It is indeed hard to break free from calvinism!

I have recently read an article from mycrazyfaith.blogspot.com titled Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism? It seems that those who have experienced calvinism first hand are the ones who become so polarised either for or against it. Those who are full-on calvinists just can’t be told that there might be another way of seeing it all from a biblical point of view. They just can’t be wrong, ever! And, those who have seen the truth about the heresies in calvinism are like those who are seeing God’s world through completely different eyes than before.

It’s people like this writer who probably have the best understanding of the conflicts involved in the calvinism versus anti-calvinism debate. Most people in most churches just don’t know what it’s all about, and don’t really care anyway, preferring to keep the peace rather than open their mouths and ask the awkward questions that can divide churches. Most people in most churches do not read their Bibles sufficiently well enough to discern the full extent of the calvinist lies. They’d rather live with compromise than be labelled as troublemakers! The calvinists say the right words, such as preaching what sounds like the biblical gospel, but do not mean the same thing as biblical Christians think they mean. For example, calvinists talk about being born again (regenerated) and salvation, yet fail to reveal their lie that one must be born again before one may believe and be saved. They are rarely up front and open about their beliefs until the non-calvinist “fish” has taken the bait with the hook.

This writer is passionate about her views on calvinism. It is clear that she has experienced first-hand the conflict between calvinism and the Bible. It is such people who have been through such conflict who have the most effective testimony concerning the heresies of calvinism. Many who experience such conflict may just leave the church and just disappear into the greater society outside. In their minds, calvinism has destroyed their ability to believe; it has controlled their lives so much that they are often unable to live normal lives away from its cult-like control. For others the seemingly abrupt (and often devious) introduction of calvinism into a previously biblical church is extremely confronting.

But this post (Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism?) is evidence that there is life away from calvinism. The writer has experienced the apparent destructive (and divisive) ability of calvinism and is now seeking to share this understanding with others  The discernment that is available to all God’s children through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit brings the light of the truth that will set people free, rather than the bondage of calvinist darkness. It is such people who have most powerful messages of hope for those who struggle with calvinism’s bondage. It is such documents that reach out to others who are seeking for answers to the conflicts growing in their thinking concerning calvinism.

It is one thing to break free of the bondage of calvinism; it’s another thing to live for God afterward. Calvinism can tend to destroy one’s faith in God. After all, if God is like the calvinist God, then despair can set in. As another document online says: That God loves everyone (and not just a select group of people) has always been the most important theological constant in my life…and I feel like Calvinism, were it true, would take that away from me. Replacing “for God so loved the world” with “for God so hated the world” (which I believe Calvinism requires) is so disorienting to me, so dark and frightening and hopeless, that I fear it would lead me to despair. (https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/calvinismmakesmecry)

Yet another document presents the illogical problem of people being able to love more than the calvinist God, yet the God of the Bible loves all mankind with a love greater than any person can have. (John 3:16) and loved us before we wanted to love Him (1 John 4:19).
Calvinism immediately presented me with one logical problem.  Because I am a mother, I know what it is to love my own child.  And I love all my children with a strong, committed love.  I would do anything I could to help them at any time (of course, my idea of “help” and their idea of “help” may sometimes be radically different — a lot like God and us!).  If God had not chosen one of my children to be saved, then I was faced with the impossibility that I loved that particular child more than God loved that child! How could I love anyone or anything more than God loved that person or thing?  Impossible!  “God is love…”  How could I out-God God? (https://www.setterfield.org/calvinism.htm)

So when I read Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism? I saw that here was an eye-witness report from someone who had seen first hand the destructive control of calvinism. It takes such experience to speak so forcefully of the consequences of such dictatorial control. It’s one thing to present information about a topic; it’s another thing completely to write from experience! Please be challenged by this document as I was when I read it. This writer has a ministry, a calling from God to reach out to others who need to hear the true gospel of God through Christ on the cross (something they may not hear in a strict calvinist church!). So many calvinists are relying upon their eternal assurance through being one of the elect, and when they die and find out in the judgment that their works were just not good enough, then it will be too late to change anything. And for those calvinists who are genuine yet deceived Christians, please read your Bibles, pray to God to guide you through His truth, and please pay attention to the evidence presented by godly people in documents such as Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism? Do not take the word of those calvinists who claim to know better than you. If there seems to be conflict between what the Bible says and calvinist doctrines, then the Bible is always going to be right. “Thy word is truth!” (John 17:17) Any conflict means a lie somewhere, and man tells lies, never God! (Numbers 23:19)

I recommend that you go to the mycrazyfaith.blogspot.com website and check out some of the other posts and blogs. If it weren’t such a serious matter, I’d even recommend you have a laugh at some of the Anti-Calvinist Memes. (These are No.8 so there will be more to look at elsewhere on the website.) And, as I say about my own posts, I always recommend that you check out and test everything you hear from myself and others against the truth of the Bible. What you believe must never be dictated by another person. You must always believe for yourself.

So now here are some excerpts from “Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism?” The document is quite long so I would strongly recommend that you read it in its entirety by following the above link. If you seriously believe that calvinism is the truth, then please read it through and meditate on it carefully. If your calvinist doctrines are right, then the writer is wrong, but if the writer of this document is right, then you are ………. dare I say it, wrong! And if you have questions about calvinism, ask them, seek answers, be discerning concerning what you believe. Don’t leave it until another day. It is, after all, a matter of life and death!

Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism?

1. We would have to admit that we were misunderstanding Scripture this whole time, and no one wants to admit they could be wrong.

2. Calvinism appeals to the prideful intellectuals.  (And prideful intellectuals have the greatest aversion to admitting they could be wrong.)  It makes these intellectuals feel like they alone understand the “deeper, hidden meanings of Scripture,” while the simple-minded Christians can’t understand it.  And it makes them feel more “humble” for accepting these “difficult teachings,” like their idea that people have no control whatsoever.  It’s like “Look how humble I am to accept such unpleasant teachings and to submit myself so fully to our all-powerful, totally-controlling God.”  (How do you get a prideful intellectual who believes he’s being truly, appropriately humble to see that he’s wrong?  It’s near impossible.  It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!)

3. Calvinism also appeals to those who genuinely do want to humble themselves before God, and they are led to believe that Calvinism is the way to do it.

My heart goes out to these people, the ones that are just trying to live a humble life before God, to honor Him.  They are just doing their best to live the “truth,” as they have been told it is by Calvinists.  But, sadly, they don’t realize they are being told a twisted version of Scripture … because the Calvinists have so much smart-sounding babble and mumble-jumble to “validate” their view of Scripture that it starts to sound believable. ……………..

4. Because we don’t ask God to help us understand Scripture, we don’t give Him permission to correct us and to guide our thinking, we just plow through on our own (or we resist asking Him to correct us because we don’t want Him to).

5. Because Calvinism is so common, and so many “great” theologians teach it that we don’t stop to even consider that it can be wrong.  And besides, Calvinist preachers, authors, and theologians are so forceful, educated, confident, and sure of themselves that they must be right, right!?! I mean, they couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they!?!
(You know who else was educated and confident?  The Teachers of the Law, the Pharisees, the religious leaders in Jesus’s day, the ones who were so blinded by their own knowledge that they missed the Truth, even when He was standing right in front of them.)

6.  Because we always put on our “Calvinist glasses” before we read the Bible, we have trained ourselves to fit Scripture into Calvinism, so we never see a problem with it.  (And if we do see a problem with it, we simply remind ourselves of what Calvinism says, “We won’t be able to understand it anyway.  So be a good, humble Christian, and just accept it.  If you question it, you are questioning God’s Word itself because this IS what the Bible teaches.”) …………………….

7. Because Calvinist theologians have made us believe we can’t really understand the Bible without their interpretations (Oh, how many false religions do the same thing!).  Calvinists are always saying, “Oh, yeah, well, John MacArthur says …” or “Wayne Grudem says …” or “RC Sproul says …”.
But you know what I want to know:  “What does the Bible say?” ………………

8. Because it’s a difficult, confusing topic, so instead of investing the time and energy to really study it for ourselves, we would rather let the “great Calvinist theologians” tell us what to think.  Because we trust them.  We trust them so much we don’t even think to question them.  (Look up how many of today’s popular theologians are Calvinists.  You might be surprised by how many there are.  It’s truly an epidemic.  No wonder so many people believe in Calvinism.  It’s everywhere.  And no one thinks to question it because we trust these popular theologians to lead us right.)

9.  Because we want to honor God by submitting to His sovereignty, and Calvinists are all about God’s sovereignty.  BUT … Calvinists misunderstand “sovereignty” and “ordains” and “predestination,” etc.  Also, they start with the assumption that “elect” has to mean that God specifically chose particular individuals to go to heaven, that the “elect” believe because they were pre-selected by God, instead of the possibility that He chose to give mankind the option of having eternal life in heaven and that we become one of His “elect” when we choose to believe.  (And then they have to change the meanings of “the world” and “all men” to fit their view, to make it say “only the elect.”)

They build their theology around an incorrect, unbiblical understanding of these things.  But we don’t know to question it because it sounds biblical enough to convince us that it must be true, despite the red flags that pop up in our minds.  And they convince us that those “red flags” come from our pride and our own feelings and our own desire for control and our desire to understand things we are “not supposed to understand yet,” etc.  So we shut up and don’t question it anymore.

10. And they don’t just build their theology around misunderstandings of words but also around their own preconceptions and misconceptions of how things must work.  And if you start with misconceptions, you are building a house of cards on a foundation of Jell-o.  But they never think to question the foundation of misconceptions.  They just keep trying to make the building on top more stable.

Such as, they start with the idea that “For God to really be in control means He has to control everything.  If you believe He doesn’t control everything, that He gives people a choice, then you are saying He is not an all-powerful, sovereign God.  You are reducing Him and elevating humans.” That’s a big fat presumption on their part, equating “in control” with “must control and cause everything.”  God is much bigger than that and can work all things, even our self-chosen sins, into His plans.  And it’s not reducing God at all if God Himself decided to allow mankind the right and responsibility to make choices, to have an effect on things that happen.

“Well,” they say, “if you believe we can makes decisions, that God responds to what we do or what we pray, then you’re saying we are controlling God.”  No!  I am simply saying that God gave us the right to make choices, that He responds to the choices we make.  Because He wanted it to be this way!

“But if we can ‘believe’ in Jesus or ‘accept’ Jesus, then that means we are working for our salvation.  So we can’t believe in or accept Jesus because we can’t work for salvation.  That’s why God has to do it all.  If He doesn’t do it all, then He’s not really in control or fully sovereign.”  But equating “accepting/believing in Jesus” with “working for our salvation” is a wrong premise to start with.  That’s their own illogical reasoning.  You find me ONE VERSE in the Bible that warns us against “working for our salvation” by accepting, believing in, or agreeing with Jesus.  ………………

11. Because some of us find comfort in the idea that God causes everything.  It makes some people feel comforted and protected, safe from anything God doesn’t want to cause.  It’s “Everything happens for a reason.  God caused this for a reason.”  For some people, it helps them relax during the trials of life.  And they don’t want to give up this idea that brings them so much comfort.  ……………….

12. And because Calvinists make you believe that it’s unhumble to question Calvinism.  They act like questioning Calvinism is questioning God and the Bible.  “Now just run along and be a good, humble Christian by not questioning what we’re teaching.  Only prideful, unhumble Christians question Calvinism.  Calvinism is Scripture.  And if you argue with Calvinism, you’ll be arguing with Scripture and with God.”  (Oh, how many cults do the same thing!)  Calvinists manipulate us through our fear of dishonoring God, our fear of being too prideful, our desire to be humble, our desire to lift God up as high as we can, etc.

But Calvinism is not Scripture; Scripture is Scripture.  And I think if people read the Bible alone (with the help of a good concordance), without a Calvinist’s commentary or interpretations of Scripture, they would find that Calvinism has very little Scriptural basis, that the Word actually teaches the opposite. ……………….

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Why are calvinists so unbiblical, uneducated and unscholarly?

Calvinists make such a song and dance about how biblical, how educated, how scholarly they are, yet fail to tick any of those boxes in real life! I have openly attacked calvinist doctrines as heresies against the truth of the Bible, yet not one has been able to be sufficiently biblical, scholarly and educated in their disagreements with my comments. You’d think that they’d be able to discuss very rationally any objection they had to my writings, especially as they appear to disagree with me so much. But they appear to be incapable of using the Bible properly to refute any of my accusations, despite my having often invited them to feel free to comment (but noting that it must be sola scriptura – the Bible alone). They also appear to lack any ability to actually research what I have said and to refute it logically. And most of them appear to lack many of the rudimentary skills associated with a reasonable education.  

The following comment (typical of so many calvinists) demonstrates this in abundance. Note the lack of biblical input, lack of clarity of thought, lack of debating ability, and the number of unqualified yet confused opinions stated. I did consider not printing this comment but decided that I would continue my policy of publishing all reasonable and genuine comments, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. I also reserve my right to reply, this being my website.

Message Body:
I’ve read several articles on your site and you seem to lack discernment, or you intentionally take people out of context. For example you say MacArthur teaches works based salvation which looking at literally the same thing you claim to be heresy it shows that he teaches the exact opposite.
Maybe instead of being a Hardline Calvinist and picking and choosing Bible verses you take it all as the Word of GOD and realize it’s not as straight forward as you might think.

Reply:
There are some comments that are intelligent, even some of those that disagree with me. I appreciate thoughtful comments even if I don’t agree.
But this comment fails to make any intelligent point at all. After allegedly reading several articles on my site, you say that I (seem to) lack discernment. This is clearly an unqualified opinion, for you give not one single example of such lack of discernment. It seems to me that you haven’t found any evidence of lack of discernment in any of those articles you allegedly read (did you actually read any of them??). Without documented evidence to support your opinion, it is just so much hot air!
And, you claim that I take people out of context. But once again, no actual example of such. Who have I taken out of context, and what have I stated out of context? But no, you have apparently failed to find examples of such for I am certain that if you had found any clear examples, you would have stated them. But you haven’t, so logically you didn’t find any evidence of such accusations!
Clearly you have plucked these words out of the air for you have given not one single example of such. There is no need for me to defend such empty accusations.

If you want me to take you seriously (I seriously do not take you seriously at this stage!) then please document any lack of discernment or taking people out of context in any of those alleged articles. You are like a person who tries to defend himself in a court of law by using his opinions alone; you present no witness statements, no supporting evidence. And if we are talking about my articles, then please be specific about what it is you disagree with. I will not waste my time being drawn into vague, senseless and trivial arguments.

Also, you say, “Maybe instead of being a Hardline Calvinist….” But, if you have read several of my articles, then you had to have noticed that I am not a Hardline Calvinist! What are you talking about? Perhaps you didn’t actually read any of my articles? Or maybe you have delusions that misinterpret what you read? I won’t comment on the rest of your statement quoted above as it makes no sense at all. Probably you might realise one day that the Bible is actually quite straightforward and is able to make complete sense without any of the doctrines of Calvin being used to interpret it. After all, no-one ever becomes a calvinist by the reading of the Bible alone.

So, if you want me to take you seriously, please be more competent and document your opinions with facts. In particular, if you talk heresy, then you must define it from the Bible alone. But you have said “you say MacArthur teaches works based salvation which looking at literally the same thing you claim to be heresy it shows that he teaches the exact opposite.” So what is the biblical doctrine that is queried here? What does the Bible say about it? So, like other calvinists, you probably claim “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone) yet totally avoid using “sola scriptura” in your comments!

Just when are calvinists going to actually discuss issues with reference to the Bible alone (remember, sola scriptura). It is my considered opinion, based upon the comments from calvinists so far, that they are apparently unable to refute my statements from the Bible alone. They don’t even try to refute me sola scriptura; is this an indication of their inability to do so? I certainly think so. If they could refute me sola scriptura, then it is certain that they would; therefore logically they are unable to do so. If calvinists do not agree with this assessment, then let them answer to this accusation with logic and scriptural support.

Of course, I do assume that the lack of effort to refute my statements is because they cannot. If they could, they would! Therefore, to remain silent is always taken as a clear admission of their incapability to refute. If calvinists cannot refute your statements by any other means (fair or foul), then they’ll resort to their ultimate defence: silence! That is, by their silence they are admitting defeat, because if they could speak out and win, they would. And I take their silence as victory, an admission that they just cannot refute what I say. To God be the glory!

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

New calvinist church discipline favours criminals over victims

I have written before concerning the unjust discipline many new calvinist churches hand out via their Biblical Counselling program. When an interpersonal problem arises in the church, one or both sides may seek to discuss it with the one named as Biblical Counsellor. In new calvinist churches, that counsellor may well determine that if the one who commits the crime repents, he may be restored to fellowship again. If the husband is abusing the wife, or having an affair with another woman, she may be asked to explain why she isn’t being more supportive to her husband. In many cases it is the victim who is blamed for not preventing (through some sinful behaviour) the crime from being committed.

You see, in new calvinism, there is an underlying belief that those of the elect of God are not able to commit a sin that would prevent them from going to heaven. New calvinism developed from Sonship Theology which taught that, as God’s children, Christians could sin, knowing that if they were of God’s elect, their God would always provide sufficient grace to reinstall them into fellowship. That is, if they were God’s elect, then they couldn’t do anything that would lose them their assurance of salvation.
If you can never be lost, then no sin you commit can ever change that fact. If you repented of your sin, then new calvinism taught that God had given repentance to you as a gift; thus that sin could not affect your salvation. Repentance was the evidence that God was demonstrating that his grace would overcome your sin. If you repented, it demonstrated that you were one of God’s elect. It was the lack of repentance that demonstrated that you couldn’t be one of God’s elect.

Therefore, no matter who committed the crime or who was the victim, only the elect could be restored to fellowship again. Those who toed the party line with the Biblical Counsellor were generally to be deemed forgiven and recommended to the church leadership for restoration. Those who opposed the party line were deemed to be not suitable for restoration without more counselling to assist them to see the error of their ways. The wife might decide to get divorced from her husband because of child porn and paedophilia, but if the church then restores the husband to fellowship through his “repentance” via the Biblical Counsellor, the church may refuse the wife the right to get divorced. This is what happened in the following case.

Karen Hinkley and Matt Chandler’s Village Church
Karen discovered that her husband was viewing child pornography while they were together on the mission field. There were confessions of pedophile behavior as well. Karen returned home and the state of Texas allowed her an annulment of her marriage.The church put her under discipline and claimed that her ex husband was *walking in repentance* after about a month of counseling. Along with Amy Smith of Watchkeep, we broke this story which became known internationally. The actions of the church were so grievous that eventually Matt Chandler had to apologize to Karen and state that she was certainly justified in seeking a divorce from her pervert husband. The embarrassment and harassment from the church that Karen endured is well documented in our series.
https://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-church-discipline-and-abuse/

And from Baptist News an article on the same situation.

Man confesses to child porn; church disciplines his wife
By Bob Allen May 29, 2015

A Dallas megachurch has apologized to a wife subjected to church discipline for leaving her husband without permission after learning he is a pedophile.

Elders of The Village Church, a multisite Southern Baptist congregation led by Acts 29 president Matt Chandler, sent a letter to members posted online by blogger Matthew Paul Turner admitting to mishandling of a disciplinary process instituted against former member Karen Hinkley.

Earlier, church leaders said Hinkley violated her membership covenant with Village Church by having her legal marriage to Jordan Root annulled without seeking reconciliation after he confessed to her that he is sexually stimulated by little children and had viewed child pornography throughout their courtship and marriage. Root was not disciplined because he repented and entered counseling, but his access to children was restricted.

Previously Village Church financially supported the couple, who served as missionaries in East Asia with Serving in Mission (SIM) USA until Jordan Root was dismissed for violating the mission organization’s child safety policy. In February Karen Root (who later returned to using her maiden name) notified church leaders she was withdrawing her membership. The elders refused to accept her resignation and put her under church discipline for spurning their attempt at pastoral care.

Hinkley went public May 20 on Watchkeep, a blog written by abuse-survivor advocate Amy Smith, in a statement criticizing the Village Church pastors for “minimization and secrecy” about Root’s offenses and urging them not to assume he has told them the whole truth. Early on church leaders were inclined not to reveal Root’s confession to a number of former employers, churches and families where over the years he had access to children, but informed the church membership after the story was reported on blogs and news sites and was under consideration by the Dallas Morning News.

The incident sparked an Internet debate over the use of church covenants, a practice prevalent among the neo-Calvinist movement popular in evangelical circles including parts of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Village Church covenant includes an agreement “to walk through the steps of marriage reconciliation at The Village Church before pursuing divorce,” ending a marriage, but does not mention annulment, a legal declaration that the marriage wasn’t valid to begin with because it was based on fraud.

The latest communique to “covenant members” at The Village Church defended the membership policy but said in this case the elders “unfortunately allowed our practice to unnecessarily lead us rather than us leading our practice with patience, gentleness and compassion.”

“In receiving more information and considering the way we’ve ministered to Karen specifically, we believe that we owe her an apology,” the letter said.  The elders will move forward with releasing her from membership and will continue their commitment to support her financially through August, the letter said.

Hinkley declined further comment in an email May 29, citing a need for “space and time to step back from the craziness and process everything that has unfolded this week.”
“It’s taken a huge toll on me,” she said.

The elder letters said Chandler will “speak generally about member care and church discipline” in his message this weekend but “will not speak directly to the situation at hand.”

Along with Acts 29, a church-planting network founded by Mark Driscoll, former pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle who resigned amid controversy in 2014, Chandler is active in the Gospel Coalition, a network of Reformed churches. The Gospel Coalition Council includes prominent Southern Baptist Convention leaders such as Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Mark Dever, senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.; Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Russell Moore, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

A former Gospel Coalition Council member, C.J. Mahaney, stepped down amid accusations that he knew about abuse allegations in Sovereign Grace Ministries, another Calvinist church-planting network that he co-founded. A lawsuit naming Mahaney described in media as the biggest evangelical abuse scandal to date was dismissed due to statutes of limitation.
https://baptistnews.com/article/man-confesses-to-child-porn-church-disciplines-his-wife/

Clearly it is more important in new calvinist churches to have people restored to the church party line than to seek justice for the victims! Those restored may continue to be declared the elect of God (because the calvinist God wouldn’t have provided repentance and restoring grace to any non-elect), and those who refuse to toe the party line may be declared to be not the elect of God (because if they had been of the calvinist God’s elect, he would have provided repentance and restoring grace to them). Thus in new calvinist churches, a person may be declared elect as long as he/she agrees to toe the party line of discipline as set out by the church (often according to the recommendations of the Biblical Counsellor. In this way so often the victim ends up being effectively declared the criminal!

This is not a group of loving Christians here; it is a picture of dictatorship control. You will do what the church rules as necessary, regardless, it seems, of whether or not real justice has been administered. And love hasn’t just been given a back seat here; it has been kicked out the door! Nor do you decide whether or not you will believe; the church decides your decision for you, and what it decides is to be considered the proper dispensation of the grace of the calvinist God. In this way the new calvinist church may dictate to you whether or not you may be accepted into heaven. Those it restores will go to heaven, while those they reject as unrepentant are to be condemned to hell as unforgiven, unrestored and therefore non-elect sinners.

For further reading follow these links

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

New calvinist church counselling, discipline and control

Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today

New calvinism is Biblical Counselling

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Calvinisms

(And the challenge to calvinists, as always, is to prove me wrong, or accept what I say. So far the silence from calvinists has been deafening. They will tell me I’m wrong but completely fail to properly support their debate in any way.)

1/. The calvinist gospel in a nutshell.

The calvinist gospel is very simple to explain. The calvinist God has chosen (from the beginning) a small group (his elect) for heaven and the rest (most of the world) for eternal condemnation. Where you go when you die was determined by the calvinist God from the beginning of time without any regard to anything you might do, whether good or bad. You have no choice in the matter and can do nothing to influence the calvinist God. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell. You are either going to heaven or you’re going to hell; one or the other is your destiny and you will go where the calvinist God tells you to go. And he decided who would be on each list from the beginning; you literally have no say in the matter! Like a dictator (see point 9 below), the calvinist God’s will is the only will in the universe.

The calvinist Jesus only died for the sins of the ones chosen to go to heaven. Not one of the rest can ever be forgiven even if they wanted to be, for no-one died for any of their sins. The calvinist God didn’t intend saving them. The biblical gospel is irrelevant to those heading to hell for they can never be forgiven anyway, ever. And the chosen ones of God (the elect) can only respond to the biblical gospel of faith in Christ after they have been born again (regenerated). Thus, according to calvinist teaching, the biblical gospel cannot save any of those chosen to go to hell, and can only save those chosen for heaven after they have been born again.

2/. Calvinists teach universal salvation.

Calvinists love to teach that, according to John 6:44, all whom the Father calls (draws) will come in faith and go to heaven. But John 12:32 says that Jesus drew all (all mankind) to Himself on the cross, which means that all may come if they choose to do so, yet many do not come. Therefore, either all must come in faith (which they don’t), or there must be free will to resist the calling and drawing of God. Calvinists claim that John 6:44 proves their unconditional election, saying that all whom God draws will come in faith, yet that can only be true if man has no free will to resist God’s drawing. Also, if all are drawn, then all must come if there is no free will. So, without free will, calvinists have locked themselves into a universalist salvation logic. Please think carefully on this!

3/. Calvinists teach that God’s elect have eternal life before they can come to Christ to receive eternal life.

Calvinists teach that we must be born again with life from the Holy Spirit before we may respond to God in any way. Then why is there any need to come to Christ for eternal life if they already have eternal life?
John 5:39-40 – ³⁹Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ⁴⁰And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Why bother coming for life if you already have life before you can come?

4/. The calvinist God cannot be eternal.

Calvinists love to mock those who teach (quite correctly, of course) that God uses foreknowledge to determine His elect. (The Bible does teach clearly that God’s elect people are chosen according to His foreknowledge of future decisions as per 1 Peter 1:2a – Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Thus it is an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge.) Calvinists picture this foreknowledge as God peering (or looking) through the corridors of time (or history) in order to see the future which they picture as being quite distant. But, if God is eternal, He has no need to peer through any corridors of time. The God of the Bible is outside time, not bound by time in any way. Any who picture God as peering through corridors of time are depicting their God to be merely temporal, bound by time, not eternal.

Because God is eternal, He can see the end at the same time as the beginning. God is the I AM, as also is Jesus; Before Abraham was, I AM. (John 8:58). God doesn’t just know what is going to happen in the future; He is already in the future, and the past, and the present, all simultaneously. In fact, in the same way that God exists at all places in the universe simultaneously, God exists at all points along the timeline from the beginning of time to the end of time, all simultaneously. This is the definition of eternalness: that one who is eternal must not be bound nor limited by time in any way or at any time. Even when Jesus came to earth and people therefore say He existed at a particular point in time, He also made it clear that this was not so, that He in fact existed before Abraham was born simultaneously with His time on earth as a man. Thus, “before Abraham was, I AM”.

Therefore God can make promises that will come to pass because he can see them come to pass at the same time that He promises them. And God, from the beginning of time, can observe all future decisions made by man throughout all time, at all times, simultaneously. Think about this carefully!

Calvin said it was futile (vain) to discuss God’s foreknowledge (or prescience) because he knew all things merely because he had already decreed everything. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience (= foreknowledge), while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment. (Institutes, Book III Chapter 23 Section 6)

And Boettner in “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” (Page 30) says: Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined. That is, unless the calvinist God predetermines future events, then he cannot know those future events until they happen. Clearly Boettner’s God isn’t eternal! It seems that calvinists deny foreknowledge because their God is unable to foreknow things unless he has already decreed that they should happen!

This is at the very least making mockery of the God of the Bible, for they make it impossible for Him to know the future except by peering through the corridors of time, or decreeing everything totally from the beginning. Such a God is not eternal but temporal; that is, bound by time.

5/. Calvinist salvation is not a gift of God.

While the Bible says clearly that salvation is a gift of God, calvinists teach that if you choose to receive this gift, then that is a work of your salvation. However, a gift is only a gift if it is willingly received (that is, an act of the will) or else it becomes a requirement or an imposition. The calvinist God requires that those whom he has chosen must receive the “gift” (they cannot refuse it) and those whom he has not chosen for salvation cannot receive the “gift”. Thus the calvinist God imposes his “gift” upon a select group of people who are not permitted to refuse it. Thus the imposed calvinist salvation cannot be defined as a gift because gifts must be willingly received, and shouldn’t be imposed upon people without any option to refuse.

6/. Calvinists teach that if we willingly receive this gift of salvation, then that makes the gift imperfect.

However, receiving a gift can never alter the intrinsic value of that gift. A gift must be fully paid for before it may be offered as a gift. Just the receiving of a gift can never define that gift to be imperfect. This is illogical. However, calvinists do illogically teach that if we decide to accept the gift of salvation offered by God, then that is a work of that salvation and thus renders the salvation imperfect. Of course, if that “gift” is really an imposition (that is, thrust upon us without any choice), then we have no say in the matter, which is really what calvinism teaches anyway. They teach that God chooses who goes to heaven, and therefore chooses who goes to hell. You have no say in the matter, ever. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell, after all. If you are chosen for heaven, the calvinist God will impose salvation upon you. If you are not chosen for heaven (that is, most of the world), then the calvinist God has not provided any salvation options for you at all.

7/. The calvinist unconditional election is really a conditional election.

If the calvinist election is truly unconditional (as they try to claim), then why are there no converts among the heathen until the missionaries get there with the gospel? An unconditional election would not rely upon the preaching of the gospel. And why is there a greater percentage of calvinists among white Caucasians than any other racial group? That is, calvinism is most likely to be found among those who are most likely to hear the gospel preached.

Calvinists will then say that it is the gospel which the calvinist God uses to draw his people to himself, yet conveniently ignore the fact that this then imposes a condition, that the gospel must be preached in order to be chosen as God’s elect. But, how may the gospel preaching draw them if they cannot respond to God (and his gospel) until after they have been drawn to God and regenerated? Of course, the calvinist gospel is whether or not you have been chosen for heaven; this is all that counts in their teaching, and the biblical gospel of faith in Christ can only happen after you have been born again.

8/. Calvinism does not teach assurance of salvation.

Calvinists can never be sure they have been chosen by their God until the day they die. Calvinists teach the perseverance of the saints (or the elect), but can only be assured of salvation if they persevere to the end. As they say, it is not the words we say but the life we live that determines our entry into heaven. If your works fall away before the end, then they teach that you were never saved in the first place. Even Calvin taught that God gave a temporary faith to some, an inferior operation of the Spirit (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11). Such people could think they were saved, and others around them could also think they were saved, and yet the calvinist God never chose them for heaven. So a calvinist who thinks he is heading for heaven may actually fall away before the end, and then he is to be considered unsaved, in fact, never saved in the first place.

9/. The calvinist God is a dictator

The calvinists love to claim how sovereign their God is, yet they depict a God far from sovereign. Sovereignty has more to do with right to rule, while a dictatorship has more to do with rule by might. Sovereignty generally exhibits power and authority over a nation by right of position or descent, or by common vote, or by being chosen for the task. That which uses force to demand power and authority rarely, if ever, exhibits sovereignty of rule, especially if the ruler, being fearful of opposition, considers it necessary to continue to rule by might rather than by right.

A sovereign ruler may feel comfortable with permitting basic personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, while a dictator is so afraid of an uprising against him that he quells all forms of personal freedom, effectively forbidding his subjects to demonstrate a will that is not totally in line with his own will. It is the dictatorship that forbids the free will in its subjects. In a dictatorship, only one will is permitted: the will of the ruler (which will be demanded by force if necessary). In a dictatorship, no-one has the freedom to choose whom they wish to serve. If anyone does demand freedom to choose, he is likely to quietly or otherwise “disappear”. Ask yourselves: why does the calvinist God refuse anyone the free will to choose this day whom they will serve.

But the God of the Bible is not a dictator, for He permits personal freedoms including the freedom to choose whom they will serve. Listen to Tozer’s wisdom here.
Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. (“Knowledge of the Holy”, P 76)

And if all free will choices, both good and bad, are to be judged one day, then God’s sovereignty is total. A doctrine of no free will for man merely reduces absolutely sovereign God to a fearful dictator.

10/. The calvinist God is the only willful sinner in the universe.

This is a shocking heresy against holy God! But calvinists cannot deny that they clearly teach that their God’s will is the only will permitted in the whole universe. No other independent will may be permitted! Thus the calvinist God is the only one who can take responsibility for all sin and evil in the whole universe! Calvin said: But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils. (“Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”, Page 179) MacArthur wrote: Ultimately, we must concede that sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it – or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it. (“The Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe” Page 113)

In fact, all calvinists, when forced to tell the plain truth, must confess that their God decreed (ordained, authored, created) all sin, all evil. They teach that man is unable to choose between good and evil, and therefore the calvinist God chooses for all mankind whether they will be good or evil. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell, after all: that the calvinist God has chosen to send a small group to heaven and therefore has chosen to send the rest to hell. Man has absolutely no say in the matter because the calvinist God has given man no free will to choose between good and evil. The calvinist God therefore chooses some to be good (and go to heaven) and the rest he has chosen to be evil (and go to hell). You get no say in the matter because the calvinist God’s will is the only will permitted in the universe.

For further information, please go to Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Spiritual warfare

Since we put our post “Calvinisms” online, we have apparently suffered a lot of efforts to crash or otherwise act violently against our site. Of course, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, but the incompetent carrying out the equivalent of online road rage can and do still hurt others. However, Christians should not fear him who can hurt the physical body, but instead fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell.
Matthew 10:28 – And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
In fact, all mankind, no matter what side they’re on, should fear Him who has the authority to cast them into everlasting torment in hell. The tragedy is that most will not fear God until it is too late!

It is clear that anyone who is in a genuine Christian ministry (in obedience to sovereign God) will suffer opposition and attacks. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that the more a person desires to serve Jesus Christ, the more they will be opposed by the world for doing so.
2 Timothy 3:12 – Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Christians are definitely called to suffer. We are called to follow the suffering example of Christ.
1 Peter 2:21 – For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
On this basis it’s impossible to justify a Christian life where we are able demand to have every blessing of health and wealth laid on by God merely because we want to enjoy life. Too many who call themselves Christians expect, no, even demand of God that He give to them what they ask of Him!

Why did Jesus say that any who did not take up his cross and follow after Him was not worthy of Him?
Matthew 10:38 – And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
And any who did not take up his cross and follow Jesus could not be His disciple?
Luke 14:27 – And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Quite bluntly this means that if you are not prepared to be called to suffer for Christ, then you are not a true disciple of Christ; you are literally not worth being a disciple! That is, you are not a genuine Christian! If you want to enjoy the world then you cannot be a genuine Christian. The best you can be is a “wannabee” Christian, a de-facto Christian, a P-plater Christian. You cannot be the real deal if you cannot accept suffering!

Taking up your cross was to forsake the world. To take up your cross you have to make a serious decision to lose the world.
Matthew 16:24-26 – ²⁴Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. ²⁵For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. ²⁶For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
If you take up your cross, you will lose your life for the sake of Christ, yet if you choose to lose your life for the sake of Christ, you will find real life in Christ. The life you get is not the life that the world gives, in much the same way that the peace Christ gives is not the peace that the world gives.
John 14:27 – Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Christians have an enemy in satan and his demons whose main desire is to oppose anything that is of God. They hated God from the time of their rebellion, and oppose anyone who opposes them in God’s name. In particular, satan has made genuine Christians a special target of his anger, and tries to do his best to prevent Christians from properly carrying out their ministries for God. This opposition is generally from all those in the world who have chosen to serve satan rather than God. Such people are still in bondage to satan by their own choice to oppose the people of God.

If a Christian is not suffering opposition for ministry work, then he must seriously consider if his ministry is actually a calling from God. If suffering marks the true Christian, then a lack of suffering may mark the lesser or even non-genuine Christian. Suffering therefore is likely to be an indication that your ministry is important enough for satan to oppose in any significant way.

But genuine Christians have some powerful weapons at their disposal. All things that independently come into their lives (excluding things that they have chosen or influenced themselves) will work together for good.
Romans 8:28 – And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
This good is as seen from God’s perspective, an overall view that even permits suffering to occur for the sake of God’s plan for mankind.

We endure all things so that others may be saved to the uttermost.
2 Timothy 2:10 – Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
We suffer all things so that the gospel will not be hindered.
1 Corinthians 2:12b – Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Not only do all things work together for good for genuine Christians, but they are more than conquerors over the opposition because of Christ who loves them. No matter how much Christians are persecuted, God’s promise is still that they will win the battle, which means that their enemies (led by satan and his demons) are more than losers. No matter what it looks like on the surface, Christians can only lose if they choose to lose!
Romans 8:36-37 – ³⁶As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. ³⁷Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

For this reason, Christians are to give God thanks for all things. This does not mean only those things that we think are good, but all things without exception. If God has permitted it into our lives to work together for good, then we must thank and praise Him for everything that permits this good to be worked through us.
Ephesians 5:20 – Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

What all this means is that all who oppose genuine Christians in ministry for God are taking on more than they can chew. No matter what it appears like, the reality is that behind the scenes God will still be working His plan out for His glory and those who oppose are taking on sovereign God Himself. This may not seem serious to some, at least, not for the moment, but when you stand before God in judgment one day, you will answer for it all. In fact, everything that everyone has done, whether good or bad, will be judged one day, Christians and non-Christians alike.
2 Corinthians 5:10 – For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

Those who have trusted in their own understanding and have refused to acknowledge God’s right to their lives will be judged on their works and found in debt. Those who have trusted in God’s promises for forgiveness and eternal life will be counted righteous by their faith.
Romans 4:4-5 – ⁴Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. ⁵But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
This is the choice for all mankind. You will be the servant of whomever you choose to obey, either God or the world (mammon, satan etc). Your eternal future depends upon the choice you make.

Those who oppose God’s children will wish they had been stopped before they did so.
Matthew 18:6-7 – ⁶But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. ⁷Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Harsh words indeed, but if the Bible is right, if Jesus is speaking the truth here, then one day those who think it good to serve satan by opposing God’s people with violence of any sort will wish they had been drowned before they could have done such atrocity. Christians do indeed have powerful weapons with which to oppose those who persecute them in any way.

If you wish to see the plain truth about calvinism as a cult, please follow this link – “Calvinisms”. My challenge is to test all things, think them through for yourself. Do not disbelieve anything I say simply because some expert says I’m wrong. Everyone will stand before God one day and He won’t forgive you if you have believed something wrong on the advice of another whom you trusted. Don’t accept it because I have said it, either. Do your own research and test what I’ve said. Be responsible for your own beliefs.

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

So who are the cowards?

In recent days this website has been hacked fairly consistently now, so far without any success. Every attacking IP that I’ve checked was listed as abusive, with just about all being serious repeat offenders. This means that our website has attracted a significant amount of attention from those who think it’s acceptable to be violently aggressive against anyone that offends them in any way. Such people do not consider it a problem to hit out at their opponents, in much the same way that we have road rage, house invasions and gang bullying. They will generally only attack if they feel they have superior numbers and greater fire power than those they pick on; that is, they do not believe in fighting fairly but consider that the most important requirement is to hurt the other person without risking getting hurt themselves. Such people never attack if they think they themselves might get hurt; they are chickens in every sense of the word. They also run and hide before they can be discovered; this demonstrates their fear of retaliation. Like cowards they fight from cover because they fear the consequences if they become known to their opposition.

There’s nothing of any real value on our website, unless you consider biblical teaching to be a saleable commodity. But they still consider it necessary to hit out. So why? (Of course, I did put a post online – “Calvinisms” – that spelled out the basic heresies of calvinism just a week or so before this occurred. It is likely to have caused some wrath among that self-declared righteous mob, so logically it could strongly suggest irate calvinists behind this.) Like road rage low-life, they hit out because they have been personally offended somehow. No-one has actually done anything to them except perhaps hurt their feelings, yet this can be a huge issue for those with low self-esteem. And like bullies who hit out to boost their own self-esteem, these people find strength in their ability to hurt others. The more that others get hurt, the more these people feel “empowered” by their bullying. (All dictators are imbued with similar personalities.) Such people are generally incapable of standing their ground intellectually, so in their incompetence they hit out physically. As the saying goes, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

It may not be those who are offended who are actually doing the attacking, but if you have enough money or influence (or both), you can always find mercenaries who will do the dirty work for you. In that way such people somehow believe they are “keeping their hands clean”. They may be able to convince others (and perhaps even themselves) that they are not responsible for such cowardly activities, yet effectively their hands are covered in blood guilt. When they come to worship God, he will not hear, for they are covered with the guilt of their sin. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (Isaiah 1:15)

But what people would feel so threatened by our website, yet feel so incapable of debating the issue up front and out in the open? What people would think it necessary to destroy the work of anyone opposing them? Just recently I was asked (via a comment to this website) – Did you express your concerns personally to the preachers that you are labeling as heretics prior to making public online statements about them? But I would rephrase that question to ask the cowards who are trying to destroy this website – Did you express your concerns personally to the person whose opinions you find offensive before just attempting to do a hit and run on the website?

You only have to look at who is challenged by our website statements, for the only logical answer here is that those attacking the website are people who (a) feel threatened by our information and (b) believe they are incapable of defending themselves using sola scriptura (the Bible alone). (Or else these people are irrational, incapable of rational thinking, people that we would term “insane”; many road rage attacks are seemingly by such people!)

Now who could these people be, I wonder? Who have we opposed that might have found it too difficult to defend their views rationally and objectively using the Bible alone? Because whoever has been attacking our website will be associated in some way with such people. Could it, perhaps, be calvinists who don’t approve of what we say about their beloved beliefs? But calvinists are such nice, easy to get along with people, aren’t they? So biblical, too; one would expect them to get into their Bibles to study and demonstrate my faults, wouldn’t they? And, of course, they are the epitome of graciousness, for their God is the God of grace, isn’t he? Calvinists are so loving, so caring, so kind, so biblical that they would feel ashamed to be seen as trouble-makers, wouldn’t they? Or would they?

Calvinists, especially those of the new calvinist variety, are often seen (even by their own) as aggressive, arrogant, abrasive, know-it-all, sneering, etc. Within the SBC of USA, the battle lines are being drawn over calvinism’s aggression.
However, there is now a “New Calvinism” movement, “committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (‘TULIP’), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.”
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/whats-wrong-with-tulip-southern-baptists-resist-aggressive-advance-of-new-calvinism/102839.htm

Even SBC calvinists see the new calvinist aggression as excessive.
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
I, yes even as a Calvinist, firmly stand with these men in opposing this “New Calvinism”. …. I am especially opposed to those that “are characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (TULIP).  I’m opposed to that because aggressive insistence goes against “teaching with gentleness and respect”.  Furthermore, I do not support an aggressive insistence that others be Calvinists because it denies the very sovereignty and power of God that it claims to uphold. https://sbcvoices.com/why-im-opposed-to-new-calvinism/

Another comment in a forum: Calvinists I have met …. seem to be very pushy, arrogant and aggressive about what they believe and can’t seem to let it go until people believe them. They try really hard to convince people. It was worse in bible college, but that’s another story. They just don’t come off as people at ease or at peace with God, like something is bugging them or something like that. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to believe in something that causes you to have to defend that point of view so aggressively.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/five-misconceptions-about-calvinism.8018475/page-2
And from a calvinist soon after on that same forum: As a Calvinist, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, there are many Calvinists that do exactly what you are describing.

Or from Derek Rishmawy, a new calvinist writing here for The Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist group)
Let’s be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won’t admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace.
This was my final reason for being put off from Calvinism: really arrogant, thickheaded, (often young) know-it-all, sneering Calvinists. Who wants to be planted in soil that yields such fruit? In the long run that isn’t the best reason to reject a doctrine, as it’s just another version of the common atheist objection: “But if Christianity were true, then Christians should be great, but all the Christians I know are jerks so it must be false” (see C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity). Still, there’s something to it given Christ’s own declaration that people are known by their fruits.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sneering-calvinists/

It is fairly safe to assume that calvinists (especially of the new calvinist breed) are condescending, abrasive, unhelpful, aggressive, arrogant, thickheaded, know-it-all sneering calvinists. After all, it’s a new calvinist who states this clearly on a new calvinist website. So, even they admit this. What happens, then, when they get into a situation where they cannot freely hammer their arguments down their opponents’ throats because they are not able to do this without losing credibility? Do they then try to destroy their opponents merely because they cannot defeat them any other way? Would these people crash a website simply because it was the only way to shut it up? You may be the judge here, although if I were the jury, I would probably bring in a verdict of guilty, that the calvinists are guilty as charged.

I’ll finish with what I wrote on my previous post assuring all that we are confident of victory in Christ because of God’s great and precious promises. We who are Christians may be assured that we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37), and that all things that sovereign God permits into our lives will work together for good (Romans 8:28). Our response to these great promises (through our faith in the One who promises) is to give thanks always for all things to God in the name of Christ our Saviour (Ephesians 5:20), and, like Jesus’ disciples, rejoicing that we are called by our sovereign God to a ministry that the enemy persecutes. And they (the disciples) departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41) It is truly a blessing to be called to such a ministry. We praise God for His faithfulness and we pray for those who, greatly misled, consider it necessary to spiritually oppose us. May God bless them with an understanding of His love that sent Christ to die on the cross for all mankind (1 John 2:2) that those who choose to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved will truly  be saved (Romans 10:13).
Romans 5:8 – But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

The heresies of the church today

For a while now I have commented on the non-biblical teachings in some of our local churches. I have noted the false teachings of Todd Friel and Gary Thomas at Living Springs (my apologies to other Living Springs churches elsewhere), and the alleged use of another false teacher, Paul Tripp, at a neighbouring church.

Friel is a heretic who teaches that because I made a decision to pray a prayer to be saved many years ago, I am actually heading for hell. (For further information on Friel’s salvation heresy, follow this link at The Heresy of Todd Friel, a document I published on this website over two years ago.)
And Gary Thomas – words fail me to describe his satanic heresies being taught in a church that once claimed to be biblical. But by their fruit you will know them, and if Gary Thomas is evidence of the fruit to be expected of Living Springs, then their fruit is rotten to the core. (Follow this link to see what I said about his teachings in Gary Thomas – New Age Teacher which I also published on this website over two years ago.)

I was also informed almost 3 years ago that Paul Tripp materials were being taught at a nearby allegedly fundamentalist church. Tripp teaches that all Christians are infected with a disease which robs us of our identity in Christ, and that we need to be counselled in order to be freed from this dreadful epidemic. This is something truly biblical churches should not be teaching! (For further information on Tripp, follow this link at Paul Tripp – Heretic or Tare? which I published on this website over two years ago.)

Now for an update on these matters. Living Springs still advertises Friel on its website at https://www.lsbc.org.au/small-groups. It is disappointing that they haven’t done the job of testing all things, for then they would discover that Friel is a calvinist who denies the free will of man to receive the salvation offered by God to all mankind. Friel clearly believes that God has chosen his elect from the beginning of time, and only these chosen ones will be permitted to enter heaven. According to Friel, mankind therefore has no right to choose this day whom he will serve.

Friel says So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. (Heb.6:1). (Read The Heresy of Todd Friel) So what does Hebrews 6:1 say? Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, This is a gospel of works, not of repentance. Is this what Living Springs teaches? Has Living Springs decided that one must be born again before one may believe in Christ and be saved? Does Living Springs now believe in the works-based calvinist salvation?

However, they appear to have just recently removed (from their website) their advertising of that new age “teacher” Gary Thomas with his satanic dogmas (using his yoga-based teachings in Sacred Marriage, I mean, who would say that a healthy look at sex can provide fruitful meditation on our need and desire for God!). Possibly someone has realised that what Thomas teaches is far from true Christian doctrine. However, I do suspect that he was more of an embarrassment to them, rather than this being a genuine effort to tidy up their teachings at Living Springs. Even the Laodicean church of Revelation 3:14-16 would have been ashamed of the evil teachings of Gary Thomas.  

Also, Living Springs, seemingly as part of its spring-cleaning to remove such embarrassments, has removed the statement that has been on their website for many years now: that they are a like-minded sister church to GraceWest (which is a calvinist church that believes the false calvinist gospel that if you weren’t chosen by God to go to heaven, then the calvinist God never intending saving you). GraceWest teaches that all who are chosen by God for salvation will come in faith and be saved. That is, if you aren’t one of the calvinist God’s chosen ones, then you won’t come in faith because you won’t be drawn by the Father as per John 6:44. The GraceWest doctrinal statement says: All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive. If you wish to be saved and you’re not one of the calvinist God’s chosen ones, then the GraceWest God doesn’t want to know you. As far as he is concerned, you can go to hell. Has Living Springs actually come to its senses and rejected the false calvinist teachings of GraceWest? Or was this just another case of removing embarrassing items from public view, like sweeping the dirt under the carpet?

Also, while discussing GraceWest, note their apparent support for such as J I Packer who is quoted twice in “The Sovereignty of God in Salvation” document on their website. Packer is heavily into mysticism, contemplative and centering prayer, and new age teachings. Just check out what Renovaré is all about!
Packer is on Renovaré’s “Board of Reference” — Renovaré is an international, New Age, ecumenical organization that emanates from the religious traditions of Quakerism, whose message is that today’s Church is missing out on some wonderful spiritual experiences that can only be found by studying and practicing the “meditative” and “contemplative” lifestyle “of early Christianity.” In actuality, Renovaré espouses the use of the early pagan traditions of guided imagery and visualization, astral projection, “Zen” prayer techniques for meditation (i.e., Buddhism), and Jungian psychology (i.e., a blend of Eastern mysticism and Roman Catholic mystical spiritual tradition, which nicely fits the New Age model), all as means of obtaining “personal spiritual renewal” in the lives of believers. (For a more detailed analysis of Renovaré and the teachings of its co-directors, psychologist Richard Foster and William Vaswig, see Media Spotlight‘s Special Report of March, 1992: “Renovaré: Taking Leave of One’s Senses.”)
(https://jbeard.users.rapidnet.com/bdm/exposes/packer/general.htm)

Now to Paul Tripp; I was reliably informed that Tripp materials were being taught by a neighbouring church in 2016. I did research on this false teacher and consequently wrote a document describing his teachings. Tripp has also had a lot of influence on Biblical Counselling which was largely developed at Westminster Theological Seminary in USA (which is claimed to be the birth-place of what is now called new calvinism). It is of interest that perhaps 2 years after the alleged teaching of Paul Tripp materials, this neighbouring fundamentalist church began advertising Biblical Counselling on its website. If the Biblical Counsellor is affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia, then Paul Tripp materials are likely to have been involved in the training of that person. Biblical Counselling Australia training is mostly done through the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and through Westminster Seminary in USA, both of which are calvinist institutions (or, perhaps more correctly, new calvinist). Of course, the Biblical Counselling angle could have been a good reason for teaching Paul Tripp’s heretical materials in 2016.

There are so many false teachers around today with so many options for accessing their unchristian teachings that it is absolutely necessary to be testing all things as commanded in the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Too many false teachers are trusted simply because they claim to be experts and very few churches can be bothered to do the hard work of checking them out. It also seems to be far better now in the eyes of many Christians to accept some measure of compromise in order to keep the peace in their church communities. And, it may be noted, the aggressive delivery style of many false teachers makes it difficult for more peace-loving Christians to resist their false teachings.

This therefore is a major headache for churches where members still desire good teaching from the Bible unadulterated by false teaching. Pastors are supposedly too busy (studying? counselling? fishing? holidaying? having a good time?) to be checking everything out, and church members (many of whom work full time) often lack the time to be testing everything that is taught. Add to this the plethora of published materials available for the use of pastors and church leaders. In most Christian bookstores you can purchase pastors’ annuals with sermons and Bible studies set out for the whole year. You can also obtain Bible studies and courses (book, DVD etc) on so many different topics, allegedly prepared by Bible teachers who seem to have all the credentials to “prove” their suitability.

But so many university degrees these days are not worth the paper they are written on (and this includes pastoral, religious, divinity, Bible-study, counselling etc degrees of all kinds). Many can be purchased online (and there are many such websites doing this). Here is one such website’s advertising.
We provide you bachelor degree  for a fraction of the cost of campus based degrees. Attending a college is difficult financially, academically and intellectuality and you can avoid making great effort with bachelor degree. You will get your  degree  in less than a week and you will save time, money and effort . You do not have to spend on tuition fees and transport and you can get the degree from the comfort of your home. You can start searching for jobs once you get  degree and you will boost your career.
…… You will find out the name of the university only after you graduate. In this way, we assure the confidentiality of the process and we do not disclose personal information about you to third parties because we believe confidentiality is essential in our field of activity.
(https://www.buyuniversitydegrees.com/bachelor-degree-online-fast/)
Just because someone has a qualification doesn’t necessarily make him or her an instant expert.

Therefore, if a pastor wants to stay on top of all the teaching done in his church, if he wishes to be assured of what is being taught, he often has to literally write it all himself. And with so much being demanded of pastors today (including community and recreational needs!), how many have the time to do it all without delegating responsibility to others.

Yet churches (especially their leadership teams) are still responsible for what they teach their members. In particular, the pastor will be required by God one day to give account of what he has done with the sheep under his care. (Hebrews 13:17 – Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.)

It might be a tough life being a good biblical pastor today – it always has been – but sitting in a boat while fishing, or at a picnic table, scribbling down a few notes on what you’ll teach on Sunday morning is a gross dereliction of duty to those sheep of God. Cutting corners might make more time available for recreational needs (such as taking a boat out fishing, or taking a holiday), or having barbecues to keep up church “community”, but the true church will suffer if you don’t spend time studying the Bible for the sake of your congregation. You can’t cut corners without hurting someone; you can’t cut corners without risking false teaching getting in via the front door. Pastors are called to shepherd God’s people, not to have a good time making lots of money (and making sure that the congregation remains big enough to pay for your luxury car, big house, and relaxation needs!).

And this brings me to my final point here. Too often people see the pastoral position as a means of climbing the financial success ladder. First you build your mini-empire, which can be hard work in the beginning. But, if you put in the effort early, and are prepared to deliver what the people ask for, then you may have a reasonable assurance of eventual success. Of course, this can involve some substantial measure of compromise, shutting your eyes to obvious transgressions among your congregation; you just cannot afford to get rid of the money they put in the offering. (You rarely build big churches by regularly pointing out the sins of the congregation. They’ll end up leaving and putting their money in the offering of a church that “likes” them better!)

Being a pastor or minister has always been a bit of a status symbol in some churches, especially those of calvinist or reformed persuasion (such as Presbyterians or Lutherans). Such people were considered the elect of God, and therefore couldn’t lose their salvation. Even if they committed significant sin (such as running off with another woman) they couldn’t be declared non-elect, and were likely to be moved on elsewhere to places where they could start again with a “clean” slate. (I have known personally a Presbyterian minister who ran off with another woman, and his church just refused to talk about him; to them he was an embarrassment that couldn’t be removed because he was still one of the elect! And I have also known personally a Lutheran pastor who was merely shifted to another distant area of his state after having a serious affair with another woman; like the Presbyterian minister, he just couldn’t be permitted to lose his elect status.) But you cannot merely sweep dirt under the carpet and pretend it just isn’t there. No amount of pretending can ignore the inconsistencies of remaining elect especially when a person who was not a pastor would probably have been removed from their elect membership for doing the same thing.

To be a mega-church today (with lots of money in the offering plate, of course – a pastor needs his big house, luxury cars, and relaxation equipment such as caravans and boats!) you need to offer a lot of goodies, such as a free rock concert on Sunday mornings, and lots of community-building activities such as BBQs, parties, luncheons, holiday retreats, camps, counselling, child-minding, old-age care – the list goes on and on. It seems that the least of their requirements is to have good on-the-ball teaching from the Bible. In many churches, the rock concert that kicks the service off lasts far longer than the sermon itself (which can often be more like a short devotional). Give them what they want! After all, what do most people prefer today: a rock concert or a sermon? (Please note that churches should obtain their music from godly sources or else their church music will be tainted by worldliness. For this reason I would choose to avoid music from Hillsong which is used by many churches today. I advise all churches to carefully assess the source of their music before obtaining something that is likely to have been designed to merely entertain the masses that turn up on Sunday mornings, thus making lots of money for the song-writers. That’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? To make money for those who run the shows?)

And, like Rick Warren advises, avoid the use of “negative” terms like sinful, evil, condemnation etc; instead, use positive terminology that encourages people to come again (and, of course, put money in the offering plate – after all, the pastor needs a new big house and another car or two). A former counsellor of Warren’s Willow Creek church says of its shallow doctrine: “Willow Creek is a mile wide and one-half inch deep.” (G.A. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996), p. 268)

When will churches get back to solid Bible doctrine untainted by the winds of heresy? We need more godly men to be pastors in the small churches where finances struggle to pay for expenses, but where the sacrifice leads the lost to salvation in Christ alone (something the calvinists just do not seem to understand). After all, why is the church on the Earth? To have a good time? To make lots of money especially for the church leaders? To be popular in the world? Or to preach the gospel regardless of the sacrifice required? Note that the Bible clearly teaches that those who live godly lives as Christians will suffer for their faith. 2 Timothy 3:12 – Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. There are very few suffering pastors in today’s world, and many of those who do suffer, dream of the day when they, too, will have the world at their feet like the rest. God bless those pastors who never dream of such but instead, like the disciples, are rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. (Acts 5:41)

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment via the  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

A guide to the navigation and use of this website.

While this website largely focuses upon heresies and false teachings, in particular, those of the calvinists, it also is the website of a small yet active home church. Of course, our home church commenced when an arrogant and aggressive MacArthur-style church (are there any that are not arrogantly aggressive?) made serious moves to take some measure of control over a local fundamentalist church which my family had some significant involvement with. I have a strong belief in good biblical teaching and discerned that the addition of calvinism into the mix was far from biblical indeed.

 So, while I have an understandable opposition to a doctrine that demands (like calvinism does) to be the dominant belief system, yet far from sola scriptura (the Bible alone), our church does focus upon solid Bible study and the serious discernment of biblical truth. In over 5 years since we commenced, over 250 messages and sermons have been prepared and delivered. Much research has gone into every message, including the meanings of the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. A typical sermon might take the best part of a day to prepare. There are no short-cuts!

A typical sermon will last for at least 60 minutes plus time allowed for discussion and questions raised during the meeting. (I was also church organist for many years over 25 years ago, so having our favourite hymns is definitely not a problem. I was also secretary of this fundamentalist Bible-believing church for many years; and not having a regular pastor for much of the time meant that I was largely responsible for the day-to-day running of the church. As a result I did much of the preaching each Sunday. This experience has been of inestimable value in running our home church now.)

We will go through each verse carefully, looking at context, biblical consistency, original word-meanings, and even relevant historical data. Where more than one possible interpretation might exist, then all reasonable options are listed, with usually one of them recommended as most likely. After all, this is God’s truth we’re looking at and there can be no room for even the slightest bending of meaning to suit one’s own personal opinion. And no-one can possibly know the whole truth this side of death! (Except maybe the calvinists, according to the claims some make.)

Any inconsistency generally points to a lie somewhere, and so the best interpretation has to be when all verses relevant to the discussion are looked at. The truth always has to be acceptable to all the Bible, not jut a part of it. One might find a “truth” by looking at a verse at a time, yet the rest of the Bible may declare it to be a lie. Unleashing God’s word just one verse at a time is a good recipe for heresy.

I also do not demand that all in the church service agree with me just because I say it is true. I am not perfect, and so if there are questions raised, they must be dealt with. All attending must be teachable, even the one doing the sermon; therefore all queries must be defended only on good scriptural grounds. All should be good Bereans and ask the difficult questions to see if what is being taught is truly so (Acts 17:10-11). All should test (prove) all things, holding fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). All should rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2;15). All should think for themselves and not believe something merely because the leader has said to believe it.

Our home church commenced with a series of 7 sermons on “All or Nothing”, teaching on the so-many absolutes of God’s truth. This set the standard and the pattern for all consequent studies. This series was followed by further studies on various topics including Sovereignty & Responsibility, Spiritual Warfare and sermons on Christian living. After 8 months we commenced doing books of the Bible, starting with Zechariah in May 2014. By 2015 most sermons were based on various books of the Bible studied in detail. The earlier ones such as Zechariah, Malachi, Titus and Zephaniah were not put online as we did not have our website up and running until some time in 2017. I have started putting Romans (2015) online. The rest (Hebrews, Isaiah 1-12, Ephesians and Revelation 4-22 ) are all online.

Currently we are doing Genesis 1-11; some of these are already online.
I try to add sermons as soon as possible but busy-ness can get to me and slow down putting them online. However, my aim is to put all sermons online eventually. They are all in written format; I have not taped my sermons for playing online.

You can follow this link to Old Testament and New Testament studies. Messages not specifically on books of the Bible may be found at Messages & Teachings. This currently includes studies on The Foreknowledge of Sovereign God, The Rapture, Only the Cross of Jesus, and the 7-series All or Nothing studies. (The link for “All or Nothing” goes to the 1^st study; the rest may be accessed via the 1^st study in this series.)

While I endeavour to teach as accurately as I can, I also try to explain what the sermon has to say about life today – the application. This includes how the teaching should be applied to our daily living. In particular, if it makes a point that can be applied to today’s church scene, then I generally will do just that. I note that often my application will probably focus on the problems of our local church scene, especially on the reasons why we commenced our home church in the first place. In many sermons, therefore, I will finish off with my application-to-today section; and because our home church commenced as a result of local ultra-aggressive calvinism, then much of my application looks at the issues with the calvinist heresies that have invaded our local fundamentalist churches. If it looks like I am obsessed with calvinism, then please understand how destructive this calvinism has been in our local church scene. You really only learn how to fight when what you always believed in is threatened with destruction!

Our church website may be confusing to navigate but here’s some simple instructions on how to find things.

1/. The Home page has 8 main headings. The 4^th one (Sermons & Messages) takes you to Old Testament and New Testament studies as listed above. Other books of the Bible will be added to these 2 categories.
Sermons & Messages also takes you to Messages & Teachings (which includes the topical sermons such as The Rapture and the All or Nothing series).
The other heading on Sermons & Messages is Calvinist Heretics & Heresies which covers most of my research on the heresies of calvinism.

2/. The 5^th heading on the Home page is Blog which includes all my posts on various topics including calvinism.  The Blog page shows my more recent posts. For a complete listing of my posts online, go to List of all Posts.

3/. The 6^th heading on the Home page is Contact. If you wish to make a comment on any of our documents, this is where you need to say it. If it is to do with a specific document, then please let us know clearly what document you are talking about and the points you wish to make about it. If possible please quote the exact wording from the document concerned.
Comments may be positive or negative, as long as you genuinely wish to discuss a point made or to make a general comment. Please use the Bible to define doctrinal issues; quoting what other writers say is not usually acceptable unless they are totally scriptural themselves.

4/. The 7^th heading on thee Home page is Comments. This is where all genuine comments are recorded, along with my comments on your comments. Comments for previous years will be archived; they may still be accessed from this Comments page.

5/. The 8^th and last heading on the Home page is the Search. It can be handy if you know a heading, phrase or even key word that you are trying to find.

I do not charge for anything on this website. I accept no advertising, nor payment for any services offered. As I see it, God’s truth is free to all and should never be limited by anyone’s inability to pay for it. And there will be no disruptive advertising to distract you from the real issue: the truth of the Bible. All I ask is that no-one misrepresents what I say by rewording etc. If you use this information, please use it properly. I don’t require that you ask for permission to use it, either, although it is nice when someone contacts me and says that they have used it.

Quotes are best made first-hand and not via a middle party. If I have quoted someone, then it is best to check that out for yourself; be certain in your own mind that the quote is genuine before you use it. I research all quotes carefully, but some are not easy to define or even track down. If I have doubts as to the genuineness of a quote, I generally do not use it. When I read a document with quotes in it, I always research thoroughly any quotes before I use them for my own documents. Where possible, I will give clear information on where to access any quotes I have used. Therefore, before quoting someone that I’ve quoted, please check it out for yourself first.

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

When does the whole world mean only Christian believers?

Answer: When calvinists make the rules!
(And calvinists, if you disagree, why not explain using sola scriptura (the Bible alone) to demonstrate your “truth”. Please state your argument clearly and logically. Or else admit that there can be no argument that may oppose the truth of the Bible!)

Calvinists believe that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 means only the calvinist elect (those whom their God has selected to go to heaven).
1 John 2:2 – And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
Because calvinists believe that only those chosen by their God can go to heaven, then those whom their God does not choose cannot ever go to heaven, and therefore it was pointless to die for their sins. The calvinist God chooses who will believe and only these chosen ones will be atoned for on the cross of their Jesus. (But they are wrong, because the Bible demonstrates clearly that “the whole world” has to be a larger group than just all the believers. Therefore “the whole world” includes non-Christians. Jesus died for all the sins of the whole world without exception or qualification!)

High profile calvinist MacArthur says “Jesus on the cross offered an atonement for those in Israel who would repent and believe and those throughout the world who would repent and believe. It is not a universal appeasement of God. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Judas because when Judas died, he went to his own place to pay for his own sins. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Herod. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Pilate. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Adolph Hitler. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood.” (Sermon code 62-10)
(So why did Jesus pray “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” if it were impossible for them to be forgiven? Obviously the calvinist God didn’t have any intention of forgiving them! Did not the calvinist Jesus realise this?)

Note the following from “One Perfect Life: The Complete Story of the Lord Jesus” excerpts from Pages 509 & 510 – By John MacArthur. “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. …..” (Footnote) FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe.” (Underlining mine)

So let’s look at the context of 1 John 2:2 by studying 1 John 2:1-2 together.
1 John 2:1-2 – ¹My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: ²And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
Note the pronouns underlined here. Who is John writing to? Primarily he wrote to the Jewish Christians of his day, yet now we correctly apply “we” in Vs 1 to all genuine Christians today. That same group “we” who have an advocate in Jesus Christ also are the same ones who are propitiated by Jesus Christ. As MacArthur says, “He IS the propitiation. He couldn’t be our Advocate if He wasn’t our propitiation.” (Sermon code 62-10). Thus it is clear that “our sins” (of Vs 2) applies to that same group who are represented by “we” who have an advocate in Vs 1.

Then John says “but not for ours only” … that is, Jesus Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of the “we” in Vs 1, but “also for the whole world”. Now anyone who can reasonably think will understand that the group represented by “the whole world” must be a larger group than the group represented by “we”, “our” and “ours”. This is very basic logic.

Some extremely misguided (or possibly deliberately deceiving) calvinist “teachers” then try to say that the “our sins” that are propitiated in Vs 2 are specifically Jewish sins, the sins of the nation of Israel, and therefore “the whole world” means the addition of the Christian believers since John’s day. This is absolutely ridiculous! That would mean that “we” who have an advocate of Vs 1 could also only apply to those same Jewish believers and no-one else. Yet the calvinists who claim that Jesus Christ is the advocate of all genuine Christians today also then have to redefine the sins of those genuine Christians as only those of the nation of Israel.

Just think it through and see the stupidity of such teaching. According to calvinists, in 1 John 2:1, “we’ is all Christians, yet in 1 John 2:2 they are now Jewish Christians only (“our sins”, “ours”).  And that’s not all folks! Just 2 verses earlier, John says that if “we” confess “our sins” God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. This is clearly the same group that John is talking to just 2 verses later in 1 John 2:1, and whose sins (“our sins”) in 1 John 2:2 are now only the sins of Israel! Is it only Jewish Christians who may confess and be forgiven? Calvinists, you are all over the place with your reasoning here. You jump in and out of various explanations as it pleases you. If “our sins” in 1 John 1:9 may be applied to the sins of all Christians for all time, then “our sins’ in 1 John 2:2 must likewise be applied to all Christians for all time. Likewise, if the “we” who have an advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous, in 1 John 2:1 applies to all Christians of all time, then “our sins” in 1 John 2:2 must also apply to all Christians of all time.

And, here’s the part the calvinists just hate about this passage. If Jesus Christ is the propitiation for “our sins” in 1 John 2:2, then “and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world“ must apply to a larger group than the all Christians of all time who may claim forgiveness of sins (1 John 1:9) and Jesus Christ as advocate (1 John 2:1). That is, it not only includes all those represented by “we” but also (that is, added to the number) others not represented by “we“. And, if “the whole world” is a bigger group than all Christians of all time, then it must include non-Christians! Primary school children can understand this, so why can’t the calvinists? The answer is that they probably do understand this, yet they don’t want to admit that they have got it totally wrong. Calvinists can never be wrong! Therefore, no matter how clearly one spells out the truth, they just will not see it, in fact, will refuse to see it.

So “the whole world” must include non-Christians or else it makes a bigger group equal in size to a smaller group (which is ridiculous). No matter how you explain it, it cannot make sense unless non-Christians are included in “the whole world”.

MacArthur, as a calvinist, demonstrates his need to propagate the lie that the atonement was only for those who believe. He says: John was an Apostle to the Jews. The recipients of his epistles would be predominantly, if not completely, Jewish. ….. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it’s now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ….. First John 2:2, that He is the propitiation for our sins as a nation, Israel. But not for ours only but also for all the sins of the world, or the sins of the whole world. …. Jesus dies not for the nation only, but for the children of God scattered abroad (Sermon code 62-10) But where does it say this in the Bible??

That is, MacArthur’s Jesus died, not only for the sins of the nation Israel, but also for the sins of all the other Christians for all time. Not one more than that, though! He didn’t pay for the sins of Judas because when Judas died, he went to his own place to pay for his own sins. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Herod. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Pilate. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Adolph Hitler. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood. (Sermon code 62-10) The calvinist Jesus didn’t die for anyone unless they were on his list of chosen ones headed for heaven.

Of course, there’s the other calvinist camp which teaches that “the whole world” means Christians from all nations of the world. Piper says: The “whole world” refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world. (“What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism” Revised March 1998) However, it doesn’t take much intelligence to realise that even then, “the whole world” still has to be a larger group of people than just the Christians of the world. There’s just no escape from this logic.

The biblical Jesus died for all the sins of the whole world without exception or qualification. Then the calvinist will say that if Jesus died for all mankind, then all must be going to heaven. What? Where does the Bible say that? They claim that no-one whose sins were paid for will go to hell, for that would be double jeopardy. (Again, where does the Bible teach this? Nowhere!) However, those who go to hell go there because of their lack of works, not to pay for their sin. They go to hell in spite of the sacrifice that paid for their sins, because they rejected the gift of that payment for their sins. They were offered a free pardon for sin, yet refused because they wanted to do things their way. You believe by faith and go to heaven, or you trust in your works and go to hell (Romans 4:4-5).

Matthew 15:14 – Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

For further information, please see my document 1 John 2:2.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Just what exactly is the calvinist gospel?

A lot of allegedly Christian religious groups have what seems to be an on-the-ball biblical gospel. But it is how the converts to that gospel are counted or recorded that defines the actual gospel being preached. No matter what you preach to the alleged lost, it’s how you assess your results that defines your gospel!

The Catholics, for instance, appear to teach a reasonable gospel. But to be seen as a good catholic you must remain a member in good standing, including regularly attending masses and confessions. If you cease being a good catholic, then it is usual to consider you as not saved. A catholic who renounces catholicism is generally pronounced anathema, that is, rejected by their God. The catholic gospel is therefore to be a good catholic.

The Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs) likewise appear to have a biblical gospel, but then assess the salvation of their members according to their adherence to the law of God. If you break God’s law without due repentance, then you may be considered to be not saved, especially if you worship on any day other than Saturday. The SDA gospel is therefore one of obedience to the law of God, especially with respect to the sabbath commandment.

The Jehovahs Witnesses (JWs) teach that only a JW may be saved. Those who belong to other religions cannot be saved. If you leave the JWs, you lose your salvation. Therefore the JW gospel is to belong to the JW religion! This is common to most cults.

In many charismatic and Pentecostal churches, the gospel may be preached faithfully, yet if a person is “slain in the Spirit” or speaks in tongues, or is apparently miraculously healed, then that person is automatically deemed to be a Christian. The reasoning is that if the person has experienced a spiritual manifestation, it must be attributed to God, because they are Christian churches and therefore spiritual activity must be of God. But satan and his demons can also cause spiritual manifestations such as these. We are told to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-3) but I have yet to see a church test the spirits behind spiritual manifestations. If the spiritual manifestation is used to define that person as Christian without qualification, then their gospel is not biblical but of spiritual manifestations.

Calvinists preach a gospel which does appear to be the same as the biblical gospel. Their doctrinal statements of belief are often seemingly very scriptural. But how do they count their converts? How do they assess whether or not a person is truly a Christian according to their doctrines? One thing is certain: they cannot assess their converts by any testimony involving free will choice in any way. If you claimed to have heard the gospel and responded in faith, repenting of your sins and choosing to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, then this is insufficient for calvinists to accept you as a genuine Christian. In fact, any decision that involves your free will in any way should disqualify you from being accepted by a calvinist as a genuine Christian!

So how does the calvinist assess the results of his gospel preaching? Calvinists often claim to be great evangelists, seeking the lost more vigorously than any non-calvinist! They claim that calvinist missionaries have sparked revivals, have built churches in many godless communities, all through their preaching of the gospel. Yet, the calvinist can’t count anyone whose claim to being Christian rests on free will in any way. So who can he count? Or, who does he actually count?

The answer lies in their doctrines. Without free will permitted for mankind to choose salvation, what do they actually teach? Some teach that you must repent and forsake all your sins before you can claim to be a Christian. Others preach that you must give up all your worldly sins in order to be saved. But one thing stands out: that you don’t choose God; God chooses you! If you repent, then God has made you repent.

The calvinist God has chosen from the beginning (without imposing any conditions at all) a small select group of people to be his own people, his elect. These and only these will go to heaven. In fact, they can’t go anywhere else, for God has chosen them unconditionally to go to heaven, and to heaven they will go! God will make them go!
MacArthur teaches that no-one is willing until God makes that sinner willing.
No sinner has the capacity to be willing.   …….
It is only when the power of God makes him willing that he becomes willing.
(“The doctrine of God’s effectual call”)

All the rest (the majority of mankind) have not been chosen, so there is no hope of salvation and heaven, ever. The calvinist Jesus only died for God’s chosen elect; therefore those not chosen cannot go to heaven, even if they wanted to, for their sins remain unpaid for. These non-elect sinners will never be saved because the calvinist God intends that they remain unwilling to come! 

This means that only those who have been chosen can be saved, and the rest cannot be saved. Not one may have free will to choose for himself. The calvinist therefore may only count those who have been chosen by God for salvation, not necessarily those who say they have made a personal decision to be saved. But how does the calvinist know the difference? Well, to start with, those who claim to have made a personal decision to be saved have to be counted out of the running. In fact, most calvinists do teach clearly that your free will in salvation renders your salvation imperfect and thus useless.

Paul Washer says: My friend, Jesus is Lord of your heart and if He wants to come in, He will kick the door down. ….. And ….
The greatest heresy in the American evangelical and protestant church is that if you pray and “ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart,” He will definitely come in.
https://www.triviumpursuit.com/blog/2010/10/13/paul-washer-quotes/
Todd Freil says: People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart”)

So, to count calvinist converts to their gospel, first of all cross out all people who have a testimony of salvation through accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Note that if the calvinist actually preaches the biblical gospel, people may get saved in spite of the calvinist denial of man’s free will in salvation. But the calvinist cannot count them as converts as such because their claim to have chosen salvation by their free will has caused them to be unable to be saved by the calvinist God. Only those whom God has chosen may be counted. Of course, many calvinists try to then say that they only made a free will choice because God had first chosen them and regenerated them (caused them to be born again) before they heard the gospel and made a decision to be saved. But then, how can a person be born again with life from the Spirit before he can be saved? How can he have eternal life before he comes to Christ for eternal life? (John 5:40)

Ultimately, the calvinist gospel is one of good works. You must demonstrate your salvation in order to be considered to be saved. You must attend church, you must have forsaken all your sin, and, in general, be a better, nicer person than you were before. In other words, you must be seen to be living a pure life, free from worldly pursuits. Pure living? Read this as “puritan”! Converts to the calvinist gospel are to be puritans. In fact, this is what calvinists teach, that the puritan lifestyle is what demonstrates your salvation. It’s not the words that you say but the life that you live that determines your eternal destiny! So, if you made a free will decision to be saved, then as long as you go to church and live a good moral life, you can be counted as a puritan and thus a genuine calvinist convert.

So, who can the calvinist witness to without telling lies? After all, if he goes out into the wide world and starts witnessing to the lost in the streets, what does he say to them? That Jesus loved them so much that He died for them? No, that would be a lie, because the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for many of them at all. Do you tell them the truth, that the calvinist God has chosen a small proportion of them and if they are one of those chosen ones, then they should listen up and hear the gospel message? Of course, you should also tell them that it is most likely that God hasn’t chosen them for heaven, having instead chosen them to go to hell. (Calvinism doesn’t like to admit this fact, that by not choosing most of mankind for heaven, the calvinist God has effectively chosen to send most of mankind to hell. Note that Calvin did teach this clearly.)

Calvin taught that those whom God had chosen for salvation would firstly be drawn to the church where they would be nurtured and finally brought forth into full salvation. In fact, he said that there was no salvation, no forgiveness of sins, outside the Church. (Institutes Bk IV Ch 1, Section 4) Now we’re getting close to our answer. Many calvinist churches and reform churches teach that the gospel should only be taught to those attending church because those attending church are likely to be chosen ones who have been drawn to church by God through regeneration (= being born again). They reason that those attending church are more likely to be of the elect group, and the calvinist gospel can only be preached effectively to those who have already been regenerated (born again) by the Spirit.

Those who regularly attend church, do good works, and appear to have forsaken their sins are likely to be declared calvinist elect. They may or may not also have a testimony of asking Jesus to be their Saviour and Lord, as long as it is assumed that they were born again (regenerated) first before they were thus saved. However, it is their behaviour that will define their elect status rather than their free will salvation testimony which might be considered irrelevant by many calvinists. Those who have a testimony of calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) yet appear to continue to struggle with sin may be rejected as God’s elect. Only those with godly behaviour may be certified as the elect of God. This describes the puritan.

And this also describes the ideal convert of the calvinist missionary and church planter. The ideal convert may be permitted to have called on the name of the Lord as long as he also demonstrates the puritan lifestyle. That is, he must attend church regularly, have given up all vices (this included alcohol but surprisingly smoking of any kind was permitted – note Spurgeon!), be faithful to his spouse, doesn’t lie, or cheat others, in fact, has become a “nicer” person. And this effectively describes the preferred attributes of the calvinist convert; in general you must be a nicer person. If you struggle with drugs or have a problem with alcohol, for example, then it is likely to define you as probably not one of God’s elect. If you cannot forsake all those obvious sins, then you aren’t likely to have been born again by God’s Spirit, because you are apparently still dead in your trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2:1)

While a missionary outreach should produce nicer people and hopefully fill the churches, not all Christians become perfect all at once. Many do struggle with sin for a while after they are saved; sins such as addictions do not always miraculously completely disappear immediately the person comes to Christ for salvation. However, if they do not disappear at all, ever, then that person’s salvation was probably non-existent. But it should not disqualify them from being declared Christian if they do not completely change from the start. What they often need is encouragement, not a dismissal because they failed to measure up immediately.

The calvinist gospel is therefore defined as puritan (better, nicer people with better, nicer works, attending church and doing the good works expected of such people). Those with a testimony of salvation (through having called upon the name of the Lord to be saved) may be declared elect if they also demonstrate the puritan lifestyle. They may be declared non-elect if they have a testimony of salvation without the puritan lifestyle. All Christians should endeavour to live a puritan life, yet not all who live a puritan life are necessarily Christians.

Calvinists may be great evangelists and church-planters, but their gospel is puritan and their converts are likewise puritan. Church members in good standing are usually seen as God’s elect. For many calvinist outreaches, this is the measure of their effectiveness: to get people sitting on seats in church; to be “nicer” law-abiding people; to be obedient to God’s commandments; and so on. Ultimately, the calvinist gospel comes down to just one thing: either you have been chosen by God (and therefore will be saved) or you have not been chosen by God (and therefore will not be saved). And if God has chosen you, you will be a nicer, better person (that is, a puritan). This is what they have to assess in order to define your Christian status. You are either elect or non-elect, and the way you live will demonstrate this, and there’s nothing you can do about it, ever. If you are elect, then you cannot miss out on heaven. All others go to hell!

So why evangelise? Effectively, calvinist evangelism cannot ever in any way change who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell. The bottom line is that even if calvinists sat back and did nothing to seek the lost, the end result (according to their doctrines) would be exactly the same! So why bother? They might as well go out and enjoy themselves, for if they are chosen ones, they are going to heaven anyway. And if they aren’t chosen ones, then they’ll end up in hell no matter whether they are good or not. Really, this is the non-gospel of the calvinists!

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Oh how the calvinists twist and pervert the Bible!

I happened to read a post on www.bereanbiblechurch.org and immediately noticed that they are far from being like the Bereans of Acts 17:11 who were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
These modern “Bereans” are giving those noble Bereans of Paul’s day a bad name! I will be quoting excerpts from https://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/acts/salvation_by_choice.htm unless otherwise noted.

Using Acts 16:13-14, they proceed to “prove” that God gives faith to enable sinners to believe the gospel. However, this is a blatant example of the twisted verbal gymnastics that so many calvinists go through in order to “prove” their lies, especially the lie that free will in salvation does not exist. It’s impossible for them to prove the lack of free will, so they are forced to use confused “interpretations” in order to demonstrate their lies to be truth. And this example here is no exception to that rule!

“Acts 16:13-14 (NKJV) “And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”
This is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase “opened heart,” and the Bible gives the whole credit for this “opening” to God’s power and not to man’s will.”

Well, you say, what’s wrong with that? Nothing so far. It is certainly true that God (and not man’s will) must take the credit for this opening of Lydia’s heart. (“opened” should be seen as causing her to understand what is being said. This is what the original Greek word means.)

“Obviously, “the things spoken” by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. ….  God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation. God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death. He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul.”

Yes, this is still exactly what the Bible has to be teaching. Paul had clearly been preaching the gospel to Lydia (and the other women as well – Acts 16:13). So far the truth is still clearly taught. But see where we get to next in this document. (It doesn’t take long before calvinists are forced to add lies to the equation or admit that they are wrong.)  The opening of Lydia’s heart now means she is made to believe!
“God must open Lydia’s heart (or give her faith) so she will be able to believe.”

Yes, God must certainly be given all credit for the opening of Lydia’s heart, but nowhere does the verse even imply that God gave her faith so that she would be able to believe. Absolutely nowhere! This is the beginning of the addition of extra non-truth information in order to ultimately present their blatant lie. They have equated the opening of Lydia’s heart with being able to believe. The Greek word translated “opened” means “to cause to understand a thing”. But they have now turned “understanding” into “believing”, a meaning not permitted by the original Greek word. This is a false (and apparently deliberate) effort to prove a lie to be the truth. It is impossible to translate opening her heart as believing in what Paul said. To attempt to state such is ridiculous!

Clearly I can understand something without committing myself to believing in it. I can have understanding yet disagree. Understanding (without extra qualification) can never imply agreement, and therefore understanding does not automatically assume belief in that which is understood. I may understand the other person’s point of view yet remain unable to agree and believe in it.

Let’s look more carefully at Acts 16:14 – And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

“opened” should be seen as causing her to understand what is being said, and the word translated “attended unto” means to turn her mind to or to get her attention. The gospel is preached, God uses the preaching of the gospel to give her understanding of His salvation, and consequently she heeds or pays attention to that preaching of the gospel. God uses Paul’s preaching of the gospel to get her attention to what’s being said and to understand what it means. This is the power of the gospel unto salvation as per Romans 1:6 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

bereanbiblechurch.org also add “Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia’s heart being opened. It is impossible not see that in this text, unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.” They now revert to the actual truth to make it look more convincing. After having already stated the lie that God also caused her to believe, they now challenge the reader to accept the truth, yet leave out the believing. This mixing of lies with truth is often done by calvinists when they have little truth to play with: present the truth but add the lie to the truth to somehow give some credibility to the lie. But, it only takes the addition of just one lie to turn the whole truth into a lie! (For example, take the truth of the election of God, and add the lie that it is unconditional. But the election is actually conditional upon God’s foreknowledge – 1 Peter 1:2.)

Then the document now quotes the lie (that man has no free will here) as the concluding truth. If you disagree with their statements here, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God. In fact, this whole document appears to be an ineffectual effort to try to demonstrate the lack of free will of man for salvation. The following accusation is based on their clam that God caused Lydia to believe, but that claim can only be valid if she had no free will to choose for herself, yet they claim that this verse somehow demonstrates the lack of free will. Think carefully: this is circular logic, using the non-existence of free will to prove the lack of free will!

“Look at the words carefully: ….whose heart the LORD OPENED… If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God’s Word. If you try to get man’s “free will” as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.”

While it is clear that God opened Lydia’s heart to understand the gospel, where does that even imply that God deliberately enabled her to believe? Yes, the gospel is certainly the means by which God got Lydia’s attention. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and God’s power is working through Paul’s faithful preaching of His gospel. When the gospel is preached faithfully according to God’s word, things will happen, for that preaching is God’s power unto salvation for all who believe in it (Romans 1:16). That power breaks open the blindness that satan places upon man’s thinking (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), and it is that power that caused Lydia to understand and pay attention to what Paul was preaching.

It is because of this power of the gospel unto salvation, that satan blinds the minds of the world so that the light of that gospel will be hid from those who need to hear it.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 – ³ But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: ⁴In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Just think on this: why does satan blind the minds of man from hearing the gospel if God’s elect are made to believe in it? Why would satan waste his time and energy if God just overruled satan in all His elect? Satan could then effectively blind the eyes of only those who could never be saved anyway! If there is no free will unto salvation, why does satan oppose the gospel so much?

But satan’s deceptions cannot prevent the access of the gospel into the minds of man. Satan cannot prevent the gospel from getting the attention of all to whom it is preached. Not all will believe the gospel, but it will certainly get their attention, whether they believe or not. Man is surely incapable of responding favourably to God unless God should intervene, to seek and to save that which is lost. And the gospel is exactly that: God’s intervention that opens the hearts (the understanding) of people and gets their attention focused upon their need for God’s salvation. Romans 10:17 – So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul’s preaching of the gospel to Lydia certainly got her attention, and God also gave her understanding of that gospel, but it was still up to Lydia to respond to it. God uses the gospel to override satan’s blinding, to get our attention, and He gives understanding with it. But God never forces man’s hand at any time to have to believe. It is possible for God to make the gospel so powerful that it is difficult to reject even (note Paul on the way to Damascus), but He will never force a person to accept it against his will (Paul still had to respond favourably).

MacArthur tries to teach the lie that Paul was forced to become a Christian.
He’s a good one to look at for this kind of call because when the call of God came on the life of the apostle Paul, it was a sovereign, divine, gracious, and irresistible summons.  He was slammed in to the dirt on the road to Damascus with nothing to do but respond.  He is called as an apostle. …..
Paul understood that he was just grabbed by the neck by God and awakened to the glory of Christ and saved and made an apostle.
(The doctrine of God’s effectual call)
Yet where does the Bible actually say this? This is fanciful thinking at best, blatant lies at worst. Just another example of emotive twaddle!

So all who read this, just study the relevant passages from the Bible and decide for yourselves just what God is actually saying in His word. If the Bible doesn’t actually say it, then how can it be truth? See for yourselves that these self-proclaimed Bereans of today have used a lot more than just poetic license to twist biblical meaning so much. Read what the Bible says without all the extra added lies. Just read the clear truth that the Bible presents; let the Bible define the truth for itself, and therefore everything that is not truth (as per the Bible) has to be a lie.

And those who declare themselves to be Bereans should be more respectful of the legacy left by those Bereans of Paul’s day who searched the scriptures daily to determine the truth for themselves.
Acts 17:11 – These (Bereans) were were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Free will Vs Free agency? What’s the difference??

I fail to understand why so many consider calvinists to be intellectual people! Over and over I come across such inane explanations from them as they try to justify their impossible biblical interpretations. Talk about claiming sola scriptura! That’s the biggest lie on the calvinist agenda, for they cannot abide defining anything biblical from the Bible alone.

And here’s yet another one! I have read many calvinists attempting to deny the free will of man, yet upholding man as a free agent. They claim that being a free agent is not the same as having free will, yet I fail to see any logical difference! But, as is my habit, I don’t just accuse; I research the subject thoroughly first to see if my criticism is justified. Many calvinists just quote their rhetoric about the free will and free agency of man, yet, also like most calvinists, give no reasoning for their statements. Of course, if they are trying to justify the unjustifiable, then avoiding clear explanations will help them, for how may one attack a shadow. (And “shadows” is the best way to describe much calvinist rhetoric.)

But I do read widely, especially calvinist literature; I can never be accused of not trying to understand what they are trying to say. And I find that much of this free will versus free agency is taught by Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), a much-quoted (yet confused) calvinist author.
P 154 – The problem which we face here is, How can a person be a free and responsible agent if his actions have been foreordained from eternity? By a free and responsible agent we mean an intelligent person who acts with rational self-determination; and by foreordination we mean that from eternity God has made certain the actual course of events which takes place in the life of every person and in the realm of nature. It is, of course, admitted by all that a person’s acts must be without compulsion and in accordance with his own desires and inclinations, or he cannot be held responsible for them.

He admits two conflicting views: God determines all things, yet man can only be responsible for that which he chooses to do without compulsion. Of course, if man has free will to choose, then there is no problem at all, for he then will be judged one day for all his free will choices (2 Corinthians 5:10). Yet, Boettner claims, no-one will be forced to consent to God’s government, because God will influence them to make them willing to accept the gospel and delight to obey sovereign God.
Boettner says on P 155 – Heaven will be truly a kingdom, with God as the supreme Ruler; yet it will rest on the consent of the governed. It is not forced on believers against their consent. They are so influenced that they become willing, and accept the Gospel, and find it the delight of their lives to do their Sovereign’s will.

Even MacArthur is a bit confused on this issue, saying No one was ever saved against their will. yet also says No sinner has the capacity to be willing. Both are from “The doctrine of God’s effectual call”.

But Boettner insists that this certainty of God’s will is consistent with the free agency of man. He explains that a father may make his son a doctor by controlling the circumstances of his education.
P 156-157 – A father often knows how his son will act under given circumstances and by controlling these he determines beforehand the course of action which the son follows, yet the son acts freely. If he plans that the son shall be doctor, he gives him encouragement along that line, persuades him to read certain books, to attend certain schools, and so presents the outside inducements that his plan works out.
However, the only way this could be certain in real life is to force the son to do so!

And then Boettner explains that God doesn’t actually decree the event, but instead makes sure that it will happen anyway. (What great verbal gymnastics, though!)
P 157 – In the same manner and to an infinitely greater extent God controls our actions so that they are certain although we act freely. His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain; and the same decree which determines the certainty of the action at the same time determines the freedom of the agent in the act.

That is, God doesn’t decree what man may choose, yet makes it certain that man will choose according to God’s will. God doesn’t decree man’s actions, yet ensures that man can do nothing else than what God desires of man. For example, Boettner’s God didn’t decree that Adam should sin, yet made it impossible for Adam to be able to choose any other course of action. God told Adam to obey Him, yet left Adam with only one option: to disobey God! Free agency, according to calvinists, means that man must choose according to God’s will at all times. Thus, literally, being a free agent (according to calvinists) means only being able to choose what God has decided that you will choose. They say that the calvinist God doesn’t choose for you, yet makes it impossible to choose anything else. So how are these different from each other??

The calvinist free agency of man means to be able to choose the only pathway that God has left open for you. No other pathway is an option. So, tell me, just how is free agency free in any way at all? If free agency means being able to take the only pathway God leaves open for you, then that makes it the equivalent of a slavery imposed by the calvinist God. If God rendered it certain that Adam would sin, then where is Adam’s freedom of choice here, and why would Adam be responsible for the choice that the calvinist God has clearly made? (Of course, Boettner would say that Adam actually made the choice to sin, but what other choice did he have if God had removed all other options?)

It is said that Henry Ford once said that you could choose any colour car you wanted, as long as it was black. Of course, whether or not Ford actually said this is irrelevant; his cars were all black so there was no choice possible of any other colour. You didn’t get black because you chose black; you got black because you had no other option. And likewise, Boettner is teaching that his God has made certain that you may choose the only option which the calvinist God has left available to you. “His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain.”

Come now, calvinists, is this the most intellectual you can get? Shame on you! Your teaching on this matter is helping to lead many people away from the God of the Bible and toward the gates of hell. But, man does indeed have a free will. Man must choose this day whom he will serve. God has reached out to mankind with the gospel of the cross of Christ, and man must choose what he will do with the Saviour. It is not God who chooses whether you go to heaven or hell! God has sent His Son to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind, and He commands people everywhere to respond to the gospel and repent of their sins and be saved.

The choice you make will determine your eternal destiny; God will not make that choice for you. When you stand before God in judgment, either your name will be written in the Lamb’s book of life, or it won’t be written in the Lamb’s book of life. When you respond to the gospel and repent, calling by faith upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then God will be faithful to His promise to save you. By His foreknowledge He will know this and will have then written your name on the list of elect (1 Peter 1:2) from the beginning of the world. He will then save you to the uttermost, all because you responded and chose by faith to trust in the promises of God.

Calvinists, stop taking this choice away from those who may end up in hell because you told them they cannot choose; that God would make the choice for them, and with fatalism they believed your lie that if they weren’t chosen by God, then they could never be saved. But, God will not make this choice for you. You must make this choice for yourself, and God will indeed honour the choice you make, whether for life, or for death.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Evolution – hypothesis, not theory!

This comment came about while studying Genesis Ch.1 & 2. Many alleged “scientists” will spout forth the evolution party line that so many adhere to: that evolution is science and creation (by God) belongs to the myths and legends of society. But it does come down to just one question: Could God have created the universe exactly as described in the first two chapters of the Bible? Most Christians (and even those who just like to be called Christians) might probably say a guarded “Yes”, even though many of them believe in evolution instead. So, if God could create the universe, why do they deny it in favour of evolution? The answer is that they ask the wrong question. Instead of “Could God have created ….?? they instead ask “Did God create ….?” They admit that God could have created, yet say that science proves that He didn’t. But does science actually prove this to be so?

It is interesting that so-called scientists should claim that that the biblical account of creation cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. For, if the truth be really known, their beloved evolution cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny! If evolution were in any way a viable hypothesis, then there would have to be a significant amount of fossil evidence that would verify this. The hypothesis (it cannot be called a theory because it has never been proven!) of evolution requires that creatures evolve via beneficial mutations from “lower order” species into “higher order” species. (Or else it would be negative or backward evolution. Or, at best, a sideways evolution, not gaining any ground either way – effectively no difference at all!)

Most mutations are not beneficial, and those that are beneficial do not often replicate in the next generation. The evolutionists would then claim that even if a very small percentage of mutations cause development into a higher order species, then evolution is still demonstrated. However, for every beneficial mutation, there are many non-beneficial mutations.

Also, creatures do not suddenly mutate into the next species. Even evolution scientists have to admit that logically there has to be a series of beneficial mutations, each complementing the other, until a species becomes literally another species. This rapidly decreases the probability of a new species evolving. A coin can be tossed and come down heads half the time. You have a 50% chance of predicting the outcome. But a prediction of 2 heads in a row has only 25% chance of success, 3 heads in a row 12.5%, 4 heads in a row 6.25% and so on. So, the chances of having a relatively unbroken series of mutations, all beneficial, all complementing each other, has a probability approaching zero.

But, say the evolutionists, even if only one in a million series mutates into another species, then it’s still very scientific. However, this preponderance of failed mutation series is their nemesis, for it means that there should be fossil evidence for the mutation series. For every species that “evolves” into another species, there has to be the fossil evidence of the beneficial mutation series that caused the evolution. And, for every beneficial mutation series, there would also have to be the overwhelming fossil evidence of so many failed non-beneficial mutation series.

And yet, to date, not one allegedly eminent evolution “scientist” has clearly demonstrated the fossil evidence for just one single mutation series, beneficial or otherwise! To date there is not one single species where fossil evidence demonstrates the beneficial mutation series necessary for such a change. Not one!
There are hundreds of thousands of species of creatures on earth. If you include plants, algae and insects, there are around 1.7 million species on earth. There are 66,000 species of vertebrate animals on earth. Even mammals allegedly have over 5500 species in their small group. (These figures vary according to how these species are recorded.) And if all life started with one small amoeba (single-celled organism in the “primordial swamp, soup or ooze”), then we should see fossil evidence for the evolution of at least those 66,000 species of vertebrate animals, and many more if we included non-vertebrates (including insects). Therefore evolution is impossible because it requires fossil evidence for the mutation series, and those fossils just do not exist.

What a disaster for those illogical supporters of an impossible evolution! Their problem is that there is abundant fossil evidence for so many of the species on earth. It would be better if fossils could not be found for the actual species, for then they could blame the lack of inter-species fossil evidence on the lack of fossil evidence in general. But while abundant fossil evidence does exist, none of it demonstrates the evolution from one species into another. None of it! These “scientists” are unable to explain just why this should be so. They grasp at straws but the facts are so clear: there just isn’t the fossil evidence to support their false hypothesis of evolution or origin of the species. After all, that great intellect, Charles Darwin, said that the process had to be gradual and therefore spread over long periods of time. It is impossible for one species to evolve gradually into another species leaving no fossil evidence of such, especially when there is abundant fossil evidence of the actual 2 species involved.

So those “scientists” put their heads together and decided that there had to be some way out of this mess. Evolution just had to be true, for if it weren’t true, then that would mean that all species on earth happened to appear independently of each other. This would clearly support biblical creation, and this is one thing those “scientists” just cannot allow. They claim to be teaching the truth of the origin of the species, yet if that truth might actually support the fact that God exists, then that truth must be suppressed or altered somewhat until it leaves God out of the equation. The real truth of evolution is that people wanted to have a world without having to acknowledge God as creator of it. They wanted a world that conveniently ignored God, left Him out of the equation. The equation of these “scientists” is, therefore, one that is not permitted to have God in any of its workings. (This is like taking a solution and turning it into a problem!)

So “scientists” set about trying to put a patch on this disastrous problem, coming up with an idea they called punctuated equilibrium (or the plural “equilibria”). That is, there are long periods of time where no change occurs (stasis), no mutation series exist. Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history. This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. (Wikipedia)

These long periods of stasis are then punctuated by short-lived periods of rapid change where either the species evolves into another, or splits into 2 sub-species, one of which may then develop into a new species. This, while pure unverifiable speculation, was their way of explaining that total lack of evidence for beneficial mutational series.
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. ….  Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. (Wikipedia)

This effort to state a belief in what must have happened (as opposed to documented scientific evidence of what actually did happen) redefines evolution as a belief system, not truth, for if it were truth, then it would have a logical and scientific solution for the lack of intermediate fossil evidence. But the truth is that this lack of fossil evidence actually points toward an all-at-once creation without the evolution of species. That the origin of the species as recorded in the Bible is true is a fact staring them in the face, but it includes God and that is unacceptable. They will then say that long periods of time are necessary, but refuse to understand that if God could have created as recorded in Genesis, then why not? Therefore, to teach otherwise is to openly deny the very existence of God. This is their real agenda!

The Bible does say that even a belief in God’s creation is an act of faith.
Hebrews 11:3 – Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The evolutionist bible says: Through faith we believe that all the species in the world came about by pure chance, and amazingly developed into highly intricate creatures without the assistance of any intelligence whatsoever.

Whatever we believe about this is therefore a matter of what we want to believe.
While I was principal of the Christian school in Echuca, the government officials (the VRQA) tried to shut down my school on the basis that we taught both creation and evolution, with an emphasis on biblical creation being correct. (That does seem to be what they should expect of a Christian school, isn’t it, unless they are trying to sanitise everything Christian!) In fact, at one stage we were given just 30 days to shut the school down because our Science curriculum taught creation. (Of course, we did teach about evolution but not necessarily favourably!) However, when I reminded them that just a few months earlier I had asked the VRQA what Science curriculum they would recommend, they named one from another Christian school as acceptable, and we had already commenced the changeover to this new curriculum, and this is what rescued us from closure. When they came again soon after that to reassess us, they noted that our Science curriculum was still completely unacceptable because it continued to mention creation. I told them that we had their official recommendation to use this curriculum. They mumbled a few things, said they’d check it out, and that we’d hear from them. The next time we heard from them it was by letter to tell us that they’d decided to permit us a conditional school registration to continue. You can’t overrule God’s sovereignty.

By the way, this same government school assessment body (VRQA) also, during one visit, questioned our school doctrinal statement that said that we believed God to be the creator and ruler of the universe. They asked us to remove it because it was blatantly anti-government. (We left it there!) They even questioned the whole of our doctrinal statement of beliefs (which was on our website) and wanted it removed too, because it was not acceptable curriculum material. I said that it was our statement of beliefs, and none of their business, and therefore they would leave it alone, thank you very much!

If the Bible is correct, then Adam’s fall was about 1650 years before the flood. (Noah may have been born not long after Adam died.) The earth was created 100% fertile, 100% productive. The growth of animal (and plant) populations would have been incredibly rapid. 1650 years of such fertile conditions (and an abundance of space) would have produced huge populations in a very short time.

Add to this the biblical fact that no death existed on earth before the fall. During this time, no animal ate another animal, and the food was abundant and wholesome. We have no idea how long it was after the creation week that Adam sinned. The Bible doesn’t give any real indication of this time-span. It could have been a long time, yet according to the Bible, no animal died during that time, for death only entered the world when sin entered. But there would have been a population explosion if you factor in the super-fertile land, wide open spaces for increased numbers, and no animal killing any other until after Adam’s fall into sin.

So, when the flood came on the scene around 2350 BC, and all animals (other than those in the Ark) were drowned, there would have been colossal piles of fossil evidence left behind for us to dig up today. In fact, if a world-wide flood were entered into the equation, it would explain a lot of things that so-called educated people try to “explain” otherwise because they just cannot believe in something that requires God to be included in the equation.

This is what it’s all about: that anything that requires God to be in the equation is being systematically removed from our belief systems until soon we will be left with a world uncontaminated by “God”. The world is being effectively sanitised against a belief in God. Anything that requires belief in God has been replaced (or will be soon!) so that more and more we can believe in the world that we want to believe in without being in any way obligated to acknowledge the existence of God. This includes evolution, marriage and sexuality, worship, rules and laws, in fact, everything that requires man to acknowledge the existence of God. And even Christian schools are being ordered to not believe in God now! How long before they tell churches that believing in God is also illegal?

Romans 1:22, 28 – Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ….. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

So why did I start this website? Part 3

(So why did I start this website? Part 4)

(So why did I start this website? Part 2)

(So why did I start this website? Part 1)

As mentioned in the previous 2 posts, I had a strong desire to protect local churches from the ravages of calvinist heresies. But why am I so opposed to calvinism in the first place? Surely it wasn’t just because they started teaching something I didn’t agree with? After all, I don’t automatically denounce another Christian for having differing views on eternal security, baptism, or interpretation of future events as prophesied in the Bible, and so on. I accept that I do not know all things yet, and am still in the process of learning and growing.

Of course, when we commenced our home church in 2013, I was greatly dissatisfied with what I had already seen of calvinist doctrines. I could not accept their doctrine of limited atonement, and was strongly opposed to their doctrine of unconditional election. (I do not, however, have any problem with the doctrine of election based upon God’s foreknowledge, according to 1 Peter 1:2.) I also believed that Calvin was a bigoted murderer, but was merely a product of his times. Studies I did in 2013 and into 2014 still allowed that Calvin had some things right, although I wasn’t sure I could actually list anything definite.

But, the way that GraceWest had seemingly manipulated the situation in order to impose some significant influence over Living Springs appeared to be sneaky and covert. When I spoke (via phone) to the current pastor of Living Springs in early 2013, he said he was opposed to calvinism. I mentioned the calvinist beliefs of GraceWest, querying why there should be any reason for them to be involved with each other. He replied that they (GraceWest) said they were calvinist but they didn’t teach it. This seemed to be either illogical or even deceitful.

So, after commencing our home church, I did a series of studies on calvinism and its origins. I read widely from many documents, including much of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. I read Pink, Piper, MacArthur, Boettner, and many others who seemed to be directing the calvinism doctrinal traffic. And, as I dug deeper into the teachings of these and others, I discovered many inconsistencies of interpretation, and also the many lies which were apparently told in order to cover up their false doctrines. For, if you tell one lie, you need another lie to protect it, and then another lie, and so on; the only way to stop the flow of lies is to finally tell the truth!

For people who claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone), calvinists had so many biblical passages that had to be “qualified” by changing the meaning of words, or adding or removing parts of the verse. I have been accused of misrepresenting good calvinist men, yet I mostly quote verbatim exactly what they say that is wrong. I have been told to read calvinist documents more in order to understand it better, yet I have probably read more calvinist writings than most calvinists ever do. I have been told that if I understood calvinism better, I would be more supportive of it, yet the more I understand calvinism, the less supportive I am of it.

I am a very logical person; that’s why I ended up doing Maths (Pure Maths, Statistics) at university (plus Music and Psychology) and a 3-year teaching qualification on top of that (6 years in all). I have a strong tendency to assess everything according to its logic. Of course, with the Bible, much is accepted by faith; nevertheless even that which I believe by faith must still be logically consistent across the whole Bible. In order to establish a biblical doctrine, one must be able to see the consistency of that doctrine throughout the Bible. Yet, more often than not, calvinism attempts to establish a doctrine using a minimum of verses, conveniently ignoring or rewording any inconsistencies. One calvinist says he unleashes God’s truth one verse at a time; truly, many lies may be taught using one verse at a time!

Because biblical honesty was important to me, I also decided 25 years ago that I would go into full time ministry, as a teacher in Christian schools. Much of this was also as Principal of small Christian schools with up to 10 staff. We left our farm in the country and were never to return to live there. After trying to keep the farm running from a distance for 9 years, we finally sold it. We believed that this was what God desired for us, so that we could continue to serve God elsewhere.

22 years ago, we bought a house on the edge of an Australian state capital, in a migrant and working-class area. For 4 years I taught Year 6 in a large Christian school near us. Then I felt a call to go to central Australia to work with aboriginal people, so off we went for 3 years to Alice Springs in the centre of Australia. It was mostly hot and dry, and a delightful place to live. The nearest small town was over 500 km away (either north or south), with the nearest sizable town around 1200 km to the north or to the south. (There is no reasonable through-road to the east or west of Alice Springs!) We became very close to some of the aboriginal people and were made part of their family; we still keep contact with our aboriginal family today (spread out, now mostly living in Tennant Creek and Adelaide).

My last school (where I was Principal) was in the north of Victoria. I spent 3 years there, becoming quite stressed through having to fight government officials in order to keep the school open. They wanted to close the school mainly because we taught creation rather than evolution; evolution was science, they said, and our creation myths and legends belonged to our devotions time. (I hope to write soon about Genesis 1 & 2 and evolution.) During my third year there they told us we had 30 days to remain registered as a school (you are not allowed to exist without that registration). However, God kept us open because the government assessment board had actually previously recommended (the year before) that we use the Science curriculum of another certain Christian school; they had considered that school’s curriculum acceptable. But, that curriculum actually still taught creation, yet the assessment board couldn’t shut us down. They had somehow got their information confused. In the end they gave up and left us to continue.

Since then I have retired from actual paid work, having enough to live on as long as we didn’t expect any luxuries. However, after commencing our home church in 2013, I have been kept very busy preparing messages every Sunday (I generally miss only a few each year). I do not use prepared sermon outlines, for I prefer to prepare my own messages. I study the words in their original Greek and Hebrew languages, and research the same words and topics in the rest of the Bible. Consistency of meaning is very important. Any inconsistency usually points to something wrong with an interpretation. If the straight-forward meaning of a word or passage makes logical sense, and is consistent with similar passages elsewhere in the Bible, then I use it. I then look at a number of commentaries to see what others think about the passage I am doing (although in many cases, especially with prophecy, they can be quite obviously incorrect). I also research dictionaries and encyclopedias to assist with my messages.

It takes a lot of time and energy to prepare an hour-long message but I would feel I had cheated by cutting corners if I did any less. I type it all out on my computer, including most of the extra cross-reference verses and passages in full. I then make a copy for each person attending Sunday services. I want them to read what I have said, including all the relevant verses, and then make up their own minds on what they want to believe. I will not demand that they believe what I think is right; instead, I tell them that they must test everything they are told, reading my notes through later, and deciding for themselves what they believe. Of course, if they disagree, then I ask them to present their views, plus relevant scriptural support for what they believe. They are permitted to make relevant comments during the service, and I stop at regular intervals to ask if they have any comment on what I have said.

And this is something I notice that is wrong with calvinism. There is far too much emphasis on the pastor or teacher being right, with the allegedly uneducated or unqualified church members being ignored or even criticised if they dare to have an opposing opinion that doesn’t toe the party line. In the following, A W Pink (a much-quoted calvinist writer) says of Joshua 6:10 – And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall [any] word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout. that the rank and file of Christians are to keep quiet in all spiritual matters!

Pink: 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.” Rather are they required to “witness for Christ” by their daily conduct in business and in the home. They are to “show forth” God’s praises, rather than tell them forth. They are to let their light shine. The testimony of the life is far more effectual than glib utterances of the lips. Actions speak louder than words.
(Studies in the Scriptures, A W Pink, Page 9-10)

After much research, I finally concluded that Calvin was a bully despot who liked to control those under him. He was a dictator who would brook no opposition from even those qualified to speak! He was a cruel murderer, and is sometimes referred to as the butcher of Geneva (or even the pope of Geneva). Those “teachers” or “pastors” who follow his doctrines today generally rule with an iron rod, often unfairly. When calvinism takes over a church, the members usually lose the right to speak out in opposition to anything doctrinal, fearing that they will be persecuted or ostracised for their efforts to test for the truth. Those who break the rules may be publicly named and shamed in front of the congregation. They may be asked to repent and be restored to fellowship, or they may be encouraged to find another church.

Calvinism also relies on the upholding of many lies and biblical mistruths in order to establish its false doctrines. For example, they claim that man has no free will, especially unto salvation, yet are unable to establish this as a biblical consistency. They will state like Spurgeon, that It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. (Free Will – A Slave – A Sermon) Yet he makes no effort to actually demonstrate in the slightest just where this may be shown biblically. Where they cannot establish a doctrine by proper reasoning, calvinists will simply state that the non-calvinist belief is wrong and then propound their own belief as the only correct doctrine. Talk about sola scriptura!

They claim that John 6:44 clearly demonstrates that man has no free will in salvation, yet in order to do so they must have firstly made the assumption that man has no free will to resist God. For, if man has free will to resist God’s drawing, then he may choose to not come. Therefore, they make the assumption that there is no free will in order to prove that there is no free will! This is circular logic and unacceptable to any intelligent reasoning person!
[Also note that in John 12:32, the same word “draw” is used, where Jesus states that He will draw all to Himself when lifted up (on the cross). If all are drawn, and only some come, then free will to resist must be indicated!]

And if you disagree, they’ll quote their calvinist hero teachers, or say that you don’t understand because you aren’t spiritual enough, or tell you that it’s a mystery hid in the secret counsels of God, or they’ll ignore you because you’re a trouble-maker, or they’ll just straight-out tell you that you can’t be one of God’s elect because if you were, you’d believe in it! But, if their special proof verses don’t persuade you, then they’ll leave the Bible alone, heading instead to some of their calvinist hero teachers. Anyone who continues to use their Bible to face calvinists usually then gets ignored or even verbally abused.

So why have I written so much about the false teachings of calvinists? It is because they believe that they’re the only ones who know the answers, and if you disagree, you aren’t as good as them. They are aggressive, arrogant bullies who like to tell it as it is, but not for others to do the same to them. They are always “right”! As the saying goes: you can always tell a calvinist, but not much.

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 4

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.