For instance in Paul Washers mind the guy sitting in a bar having a drink is not saved, but yet God maybe dealing with another sin first like maybe being a whoremonger or pornography in that mans life first and my thing is who are we to judge weather someone is saved by the works they do. the pharisees did this and Christ gave them scathing rebukes in Matt 6 and 23.
1/. The calvinist regeneration Paul Washer holds to is a false doctrine. He believes in the heresy that you cannot respond to God in any way unless God should firstly regenerate you. He teaches that you can only respond to the gospel after you have been regenerated (= born again). Thus he teaches that you must be born again with eternal life before you can come to Christ for eternal life. This is indeed heresy.
2/. Paul Washer is like calvinist Todd Friel who says that if you prayed the sinners’ prayer you are still going to hell. Washer teaches that you do not ever choose God; he chooses you! Calvinism is a false gospel.
3/. I believe that the sinners’ prayer is the biblical way to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). The genuinely saved Christian should then seek to be more like Jesus and should show evidence of this as he grows. However, many people today are praying the sinners’ prayer yet have no intention of giving up their joys of the world. Too many pray the sinners’ prayer as an insurance policy for when they die. Not all who pray the sinners’ prayer are genuinely saved.
4/. Regarding Lordship salvation, MacArthur says “Thus, the gospel requires more than making an intellectual decision or mouthing a prayer; the gospel message is a call to discipleship.” Effectively this is a works-based salvation. He means that you have to demonstrate the Lordship of Christ in order to be saved.
5/. Note that the new calvinism of today developed from Sonship theology. Sonship theology teaches that if you are a child of God, there is no sin that you can possibly commit that can ever prevent your entry into heaven, for if you committed the sin, then God must have permitted you to do so, and provided repentance and grace for you to be restored. This is a doctrine of devils giving new calvinists a licence to sin.
6/. Washer’s calvinist gospel is that all mankind has been either (a) chosen for heaven (the elect) or (b) not chosen for heaven (the non-elect). This is the sum total of calvinist teaching: you are chosen or you are not chosen; it is your destiny, so get used to it. There is nothing else that’s relevant in any of their teachings. In calvinism, it’s not your sin that condemns you but instead it is the unconditional choice of the calvinist God which condemns you.
Return to top.
Subject: John MacArthir and Paul.washer
For some years now something has not set right with me about Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, John MacAthur and Todd Friel.
They continuously attack the fundementalists but yet I was surprised to learn they started as fundementalists. They attack the Pentecostal movement and signs and wonders NAR movement but run around with John Piper.
But yet none of them will call out the biggest false teacher and heretic in the evangelical movement today Paul washer.
Thank you for your thoughtful insight.
1/. All those men you mentioned would probably still declare themselves to be fundamentalists, while they attack the genuine fundamentalists who actually believe the Bible alone (sola scriptura). For example, Steve Lawson claims that the greatest challenges he had in early years was trying to preach calvinism to the theologically untaught (that is, to non-calvinist fundamentalists).
Steve Lawson said in an interview: In my earlier years, the greatest challenges I faced were preaching the doctrines of grace to congregations that were theologically untaught. To say the least, it was difficult and demanding to try to establish God-centered truth and a biblical philosophy of ministry where there had previously been a stronghold of man-centered thinking concerning the work of God in salvation. Though it was obviously a painful process, the only way to meet such an obstacle was head-on, unashamedly preaching the full counsel of God.
So calvinism (“doctrines of grace”) is “God-centered truth” while non-calvinism is “man-centered thinking”? And the definition of a non-calvinist is to be “theologically untaught”? So only calvinists can know the truth? Sounds more like a recipe to divide a church!
2/. These men also like to be seen attacking heresy because they want people to think they are the ones who are biblical. After all, if you are criticising heresy, then you must be biblically correct, right? No, not necessarily right!
3/. They won’t call out Piper because he’s one of them. But likewise they won’t openly call out ones like Mark “Potty-mouth” Driscoll, or C J Mahaney whose church group has been ravaged by sex-abuse scandals (The Sex-Abuse Scandal That Devastated a Suburban Megachurch), plus others. United they stand, divided they fall. They are afraid of being divided; they must stand by each other!
4/. Paul Washer preaches what sounds like an evangelical gospel, yet also teaches (along with the rest of those men you mentioned) that no-one has the free will to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. This is illogical indeed (and unbiblical)!
Return to top.
5/. February 2020
Topic raised: What if a person asks if he is genuinely saved when he prayed the sinners’ prayer? What if he doubts if God actually accepted him?
If a person is concerned that he might not have been saved when he prayed the sinners’ prayer, then it is most likely that he is saved, as those who were not genuinely saved in the first place generally are not greatly concerned (if at all) about their salvation.
1/. To be genuinely saved, a person must have had genuine godly sorrow, which leads to genuine repentance which leads to genuine salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10). Genuine godly sorrow and repentance also has to assume a desire to turn away from the world and its sin, for how may one have godly sorrow if one still loves the world too much? Christians do not become perfect Christians immediately, though. It will be a lifetime process to perfect us but it will happen (Philippians 1:6). They may backslide but should never lose that desire for their salvation. Even in backsliding they should never lose that hate for the sin of the world in their lives. Even in sin they should acknowledge their responsibility to God to confess and repent of their sin. For such people, the sinners’ prayer led to their salvation.
2/. On the other hand, there are certainly many today who pray the sinners’ prayer yet have never wanted to turn their backs on the world of sin. They want to enjoy the world, yet also want that salvation as a spiritual insurance policy to be realised in the judgment. Yet, when they expect to be permitted to enter heaven, Christ will tell them to go away for He never knew them (Matthew 7:21-23), that they cannot be His disciples (Luke 14:27 & 33) nor are they worthy of Him (Matthew 10:38). They have refused to take up their crosses, forsake the world, and follow Jesus’ example of suffering (1 Peter 2:21). They enjoy their sin too much to hate it in their lives; confession and repentance is not from the heart at all. For such people, the sinners’ prayer was a total waste of time!
3/. Satan, the enemy of God’s people, will endeavour to destroy a Christian’s testimony of salvation, and doubt and fear are major weapons that he uses. Yet feelings are not the true measure of salvation, for if they genuinely called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then they may know (not feel) that they have eternal life (1 John 5:11-13). Thus the one who is fearful that God may not have saved him is most likely a genuinely saved person who is under attack from satan. Such people should stand on the truth of scripture and not their feelings.
4/. Those who were never genuinely saved are not the same threat to satan and thus he is unlikely to stir up any feelings of lack of salvation in people in case they might act upon those feelings and consider salvation. Satan would prefer to leave them alone.
Return to top.
You teach that God foreknew before the start of time who would be saved and therefore He elects, chooses, these for salvation.
Sounds like predestination.
Just a nicer safer way of saying it.
I don’t support the heresy of Calvinism.
Just need clarification.
Thank you for your interesting comment.
You said “You teach that God foreknew before the start of time who would be saved and therefore He elects, chooses, these for salvation.” And yes, it does sound like predestination, for both are the consequence of God’s foreknowledge. So I’ll make the following points:
1/. Calvinists often ask non-calvinists if they believe in the election, expecting to be told “No!” The same applies for predestination. Most non-calvinists usually avoid talking about the election and deny predestination as being the consequence of the false calvinist election. However, both election and predestination are clearly taught in the Bible, but as the consequences of foreknowledge. 1 Peter 1:2 says we are “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” and Romans 8:29 says that “whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This makes both the election and predestination the consequences of God’s foreknowledge.
2/. Therefore the election is not the calvinist unconditional election but instead it is conditional upon the foreknowledge of God.
3/. Likewise, the predestination of God’s people is also conditional upon the foreknowledge of God.
4/. This is why calvinists try so hard to twist the meaning of the foreknowledge of God, often trying to make it relate to a personal relationship the calvinist God has with his people. Biblical foreknowledge requires the free will decisions of man to foreknow, and every calvinist doctrine is destroyed by the free will of man.
5/. Piper said (in “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism” 1998) “God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know.”
6/. When we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, we have no right to demand that God save us. Instead, our faith is in God’s promise that he will save us to the uttermost. Even though we choose to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, God still has the final say on our salvation! But God’s promise is that when we cry out to be saved, God then (by that promise to save us) chooses (elects) us for salvation and records this in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8). He is eternal, that is, He is not bound by time but is present at all points of time simultaneously. Thus while we see it as foreknowledge, it isn’t really foreknowledge to eternal God but full knowledge of everything for all time (and having such full knowledge when the world was being created).
The final choice is always God’s, not ours! But we must firstly call upon the name of the Lord to be saved before God responds! God is true to all His promises so we trust in Him to save us. Calvinism’s denial of free will destroys this biblical gospel of salvation.
Return to top.
Subject: Does Paul Washer’s ‘shocking’ message contradict reformed theology
I watched some of the so-called ‘shocking message’ by Paul Washer (back from 2002) and I thought it was very good. He called the people in the crowd to repent and believe in Jesus, and he put it on each person to understand true repentance and be serious about their faith. Again, I think this is good preaching.
However, it seems to me that his message contradicts his own Reformed theology. Calvinism teaches that salvation is all of God and man plays absolutely no part in it. Basically, you have to be chosen by God or you have missed the boat – end of story. My simple question is – Did this sermon contradict TULIP? The message made it sound like people had a choice in the matter of their salvation.
Similarly, I watched an old Mark Driscoll sermon on Hell, and he too made it sound like people have a choice. In this sermon he pleads with people to accept Jesus.
So I find myself agreeing with these sermons by Calvinists, but do not agree with their theology.
You have made some excellent comments regarding the way calvinists preach the gospel. You truly said of calvinism: “Basically, you have to be chosen by God or you have missed the boat – end of story.” But calvinists cannot sell such a belief easily today, so they (also basically) lie through their teeth to convince you that their doctrines (that you have stated so succinctly) are compatible with the biblical gospel.
Many calvinists generally preach the gospel, but they still do not believe anyone has the free will to choose for themselves. Calvinists will often quote Spurgeon in saying that calvinism is the gospel, yet illogically many preach the biblical gospel because it gets results, not the calvinist gospel. Yes, as you said, it did contradict TULIP. Calvinists often contradict TULIP because TULIP cannot save; only the gospel of Christ can save. And Driscoll is better known as the pottymouth pastor because of filthy talk in his messages. Even satan can appear as an angel of light!
1/. Calvinists will often say that they preach the gospel in obedience to God. Calvinist Bryan Liftin (professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute) says “But then why evangelize anyone if God’s decree is already fixed? The mistake is thinking that we evangelize in order to save people. That is incorrect. …. The right reason to evangelize is to be obedient.”
2/. Calvinists teach that preaching of the gospel to the elect is quite relevant as long as they have already been made willing through regeneration.
3/. Some calvinists even teach that God draws people to him via the gospel but this is illogical and inconsistent considering that they also teach that until you are born again you cannot respond positively to God in any way. Many calvinists teach illogical and inconsistent views; the wonder is that so many believe them!
4/. The new calvinism of today has marketed itself very well as the super-evangelicals among evangelical fundamentalists. Many believe its hype that they are the most evangelical now. But they still teach that God chooses you; you do not choose God! Paul Washer also said “The question is not whether you would like to pray this prayer and ask Jesus to come into your heart — after all, you know, the handle to your heart is on the inside and if you do not open it Jesus cannot come in. My friend, Jesus is Lord of your heart and if He wants to come in, He will kick the door down.” That is, he can preach the gospel, but unless God has chosen you, you cannot respond, ever.
5/. Even calvinists, if they preach the true biblical gospel, can bring people to Christ, except that they have to teach that they were saved because they were of the elect of God. They also teach that calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved cannot save you if you are not one of the elect.
6/. The current Southern Baptists president (calvinist J D Greear) says that “he struggled for many years with the assurance of salvation and repeated the “Sinner’s Prayer” many times during his life. He now rejects the concept of “asking Jesus into your heart,” and holds to a biblical doctrine of salvation.” Biblical??
So yes, it is easy to agree with what many calvinists say, because they are usually careful to sound as scriptural as possible. Verbal gymnastics is the name of the game.
Thank you for your interesting comments.
Return to top.
Subject: Hoppers Crossing Christian Church
So, you moderate all your comments and post the ones you want to. How transparent of you! Wonder if comments are edited as well?
Very, very weak case against Todd Friel. Your entire gripe is based on his valid criticism of the unbiblical “ask Jesus to come into your heart” routine, and you even compared this unbiblical practice to the clearly evident, foundational triune nature of God…but Todd Friel is the heretic?
Very arrogant and hostile response to the other commenter too. He was not hostile toward you at all, I wouldn’t have bothered responding to you either.
Very poor work.
1/. All genuine comments (including all negative ones) are published in full unless they have personal or abusive information. The last one (plus yours as well) was posted in its entirety. I have published everything he said, and I have given a reply. (My policy of moderation is stated clearly above!)
2/. You have given no scriptural support for your statements anywhere. If I am unbiblical, please clarify using the Bible alone! Without proper supporting evidence, your statements remain mere opinion.
3/. The previous commenter made some unsupported statements. He even misrepresented me by quoting me having written something I never wrote. How is that not hostility toward me? I also asked some questions which, if he were correct, he should be able to demonstrate such. But he hasn’t yet, probably because he can’t.
4/. You said: “you even compared this unbiblical practice to the clearly evident, foundational triune nature of God.” Do you know what you are talking about? And how and where have I made this comparison? Or are you making things up?
5/. Stating what I believe cannot be defined as arrogance unless it denies the other person the right to his own opinion. I have invited his reply. If it is reasonable, it will be published. And I also reserve my right (being my website) to reply to such. But he hasn’t replied!
6/. Does Robert need someone to defend him? Is he incapable of defending himself?
7/. It is typical of calvinists that if they cannot defend properly, they’ll often get into the name-calling, derogatory remarks such as yours. And remember, silence is the greatest complement that a calvinist can pay to those who oppose him. Of course, a well-thought-out reasoned response would be appreciated. Why do you really believe as you do? Why are my comments about Friel allegedly so wrong? How are Friel’s teachings “valid criticism”? Give me something to think about, please!
Return to top.
Subject: General (Todd Friel)
I stumbled across your website and was truly quite shocked by the hostility displayed toward Todd Friel and it’s quite sad to hear. I’ve listened, read and watched him for years and would have never pegged him for a heretic. The thing that stood out in your argument against him as a faithful witness and evangelist was that you mentioned, “he doesn’t lead people in or even tell them to use the sinners prayer.” I must admit that every time I was asked to prayer the “sinners prayer” was out of an expectation that the witness was being a bit pushy. And, simply saying the prayer meant ZERO to me but I could tell they felt accomplished. It wasn’t until years later that the Lord knocked down the barriers of my mind and heart and changed me. It was a late night and I was suddenly overwhelmed by grief, guilt and was very much aware of my wretchedness before a Holy God. I was dead in my sin and I knew it. I cried to God, “Forgive me God, Jesus save me.” That was it… no elegant or contrived prayer, it was raw. That’s a sinners prayer…
I used to be Arminian when I was a baby in Christ but was won over to reformed doctrine simply by the sheer weight that it held because of the scriptures.
1/. You confuse “hostility” with “plain truth, sola scriptura”! Sometimes the truth hurts! Is Friel hostile to the truth? If you cannot or will not refute my statements sola scriptura (the Bible alone), then they remain the truth, don’t they? And you have not refuted one single statement of mine here, have you?
2/. Can you tell me where I said what you have quoted in inverted commas? I have not said that in my Todd Friel article, nor anywhere else that I know of. Are you making things up to throw at me? Sounds like hostility to me! Are you misrepresenting me?
3/. In my Todd Friel article I quote Friel as saying: “Here is the scary one. People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment.” So Friel is condemning me to hell, is he?
4/. On Friel’s webpage he says “The man repents and accepts Jesus. No need for sinners prayer as it is not in the Bible.” So how does one repent without praying? How does one call upon the name of the Lord to be saved without praying? (Luke 18:13 is clearly an example of a sinner’s prayer in the Bible. Is it not in the calvinist Bible?)
5/. You claim you prayed some non-genuine sinners’ prayers before praying an effective sinners’ prayer from the heart. Friel would still declare that you “will perish on the Day of Judgment” because good calvinists do not pray the sinners’ prayer. You do not choose your God; he chooses you! Remember?
6/. What is an Arminian? I believe the Bible alone (sola scriptura).
7/. If you think that reformed doctrine is scriptural, then try answering my questions in Why are calvinists afraid to answer simple straightforward questions? But you won’t because you can’t! And silence is an admission of defeat! If calvinism is so right, then prove it! (sola scriptura!)
(By the way, “Reformed” actually refers to a Reformed or modified Catholic church. See Vol 8 “History of the Christian Church”, P Schaff. You can download this book from CCEL, a website supported by Calvin College.)
Addendum: (9/02/20) Clearly Robert has been unable to answer why he misquoted me, nor has he answered any other of my above queries. Typical of calvinists who complain without any real support for what they say! Can Robert defend his stand, or back down in defeat?
Return to top.