Why are calvinists afraid to answer simple straightforward questions?

`

Why are calvinists afraid to answer simple straightforward questions?
Read “Calvinists won’t answer straightforward questions”
Read “Calvinists can’t answer straightforward questions”
Read “Calvinists can’t answer any questions”
But they can say, “It’s a mystery!

Questions for calvinists! Questions for calvinists! So many questions for calvinists – there are just so many questions for calvinists yet it took eight months before just one calvinist finally took up the challenge. Calvinists generally just won’t answer simple straight-forward questions! Why? The answer here is simple: they can’t! I know calvinists read this page – or else the only Christians are non-calvinists – so why not have a go? What have you to lose? The debate maybe? There are 50 question headings below, 50 problems for calvinist heresies. And this is only the tip of the iceberg! (Go to Question 1/. now.) (Note that there are so many questions that calvinists cannot answer that I have now broken up this post into smaller sections.) (And continue with Questions 51 and more at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 6.)
Read Questions 1-10 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 1.
Read
Questions 11-20 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 2.
Read
Questions 21-30 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 3.
Read
Questions 31-40 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 4.
Read Questions 41-50 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 5.
Or try even more at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 6.

I have asked so many straightforward questions and challenged calvinists to come up with suitable biblical answers but so far only one calvinist has ever been able to be straight-forward concerning their answers. They accuse me of misrepresenting them (but are never able to quote me doing so), or not knowing enough about calvinism (I know more about calvinism than most calvinists) or that I should read more of their calvinist writings (I have read more of their writings than most calvinists, including Calvin who most of them don’t know much about at all). And the challenge yet remains: If I’m wrong, then demonstrate it, or else admit freely that I am right!

Some of you reading this may not be calvinists but instead may be reading this through curiosity, or maybe you have a problem with calvinist conflict at your church.Why not try these questions on them? Also note that just being a calvinist doesn’t necessarily make you lost. Many good Christians have been corrupted by false calvinist heresies, and merely need to get out of those false teachings to come back to biblical doctrines. But, if you are relying on your calvinist gospel to save you, then be aware that only the biblical gospel can save: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved! Without the application of the biblical gospel, you are lost! You must choose this day whom you will serve! The God of the Bible will not force you to go to either heaven or hell against your will; He asks you to choose life through Jesus Christ or you will be condemned to hell for refusing to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

But the questions concerning the inconsistencies of calvinism persist. I note that in many of their documents they claim that many answers are just not forthcoming; instead they are mysteries, hid in the secret counsels of their allegedly sovereign God. But the God of the Bible has straightforward answers, so how can He know more than the so-called sovereign God of the calvinists? The answer is so simple I’m left wondering why the calvinists themselves just cannot see it. Their God doesn’t know everything but hides instead behind the statement, “I won’t tell you everything!” That is, calvinists don’t know all the answers because their God himself doesn’t know all the answers. Otherwise they’d know more, wouldn’t they? Unless their God knows all things, then he cannot be the God of the Bible – end of story! 
If the calvinist God gives eternal life to his elect before they can hear the gospel and be saved by Christ, and the biblical God uses the gospel to bring people to Christ in order that they would receive eternal life, then there are two separate gospels, only one of which can be correct! What does John 5:39-40 say about this order? Is it life through regeneration before salvation through Christ, or salvation through Christ bringing life? And if only one of these gospels is biblically correct, then only one of these Gods is likewise biblical! Which one, calvinists??

It is interesting to observe that the Roman Catholic church for many centuries required that only its priests and leaders be permitted to teach from the Bible. Anyone else who dared read the Bible in order to find out what it really said was deemed a heretic and likely to be tortured and/or burned at the stake. Only the priesthood was permitted to know many of the mysteries of their religion. Other “lesser beings” were to not question them at all. The catholic church used their “mysteries” to control the common masses of their religion. Their beliefs were esoteric (on a need-to-know basis where the more initiated were permitted to know more) much like satanic beliefs such as the freemasons today. So why do calvinists claim so many mysteries that only the more “spiritual” or more “qualified” may understand, if not for the purposes of controlling their congregations? That is, “I’m the pastor and I say so, so don’t argue!” Give me one good reason why I should not accuse calvinism of being an esoteric belief system!
And remember: Silence is the greatest complement that a calvinist can pay to those who oppose him!
However, if they have answers, then explain them to me – from the Bible, of course – after all, that is our standard, isn’t it? The Bible alone – sola scriptura – the catch-cry of all good calvinists! So now to the questions!

1/. Please explain how God can truthfully ask what more could He have done in His vineyard if He has already ordained that they should sin and be rejected? Or else, if He didn’t ordain their sin, then how can they choose to sin without a free will to sin?
Isaiah 5:2-42And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. 3And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 4What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
There are only 4 options: (a) God is not telling the whole truth concerning His best efforts to obtain a choice crop. (b) God is a liar. (c) God is incapable of producing what He has promised. Or (d) God, while desiring a better outcome, nevertheless allowed Israel to have a free will to determine for themselves what they would do?
Only (d) is acceptable so why won’t calvinists won’t accept this? It’s because then calvinists would have to accept that man has a free will to choose between good and evil, isn’t it??
For further reading, please try
The Oxymorons of Calvinist Doctrine, Point 10.

2/. Jeremiah 32:35And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
It never came into God’s mind that they should do such a thing? That is, He never considered such a thing?  If God has foreordained their rebellion, then it has to have been in His mind that they should do such a thing, so either (a) God is a liar, or (b) He has forgotten what He foreordained, or else (c) He is sovereign God who has given Israel a free-will to choose between serving Him or other gods! (c) is clearly the only biblical option. Can you explain this otherwise?

3/. Here’s another one for you to try to explain. How can God ask His people to choose between life and death, blessing and cursing, if they don’t have free-will? Is God then going to foreordain that they sin and rebel against Him? Then why would He go through the parody of asking them to choose when such a choice is nonsensical?
Deuteronomy 30:19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Try reading So you think free will isn’t in the Bible? and The free will of man and Foreknowledge and the free will of man

4/. How can a person have eternal life before he believes in Christ, if he cannot see life without Christ?
John 3:36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
And yet calvinists have to teach that a person cannot believe in Christ until after he has been quickened (made alive, born again, regenerated) by the Holy Spirit. How can a person have life before he comes to Christ when the Bible clearly says he cannot have life without Christ?
By the way, Spurgeon (who is greatly favoured by calvinists) taught that you had eternal life before you came to Christ for eternal life. He says (in his message “Free Will – A Slave” under the heading “Eternal Life is Given to All Who Come for It”) – There never was a man who came to Christ for eternal life, for legal life, for spiritual life, who had not already received it, in some sense.
For further information, try reading
Can you have eternal life before you can get eternal life?

5/. Why do calvinists insist that John 3:3 (Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.) teaches that we must be born again before we can believe in Christ? They say it means “Except a man be born again, he cannot believe in (or “have faith in”) the kingdom of God.” They have to make “believe in” or “have faith in” mean the same as “see”, yet 2 Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith, not by sight, thus making faith and sight opposites here. But the Bible says we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved (Acts 16:31) yet the calvinists say we must be born again before we can believe. How does the Bible support this?
For more, try reading Calvinist heresy using John 3:3
and John 3:3

6/. Why do calvinists teach that John 6:44 proves that all who are drawn by the Father must come, yet Jesus said in John 12:32 that when He was lifted up on the cross, He would draw all (men) to Himself? If all are drawn to Christ on the cross, then why do calvinists teach that only some are drawn by the Father who is of one mind with the Son (John 10:30)? And, if all who are drawn come to Christ and are saved (as calvinists teach), then calvinists have to be teaching universal salvation! But John 6:44 doesn’t actually say that all who are drawn must come, but rather that all who come must have been drawn. All are drawn, therefore all are able to come, but many resist the drawing. Only those who do not resist the drawing of the Father will be saved.
So please explain why you teach that all who are drawn must come and therefore be saved, noting that all have been drawn on the cross! Do you teach that all are drawn and therefore all are saved? Are calvinists universalists?
Also try reading
John 6:44 – Does it really prove calvinist teachings? and John 6:44

As a matter of interest, a comment on our church Facebook account says this:
I am a Calvinist and understand why you are offended by this view, but I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack through ignorance. The Bible is very clear to me on this. God ‘draws” all men to Himself and not the other way around. You are very hateful and I don’t see any fruit in your ministry. You may want to work on that.
It is interesting to note that we teach that God indeed draws all people through the cross (John 12:32), not just the saved (as calvinists teach), and that there are many who are drawn yet refuse (by their free wills) to come. However, now here is a self-confessed calvinist actually saying that God draws all men to Himself, and that apparently we are at fault for teaching the other way around (whatever that might be?). But we teach clearly that God does draw all mankind! I fear, though, that this “calvinist” doesn’t know that calvinists are not supposed to believe this. The above writer is a calvinist who opposes calvinist theology because we teach it??? Calvinism says that all who are drawn must come in faith, so if all are drawn (as the above writer states), then will all mankind be saved?

7/. Why do calvinists teach that we must be born again (regenerated) by the Spirit to newness of life before we can believe in Christ if Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14:6)? How can we approach the Father before we approach Christ?

8/. Also, why did Jesus say that He had chosen the 12 disciples and one of them was a devil? If this choosing represents the unconditional election to life and heaven, then do calvinists really believe that devils go to heaven? Or perhaps that not all those chosen actually go to heaven?
John 6:70-7170Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
And if Jesus should not lose one of those given to Him (John 6:39), how did He lose Judas in John 17:12?

9/. Calvinists love to teach that we did not choose Christ but He chose us in order to bring forth much fruit.
John 15:16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
So why did Jesus choose Judas as one of these who should bring forth much fruit?

10/. If God did not use His perfect foreknowledge to determine who would choose to be saved in the future, then why does the Bible clearly say that we are elect (chosen) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2) and that whom God foreknew He also predestinated to conform to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29)? Why do calvinists deny the clear biblical teaching that both the election and predestination are dependent upon God’s foreknowledge? Note that “foreknowledge” is the Greek word prognosis which a doctor gives as an assessment of your future health. It was used in this way by Hippocrates 2400 years ago and is still used the same way by doctors today. What else can it mean than God’s perfect knowledge of the future before it happens? Then the calvinists will say that foreknowledge is like God peering through the corridors of time into the future. What? Don’t they know that God is present at all points of time simultaneously? (Can they understand “simultaneously”?) God is in the future and the present and the past all at the same time, because He is the eternal I AM. So, calvinists, is your God not eternal, then?? (Read Point 4 of “The calvinist god cannot be eternal“)
Also try reading How does a calvinist know he has eternal life?

11/. Why do calvinists teach limited atonement (that Jesus only died for the sins of those chosen for heaven) when the Bible says His sacrifice was for the sins of the whole world?
1 John 2:1-21My 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.
Some calvinists teach that the whole world only means those who will be saved, yet it must be a larger group than the ones for whose sins Christ is a propitiation! ! “not for ours only, but also for….” Please study this carefully! If “the whole world” means only Christians, then who are that smaller group who have been promised an Advocate in 1 John 2:1?
Some say that “our sins” are the sins of Israel and that it was the recipients of this letter (Christian Jews) who are meant at first. Then only those Christian Jews could be promised an Advocate (1 John 2:1) and just 2 verses earlier in this letter only those Christian Jews could confess their sins and be forgiven? (1 John 1:9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.) Can you explain this huge inconsistency?
Try reading When does the whole world mean only Christians? and 1 John 2:2

12/. If God’s will is that all men should be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-43For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.) then why would He choose to save some and reject the rest, also by His will according to calvinists? Does the calvinist God have 2 wills? (Some teach that he does indeed have 2 wills, a will of desire and a will of command, or similar terms, although Calvin himself rejected this by saying that what God willed in a right way, man did in a wrong way!) Other calvinists illogically say that “all men” means only Christians! How can they believe such folly? Why do calvinists so often grossly misrepresent the truth of the Bible?
Try reading Does the calvinist God have a dual personality?

13/. If Israel were God’s elect nation (which indeed they were) then how can God then reject them for disobeying Him if the calvinists teach that such rebellion had to be by God’s decree? Did God choose them and then decree that they should rebel such that He would have to reject them? Truly the calvinist God vacillates between one idea and another! And if the calvinist election is explained by Israel’s election as a nation (Romans 9), then what is stopping the calvinist God from also decreeing that the elect today should sin and be rejected like Israel? Truly the calvinist election is untrustworthy indeed!
Of course, the Bible does teach an election of God’s people, a choosing which is recorded in the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8) but it is not unconditional; instead it is an election conditional upon the foreknowledge of sovereign God who sees all things and knows all things from the beginning to the end (1 Peter 1:2; Romans 8:29).

14/. Why did Jesus cry on the cross to His Father to forgive them for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34) yet that good calvinist MacArthur says that Jesus didn’t die for the mob that screamed for His blood (sermon code 62-10)? So just who did Jesus pray forgiveness for? Or did Jesus somehow pray to forgive them but the Father didn’t agree? Calvinists, please explain why Jesus didn’t pray this for the mob that screamed for His blood?
Of course, MacArthur does strongly support the heresies of calvinism.
“Today Calvinism is being subjected to constant attack. Several recent, popular, published critiques have tried to discredit John Calvin the man, or they have unfairly blamed Calvinism for the dubious politics of the Reformation era. But the doctrines of Calvinistic soteriology must stand or fall by the test of Scripture, period.”
(John F. MacArthur Jr.; quoted from, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented; 2nd Edition: David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and Lance Quinn.)

15/. Why does MacArthur condemn freemasonry as a Satanic false religion yet praise the spiritual harvest of his great grandfather Thomas Fullerton who was a high-ranking freemason? In this link MacArthur even acknowledges the spiritual harvest as his inheritance!
How can a calvinist condemn satanism yet praise the spiritual outreach of his ancestor who by MacArthur’s own description worshipped a Satanic false religion?
For more information please read “Is MacArthur a Freemason”.

16/. If the Bible describes eternal life as a gift of God (Romans 6:23), then it cannot be imposed upon anyone but must be received by the person’s free will. Then why do calvinists teach that such a gift must be imposed upon people against their will? Note what MacArthur says (The Doctrine of God’s Effectual Call) that No one is ever saved without being willing. ….. There’s nothing in the sinner to make him willing.  …..  It is only when the power of God makes him willing that he becomes willing. …..No sinner has the capacity to be willing. ….. This is what we mean by “total depravity,” the utter inability of the sinner to be willing. ……. When the gospel comes, the sinner is so eager to respond. Either you are willing or else you are made to do it. If you are made to do it, then it is an imposition! How can this imposition of willingness be described as a gift? And how can you force someone to be willing? That’s an oxymoron!
Try reading MacArthur teaches works salvation

17/. Why do calvinists claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone) yet rarely if ever use the Bible to defend their heresies when directly challenged from the Bible?

18/. Calvinists love to use John 10:24-28 to “prove” that the sheep that Jesus died for are the elect of God, unconditionally chosen by Him from the foundation of the world. That is, if you are not one of those elect, you cannot be one of His sheep, and therefore the calvinist Jesus did not die for your sins. So, just how can calvinists say that it is only the elect who hear God’s voice and follow, yet Jesus came to His own (His elect sheep of Israel, obviously) and they didn’t receive Him!
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Yet, aren’t these “His own”, of whom it says: All we like sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6)? Obviously the calvinist god can dispose of his sheep even after declaring them his elect!?? How does this biblical truth apply to the calvinist?
Try reading Oh, the persistent inconsistencies of calvinists!

19/. And while we are looking at this topic, why do calvinists claim that the election of Israel as God’s nation somehow “proves” the unconditional election of the Church? For, if God could simply reject Israel after choosing her, then where does it guarantee the calvinist elect the right to be able to sin (as long as they confess, repent and are restored to fellowship) and still claim guaranteed entry into heaven. In fact, this is what Romans 9 is all about, the condemnation of Israel who thought that because they were God’s chosen people, then they were somehow above the condemnation of the law. They demanded mercy and God simply said that He, not them, would choose to whom He showed mercy. Jeremiah’s potter and the clay picture (Jeremiah 18) clearly explains what Paul is saying in Romans 9. So why do the calvinists ignore such connections? Is it because they, like Israel, think they can sin and still be guaranteed eternal life in heaven?? What arrogance is this!? So, how can Israel’s failed election as a nation prove the unconditional election of the calvinists?
Try reading Romans 9 condemns calvinism to rejection by sovereign God and Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

20/. Why do calvinists, when faced with a difficult question that they cannot answer, either claim that it is a mystery hid in the secret counsels of their god or else just refuse to answer? Why does it seem impossible for calvinists to give a straight honest answer when challenged on questions like the ones above. They claim to be so educated, so scholarly, yet cannot come up with simple answers to these simple questions! However, by their fruit they may be known! I have asked such questions (and more) in the past and have often challenged calvinists to take me on, but they seemingly refuse, probably because they just don’t have a clear biblical answer in the first place! Of course, there may be calvinists out there who believe they do know some of the “difficult” yet simple answers! If so, please feel free to comment on our Comments page. I will be fair and objective as long as the explanations are likewise fair and objective. Genuine scholarship should never be rejected without thorough analysis of points raised, as long as they are supported from the Bible, for that is our measuring stick, our sure foundation in the face of so much trivial comment in the world today.
Try reading Esoteric beliefs and mystery religion and Favourite calvinist defense tactics

21/.  I just received a comment (19th Aug 2019) informing me that I had a problem and that apparently 2 Corinthians 13:15 demonstrated that problem. This was a new one to me, that someone would now invent a verse to make their point, noting that this verse does not exist. Please read further on my Comments page. Is making up verses another calvinist heresy?

22/.  I was reminded recently of a calvinist who said he prayed for his daughter’s salvation every day for many years. As a calvinist, he also believes that the calvinist God unconditionally chose his elect in the beginning of time, and that no-one may change from one group to the other at any time after that. So what is the point of praying for anyone’s salvation? If his daughter is on the list to go to heaven, then nothing can stop her from going to heaven! And if she is not on that list, then no amount of prayer can ever change that. He could pray for her all his life and it would achieve nothing. According to calvinism, she’ll go where God has already determined to send her! In fact, why would calvinists bother with any prayer at all? If everything is already pre-ordained by God from the beginning, then prayer can not change one single thing! 

23/.  Some calvinists teach that their God uses the gospel to draw people to himself, yet they also teach that it is impossible for anyone to respond to their God in any way before they are regenerated (that is, born again). If all are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), then the gospel will fall on deaf (dead!) ears until after they have been born again. Calvinists have to teach that you must have eternal life before you can respond to the gospel of Christ. So why do some calvinists preach the gospel to unregenerate mankind? Why bother with the gospel if one must be born again with eternal life from above before being able to hear and respond to the gospel? Doesn’t this make the biblical gospel irrelevant for calvinists?
For further on this, please read How does a calvinist know he has eternal life?

24/.  In Romans 9:3, why does Paul wish that he could be accursed for the sake of his fellow Israelites? If they are lost (that is, non-elect) then Paul would have been giving away his eternal life for the sake of those who could never be saved! And if they were actually of the elect of God, then for what purpose would Paul be throwing his eternal life away if those Israelites were going to heaven anyway? Didn’t Paul know about the unconditional election?? Did the calvinist god forget to explain this to Paul?
Try reading Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

25/.  Boettner’s “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” is often quoted by calvinists to justify their heresies. (Why not the Bible, I would ask?) He teaches that if you aren’t a calvinist, then you must be an atheist. Some have declared – and rightly we believe – that there is no consistent middle ground between Calvinism and Atheism. (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, P 244). Many calvinists also teach that God’s elect would believe in calvinism; therefore there is really no such thing as a Christian who opposes calvinism. Can calvinists please explain further?

26/.  A W Pink, another calvinist writer much quoted by calvinists today, says of the taking of Jericho in “The Life and Times of Joshua” (Studies in the Scriptures) that 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.”
Does this explain why so many calvinist pastors, like dictators, lay down the law and refuse to be questioned on it? If they teach it, then it must be so? The common masses are to not test all things? Only the leaders are to be able to rightly divide the word of truth? Please explain, calvinists!

27/.  If God’s will is the only free will in the universe (as calvinists love to teach), then calvinists must teach that God created / decreed / ordained sin. Calvin in “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God” 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. (P 179) MacArthur wrote in “Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe”: 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. (P 113) Piper says in “Does sin have a necessary place in God’s plan for the universe?”: God’s holiness is not the least compromised or impugned by the fact that God wills for unholy acts to take place. And the calvinist Gospel Coalition says in “Why did God allow the fall?”: A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.
So answer these questions please, calvinists. Did God really create sin / evil, or did man have free will to choose? Is sin a necessary part of God’s plan for the universe? Can holy God will that sin take place yet remain untouched by that sin? Was God’s glory incomplete without sin such that man had to sin and be saved in order for God to be fully glorified? And where in the Bible alone (sola scriptura) does it teach these calvinist beliefs?
Try reading Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

28/.  And here’s one that calvinists absolutely hate to be reminded of! Note these two Bible passages, both written by Paul.
Romans 9:21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
2 Timothy 2:20-2120But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, [and] prepared unto every good work.
They teach that Romans 9:21 proves that God foreordains some people to salvation, and the rest to condemnation. Then please explain, calvinists, why Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 that vessels of dishonour can be purged to become vessels of honour? It proves that calvinists ignore verses that don’t support them, doesn’t it! Or was it just the dishonourable Roman vessels who couldn’t be purged?
Try reading Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

29/.  Calvinists love to claim that they as their God’s elect are the recipients of the grace of their God. This is why they declare their religion to be the doctrines of grace. Then why does Paul teach that God’s grace has appeared to all men?
Titus 2:11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men
Does this mean that all men are the elect of God? Come on, calvinists! Can you explain this from the Bible alone?

30/.  Calvinists teach that no-one is able to respond to the gospel until after they have been regenerated (born again). Only the calvinist elect may hear and respond! Non-elect will never be able to respond. (Unless you accept Calvin’s teaching of a temporary faith which he explained as an inferior operation of the Spirit – please see Question  31 below.) Then study the following verses carefully and answer the questions truthfully.
2 Corinthians 4:3-43But 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.
Can any calvinist give any rational reason how satan can blind the eyes of those chosen as the elect of the calvinist God? And why would satan blind the eyes of the non-elect if they can never respond to the gospel, if they can never be saved? Is satan so stupid that he can’t see that he’s wasting his time if calvinism is true? Is satan an irrelevancy in calvinist teaching? Or maybe Satan has converted to calvinism?
Try reading Calvinists born again before they are saved and How does a calvinist know he has eternal life?

31/.  Calvin taught (in his Institutes Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11) that his God gave some a temporary faith which he described as “an inferior operation of the Spirit“. Such people could even think they were of the elect, and other elect people could believe they were saved. But they are not of the elect and never will be. Calvin says: Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. But their sins are not forgiven and they will not be permitted to go to heaven. Their faith is only temporary! Can calvinists please explain where the Bible alone teaches any of this or else admit that Calvin was a hopeless liar who made up doctrines as it suited him?
Try reading The living-dead calvinist zombies – as taught by Calvin

32/.  Here’s an interesting question that calvinists avoid like the plague. How do you know you are going to heaven? They cannot say that they called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, because they say this is works and therefore not permitted. In fact the only evidence that a calvinist can have of assurance of heaven is that their works define them as puritans, therefore they are of the elect of their God. Ask a calvinist for his testimony and he can only say that he is one of the elect because his works demonstrate this to be so. He might say that he was regenerated (born again) by the Spirit. Then ask him when that happened. How long has he been one of his God’s elect? Did his God send him a letter? Or maybe a telegram or email or SMS? How does he know he is actually regenerated? His testimony is his works, nothing else! (And good works alone is insufficient evidence of a new life!) I can say that on a particular day in my life I called upon the name of the Lord to be saved; therefore I know I have eternal life, and I know I am going to heaven (1 John 5:12-13). Calvinists, how do you know you have eternal life, and how do you know you are going to heaven? For further on this, please read How does a calvinist know he has eternal life?

33/.  Calvinists claim the perseverance of the saints (that is, God’s elect people are guaranteed entry into heaven for eternity). This is the letter “P” in TULIP. But is there even one calvinist out there who is prepared to claim right now that he or she is guaranteed eternal life in heaven? What if you fall away before the end? Note that calvinism teaches that one must persevere to the end in order to enter heaven. If you fall away before the end, then you were never saved in the first place. This is what Calvin taught, that you could be given a temporary faith, an inferior operation of the Spirit (Institutes Bk 3, Ch.2, Section 11). Is any calvinist brave enough to guarantee that he will not (absolutely not) fall away before the end? John Piper admits the possibility of falling away! (https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/when-is-saving-repentance-impossible) If a calvinist falls away he was never saved in the first place; his God has given him a temporary faith! So how sure are you, calvinist, that you are one of your God’s elect? Can you prove it??

34/.  Calvinists teach that their God created/decreed/ordained sin and then blamed Adam for it. They all must agree that Adam could not have sinned of his own free will because that would have required free will and the calvinist God refuses to permit man to have any free will to choose between good and evil. Therefore, if Adam effectively had no free will to choose to obey God, then neither can his disobedience be considered an act of his free will against God! Adam is originally commanded not to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit, yet it is the calvinist God’s will that Adam should sin by now eating that forbidden fruit. If Adam refuses to eat the fruit because God has previously forbidden it, then he becomes guilty of disobeying God’s command to now eat the fruit. On the other hand, if Adam now obeys God’s command to eat the forbidden fruit, then he is doomed by his disobedience to God’s original law that forbade him to do so. Poor Adam! He just can’t win! The deck is literally stacked against him! Calvinists, why is your God so vindictive? And where in the Bible does it teach this garbage? No-one has ever been able to answer this without depicting the calvinist God as a dictator who can’t take responsibility for his own mistakes.
Try reading Calvinists declare their God to be a liar! and Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

35/.  Calvinists teach that their God requires evil in order to be perfect, according to Jonathan Edwards whom Piper declares “to be the greatest religious thinker America has ever produced.” Edwards says that the calvinist God ordains evil for the perfecting of His glory. He says that evil is necessary for the highest happiness of man who is only truly happy when his perception of God is perfect, and that God can only be perfect when evil is present (so that He can reveal His wrath against sin!). Without sin and evil, God cannot be complete! (https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be) If this is America’s greatest religious thinker, then …..?? Following this logically as any thinker should do requires evil to be as eternally present as God is eternally present. That is, God cannot be God without evil! This therefore makes evil an attribute of the calvinist God. Calvinist, your God is evil, isn’t he?

36/.  Calvinists who teach limited atonement are clearly non-biblical (1 John 2:2). It is so absurd that some calvinists declare that they are 4-point calvinists; that is, they can’t accept limited atonement! However, why would the calvinist Jesus die for all people if he has only chosen a limited number for heaven? So, 4-point calvinists, do you realise that an unlimited atonement is ridiculous unless the election is likewise unlimited? Why die for all if only 1% are on the list for heaven? Isn’t that a waste of the calvinist Jesus’ payment? Why pay for all and then prevent most from using it? Isn’t it like buying a meal for 100 people yet only letting one of them actually eat? Don’t you realise that being a 4-point calvinist is stupid?
The Bible teaches that Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind for all time without exception. All are offered the gift of salvation, yet only those who accept by their own free wills may be saved. Free will to choose is biblical!

37/.  Calvinists often say that Jesus’ payment was sufficient for all, yet efficient for the few. But, isn’t it the height of absurdity to be able to pay for all yet refuse to do so simply because he didn’t want to? MacArthur says that “God did not intend to save everyone.  He is God.  He could have intended to save everyone.  He could have saved everyone.  He would have if that had been His intention.  The atonement is limited.” (The Doctrine of Actual Atonement,  Part 1) So, calvinists, if your God could have paid for all, then why didn’t he? Is he a cruel despot, a sadist, or was he just unable to raise the finances?

38/.  Calvinists, why does your God only choose some for heaven when you claim that he could have paid for the sins of all people. He created most of mankind unable to go to heaven, so he sends them to hell by the good pleasure of his sovereign will. Why does the calvinist God only love his elect, yet hate the rest of the world? How could anyone serve and worship the calvinist God for eternity, knowing that so many had gone to hell simply because he hated them too much to die for them?
Calvinist, would your God rather die than give you what you justly deserved? My God, the God of the Bible did, and not just for a chosen few; He died for all mankind!

39/.  Christians are supposed to love their enemies, yet the calvinist God can’t love his enemies. The calvinist God commands Christians to do this, yet disobeys his own commandment? How is it possible that mere man could out-love God? Can a man be more loving, more merciful than God? How does this agree with the Bible which says that God is love?

40/.  Because the calvinist God’s will is the only will in the universe, then all things are according to his will, even sin (as calvinist writers affirm). They say that it is for his glory, yet fail to understand that their God is the only one who can choose to sin by his own free will! Doesn’t this mean that in a calvinist world, the only one who must go to hell for his sins is the calvinist God? After all, isn’t he the only one responsible for all sin for all time? How can man without a free will to choose between good and evil be responsible for that which he was ordained (decreed; made) to do?

41/. I have a question or two for someone named Phil Johnson who put the following online (Does Calvinism Make God the Author of Evil?) in which he claims that God is not the author of sin nor is He the approver of sin. He says that God is wholly sovereign and has decreed all things according to the sovereign counsel of his own will (Isaiah 46:9-10); yet He is not to blame for the evil His creatures do.
Well, Phil, if the God who has decreed all things is not to blame, then who is? Or do you think sin is a random event like your unconditional election? (A choice without conditions = random selection!) Only a fool would declare sin a random event. And, if the calvinist God has decreed all things, then man is only doing what the calvinist God decreed that man should do. And if man should refuse the calvinist God’s decree to do evil and instead do good, is he then, by doing good, being disobedient and therefore evil??
Man cannot be held responsible for choosing evil if the calvinist God has decreed that he should commit evil! But Johnson, like a typical calvinist, quotes the Westminster Confession and Calvin to support his views; how is this compatible with the calvinist claim of sola scriptura (the Bible alone)? Are the Westminster Confession and Calvin’s writings more authoritative than the Bible? Is Phil saying that he cannot rely upon the Bible alone to support such heresy?
In fact, doesn’t calvinism make their God the author of evil? Calvin said “
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”) Or maybe you can’t give a straight answer (sola scriptura!), Phil??

42/. Can calvinists please explain why free will is effectively any different from free agency? They say that man does not have a free will, yet remains a free agent. No free will means no choice. However, being a free agent means that God does not force man to choose something, but permits him to choose only that which the calvinist God has already chosen for him. That is, you may choose whatever you wish, as long as it is what the calvinist God has chosen for you. Calvinists, isn’t this just another case of verbal gymnastics? How is free will any different from free agency? Isn’t denying man’s free will yet permitting him to be a free agent just saying the same thing disguised as something different? Isn’t this a clear case of deception?
For further reading, try Free will Vs Free agency? What’s the difference??

43/. And here’s one for you, John MacArthur. You claim to be so biblical, yet you seemingly cannot understand simple biblical logic. You say in The Doctrine of God’s Effectual Call 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.” Yet Paul says he was obedient: “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). You say Paul had no choice other than to respond, but Paul says he was obedient (which requires a choice). Can you explain your logic in this matter? Why does Paul disagree with your highly emotive words (much of it invented because the Bible just does not say most of what you say it says here!). If you are so biblical, MacArthur, then will you defend it, or admit your folly by your silence?

44/. You know the saying: “The devil made me do it.” But calvinists, you believe that your God “from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” so, logically, shouldn’t you be claiming that “God made me do it!”??

45/. Is the calvinist God double-minded? Is he unstable in all his ways? James 1:8 says that A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways. So, if God desires that all men should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) yet the calvinist God did not choose to save all men, then isn’t the calvinist God clearly double-minded according to the Bible? Thus the calvinist God is unstable in all his ways! Try and demonstrate otherwise from the Bible, calvinists! But you can’t, can you, calvinists, because your God is indeed double-minded, unstable, unjust, unloving, vindictive, unmerciful, ungracious ……. Doesn’t sound like the God of the Bible, does it?

46/. On the Internet calvinist Bryan Liftin says “But then why evangelize anyone if God’s decree is already fixed? The mistake is thinking that we evangelize in order to save people. That is incorrect. ….. The right reason to evangelize is to be obedient.That’s right, folks, calvinists don’t preach the gospel in order to save people because their God has already chosen who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell. Evangelising makes no difference at all! Can calvinists please explain why they bother to evangelise the lost when the only ones who can be saved will go to heaven without their preaching?

47/. Calvinists teach that man cannot seek after God,  quoting “there is none that seeketh after God.” (Romans 3:11). They ignore the correct interpretation which is that man has no desire to seek after God. They say that because man has no free will to choose to obey God, then it is impossible for man to seek after God.
Then how was it possible for people to choose by an act of their wills to not come to Jesus in Matthew 23:37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I (thelo) have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would (thelo) not! where thelo means to will; intend; to purpose; desire; like to do a thing; be fond of doing; take delight in; have pleasure in. thelo is also used for “willingly” in 2 Peter 3:5a (For this they willingly are ignorant). Calvinists, please tell me how they can refuse to come by an act of their wills if they have no free will to respond to God in the first place?
Also, not seeking after God can mean either you cannot, or you will not, that is, either you are unable to do so, or you do not want to do so. Calvinists, can you prove sola scriptura that Romans 3:11 cannot mean “will not”?? If you can’t, then your whole doctrine of total inability goes out the window with the rest of the rubbish!

48/. Calvinists today teach that their God predestines his elect to eternal life, yet did not predestine the non-elect to eternal condemnation. They say that their God just passes over them and lets them go their own way; thus they choose to go to hell. But calvinists, are you so ignorant that you don’t know what Calvin clearly taught on this? He wrote “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” Note that the calvinist God chose what he wanted for “every man“! Calvinists, you don’t like such teaching because it makes your God to be a vindictive ogre, doesn’t it? But Calvin taught it, so stop arguing! And if your God just passes over the lost, then how can he be sovereign over them? So calvinists, do you agree with Calvin here, or are you calling Calvin a false teacher?

49/. A calvinist once told me that James White was an outstanding theologian and scholar. This is hard to believe, considering he has difficulty in understanding basic grammatical logic! White says  (of John 6:44): all who are drawn are also raised up – the Father draws, and the Son raises up those who are drawn. This assumes no free will, yet Question 47 above demonstrates otherwise. The Father draws all through Christ (John 12:32); none may come unless he is invited. However, not all those invited will come (see Matthew 22:1-14). Note well that John 6:44 doesn’t say that all who are drawn must come, but rather that all who come must have been drawn. If man has free will to resist (and he does), then all are drawn yet only those who accept such drawing will be raised up on the last day. Can calvinists please explain why they should listen to White’s grammatically illogical teachings? (Also see Question 6 above)

50/. Calvinists teach that man is unable to seek after God, quoting Romans 3:11. But Romans 3:11 does not say that man cannot come, but that he does not seek after God. (Can’t you read properly?) Jeremiah 29:13 says And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Why would God say this if He knew that man was unable to seek Him? Also see Question 47 above. Total depravity of man is true; total inability of man is a lie. Prove otherwise, calvinists, or else admit defeat by your silence. Remember, silence is the greatest complement that a calvinist can pay to those who oppose him!

So, is there any calvinist sure enough of his beliefs to argue them from the Bible alone? Remember, no comment means no opposition! Silence is always taken as agreement. If your calvinism is worth defending, then defend it. But no defense means nothing worth defending! Does your belief in calvinism dissipate like so much hot air in the face of any reasonable opposition?
So far the silence has been deafening, spurring me on to accuse more and more simply because no reason has been presented to me to not do so. By your silence you are hereby found guilty as charged! If I accuse and no-one defends, then I am free to accuse further. Calvinists, it is in your hands to defend or to acknowledge your guilt!

There are just so many questions calvinists cannot answer that it would be far quicker (and shorter, too) to list all the questions calvinists can answer!

Read Questions 1-10 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 1.
Read Questions 11-20 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 2.
Read Questions 21-30 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 3.
Read Questions 31-40 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 4.
Read Questions 41-50 at Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 5.
And if you haven’t read enough impossible calvinist questions, try Impossible Questions for Calvinists Part 6.

For further reading also please try the following:
Calvinisms
1/. The calvinist gospel in a nutshell.
2/. Calvinists teach universal salvation.
3/. Calvinists teach that God’s elect have eternal life before they can come to Christ to receive eternal life.
4/. The calvinist god cannot be eternal.
5/. Calvinist salvation is not a gift of God.
6/. Calvinists teach that if we willingly receive this gift of salvation, then that makes the gift imperfect.
7/. The calvinist unconditional election is really a conditional election.
8/. Calvinism does not teach assurance of salvation.
9/. The calvinist god is a dictator.
10/. The calvinist god is the only willful sinner in the universe.

The Oxymorons of Calvinist Doctrine
Oxymoron No.1 – God created sin and then punished Adam for it!
Oxymoron No.2 – Merciful, loving and gracious God predestined most of mankind to go to hell without any other option!
Oxymoron No.3 – Calvinism is the gospel!
Oxymoron No.4 – Be born again before you can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!
Oxymoron No.5 – Evangelize the world without the gospel?
Oxymoron No.6 – Calvinists claim to be Christians yet are not saved by Christ.
Oxymoron No.7 – The calvinists cry “Christ Alone”, yet leave Him out of the picture until after a person is “saved”.
Oxymoron No.8 – The calvinists cry “The Bible Alone”, yet ignore its truths in favour of Calvin’s teachings.
Oxymoron No.9 – The calvinists cry “Faith Alone”, yet faith is not part of their salvation until after they have been born again.
Oxymoron No.10 – God chose Israel as His special nation, and then ordained that it sin and be rejected.

And here’s another post to check out with a lot of good reading about the bad logic of calvinism and the god they serve.
Try When Calvinism’s “Bad Logic” Traps Good Christians
The author of this post speaks from first-hand experience in defining the evil deception in the calvinism that caused her to leave her church of many years. Why does calvinism (which proclaims the loving goodness of their allegedly sovereign god) cause so much division and heart-ache?? It’s those who have escaped this vile deception who can speak most authoritatively about it. But, be prepared for a long read! Calvinism has so much deception that it just cannot be dealt with in a few sentences!

*************************************

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.

It is indeed hard to break free from calvinism!

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.

Romans 9 condemns calvinism to rejection by sovereign God

Romans 9 condemns calvinism to rejection by sovereign God

Romans 9 is all about Israel! The context cannot be denied at all. In fact, calvinists clearly acknowledge this by claiming the same election as Israel had in being chosen as God’s special covenanted nation. Romans 9:11-13 clearly states that God’s choice of Israel was entirely His, not being based in any way upon the good and evil as yet uncommitted by Jacob and Esau. Thus the election of God’s nation here is unconditional. Jacob was chosen because God loved Jacob more than Esau. (“hated” in Vs 13  – miseo – is a comparative term meaning to have been loved less than the other one.)

But this is the part which calvinists try to avoid having to notice: that this whole passage is about Israel who, after being chosen by God as His covenanted people, rebelled against God, causing God to reject them (for a season) as His covenanted people. Earlier in Romans Paul has stated clearly that just being physical descendants of Abraham did not make them God’s spiritual children. In fact, Paul declared that just being a physical Jew didn’t qualify them as God’s children; the Jew was a spiritual being. Physical circumcision did not make them God’s people; spiritual circumcision did make them children of God.
Romans 2:28-2928For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

In Romans 4, Paul enlarges upon this spiritual circumcision by teaching that all who are spiritually circumcised (by faith) are the children of Abraham.
Romans 4:11And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
This includes all who believe, Jew or Gentile, for there is no difference (Romans 10:12) as long as they all believe by faith which is then accounted to them for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

This sets the scene for Romans 9. The Jews (Israel) considered themselves to be privileged above all other nations. They despised the Gentiles for not being God’s people. Through Abraham, Israel was God’s covenanted people. God had committed Himself to His people Israel, and therefore they thought they could do whatever they wished, make whatever rules they liked, for they believed that their God would not ever, could never, turn against the covenant He had made with Abraham who they considered as their father. And yet Paul is declaring them rejected by the God they thought could never reject them! Paul is alluding to their lack of spiritual circumcision when he says For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Romans 9:6) & especially noting They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Romans 9:8).  

Paul acknowledges that Israel was indeed the nation chosen unconditionally by God (Romans 9:11-13) but then continues on to condemn Israel for daring to presume upon God’s covenant to demand that He carry out His side of the covenant He made with Abraham. They thought that because they were of Abraham, they could never be rejected by God. They were using the Abrahamic covenant to try to force God to agree to their special conditions they had attached to this covenant, the teaching of man’s commandments as the doctrines of God (Matthew 15:9). In particular, this applied to their religious leaders of that day, the pharisees.

They demanded that their God show them mercy, that He continue to grant them all the privileges of being the children of Abraham. As long as they carried out all the appearances of the law, they demanded that their God acknowledge their duty to Him. They demanded (by their arrogant attitude) that God continue to show them mercy (and thus they would continue to be God’s special elect nation forever as they claimed He had promised to them). That is, they would serve their God if he delivered the goods! They demanded the right to tell God what He could and couldn’t do.

But Paul in his usual style cuts them down to size by stating the plain out-in-the-open truth: that God cannot be forced to show them mercy if they reject His truth. They cannot demand mercy; they have no right to demand mercy! It is God alone who determines to whom He will reveal His mercy, and not even the status of being chosen long ago as God’s people can overrule this! They demanded that God be righteous in showing mercy to His chosen nation of Israel. But Paul says that even if God refuses mercy to Israel, He cannot be accused of unrighteousness. What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (Romans 9:14) It is God alone who determines who He will be merciful to. Israel cannot demand God’s mercy. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15)

Paul then compares Israel with Pharaoh who had decided to greatly oppose God. God then chooses to harden Pharaoh’s heart (literally, in the O.T., to reinforce the position in which Pharaoh had placed himself). From this point onward, Pharaoh was not permitted to change the course of action he had embarked upon. This is the same meaning of the word “hardeneth” in Romans 9:18: skleruno which means to lose its flexibility for change, hence our word “sclerosis”. And if God desires to do this, then who may resist His will here (Romans 9:19). No-one has any right to complain or argue, for the final decision is God’s. Israel has chosen by her free will to rebel, causing God to decide to act in this way. Who may stand before God in judgment and tell Him not to do His will there?

Then Paul (Romans 9:20-23) reminds them of Jeremiah’s message about the Potter and the clay.
Jeremiah 18:6-106O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter’s hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7[At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 10If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it]; 10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

God is simply doing what he promised Israel that He would do if they dared presume upon being the chosen people of God and therefore above His law! He would judge them as unfit for His service and reject them as the Potter rejected the clay in Jeremiah. God would show His mercy to those who cried out to Him for mercy as did the publican – or tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), and withhold His mercy from those (such as the pharisees) who demanded His mercy because of their exalted “chosen people” status. Those of Israel who were like the publican in Luke 18 (vessels of mercyRomans 9:23) would be shown mercy, while those who demanded mercy as their right (vessels of wrath fitted to destructionRomans 9:22) would be denied it. As in the final judgment, God’s decision is final and none may oppose it. Those who choose to call upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13) and will be shown everlasting mercy, while those who demand to be saved by their position of rank will be denied mercy and judged as fit only for eternal condemnation.

Even then, God would show mercy to those who repented and were purged of their evil. Those vessels of dishonour (Romans 9:21) could become vessels of honour if only they could be purged of their iniquity (2 Timothy 2:20-21). Why do calvinists ignore God’s word here?

And the calvinists love to claim this passage as one of their definitive proofs of their unconditional election??!! What foolishness is this? If this is a picture of their election, then their God will reject them as the God of the Bible rejected most of Israel. How can the calvinists explain this, except to deny that what happened to Israel could ever happen to them. Yet, the moment they take on the election of Israel as a nation as a picture of their own election, then they must accept that their rebelliousness could likewise condemn them to being declared vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

The calvinism of today is aggressive, arrogant, forceful, in-your-face (like the attitude of the pharisees), often termed “new calvinism as opposed to the old calvinism of previous generations. New calvinism (which includes names such as Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Mohler) is a seemingly more evangelical version of the not very evangelical old calvinism of such as Presbyterians. The heresy of new calvinism appeals to the more evangelical denominations such as Baptists.

New calvinism is actually a hybrid doctrine combining both calvinism and elements of seventh day adventism (SDAs). (See the Seventh Day Adventist connection to New Calvinism.) New calvinism is sometimes known by an earlier name of Sonship Theology which claims that there is no sin that one of God’s elect can commit that can ever prevent that person from going to heaven. No matter what sin you commit, if you are one of the calvinist God’s elect, then he will grant you grace for repentance and restoration, thus demonstrating your status as one of his children. The lack of restoration to the church is what defines the non-elect, for the calvinist God’s elect will always be restored to fellowship no matter how serious the sin. God’s sons (children) can never lose their salvation no matter the sin; thus “Sonship” Theology. It has emerged in some areas as sinless perfectionism, a license to sin and still go to heaven, an incapability to ever be anything but holy even in sin.

New calvinists, like Israel of Paul’s day, arrogantly demand of their God that he stick to his side of the agreement: his “promise” or “covenant” that all his elect will go to heaven; they cannot miss out on heaven, ever. Thus, if new calvinists are genuinely the elect of God, they can literally make the rules of man conform to the doctrines of God (as per the pharisees of Matthew 15:9). Those who cannot repent and be restored after sin are not God’s elect for the calvinist God only restores his own. The restoration to fellowship is your ticket to new calvinist heaven!

Romans 9, in condemning God’s elect nation of Israel to the part-blindness of Romans 11, also equally condemns all who would choose the same pathway as rebellious Israel.
Romans 11:7-87What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

If the calvinist election is proven by Romans 9, then we may rewrite Romans 11:7-9 as 7What then? Calvinism hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

I defy all calvinists who claim Romans 9 as definitive proof of the election of God’s people to demonstrate clearly to me just where the Bible opposes my teachings here. In order to claim Romans 9 as a foundational passage in support of calvinism, they must (from sola scriptura – the Bible alone) demonstrate that it is not discussing the condemnation of Israel as God’s elect, yet rejected, nation of Israel. If you disagree, then where’s your biblical teaching that refutes? Silence will always be taken as an inability to satisfactorily refute my teachings. But, I think I’ll be waiting a long time; I have waited a long time already for such biblical refuting and not seen one clear statement of such yet!

For further reading try this link Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

Of course, calvinists do not like the truth to be revealed about their doctrine of demons – see Calvinisms.

Other calvinist favourite yet misleading passages include John 6:44 and John 3:3.

Calvinism is incompatible with biblical doctrine, and its gospel is incompatible with the biblical gospel.

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?

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.

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Calvinists have many times informed me that John 3:3 clearly teaches that one must be born again before one may have faith in Christ (or equivalent wording). So let’s put the calvinists to the test (according to 1 Thessalonians 5:21) to see if their teachings are biblical or not. After all, they claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone). If this is true, then they should be, of all people, outstandingly biblically correct. However, if they can be shown to be deceptive or non-scriptural, then they must be deemed to be opposed to sola scriptura (the Bible alone). On this test they will stand or fall today!

Here are some comments from calvinists defining how they interpret the order of being born again and believing in Christ. (Note that Boettner changes “born again” to “saved”. Biblical Christians recognise that being saved also describes being born again, that they are equivalent terms, while most calvinists tend to separate being born again from being saved, with the order as (a) being born again, then (b) believing in Christ, then (c) being saved. Some will therefore rewrite “being saved” as “being justified” but nonetheless calvinist doctrine requires that they teach that a man must be born again before he is able to believe in or have faith in Christ.)

John 3: 3. (man must be born again first before he can repent and believe.) In this super clear verse our Lord and saviour himself tells Nicodemus that he cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he is born again first, surely that puts to rest that regeneration must take place first and foremost. (email from calvinist 18/01/17)

Further, Christ places regeneration by the Spirit as a requirement before one can “see,” i.e., believe or have faith in the Kingdom of God. He states quite emphatically that a sinner who is born of the flesh cannot believe the good news of the Kingdom until he is born by the Spirit. Thus according to the teaching of Christ, we believe because we are “born again.” We are not “born again” because we believe! (Studies in the Atonement (Robert Morey) Chapter 8)

Boettner who is often quoted by calvinists says: A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved. …… And in accordance with this, Augustine says that “The elect of God are chosen by Him to be His children, in order that they might be made to believe, not because He foresaw that they would believe.”
(The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75)

So if these calvinists are biblically correct, then their teaching will be consistent throughout the Bible, not just in this isolated verse. Therefore, are there verses which clearly state their teaching without any rewording or explanations? I can think of none at all. In fact, it is clear to me that their interpretation of John 3:3 is faulty to begin with, for they have had to reword the verse before it may support their teachings. If this is so, then their interpretation will be inconsistent with the rest of biblical truth. And, with scriptural teachings, any inconsistency always shows a lie to be present somewhere. Only the truth is consistent across all verses and passages.

Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 5:7For we walk by faith, not by sight: While calvinists claim that in John 3:3 “believing or having faith in” is the equivalent of “seeing”, it does appear as if 2 Corinthians 5:7 states that they are opposing terms, that the one denies the other. If it can be shown that “faith” and “sight” in 2 Corinthians 5:7 are equivalent to “believe or have faith in” and “see”, then it would be impossible for “see” in John 3:3 to be reworded as “believe or have faith in”.

The real test is to look at the original wording in the Greek.

Except a man be born again, he cannot see (eido) the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

For we walk by faith (pistis), not by sight (eidos): (2 Corinthians 5:7)

If “see” in John 3:3 is changed to “believe or have faith in”, then we get
Except a man be born again, he cannot believe or have faith in (pisteuo) the kingdom of God.

pisteuo (believe or have faith in) is the verb form (Strongs 4100) derived from the noun pistis (faith) (Strongs 4102).

eidos (sight) is the noun form (Strongs 1491) derived from the verb eido (see) (Strongs 1492)

It can be seen clearly that pisteuo (believe or have faith in) cannot replace eido (see) because 2 Corinthians 5:7 (which uses the same terms but merely changing each from verb to noun form) actually says that the two terms are opposed to each other. We may either walk by faith or by sight; we cannot do both at the same time. Therefore it is not permissible to exchange “see” (eido) with “believe or have faith in” (pisteuo) in John 3:3. No genuine scholar of Greek could teach such nonsense.

Therefore, anyone who claims that “see” must mean “believe or have faith in” in John 3:3 is either incompetent to the nth degree, or else deliberately lying in order to deceive the very elect of God. Thus calvinists who use John 3:3 to teach that one must be born again before one may believe or have faith in Christ are in great need of someone to teach them the truth. Unfortunately, most of the calvinists who teach their heresy of belief after regeneration (= being born again) will just continue to listen to the lies of their incompetent or lying teachers, and like blind leading the blind, all will fall into the ditch!  

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

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.

Typical calvinist behaviour

Typical calvinist behaviour

For about 5 weeks since the last cowardly hacks occurred on my website, I haven’t put anything new online. Logically I blamed militant calvinists for their use of abusive websites to attack my website; in particular, this includes some that I identified as scam and adult content websites. After all, who else had any incentive to attempt to crash my site? And after my last post accusing those militant calvinists of such, things went very quiet, in fact, much quieter than they have been for quite a while.

However, just 2 days ago I reviewed and re-presented my Calvinisms post of 2 months ago. You see, it was not long after it was first posted that our website was hit with hundreds of attacks spanning a week or more. They didn’t succeed and I went on to post that this could only be seen as militant calvinists who couldn’t defend their heresies any other way. As I said then, violence is the last resort (or refuge) of the incompetent. It’s obvious now that calvinists are taking out their anger on the website because they have no logical means by which they may refute its claims about their lies. And the efforts to attack have increased over 24 hours later, clear evidence of their impotent rage. Biblical people would use the Bible to make their case, but not these incompetents; the violence indeed proves these fools to be more and more incompetent as time goes by! The more they give in to their anger, the more they prove their teachings to be a lie! Even if they crash this site, it will still only prove their incompetence further; and the more encouragement to me to continue to write about their heresies. With every attack they are effectively admitting that they have lost! To God be the glory, great things He hath done!

In the past some calvinists have tried to present their case in Comments on our website, but in spite of accusing me of lack of discernment, misrepresentation, being a problem, not understanding, and so on, not one single one has ever stated exactly what it is that demonstrates my alleged lack of discernment or misrepresentation, or lack of scriptural understanding etc. And without such documentation, every one of their comments can be relegated to the bin as merely nothing more than unqualified opinions. I have, however, printed any genuine comment (including the latest confused opinions of a calvinist), even when I’ve totally disagreed with their statements. (And added my replies to each, of course – that is my right, it being my website, not theirs!)

But, some might have said that it wasn’t necessarily calvinists trying to crash the site. However, as a qualified statistician, I search for patterns in the behaviour of others around me. (It’s what statisticians do: look for patterns in an otherwise random world!) And so, 2 days before first publishing this post, I re-presented my Calvinisms post to see what would happen. The next day a comment came in telling me (unsurprisingly) that I lacked discernment and that I was misrepresenting people. (It seems to be the standard reply for calvinists who cannot otherwise work out how to oppose me!) And, as is common to calvinist opposition, no supporting evidence was presented to back up such claims, leading to me state that he was merely offering unqualified opinions and that as such I could not take him seriously. I also noted that he seemed, like other calvinists, to dislike using the Bible to support any of his claims. (This may be read on our Comments page dated 16th May 2019. I also intend writing a post on this comment soon, in order to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of calvinist defences.)

Then, after putting what I would term a cutting reply to his uneducated comment, the site was once more attacked by IP addresses that have generally been already reported many times for their abusive activity in the past. That there is a pattern to all these events has been made much clearer by the events of the past 2 days. The most logical conclusion by far is that these responses have been triggered by my opposition to calvinist heresy. After all, given the patterns observed, it has to be people who are upset by what I am writing (and that really is only calvinists!) or else those involved against this website must be raving lunatics without any logical reasoning behind anything they do. And, if calvinists are behind this, then why not argue their case using the Bible alone (remember how the calvinists love to claim “sola scriptura” – the Bible alone?). I have often challenged those who disagree with me to present a logical statement in their defence “sola scriptura” but not one has seriously attempted using the Bible as their defence. Not one! It does seem as if calvinists do not like sola scriptura!

It is interesting to note that the Calvinisms document was posted not long before each of the last 2 efforts to hack into the website. Therefore there must be something about this document that the calvinists hate. And, yes, it does expose as lies 10 of their cherished teachings, such as (a) the calvinist God has chosen from the beginning who will go to heaven; the rest will go to hell without any option to want to go to heaven, and no-one may choose which list he is on, ever, (b) calvinism teaches universalist salvation, (c) the calvinist God cannot be eternal, (d) calvinism does not teach any assurance of salvation for their elect, (e) the calvinist God is a dictator, and (f) the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe. If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve written on this post, then feel free to comment (using the Bible alone as your defence, of course).

Finally, I’ll note that, like all cults, if they cannot convince you of their heresies, then their ultimate reaction to your opposition is to give you the silent treatment. Like the Jehovah Witnesses who door-knock all the other houses in our street but don’t come to our door now because we tend to say things that their masters haven’t taught them how to answer. Instead they drop a pamphlet in our letterbox and go away as quickly as they can before we catch them. Calvinists do exactly the same. If they cannot confuse you with their mis-use of biblical terminology, or bully you because they’ve been to Bible school or are more spiritual than you, if they cannot convince you by quoting their calvinist heroes such as MacArthur, Sproul, Pink, Edwards, Piper, etc (they tend to not know much about what Calvin taught, though), if they cannot get away with declaring their inconsistencies as mysteries hid within the secret counsels of God, then they’ll give you the final treatment: they’ll not talk about it with you again. That is, they will give you the silent treatment. In actual fact, this is really because they have realised that they cannot defeat you using any of the deceptive means at their disposal.  And, like all cults, from this time on they will avoid you after that because they would be embarrassed by your knowledge and understanding if they continued any further. Their masters haven’t taught them how to answer such truths!

Calvinists will give the silent treatment to anyone whom they cannot overcome in debate of any shape or form. The silent treatment is actually their admission of defeat, a defeat that calvinists never want to have to admit. But if you demand that all their defence be from the Bible alone (sola scriptura) then this cramps their style, especially if you know the Bible well enough to debate their heresies from the Bible alone. They then fear that you might show them up in front of others so, like the cowards that all bullies are, they then just turn away and avoid having to demonstrate their lack of biblical understanding in front of others whom they might be trying to surreptitiously convert to calvinism.

So, if you have been avoided by calvinists, if they have refused to discuss serious biblical matters with you, if they have given you the silent treatment, then you may know that you have won; they have been unable to refute your statements. The silent treatment is clearly reserved for those whom they know they can never convert to their heresies. If you are given the silent treatment and you see these people trying to discuss serious matters with younger or more impressionable Christians, then join the conversation, find out what is being discussed, and give the younger Christian some moral support to stand up to these bullies. Calvinists love to work on individuals; like all bullies they do not like effective opposition, and individuals or small groups are best for such bullying. Most of all they hate interfering Christians who know their Bible well who might show the calvinists up for the deceiving liars that they are. Test all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

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

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 5:39-4039Search 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 1:2aElect 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.

Beware of calvinists seeking common ground!

Beware of calvinists trying to find common ground

(And the next morning after posting this, another swathe of hit-run lockouts because once again they’ve tried hacking my login page. But we’ll just continue to proclaim the truth about calvinism while we can. Clearly some people (particularly calvinists) do not appreciate my expose of calvinism, and just as clearly I’ve hit some raw nerve of truth in their lies. If they were right, of course, I’d expect some quality Bible study to demonstrate my errors, but no, that appears to be out of their reach. These calvinists do not acknowledge sola scriptura – the Bible alone. So they resort to violence, the last refuge of the incompetent. May God open your eyes to His truth before it’s too late.)

My documentation says that a website alleged to be a scam and adult content business is involved in a number of these lockouts. If this is true (and it does appear to be so), then it certainly puts an interesting label on the alleged calvinist opposition that appears to be harassing our website. If calvinists are behind this lockout harassment, then they should know that this would identify them as anti-Christian, opposed to all biblical principles. No genuine Christian would ever stoop so low! They are welcome to comment on this using the proper channels of communication as presented on this website. And we praise God that we are considered worthy of the enemy’s opposition. To God alone be the glory!

Reading the Bible alone doesn’t produce calvinists. Calvin was probably the only calvinist who ever became a calvinist by reading the Bible, and yet even he acknowledges that it was Augustine’s teachings that greatly influenced his thinking. Calvinism is a false teaching that does not come naturally from the Bible; instead the Bible has to be interpreted according to Calvin’s (and Augustine’s) teachings before calvinism can be understood. It is an esoteric knowledge system, where those who are initiated into the belief system may understand things that the uninitiated cannot understand. And, those who are more qualified in the belief system may have the greater knowledge of the system. In this it is the same as freemasonry and kabbalah.

I have been told by one calvinist that your argument there does not stack up because you have misunderstood the theology of Calvinisim. So I need to understand calvinism before I can fully understand the Bible? I need to understand calvinist theology to be fully discerning? This in itself proves calvinism to be a lie! (For some of calvinism’s blatant heresies, see “Calvinisms”.)

Calvinism is not biblical; it actually denies much biblical truth including the most important biblical truth – the gospel of salvation for all mankind through freewill acceptance of the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. But the calvinist gospel won’t accept any freewill decision to accept God’s gift of salvation by faith. The calvinist gospel is quite different: the calvinist God has either chosen you for heaven or for hell, and you have absolutely no choice in the matter; end of story! That might be good for those chosen for heaven, but the calvinist God has chosen to send most of mankind to hell simply because he didn’t intend saving any of them.

As MacArthur says in “The Doctrine of Actual Atonement Part 1”: God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited. There you are folks. The calvinist God didn’t want to save everyone! Even though the God of the Bible says For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4) It’s funny how God wants all to be saved, yet according to calvinism God doesn’t intend saving most of them!

However, if calvinists taught their doctrines openly and honestly, on-the-ball evangelical Christians would never accept them as fellow-Christians. I mean, when’s the last time you heard a calvinist evangelist preaching to the lost and saying, “God did not intend saving most of you here. Jesus died for some of you and you are going to heaven anyway; the calvinist God will not take “No!” for an answer. The rest of you are going to hell. Your sins were never paid for! The calvinist God couldn’t save you even if he wanted to!”

Calvinists have a doctrine that is alien to the Bible, one that denies God’s salvation to the vast majority of mankind. And the calvinist God also does not offer any gift of salvation to anyone. He forces it upon a small number of people, and never made any such gift available for anyone else. (See “Calvinisms” for further information, plus many other documents on this website.)

If the calvinist taught the whole truth of calvinism, it would come across as heresy much like JW teachings are dismissed by Christians as unbiblical. For, like the JWs with the Watchtower Society, calvinists have a false doctrine that can only be explained satisfactorily by using Calvin’s teachings as a guide. All the cults have extra-biblical “revelations” that “explain” the “truths” of their heresies. The SDAs have the teachings of Ellen White, the Mormons have the writings of Joseph Smith, the JWs have their Watchtower Society, the Catholics have Augustine, and the calvinists have Calvin’s Institutes (which are based upon Augustine’s teachings anyway).

So why do so many Christians accept calvinism as an acceptable yet opposing way of believing biblical doctrines? It’s because calvinists will never start by telling you the whole truth concerning their false doctrines. Like tares among the wheat, they desire to be accepted by the Christians in the churches they infiltrate. And like tares they will tell you just enough for you to think they are Christians just like you. Like tares they will research the doctrines you hold strongly to and seek to find common ground upon which both you and they will agree. This is basic activity for tares, to find the common ground upon which you both agree, and then to use that common ground to stretch it a bit further and further toward eventual full agreement with their doctrines.

Tares are satan’s followers who infiltrate the church to destroy it from within. They are most effective when the church thinks they are genuine Christians. They will always build common ground of agreement and then seek to extend that common ground, always toward their heresies. Bit by bit, the common ground grows, and only the discerning Christian who tests all things has a hope of standing firm on scriptural high ground.
Ephesians 6:13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
The only way to recognise tares is by their fruit. They can say what they want, but what they do will eventually reveal them. (See Matthew 13: 24-30 and 36-43)

Of course, not all who believe in calvinist doctrine are necessarily tares among the wheat. Many Christians hold the truth in high regard and merely need to test all things (as per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.) in order to sift out the lies from the truth. Genuine Christians should use biblical truth to assess their beliefs.
It is those who do not hold fast to that which is true that are likely to be the tares. Such people are likely to see non-calvinists as lesser Christians, or even lost. They see those non-calvinist believers as a mission field, seeking to convert them to calvinist heresies. These calvinists see themselves as the only on-the-ball Christians around. This includes such as Al Mohler who says If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism. https://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/ That is, according to Mohler, only calvinists are fully right! But, if calvinism is a doctrine of devils, then Al Mohler is a tare among the wheat.

Jesus taught that these tares (sons of the wicked one) would be planted in the church among the Christians, and that they would often be hard to pick out from the real Christians. And because tares will be trying hard to look like real Christians, they are hard to recognise. (Like good spies, good tares can deceive many Christians!) Satan wants his tares to destroy the church, and to do this they need to be accepted as real Christians. They also try to work toward leadership responsibilities because that is how they will destroy the church: by leading the gullible Christians to destruction. Tares may often be found in positions of leadership in the church.

So briefly, a tare is a false teacher who has to look like he is a genuine real-deal Christian (or else he’ll be caught out). He will appear to teach good doctrine while really encouraging false doctrine. He will seek to establish common ground for agreement in order to build upon and extend that common ground with Christians into heresy. For example, the calvinist aggressively pushes the doctrine of the election of God’s people. Now the election (the choosing) is biblical, but once they have established that Christians should believe in the election, they will then tell you that the election is unconditional, which is the false extension of this teaching. God does choose an election; 1 Peter 1:2a says we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father but note that it is through the use of God’s foreknowledge (God’s perfect knowledge of the future). God offers salvation as a gift, and those who accept this gift by faith are foreknown by God who then puts them on His list of chosen ones (His elect ones).

The calvinist election lie is that God chooses his elect ones without foreknowledge, that God just selects a few for heaven and the rest for hell unconditionally. That is, there’s nothing you can do to change God’s choosing in any way. The Bible teaches an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of your choice; calvinists teach an election unconditional upon any decision you can ever make. The common ground is the election; the extra calvinist lie added on is that God does not use foreknowledge to determine your election.

Why do calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet preach the biblical gospel to the lost. Why don’t they preach the actual truth of calvinism to the lost until after they are saved? Calvinism teaches that you cannot respond to the gospel until after you are born again with new life by the Spirit (they call it “regenerated”). So why bother being saved if you already have eternal life before you can respond to the gospel and be saved? Why do calvinists hide from non-calvinists their teaching that the calvinist God decreed sin? Why are calvinists reluctant to admit that if their God’s will is the only will in the universe (and that man has no free will to choose good or evil), then their God has to have (ordained / created / decreed) all (evil / sin).

As MacArthur teaches (in his book The Vanishing Conscience)
Page 112 – Scripture clearly teaches that God is utterly sovereign over all things. Or, as the Westminster Confession says, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy Counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” (Chap.3 Sec 1)
Page 113 – 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. (Emphasis MacArthur’s)

You see, if calvinism is right, then man has been created incapable of choosing between good and evil. Man can not be permitted to have a will that may oppose the calvinist God’s will at any time. Therefore if sin exists, then the calvinist God must have created it. Calvinism cannot deny that this is their clear teaching. Therefore they are forced to teach that the calvinist God created sin in order to increase his glory, and that without sin God’s glory would have been less God-glorifying!
A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.
(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall/)

When is the last time you heard a calvinist teach the blasphemy that God created sin for His glory? And yet they have to either tell lies to deny this, or preferably just not mention it and hope you don’t ask awkward questions. And, if all mankind has been chosen for either heaven or hell before the beginning of the world, then what is the point of claiming to be so evangelical when their teaching is that no amount of evangelism can ever change the end-result? How often do you hear calvinists claim to be the most evangelical of all Christians, preaching the gospel to all mankind? And yet, if they are to be truthful, they must admit that they cannot preach to the lost that Jesus loves them when the calvinist Jesus probably didn’t die for any of their sins. As MacArthur says (in The Sacrifice that Satisfied): Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood.
So the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for the sins of those whom He asked the Father to forgive for they knew not what they did? Clearly the calvinist Jesus didn’t think it was his responsibility to be the means of their forgiveness. Sounds like the calvinist Jesus and the calvinist Father are not in agreement with each other!

If a calvinist tries to convince you of his doctrines, he will often commence by establishing common ground. Beware of calvinists who say that we agree in some areas, or have some common ground for agreement. They are softening you up for the kill! Any common ground established will then be used to build lies upon. The common ground will be truth to which lies are added. It’s often difficult to deny the lie when it has some measure of truth in it, and the calvinist, like all cult-believers such as JWs, will know this well. Never be tempted to believe something because it has some measure of truth. Sift out the lies first. This requires that you know your Bible well for yourself and are able to discern lies from truth. If you do not understand what is said, do not agree but instead go away and meditate upon it. Ask God to give you clarity of thinking to determine His truth. But don’t ever be tempted to tentatively agree because they have established some measure of common ground.

Like all tares and cults, the establishing of common ground is essential in gaining the attention of non-cult members. JWs do it all the time. SDAs also will usually say they are Christian before admitting that they are SDA. It’s like getting a foot in the door. But don’t let them get a foot in the door. Don’t let their talk of common ground or “we have some agreement on this” or “even non-calvinists should affirm this much of this doctrine” or “for we both surely agree” or (an actual quote from an email) You say that man is totally unwilling to come to God (we agree there) but that it cannot be translated into total inability, you also say that no man can come to God unless God intervenes (we agree there as well) and you say that the intervention is through the gospel of Christ. But then the lie gets added on to the common ground: I say that scripture clearly states that man is also unable to come to Christ and that the intervention is through the Holy Spirit.

Calvinists can only really effectively teach their lies if they have established some measure of credibility, generally through the formation of common ground areas of agreement. Their lies cannot make sense unless attached to some truth that you have already agreed to. They will then agree to that truth of yours before building their lies upon it. This is calvinist tactics at their most devious. Be warned, be alert! Or as the Bible puts it: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9)

For a brief expose of calvinist lies, please go to this link at “Calvinisms”.

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

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 10:28And 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 3:12Yea, 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 2:21For 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 10:38And 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 14:27And 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 16:24-2624Then 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 14:27Peace 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 8:28And 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 2:10Therefore 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 2:12bNevertheless 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 8:36-3736As 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 5:20Giving 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 5:10For 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 4:4-54Now 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 18:6-76But 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.

Is the Karl Faase gospel a rehash of the corrupt Lausanne gospel?

Is the Karl Faase gospel a rehash of the corrupt Lausanne gospel?

Before we start, just a note to say that the efforts to crash our website (see the last 2 posts) have failed so far; they appear to have given it up as a lost cause. Without any other viable suspect I continue to look at militant calvinist interests as the cowards behind it all, throwing a temper tantrum because of my outline of some of their basic doctrinal heresies as noted in “Calvinisms”. It seems that if they can’t “hack” the opposition, then they’ll hack their websites! Clearly those who are incapable of arguing on biblical grounds do have limited options! Violence is the last resort of the incompetent!

Research suggests that Karl Faase (of Olive Tree Media) teaches a non-biblical gospel based upon the politically-correct social false gospel of the Lausanne Movement (ecumenicalism as per the World Council of Churches). This should be checked out thoroughly before touching any of his materials, such as Jesus the Game Changer.

The saga here all started at least as early as 10th August 1846, when the Evangelical Alliance was formed by a meeting of 800 delegates from 50 denominations held in the Freemasons’ Hall (United Grand Lodge of England), London. Later the Evangelical Alliance was to become the World Evangelical Alliance in Britain in 1923, known as WEA. However, despite its name, it was more of an alliance for church solidarity than an evangelical outreach for the sake of the gospel. It was formed mainly with the desire that as many churches as possible band together for solidarity, especially involving Presbyterian and reformed denominations (most notably in America).
In England the progress of the Tractarian Movement led many distinguished Evangelical Nonconformists to desire “a great confederation of men of all Churches who were loyal in their attachment to Evangelical Protestantism in order to defend the faith of the Reformation” (Dale, History of Eng. Congregationalism, 637). At the annual assembly of the Congregational Union held in London, May, 1842, John Angell James (1785-1859), minister of Craven Chapel, Bayswater, London, proposed the scheme that ultimately developed into the Evangelical Alliance. He asked: “Is it not in the power of this Union to bring about by God’s blessing, a Protestant Evangelical Union of the whole body of Christ’s faithful followers who have at any rate adopted the voluntary principle? … Let us only carry out the principle of a great Protestant Union and we may yet have representatives from all bodies of Protestant Christians to be found within the circle of our own United Empire” (Congregational Magazine, 1842, 435-6).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05641a.htm
And the fact that this 1846 meeting was held in the hall of the most influential English freemasonry lodge does strongly tend to deny the presence of Almighty God with their deliberations! 2 Corinthians 6:14aBe ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

The following also supports the political and social agenda of such a gathering of churches, rather than for actual evangelical purposes.
From the onset of Evangelicalism in Great Britain in the 1730s to the United States in the nineteenth century and now as a global phenomenon, Evangelicals have had great influence in many spheres, most notably religion and politics. Throughout the twentieth century a series of gatherings and movements converged into the Lausanne Movement and the World Evangelical Alliance, arguably the two most active global bodies of Evangelicals today.
https://www.lausanne.org/lgc-transfer/number-of-evangelicals-worldwide
In fact, the various Council of Church groups worldwide today mostly stem from that meeting in Freemasons’ Hall in 1846.

In 1974 the WEA would help bring about the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (commonly called the Lausanne Movement) through a partnership between Billy Graham and John Stott.
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, more commonly known as the Lausanne Movement, is a global movement that mobilizes evangelical leaders to collaborate for world evangelization. …. The Lausanne Movement grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization (ICOWE) and promotes active worldwide evangelism. The Lausanne Covenant provides the theological basis for collaborative work in the area of mission and evangelism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Committee_for_World_Evangelization

The evangelist (Billy Graham) partnered with John Stott on the Lausanne Movement and helped revive the World Evangelical Alliance.
In 1974, Billy Graham convened an enormous conference in Lausanne, Switzerland. Graham wanted to assess the way political, ideological, and theological world issues affected evangelism, and to bring evangelical leaders to a common vision for both evangelism and social justice. He invited about 2,400 evangelical leaders from 150 countries. The meeting turned out to be outrageously important. Not only did the participants make up “possibly the widest-ranging meeting of Christians ever held” and signal the rising strength of conservative Christians worldwide, it also delivered unity on the most divisive issue of the day—whether social justice should be as highly prioritized as evangelism.
And it kicked off the Lausanne Movement.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/february/billy-graham-lausanne-wea-evangelism-social-justice.html

The Lausanne Covenant is a July 1974 religious manifesto promoting active worldwide Christian evangelism. One of the most influential documents in modern evangelicalism, it was written at the First International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland, where it was adopted by 2,300 evangelicals in attendance.
The drafting committee for the 15-point document was chaired by John Stott of the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Covenant

Stott was the main contributor to the Lausanne Covenant …
The Lausanne Covenant is widely regarded as one of the most significant documents in modern church history. Emerging from the First Lausanne Congress in 1974, with John Stott as its Chief Architect (It sounds almost freemason, doesn’t it?)
https://www.lausanne.org/content/covenant/lausanne-covenant
… and his emphasis was more in line with the social and political priorities of the World Council of Churches, a group more known for politics than the gospel.
The year was 1974.
2500 evangelicals from 150 countries and 135 denominations were in Lausanne, Switzerland for the International Congress on World Evangelization. In his biography of John Stott, Godly Ambition, Alister Chapman describes the background for the confrontation:
The central purpose of the congress was to galvanize evangelicals to finish the task, to ensure that the gospel finally reached every corner of the earth. Its theme, emblazoned above the podium, was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.”
By the time of Lausanne, Stott had come to the conclusion that God called his people to care about society and politics as well as evangelism. Many at Lausanne agreed with him, especially people from churches associated with the WCC (World Council of Churches), where social and political issues were high priorities.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/when-john-stott-confronted-billy-graham/

The gospel of Christ has always been in conflict with the world. We are to love not the world as per 1 John 2:15-16. Many who lived godly lives would be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). Paul would suffer all things that the gospel might not be hindered (1 Corinthians 9:12). And Christians are called to suffer, as per 1 Peter 2:21.
Preaching the gospel has always been fraught with danger, trials and testing. Many have been martyred for their faithful teaching of the Biblical gospel. But the Lausanne gospel was to be more conformed to the world such that it didn’t force conflict with those hearing it. This is the “positive” gospel without any “negative” ideas in it, like sin, evil, condemnation etc. Conforming the gospel to the world does mean less conflict, but it also involves much compromise concerning the truth. Paul warned us against being conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), thus defining the Lausanne gospel to be false. Jesus said so clearly that we had to forsake the world before we could be considered worthy of being His disciples. We were to take up our crosses daily, leaving the world behind us. The song says “The world behind me, the cross before me”, yet today’s gospel says you can have the gospel without giving up the world.

As Tozer wisely taught (in “Man – the Dwelling Place of God”) All unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental. From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique – a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.
The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamouring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better. The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said goodbye to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The biblical gospel teaches the old cross; the Lausanne Covenant teaches the new cross. The gospel was now to become more user-friendly, more world-friendly. You could be a Christian without giving up your enjoyment of the world. No more “love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” of 1 John 2:15-16, for now you could have both your salvation and love the world at the same time.

So let’s take that next step in our narrative here. From evil hearts come evil thoughts; likewise from evil beginnings comes evil fruit. The Evangelical Alliance in 1846 spawned an apostate gospel that is with us today under the guidance of the Lausanne Movement and the World Council of Churches. Evil surely begets evil. Stott was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant, and, true to form, Stott was truly corrupt. The whole movement commenced under the watchful eye of the freemasons in 1846, and is still in the hands of satan and his demons.

For a start, Stott is in favour of meaningful dialogue between muslims and Christians.
An event which tells us much about Stott’s theology occurred in October of 2007 when a large number of Muslim clerics signed a letter calling for peace between Muslims and Christians. A Common Word urges the followers of the two faiths to find common ground between Islam and Christianity. A Christian Letter of Response entitled ‘Loving God and Neighbor Together’ drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School was featured in the New York Times in November of 2007. The Christian Letter of Response was signed by John Stott, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, and about 300 other Christian leaders (see https://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response). It affirmed that what is common between Christians and Muslims lies in something absolutely central to both: the love of God and love of neighbor.
https://watch.pairsite.com/macarthur-12-evangelical-druids.html
Yet what common ground is there between such opposed belief systems? Isn’t this just an example of the Lausanne’s compromise so that we may preach a gospel without offense? That the gospel must be conformed to the world to remove its offense to the world? Truly it is a doctrine of demons.

Stott also taught non-Christian, non-biblical attitudes toward our relationships between one another, especially sexual relations.
(The following is based on John Stott’s book: “Same-sex partnerships” in which Stott refers to the Kinsey report as his authority for his conclusions drawn.)
John Stott refers to the American zoologist Alfred Kinsey’s famous investigation into human sexuality as the authority on sexual orientation.
But how can a Christian quote from someone who is as anti-Christian and perverted as Kinsey? Kinsey had a special interest in the sexual nature of children. He concludes that children are sexual beings, capable of enjoying sexual contacts with other children and adults. He implies that it is unfortunate that natural childhood sexual activity is being suppressed by a moral code which prohibits sex with children. He argues that it is natural for children to enjoy sexual contact with adults, and that it is only cultural conditioning that prevents children from enjoying genital sex. These views represent an open encouragement to paedophilia.
Kinsey saw it as at great problem that Christian teaching on sexual morality had influenced the whole of society.
https://www.therealjohnstott.com/?page_id=225

And this is the same Stott that MacArthur says is one of the most influential authors in his life with his book – John R. W. Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait ???
https://www.gty.org/library/Questions/QA84
MacArthur also has at least 65 documents on his website that either mention or quote from Stott.

So we continue our paper trail toward Karl Faase, now heading to Australia where the Lausanne movement held a conference to extend the Lausanne ministry to the training of new leaders for the cause. It was called Arrow Australia, and Karl Faase was one of the leaders of this conference, becoming its director in 2002. (It’s one thing to participate in a conference; it’s another to actually lead the conference. The latter does strongly imply agreement with Lausanne policy.)
History of Arrow Australia
In July 1994 the Australian committee of the Lausanne movement held a conference for emerging Christian leaders in Melbourne. It was led by the Rev Stephen Hale and the Rev Karl Faase. The conference brought together 300 key emerging and senior leaders from around Australia.
Our statement of faith is the Lausanne Covenant.
https://www.arrowleadership.org.au/content/history/gjendk
Well, well! It’s a bit like a family tree with all the descendants listed under the family patriarch, only the patriarch here is the ecumenical Evangelical Alliance and the line of descent goes down here to Karl Faase who seems to be the consequence of that which was given to him by his forebears in this “family tree”. Concerning the gospel, can we assume that Faase is of the same mind as Stott who was the “Chief Architect” of the Lausanne Covenant? Does Faase have the same “progressive” views on Islam that Stott apparently has regarding the common ground of love of God and neighbour?
Does MacArthur, in quoting Stott so much, realise that he is giving at least tacit approval to Stott’s clearly non-biblical standpoints?

So finally, I decided to take a look at the Olive Tree Media website (of which Faase is CEO). https://www.olivetreemedia.com.au
The olive tree itself is an interesting choice of symbols, for it represents the offer of submission to another for the purposes of keeping the peace. In effect, the olive tree depicts a gospel which must be subject to the world in order to avoid conflict with the world. This is eminently in keeping with the Lausanne Covenant (of John Stott!). The gospel is to conform to the world so that Christians may not offend that same world and thus in this way they may avoid the persecution and suffering that is unavoidable when preaching the true biblical gospel. (This is the Seeker Friendly church model as presented by Rick Warren. Warren’s seeker friendly model has good intentions but an unbiblical basis for most of its practices. https://www.letusreason.org/Popteac25.htm)
The true gospel, however, refuses to conform to a sinful world, but instead condemns a wicked world (with consequent conflict!). The true biblical gospel is certainly no olive branch to the world!

So where might Faase be found in the church scene today? He produces a number of documents and DVDs that churches may purchase; is this an effort to spread the false gospel of Lausanne even further? He has produced such titles as Towards Belief and Jesus the Game Changer. The latter has the following topics: Jesus, Equality, Forgiveness, Women and Children, Democracy, Care, Leadership, Education and Health, Wealth, Reason and Science, all of which could fit in admirably with a politically-correct social gospel. It is therefore likely that churches which use his materials could be steadily pushed toward an acceptance of the values of Lausanne and its false gospel, a goal that I’m sure Stott and his forerunners in the “family tree” would find very acceptable. Certainly social justice is an admirable and commendable cause to seek; this in itself is not a matter for condemnation. However, it must not subordinate the biblical gospel of salvation to a lower level than social justice; the biblical gospel of salvation must never be made to conform to the social requirements of the day.

I also checked the Olive Tree Media website to see what they believed in, but could find nothing concerning the actual biblical gospel of salvation; this might be expected from people who apparently work on conforming to the world’s gospel, thereby avoiding any conflict that might arise from having any definite point of view on biblical doctrine. If I wanted to check out his materials before using them, how would I assess their suitability? I would at the very least desire to see a statement of his doctrinal beliefs, but perhaps Faase does not appear to want people to test his doctrines too much. And to me the biggest danger seems to be the Lausanne connection.

So who would choose such teachings for their church? Such people may either be totally lacking in discernment, or desire that their church members fall into the apostasy of the ecumenical gospel. It comes as no surprise at all to find that it includes Living Springs Baptist Church as per https://www.lsbc.org.au/calendar. Discernment has not been one of their strong points in the past!  Discernment may not be one of their strong points here!

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?

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 5:8But 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.

Just another day at the office!

Just another day at the office!

So this website seems to be attracting some attention from people who do not wish it to say such nice things about their beliefs? I say some lovely home-truths about calvinism and they want to hack my site? Well, it does confirm one thing: that some people just do not appreciate my writings. You know, if they really wanted to defend their doctrines, they’d get out their Bibles (yes, that’s right, sola scriptura – the Bible alone – as the calvinists so love to boast about) and they’d find all those teachings that consistently demonstrate the truth of their doctrines, wouldn’t they! (Or would they find that the Bible could even deny their “truths”? Possibly calvinists do not want to look too carefully at the Bible as it might just prove them wrong and that’s something they couldn’t face at all. It is said that the calvinist is always right, and you can always tell a calvinist – but not much!) It’s only those who cannot debate rationally that have to resort to bullying tactics. As the saying goes, violence is the last resort (or refuge) of the incompetent. But, hey, what better way could you have to increase awareness of this website!

Before we continue, here’s the real truth, the real issue of any conflict regarding this website. 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 call upon the name of the Lord can 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.

Over the past few days we have had a large number of IP addresses trying to hack into our website. Why would it be so important to do this, you might wonder. After all, we mainly discuss the problems of calvinist doctrines and that surely cannot be matter of great concern to the average person in the street. How many people would you have to talk to on the street before you got one who could actually converse intelligently on the topic of calvinism? This website really largely exists to inform those who might be considering calvinism as a belief system, to assist them to make a biblical decision concerning the claims made by calvinists. And because our website offers nothing of value other than advice on certain biblical issues, it is clear that only those offended by such biblical issues should have any logical reason to seriously oppose our website. After all, who else other than those interested in the calvinist debate are likely to have any interest in hacking our site?

Of course, I don’t expect the perpetrators to confess openly about their attacks on my website. That would be too much to expect of those who hide behind anonymity, those who are too afraid to come out in the open and face issues honestly. I would be ultra-surprised if someone were to actually admit to this activity, for in general such people tend to prefer to wear white feathers than to be openly truthful with those they attack. There are just too many chickens in this world! So unless someone confesses to this otherwise cowardly activity, then I’ll just have to assume that it was someone who has a gripe about the views of this website. And that logically suggests that calvinists are the most likely to be involved somewhere here.

But why would calvinists choose to do this now? Well, just over a week ago I put another post online – “Calvinisms” – after which the number of visitors and visits to the website increased significantly. Many of those are likely to have been calvinists who would, no doubt, have got hot under the collar at some of the home truths I mentioned concerning their incompatibility with biblical doctrines. I did expect some calvinists to attempt to assist me to see the error of my ways through good sound biblical exegesis. Or, at the very least, some irate comments depicting me as the lowest of low people, someone who cannot believe in calvinism because I cannot understand it (or so they say!).

But no, their silence was deafening indeed. I did say in that document that silence would be taken as a sign of agreement with my statements, and that if any disagreed, they should then demonstrate the error of my ways through sound teaching from the Bible alone (sola scriptura). However, calvinists cannot be told that they are wrong in any way. If they do teach something that is demonstrated to be totally illogical according to biblical truth, then they immediately claim that it is a mystery hid within the secret counsels of sovereign God. In other words, anything they cannot explain becomes a mystery that we are not to probe; calvinists certainly do come up with a lot of mysteries!

So I was not totally surprised when our website began to be hacked by a large number of outside sources, all of them being acknowledged (listed) as abuse sites, and most of them serious repeat offenders in the abuse and hacking of websites. (Something similar happened in January, although then it wasn’t quite as obvious who might have been behind it all.) Someone is organising the hacking attempts, because otherwise why would there be so many white feathers flying around just by coincidence? So no wonder I start pointing the finger at those who have so totally failed to defend themselves against my statements that they appear to have resorted to cowardly aggression! But, all things work together for good (Romans 8:28) so I just praise God for His victory and keep on with the ministry He has called me into.

No-one hacks like that for legitimate reasons – after all, if they were legitimate, then they’d knock on the front door. But these are more like the low-life house invasions of today,  often in gangs so they can ensure they have the numbers; such people are not brave enough to take people on one-on-one! Therefore the only logical assumption here is that some people do not like what I am saying. Like road rage, these people just try to see if they can cause some damage to those who oppose them. My website has no intrinsic value, nothing to steal that would encourage anyone to crash for logical reasons or financial gain. No-one can gain anything of value except, like a bully, to regain some measure of lost self-esteem. This is more of a statement that if I say something they don’t like, they’ll hurt my site so that I cannot say it. It is an effort to remove freedom of speech from those who speak against them. It is a statement from those who demand freedom of speech only as long as it agrees with them.

And, because they do not have any way of opposing what I say from the Bible (for if they did, then logically they’d do so), they must resort to violent and aggressive behaviour. The only thing I am doing that could possibly seriously offend anyone is to demonstrate the lies and deceitfulness of the teachings of calvinists. Thus, it is safe to assume that this hacking was done by people who do not like what I say, and therefore the only people who are likely to feel offended by my writings are those calvinists who cannot be told that they are wrong, yet can only hit back with aggression and violence.

Other websites have been hacked and crashed in the past and no doubt there’ll be more hacks and crashes in the future. Those who have enough money and/or influence will sometimes use their “power” to “squash” the little guy. There will always be Goliaths who want to put down their Davids. I also don’t blame calvinists in general for this aggressive behaviour, as hopefully most of them would respect my freedom of speech as I respect their freedom of speech. I have no intention of crashing another site just because I cannot believe their views, and I am sure this is also generally applicable to those who oppose me. But someone caused this hacking and for some reason perhaps only known to them. (Or else such people are irrational, not in full control of their senses, commonly described as insane.)

But, by the grace of our sovereign God we’re still online. While we are here we’ll continue to teach the truth of the Bible, and that it cannot support the false teaching called calvinism (or reformed, or doctrines of grace, or whatever they like to call it, it’s still the same heresy). (See “Calvinisms” for a summary of their false teachings.) It’s likely that these same aggressive people would vigorously defend their own right to freedom of speech, yet they cannot understand why they should also defend the right of others to that same freedom of speech. Perhaps it’s because they are unable to effectively argue for their calvinist beliefs using the Bible alone, but whatever the reason, calvinists do appear to believe that they are the only ones who have the truth and therefore the only ones who may have the freedom to share this with others. (Maybe I should have said to impose their dogma upon others.)

Are calvinists so insecure concerning their beliefs that they have to put down everyone else for merely opposing them? Do they realise that such behaviour is usually the consequence of low self-esteem, an effort to feel more “empowered” against those who threaten that self-esteem? They claim that they believe in the doctrines of grace, yet show little or none of that alleged grace to others around them who might disagree with them.

Therefore such activities only serve to give me evidence of the spiritual battle we are in and that there can be no victory without a battle and no battle without a cost! If God is in this ministry, then victory will not only result despite the cost but because of the cost.

So here’s the challenge! If you are a calvinist and you disagree with what I have written, then try writing back with your point of view, including support from the Bible (sola scriptura) to demonstrate your arguments. I will always respect those who try to properly debate, even when they oppose me. And, finally, I praise God for His promises that all things work together for good and that in Christ we are more than conquerors.

And on that line here’s the real message of today! 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 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 call upon the name of the Lord can truly  be saved (Romans 10:13).

Thus, I am emboldened to pursue even more vigorously the heresy of calvinism. It will only be by God’s permission if they mange to crash this site, and therefore the victory will be God’s victory and His alone. His truth will triumph, not in spite of the attacks, but because of the attacks.

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

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 13:17Obey 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 3:12Yea, 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.

“Calvinisms”

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 5:39-4039Search 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 1:2aElect 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.

A guide to the navigation and use of this website.

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 1st study; the rest may be accessed via the 1st 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 4th 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 5th 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 6th 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 7th 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 8th 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.

Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

Romans 9 proves the heresy of calvinism

Calvinists will oh-so-often thrust this chapter in your face as if it is the holy grail of calvinism, the definitive answer to all objections! But, it is not! You see, because calvinists do not believe in the Bible alone (that is, they do not believe in sola scriptura), they are forced to either have to admit their heresies, or manipulate the Bible so that it appears to support those heresies. If the people they are talking to do not have a firm grasp of the Bible and its truths, then some passages are relatively easy for them to manipulate in order to present their lies cleverly disguised as the truth. (It’s called deception, the favourite trick of satan. After all, satan is the father of lies, so why be so surprised that his servants should also practice lies and deception?)

Such favourable passages for calvinists include John 6, Ephesians 1 & 2, Acts 13:48, and, of course, Romans 9. Its truth actually denies calvinism its heresies, yet lends itself to their verbal gymnastics such that those who lack good grounding in the Bible may be easily swayed by their deceptions. In order to “prove” the unconditional election, they will spout forth with Romans 9, expecting that it will quell all opposition. (Of course, the election and predestination are biblical truths, but conditional upon the foreknowledge of God – please read the Bible and not their lies – 1 Peter 1:2 and Romans 8:29.)

The real truth is that Romans 9 is not the support for calvinism that calvinists try to say it is. And, generally, when I use the term “election” or similar in this document, then I will mean the calvinist unconditional election unless otherwise specified. This is a longish document because there is much calvinism to refute. However, never take my word or anyone else’s for what you believe. Always think things out for yourself and believe what you know to be right, not what someone else says is right! The one thing that calvinists fear the most is the person who knows his Bible well enough to ask difficult questions. [When this happens, they usually try avoidance tactics such as (a) only God knows, for it’s a mystery hidden in the secret counsels of God, (b) you aren’t spiritual enough to discern such spiritual answers, (c) you haven’t been to Bible school, (d) so many calvinist heroes such as Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur etc etc etc ….. say the same thing, or, if you still insist on arguing the point, (e) I don’t really want to talk to you about that (that is, they’ll ignore you)]

1/. Romans 9:1-51I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; 5Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Paul wishes himself accursed for the sake of his fellow Israelites. If the calvinist unconditional election is true, then what is the point of Paul trying to lose his salvation for those who have not been chosen? Or losing his salvation for those who will be saved anyway because they are of the election of God? Paul’s comments here cannot be reconciled with calvinism. If calvinism is right, then Paul can do absolutely nothing to ever change the eternal fate of every one of his fellow Israelites! Calvinism just doesn’t make sense here.

Calvinism teaches that from the beginning, God chose without any conditions at all who would go to heaven, and who would go to hell. No-one may change that list. No-one may change the list they’re on. Whatever list you’re on, it is your destiny! Get used to it!
No-one may change anyone on either list by any amount of evangelism, for nothing will ever change what the calvinist God has chosen for every person who will ever live. And even the elect cannot respond to the gospel and be saved until after they have been born again. So why does Paul not appear to know this basic “truth” of calvinism? (Unless, of course, he wasn’t a calvinist! And, if he weren’t a calvinist, then why would he write this chapter in favour of it? The simple answer is that this chapter is not in favour of calvinism!)

2/. Romans 9:6-136Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; 11(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (miseo).

Paul explains how Israel became the chosen nation over Esau who was therefore rejected. The election of Israel cannot be used to prove the election of individuals in any way! It is totally illogical, but then, calvinists are illogical.

(a) Note that the word “hated” (Vs 13) is miseo. Note what this word means and that it is usually a comparative term, meaning “loved less”.

Note what biblehub.com says about this word.
3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.
Lk 14:26: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, ‘love less’ than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (NASU).
[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.] (https://biblehub.com/greek/3404.htm)

Also compare these two equivalent verses, which demonstrate this point. Clearly “hate” must be translated as “love less”, because both these verses are telling us to love God more than anyone else.
Luke 14:26If any [man] come to me, and hate (miseo) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

(b) This passage in Romans talks about the election of a special nation for God. Logically the choice of one nation means no other nation may be chosen. Only one nation can be chosen as God’s people! But calvinists try to say that this somehow proves the election of individuals, which is totally incorrect, for if that were so, then only one might be chosen at the expense of everyone else! The choice of a nation cannot ever be used to prove the choice of individuals! Think about it!

(c) If Israel were God’s elect nation, and they sinned more than the other nations around them (2 Chronicles 33:9), and most of them were eternally condemned (this is what Paul is saying at the start of Romans 9), then we must conclude that being chosen by God is likely to lead to sin and eternal punishment. How far are calvinists willing to carry their analogy here?

(d) Calvinists are forced to concede that, without free will, God must have ordained Israel to fall into sin and error, thus causing Him to reject them. Do calvinists understand that by using this passage in Romans to prove the unconditional election, they have to assume that God might also have chosen them (the elect of God) in order to also ordain them to sin against Him and be sent to hell?

3/. Romans 9:14-1614What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Calvinists claim that showing mercy is of God, not man, and that it is God’s decision to whom He shows mercy (Exodus 20:5-6). However, this does not in any way deny the free will of man to call upon God for mercy. Luke 18:13-14 demonstrates that God shows mercy because of the cry of a sinner for mercy. God can still choose to refuse mercy; He is God, after all. But He does show mercy to those who repent and desire forgiveness; this is His promise (Psalm 103:8-13). The calvinists say this is due to God’s will alone, but where does it say that God’s will ignores man’s plea for mercy? Where does it teach that man’s desire to be forgiven is entirely and always by the decree of God alone? Where is man’s free will specifically denied here?

The truth about this is that Israel, being God’s chosen nation, thought that they were automatically the beneficiaries of God’s mercy. They believed that it was their right to be shown God’s mercy, and that God’s covenant with them meant that they couldn’t be denied this mercy. Paul is simply saying that even God’s chosen nation couldn’t demand mercy of God, that it remained God’s right to choose to withhold that mercy if He so desired. You cannot gain God’s mercy by demanding it as your right. Israel had chosen to reject their Christ when He came to them (John 1:11He came unto his own and his own received him not.), and after the resurrection they had continued to reject their Christ (Acts 13:44-48), and God had rejected them by turning instead to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-48). Israel had chosen to break their covenant with God, not the other way around!

4/. Romans 9:17-1817For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Calvinists teach that God made Pharaoh to do what he did without any input from the will of Pharaoh. Certainly God is able to do this if He desires, but does this passage deny Pharaoh any free will in the matter? So let’s look at the facts and you decide for yourself what you want to believe.

(a) God has raised Pharaoh up. “raised up” can mean “to arouse; raise up (from sleep); to rouse up; stir up; incite”. It literally means to have made Pharaoh to stand where he did, probably figuratively. It neither accepts nor denies the free will of Pharaoh in this matter. Either Pharaoh was literally made to do this (like a puppet) or else Pharaoh had already chosen to be opposed to God’s will, and God merely then caused those choices to remain in position until the battle with Moses was over. This statement alone cannot determine whether God just made Pharaoh do it, or raised up the person who had already previously chosen to oppose God in such matters. God simply says that He will show His power through this situation.
It is similar to the statement: “The devil made me do it!” Does that mean that the devil actually took control of that person’s life such that the person, like a puppet, had literally no say in the matter, or did the devil so influence that person because of that person’s previous free will choices to serve the devil?
Was God’s will concerning Pharaoh the cause of his wilful rebellion, or was it the consequence of Pharaoh’s wilful rebellion? The context demonstrates the latter.

(b) “whom he will he hardeneth” – That word “hardeneth” is “skleruno” from which we get sclerosis, a term that all medical people will readily understand. It is a process that hardens bodily parts (like arteries) and takes away their flexibility. It literally sets them in the shape they were in before. After sclerosis occurs, the body part cannot be easily moved around without damage.
This is similar to the Old Testament meanings for “harden”. We’ll look at chazak and kabad; both are used in relation to Pharaoh.

chazaq – strengthen, harden, prevail, sustain, encourage, grow rigid. It has the idea of reinforcing something so that it is able to maintain its position. It is used in the KJV 290 times, including “strong” 48, “repair” 47 “strengthened” 28, “strengthen” 14, “stronger” 5, yet “harden” only 13 times. It is clear that its main meaning has to do with strengthening or reinforcing a position.
This is much like the setting of something in a mould, such as jelly or plaster, clay or even concrete. For instance, until the clay sets, it can be reshaped over and over, but once it has been left to dry and especially hardened in a fire, it cannot be remoulded into any other shape. The Old Testament context of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart has this meaning: that Pharaoh was hardened in the position that he (Pharaoh) had been in before the hardening. He no longer had the ability to change! He had chosen and now God required him to remain that way.
Exodus 9:12And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.

kabad – to make heavy, dull, unresponsive – more of an act of Pharaoh’s will here, relating to his lack of response to God’s requirements.
Exodus 8:15But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

5/. Romans 9:19-2419Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

(a) No-one has the right to argue with God. This neither proves nor negates the free will of man. If man were to have free will, God may overrule this at any time if and when He so chooses. But this alone cannot deny the free will of man in general. The truth is that man does contend with the Almighty; free will permits him to do so, even though it may be sin.
Job 40:2Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct [him]? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
Sin is man doing that which God has forbidden him to do. But forbidding man to sin has not prevented man from sinning.

(b) Yes, God, as the potter, does have the right to make people in any way He desires. But the calvinists try to use this to somehow prove that God made people the way they are without any free will input from those people. Thus we have the vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour. They then teach that this proves the unconditional election of man to either salvation (the elect, the honourable vessels) or to eternal condemnation (the non-elect, the dishonourable vessels).

However, look at this passage in Timothy and ask yourself whether or not vessels of dishonour can, in fact, be cleansed to become vessels of honour! (Calvinists rarely teach the whole truth but pick and choose what they think will support their teachings.)
2 Timothy 2:20-2120But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, [and] prepared unto every good work.
If vessels of dishonour may be cleansed to become vessels of honour, then calvinists must agree that the non-elect may become the elect, according to their analogy!

It really comes down to your priority: the truth of the Bible, or teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9). So, read and learn the truths of the Bible. Those who read their Bibles properly and study carefully are not likely to be taken in by the half-truths and false teachings of 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.

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 Christians?

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 2:2And 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 2:1-21My 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 15:14Let 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.

How may one be saved without praying?

How may one be saved without praying? (Unless like calvinists, you believe that God alone may choose whether or not you are saved!)

This comment came in today. I have spent much time thinking my reply through, and feel that it may be of assistance to others who may be struggling with the same or similar questions. Name etc have been omitted but are held on file.

Message Body:
While I don’t agree with Calvinism, you have completely taken a lot out of context in regards to what Mr. Todd has said. He’s stated repeatedly that he doesn’t believe in works salvation. But, as the Bible states, faith is never alone. There will be fruit and a transformation. Just “saying a prayer” is not enough. Faith without works is dead. No. This does not mean works saves, but works/fruits are a BY PRODUCT of a genuine confession. We are saved and justified through grace, and Christ righteousness is imputed to us. Sanctification should be intentional and as the holy spirit makes us more into the image of Christ, we are growing. No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.

Reply:
I am unsure just what I have said that you disagree with. What have I actually stated which you feel is incorrect? Please quote my words! I have repeatedly said that if anyone wishes to comment on what I have said, you must state clearly what it is that I have allegedly said. Unless, of course, you don’t really know what it is that I have said that you find out of context.

You say, “There will be fruit and a transformation. Just “saying a prayer” is not enough. Faith without works is dead.Where have I said otherwise? In fact, I do not have any disagreement with these words. In fact, I agree with much (not all!) of what you have written. You seem to have misread what I have actually said!

Friel says (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart” – also see The Heresy of Todd Friel) So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. (Heb.6:1)
Yet Hebrews 6:1 (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,) actually teaches that we should move on from the foundation of repentance and faith toward God. That is, to grow as a Christian instead of staying a Christian baby. (See the context in Hebrews 5:12-14 in your Bible.) Apparently Friel is teaching that we must do the works of our salvation in order to be saved. But the works should be a consequence of that salvation, not the cause. At the very least Friel seems to be mightily confused here.

I have quoted Todd Friel (with my comments added) in The Heresy of Todd Friel:
In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith. [I fail to see even one justification, here or anywhere else for that matter, how asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith! This is a ridiculous grasping at straws! It might be possible to leave out faith, but nothing says the sinners’ prayer cannot involve faith! It’s the person who has or hasn’t faith, not the sinners’ prayer!]

Are my comments out of context here? The mere praying of the sinners’ prayer cannot automatically assume faith, nor the lack of faith for that matter. And if you think faith is a gift of God, check it out properly, for faith is the response of man to the character of the God who makes such great and precious promises. (Try reading Hebrews 11 carefully.) Also, the gift of God in Ephesians2:8-9 cannot grammatically be faith. The word genders are wrong! The gift of God there is your salvation by the grace of God.

I also mention the sinners’ prayer in Calvinism is incompatible with Biblical doctrine: “This calvinist lack of free will leads directly to a serious problem between calvinists and non-calvinists. Calvinists cannot accept any notion at all of free will in your salvation. If you claim to be a Christian because of any decision of your will to repent and be saved, or pray the sinners’ prayer, or ask Jesus into your life as Lord and Saviour, or anything else that relates to choosing today whom you will serve, then calvinists have to reject your testimony as invalid.

The point being made is that any decision made by one’s own free will is unacceptable to the calvinist because of that claim to have used free will to decide. I am not giving an unqualified tick of approval to every sinners’ prayer that is prayed. However, if one has free will to decide to come to Christ for salvation, then one must pray to Him at some stage. (I assume you believe that it is acceptable and maybe probable even that a person may pray at this time?)

Todd Friel 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”)
Where does it say in the Bible – or even suggest it – that “people who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved? Is it a sin to ask Jesus into your heart? And where does it say that it was because they asked Jesus into their hearts that caused Jesus to reject them? Read it carefully! Also note Matthew 7:21-2321Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
It is those whom Jesus never knew (who didn’t do the will of the Father) who will be rejected. And the will of the Father is that all should call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4). There are many who profess to know Christ but never submitted to His authority.

You said, “No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.” However, as for the sinners’ prayer not being in the Bible, how else may one call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) if one cannot use prayer to do so? Calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved is the biblical requirement for salvation. Please tell me, how may someone call upon the name of the Lord to be saved without praying? And if someone calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that is a prayer for salvation, that is, the sinners’ prayer. I do not claim that all who pray such a prayer will be saved, either. If a person’s life does not show the change of such a prayer, then that person’s salvation must be considered non-existent. I quote from my last post: “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.” (Just exactly what is the calvinist gospel?)
That is, if there is no transformation ever in a person’s life after praying to be saved, then it may be assumed that the person was never truly saved. Certainly faith without works is dead. Where have I stated (or even implied) that this is not so?

In Luke 18:10-14, Jesus gave the example of a sinner who prayed to God to be merciful to him a sinner (actually “to propitiate him a sinner”). This man prayed a prayer to God, “Lord be merciful to (propitiate) me a sinner!” (And if a sinner prays to God like this, then how is it not a sinners’ prayer?) He showed no works other than extreme repentance for his sins, yet Jesus declared him justified. Now, if the sinner had then made little or no effort to put this prayer into action (that is, continuing to live as he had previously), then it is clear his prayer may well have been false and his justification non-existent. Of course, this is just a parable that demonstrates the effective use of a sinners’ prayer. Because it is not necessarily a real situation, we are not told what happened after that. It was a parable, after all.
But it is an example of a sinners’ prayer. Is it not in your Bible?

One last thing to note: the only people who deny a sinners’ prayer in any shape or form are those who believe that man has no free will to choose his salvation. Thus the calvinists teach that only God alone may choose your salvation for you, and thus a sinners’ prayer cannot be acceptable to them regardless of whether it is genuine or not! You disagree with calvinism but you also appear to disagree with a salvation that requires a person to pray to God for salvation. Some sinners’ prayers may well be a waste of time, especially if not accompanied by godly sorrow and genuine repentance.
2 Corinthians 7:10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

However, some sinners’ prayers must be genuine. If man has free will to choose to accept or reject salvation, then in order to be saved he must pray a prayer at some stage to call upon the name of the Lord. (Unless no genuine Christians exist in the world today??)

By the way, did you make a decision to be saved at some point in time? That is, did you call upon the name of the Lord to be saved? Of course, calvinists don’t agree with this, because they don’t believe man has the free will to do so. “You don’t choose God; God chooses you!” they say. But you have said, “I don’t agree with Calvinism” which may assume you agree in the free will of man. Or do you? Free will requires a response to God, generally in the form of prayer, unless you have found another way?
You said, “No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.” Apparently the following verse may be missing from your Bible?
Romans 10:13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

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.

Just exactly what is the calvinist gospel?

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.

Calvinism is incompatible with Biblical doctrine

Calvinism is incompatible with biblical doctrine

Many people might wonder why I am apparently so opposed to calvinism, declaring it to be heresy. Once upon a time I was like most non-calvinist Christians, accepting calvinism as an alternative view of Christianity that I couldn’t agree with, while still regarding them as Christians. However, it was the calvinist-influenced aggressive takeover of one of our local fundamentalist churches that made me start seeing it in a totally different light altogether.

I now label calvinism (especially neo or new calvinism) a demonic heresy full of lies, for the more I study it, the more I see that it is absolutely incompatible with what I understand to be biblical Christianity. Either they are right (and therefore I am wrong) or I am right (and therefore they are wrong). Of course, we could both be wrong, but it is certain that calvinism and non-calvinism cannot both be right! The two doctrines are incompatible.

For example:

(a) Calvinists refuse to accept the free will of man, especially in matters of salvation. In all matters of choice, especially in salvation, God alone chooses. You don’t choose God; He chooses you! They teach that lost man is absolutely incapable of seeking God in any way because lost man is dead in sins and trespasses. Man in this dead state can neither hear nor respond to the gospel. You must be spiritually alive to respond to God in any way. Therefore you must be born again (calvinists call it “regenerated”) before you can hear the gospel, believe in it and be saved by Christ. You cannot do this before you are born again, only after! In calvinism, being born again is not the same as being saved. This means that while the Bible teaches that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, calvinists must teach that you have to be given life (born again by the Spirit) before you can believe in and respond to Jesus and be saved and receive eternal life. That is, you must be born again before you can believe in or have faith in Christ, according to the calvinist interpretation of John 3:3.
By denying the free will of man in salvation, calvinists have to teach another gospel, one that is incompatible with the biblical gospel.

(b) This calvinist lack of free will leads directly to a serious problem between calvinists and non-calvinists. Calvinists cannot accept any notion at all of free will in your salvation. If you claim to be a Christian because of any decision of your will to repent and be saved, or pray the sinners’ prayer, or ask Jesus into your life as Lord and Saviour, or anything else that relates to choosing today whom you will serve, then calvinists have to reject your testimony as invalid. “You do not choose God; God chooses you!” is their catchy-cry. If your claim to salvation is based in any way upon some sort of free will decision you made to be saved, then calvinists cannot accept it, telling you that your free will input is a work of yours that renders your salvation imperfect and thus you cannot really be saved.
If they are being honest, they will inform you that it is the life you live, not the words that you say, that determines your eternal destiny. Therefore, to be a Christian acceptable to calvinists, you have to demonstrate that you have forsaken all your sin, and are now living a life worthy of a good puritan. Otherwise they cannot truthfully accept you as a Christian brother or sister. It’s the puritan life that determines the saved status of the calvinist elect of God. (Do some research today to check this one out if you doubt what I say!)

(c) Another incompatibility caused by the calvinist insistence on no free will for man is that God’s will must be the only will in the universe. No other will may exist in opposition to the calvinist God’s will. Thus Calvin’s statement: 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” P 179) Calvinists have no way of explaining sin and evil without making God the only cause or origin of sin and evil. For if Adam had no free will to choose concerning sin, then God must have chosen it for him. This is a huge dilemma for calvinists. And utterly incompatible with the God of the Bible who is so holy that He cannot even look upon sin, let alone decree or ordain it.

(d) Calvinists believe that Jesus died for the sins of only the few that their God selected to go to heaven. To do this they must reword verses such as 1 John 2:2 (“the whole world” means only those who believe), Hebrews 2:9 (“taste death for every man” was only for those who believe), 1 Timothy 2:4 (“who will have all men to be saved” is described as God’s will of desire but not His will of command, or else “all” means only the Christians), John 3:16 (“the world” is reworded as “the elect”), John 12:32 (“will draw all [men] unto me” becomes “will draw all believers unto me”), and so on. Calvinists refuse to accept Jesus as the Saviour of the world (inclusive of all men), teaching that Jesus did not die for the sins of any who have not been chosen by God go to heaven. Calvinists have to teach limited atonement (by Jesus on the cross) because without free will of man, only those chosen by God may go to heaven, and therefore why would the calvinist Jesus bother to die for those whom God had decided to send to hell anyway.
But Jesus died for the sins of all mankind without exception. All mankind must choose to either accept or reject this sacrifice made for them. The calvinist and non-calvinist teachings here are incompatible with each other.

(e) Calvinists make a big deal about the election or predestination of God’s elect to salvation. For example, Ephesians 1:5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
They say that this proves the predestination of God’s elect to salvation. Well, yes, that is not disputed, anyway, is it? What is really disputed is how God chooses His elect. You see, every passage that calvinists claim to support their doctrine of unconditional election can also just as easily (and more biblically, too) support an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge. It’s not whether there is an election, but how God chooses His elect people. Without free will, calvinists have to teach that God chose them (without any condition at all) from the beginning of the world. But, if man has free will, then God may choose His elect according to His foreknowledge of what decision they will make with that free will. That is, an election conditional upon the foreknowledge of God. In fact, this is what 1 Peter 1:2 says! Romans 8:29 also makes it clear that the predestining of Christians to conform to the image of Christ is dependent upon God’s foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge depends upon the free will decisions of man to foreknow. Therefore without free will of man, foreknowledge becomes irrelevant. What’s the point of foreknowing decisions that could never be made? For calvinism, man’s free will and the foreknowledge of God stand or fall together. Foreknowledge demands that there be decisions to be foreknown.
Once again, though, it’s that denial of the free will of man in salvation that makes calvinism again incompatible.

(f) Because calvinists cannot teach that man can believe (or have faith) in Christ unless they have firstly been born again (regenerated), they are forced to make alterations to a number of verses or else be seen as liars. These altered verses include (i) altering “opened” to “opened and caused to believe” (Acts 16:14) – That is, belief is something God gives to you (avoiding the free will explanation!), and (ii) “see” becomes “believe in” or “have faith in” (John 3:3) – In this way they attempt to “prove” that faith comes after being born again, yet still fits in with the requirement to believe before being saved. Of course, this means that, to a calvinist, “being born again” cannot be the same as “being saved”!

In all these examples and many others, calvinists desperately try to show that man cannot have free will especially unto salvation, and therefore God’s foreknowledge cannot have anything to do with God’s perfect knowledge of future free will decisions to be saved, if no such decisions exist. In all calvinist doctrine, if you add in the free will of man unto salvation and consequently God’s foreknowledge to know such free will decisions, then calvinism ceases to exist.

If calvinists could show that God’s foreknowledge is not His perfect knowledge of the future, then they could demonstrate that God could not know any future free will decisions, thus rendering free will unworkable. Calvinists therefore redefine God’s foreknowledge as the special loving relationship God places upon his elect people. But this then introduces another big problem: such foreknowledge may only apply to God’s elect people. Therefore the actions of the non-elect must be completely foreordained or else God wouldn’t be able to control them. They also claim God is totally sovereign, so therefore the calvinist God would have to write the complete script for the lives of all non-elect people from beginning to end. In fact, Calvin taught that God (from the foundations of the world) wrote the complete script of actions for all mankind from the beginning to the end.

Calvinists would like the foreknowledge of God to be redefined as the fore-ordination of God. That is, it would be very useful for calvinists if they could show that God’s foreknowledge was foreordained. That would remove foreknowledge from having to be God’s perfect knowledge of the future. That is why some calvinists make impossible claims such as the “determinate counsel” and the “foreknowledge” of God (Acts 2:23) being synonyms (having the same meaning). That is, what God foreordained became God’s foreknowledge. They misuse a little-known rule of Greek (the Granville Sharp rule) to bend the truth to their lie here.
Calvin had another angle on the problem of foreknowledge. He said that discussion of foreknowledge was irrelevant (futile) because God had already foreordained everything anyway.

Each defence of their doctrines introduces more and more twists and turns to cover up the non-biblical nature of calvinism. Ultimately, because their doctrines are incompatible with biblical doctrines, then either calvinists are lying, or the Bible is lying. And, if the Bible is truth, then there’s only one alternative remaining: that calvinists are liars. And, because all lies ultimately stem from the devil as the father of lies, and because calvinism is full of lies, therefore it is full of the devil’s doctrines. And therefore I as a biblical Christian, after testing all things calvinist, must reject it as a doctrine of devils.

Many calvinists claim that non-calvinists are either lesser Christians or not Christians at all. They reason that if a person is a Christian, then he’d believe in the calvinist election. They see a conflict in being a Christian yet not being calvinist. You should be both calvinist and Christian, or else neither calvinist nor Christian! In fact, this is how Calvin saw it. You agreed with him, or else you were lost. Those who disagreed were either thrown out of the city, thrown into prison, or executed. Calvin ruled!

The major area of incompatibility is in the proclamation of the gospel. The Bible tells man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, while calvinism says that no-one may be saved unless and until after God first calls them to be born again. Calvinists teach that man cannot choose to accept salvation in Christ Jesus unless he has already been born again by the Spirit. The Bible teaches that God has given a gift of salvation to all men, and that man must accept it by faith to partake of it. “No free will” versus “free will” of man. One or the other. Either by your free will you choose or reject salvation in Christ, or by God’s will alone you will or will not be chosen for salvation in Christ. For one it is your responsibility to choose this day whom you will serve, and for the other God will choose and you will have absolutely no say in the matter of your eternal destiny. These two doctrines cannot exist together. Each doctrine denies the other. They cannot both be right! They are absolutely incompatible!

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!

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 16:14And 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 1:6For 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 4:3-43 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 10:17So 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 17:11These (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.

Is choosing to be saved a work of that salvation? God says, “No!”

Is choosing to be saved a work of salvation? God says, “No!”

How many times have you had a calvinist get in your face with the claim that if you, by your own free will, accept Jesus Christ as Saviour, then that is a work of your salvation, thereby rendering your salvation imperfect. They claim that you don’t choose God; God chooses you! The truth is that this is not biblical, and that God, through His word the Bible, says otherwise.

Calvinists are guilty many times over of twisting the truth to fit in with their spurious doctrines. Whenever they are pressured to demonstrate biblically their devious doctrines, they usually resort to taking verses out of context, adding to or taking away from the words in a verse, and even saying that something is a biblical truth without giving the slightest shred of evidence from the Bible (because they can’t!). They must think that because they are so arrogant and forthright that no-one will really take them on.

But when things are really desperate, and someone does take them on where they are weakest (that is, when they try to demonstrate doctrines from the Bible), the calvinist will come out with the most inane statement of all: that if we accept salvation by our own free will, then that is a work of our salvation. They then say that this renders our salvation imperfect because it is not all of God. This is their final desperate attempt to salvage some credibility with a doctrine that is about as credible as flying elephants! They say that our decision to accept Christ is adding 1% (or 5% or 10% or 50% – the number is seemingly plucked out of the air) to our salvation and therefore we will get an imperfect salvation.

Calvinists make these bold claims without any biblical evidence at all to support them. However, this is not in the Bible anywhere in any shape or form. In fact, the Bible says they are wrong, and therefore God declares them to be liars. Firstly, God tells us that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13). The calvinists can declare it a work with as much hot air as they can muster but it doesn’t change the truth: that to be saved we must call upon the name of the Lord.

And secondly, God has offered salvation through Christ Jesus as a free gift to all mankind who are under the penalty of death (Romans 6:23). Now that’s as clear as clear, for no-one can add to a gift in any way or else it becomes a work for the sake of that gift and no longer can be a gift, but instead wages for services rendered. And no-one can ever add to (or take away from) the value of a gift in any way by just receiving it.

So let’s look at those two issues in greater detail.

(a) Our personal decision to accept God’s salvation cannot downgrade that salvation in any way.

As mentioned above, God’s word tells us to call upon the name of the Lord, and so that’s what we must do. This must assume the free will to call upon the name of the Lord. Nothing at all denies free will in this verse or in the passage in which it is found. And, if this is what God says we must do in order to be saved, then this is what we do to be saved! Is it a work of our salvation to call upon the name of the Lord? No, but that’s not really the point, is it? It’s what God asks us to do if we desire to be saved. Who are you (calvinists) to contend with the Almighty? (See Job 40:2Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct [him]? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.) Take your argument up with Almighty God concerning what a person must do to be saved. If God says we must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that’s what we have to do. Calvinists, listen to what God says for once!

Calvinists have a problem with free-will decisions to accept God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. They refuse to accept that man has a free will to choose salvation (despite no biblical evidence to support this). Of course, God must intervene with the preaching of the gospel before man may respond.
Romans 10:13-14; 17 – 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Just ask: why does satan work so hard at blinding men to the preaching of the gospel if it isn’t God’s intervention in the lives of mankind.
2 Corinthians 4:3-43 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world (satan) 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.
Why does satan fear the preaching of the gospel so much if, as the calvinists teach, a person must be born again before he can hear the gospel, respond and believe in Christ?

(b) The gift of salvation is complete and perfect when offered and cannot be added to in any way.

For something to be a gift,

(i) it must be fully paid for by the giver. That is, there must be no requirement that the receiver pay for it in work or money, for then it would be something given for such services rendered, and no longer a gift. There is nothing at all anyone can do to add to that gift in any way or else it would not be a gift! In fact, to receive this gift from God, a person is required to call upon the name of the Lord. This cannot prevent it being a gift [because God tells us to do it (Romans 10:13) and says it is His gift to us (Romans 6:23)] and therefore our response cannot be described as work or services in any way. It is impossible for the value of a gift to be increased or decreased simply by accepting it, for the value of the gift must already have been paid in full before being offered.
Of course, once a gift is offered and received, it then becomes a possession, and then may increase or decrease in value as a possession, but not while it was a gift.

(ii) it must be available as promised. That is, in order to offer a gift to someone, it must be available. If a gift were offered yet not available, then the giver has not told the whole truth. It must be available for the receiver to accept it. Otherwise it is not a gift. You cannot offer a gift when you are unable to give it.

(iii) a person must accept that gift of his own free will. That is, willingly, because something that is forced upon a person as a requirement for some duty (such as a uniform for employees) cannot be legally defined as a gift but a provision.

Therefore, if God offers eternal life as a gift (Romans 6:23), then nothing anyone can do can add to it in any way. Such a gift can only be accepted or rejected or else it is no longer a gift.

Calvinists, by teaching that free will acceptance of Christ as Saviour is a work of that salvation and therefore imperfect, you are misleading those lost souls who might be genuinely desiring to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you persuade them that making a free will response to the gospel is wrong, then you may be guilty of sending that needy sinner to eternal condemnation in hell. Every person you prevent from accepting salvation in Christ is another one you will have sent to hell because of your lies and deceptions.

You teach that a man must be born again before he can hear the gospel, believe in Christ and be saved, but it is the gospel that God uses to reach out to the lost. It’s the gospel that man responds to that enables him to be born again of the Spirit of God. If you teach that the gospel is only applicable after one is born again, then how many more will you send to hell with your lies and deceptions? How many of your “converts” to puritanism will sit there in church smugly believing your lie that they are the elect, the chosen ones of God, and never get around to calling upon the name of the Lord because you said it was an imperfect work of salvation? Calvinists, you with all your lies and deceptions have already sent countless lost souls to hell, and you continue to send great numbers to hell. You give them false hope that will evaporate away when they stand before God in judgment with their names not written in the Lamb’s book of life. Have you really honestly read the Bible? Do you know what it says? What if you are wrong? How many will greet you in hell with the accusation that you sold them out to satan?

Here is what calvinist Paul Washer says about this. He mocks the traditional evangelist who says that you have to open the door.
The question is not whether you would like to pray this prayer and ask Jesus to come into your heart — (He mocks traditional evangelists here) after all, you know, the handle to your heart is on the inside and if you do not open it Jesus cannot come in.
My friend, Jesus is Lord of your heart and if He wants to come in, He will kick the door down. ….. 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/
And Todd Friel 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”)

Ignore those calvinists for once and think for yourselves! If they are wrong (and they are most definitely wrong), then both you and they will end up in eternal condemnation. Don’t listen to their lies and deceptions. Read the Bible instead. And it will tell you to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and that this salvation is a gift of God to you.

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?

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.

Oh, the persistent inconsistencies of calvinists! (on John 10:24-28)

Oh, the persistent inconsistencies of calvinists! (on John 10:24-28)

Calvinists are certainly very persistent, arrogant and bossy, pushing their heresies like bullies upon others around them. However, while they are persistent, they are certainly not consistent, for the inconsistency of their teachings is extreme. They will focus upon one verse or a single passage to teach doctrines that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. As MacArthur says on his website: “Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time.” Well, I can tell you quite clearly that, yes, he does teach one verse at a time, but his calvinist God’s truth is full of lies which are easily exposed when you look at the overall consistency of biblical teachings. You can teach whatever you like using just one verse at a time! The truth is that MacArthur teaches a doctrine of demons, and his God is not the God of the Bible!

Calvinists love to tell us that the sheep that Jesus died for are the elect of God, unconditionally chosen by Him from the foundation of the world. That is, if you are not one of those elect, you cannot be one of His sheep, and therefore the calvinist Jesus did not die for your sins. (Of course, the Bible does teach that there is an election, a choosing by God, but according to 1 Peter 1:2 God chooses these elect according to His foreknowledge. Calvinists deny God the use of foreknowledge to do this!)

A common statement of calvinists is that Jesus died for his elect sheep only. “Calvinists believe there are lost sheep (the elect) all over the world, and it is our commission to go to them, proclaim the message to all people, so that these sheep can hear the shepherds voice, turn from their sin, and be saved. We get this idea from John 10, and it motivates us to proclaim the gospel.” (https://davidschrock.com/2015/05/11/the-greatest-misunderstanding-about-calvinism/#_ftn1)

John 10:24-2824 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

Thus calvinists are teaching that Jesus only died for those whom He had chosen for His own, His sheep, and none others! But here’s where the inconsistency comes in! When Jesus came as a man in the flesh, He came to His own (John 1:11).  Calvinists have to see these as God’s sheep, for they are His own. Only the elect of God can be His own, for whoever heard of a calvinist teaching that God claims for His own any other than those He has chosen to be His elect?  

So, just how can calvinists say that those who are elect hear God’s voice and follow, yet Jesus came to His own (His elect, obviously) and they didn’t receive Him!
John 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Yet, aren’t these, “His own”, of whom it says: All we like sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6)?
How is it possible that God’s own sheep could ever be able to not receive Him? Clearly these elect, when called, rejected God’s alleged “irresistible” grace in order to not receive Him! It is clear that “His own” are those who had been chosen to be His sheep but had somehow decided otherwise. Otherwise, who are “His own” here? Another family of sheep perhaps? Perhaps the black sheep of the family??

Therefore, scriptural consistency requires that those sheep who follow Him are those who have chosen to follow Him by believing in Him, not those who were unconditionally elect. John 1:11 is talking about the elect nation of God, Israel. Jesus came to His elect nation of Israel, His own, and they refused to receive Him. Clearly this refusal was by their will, or else we have to believe the impossible: that God chose His elect for His own, yet foreordained that they not be able to receive Him when He came to redeem them. Why would He come to His own if He had already foreordained that they should refuse Him. No doubt you’ve heard of the offer that cannot be refused. This, though, is the offer you cannot accept!

What it is really saying is that it was the ones who received Him to whom He gave the authority to become children of God, His sheep.
John 1:11-1211 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
If God’s unconditional elect are His sheep (according to calvinism), then who are His own (who didn’t receive Him) in John 1:11? Can they be His own, yet not of His sheep? Or maybe they were His sheep, yet refused to receive their shepherd! Do some sheep receive Him and other sheep not receive Him? (But this would require free will!) Come on, calvinists, please explain this anomaly or accept that your doctrines are inconsistent!

So who are the sheep of John 10:24-28? John 1:12 gives the answer. It was those who received Him that became God’s children, not the other way around. The receiving came first, then consequently the power to become God’s children. To all those who received Him were given the power to become the sons of God.

Note that the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) discusses the same issues: God’s own (His elect nation, Israel) refused to receive the invitations to come, while those who did receive the invitations (the Gentile Church) became the guests in place of the elect nation Israel (who received Him not). This is a very consistent theme running through the New Testament. God sent out invitations to His own, but they received Him not. But those who did receive Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God.

Likewise, the parable of the vineyard and the evil servants (Luke 20:9-19) who were, once again, His own elect nation Israel. God has planted His elect nation of Israel in His vineyard, and then sends servants to collect His fruit from the vineyard. But the keepers of the vineyard beat two servants, and wounded another. So God sends His own Son who comes to His workers (“His own”) in the vineyard but they did not receive Him (John 1:11). Instead they decide to kill Him so that they can have the vineyard for themselves without God’s interference. Jesus then asks the pharisees what they think the Lord of the vineyard (God) will do to them. And Jesus also gives them the answer (for the pharisees apparently were reluctant to incriminate themselves!). Luke 20:16He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.  

That is, God will take the vineyard off His elect nation Israel and give it instead to the Gentiles who will look after it better. Once again, Jesus has come to His own, and His own received Him not! But to as many of the others who did receive Him He gave the power to become the children of God.
So who are the sheep who hear His voice here? The others to whom the vineyard was given (Vs 16).

The parable of the vineyard is consistent with what God says through Isaiah to His people. God says very clearly that He has done everything possible to His vineyard to produce good fruit, yet it produces rubbish. It would make God a liar if He had actually foreordained Israel to produce poor fruit after allegedly doing His best to produce good fruit.

Isaiah 5:1-71 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:  2And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.  3And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 4What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? 5And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; [and] break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:  6And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. 7For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts [is] the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

In fact, even in Isaiah’s time, God has approached His people, His own, and they received Him not! Therefore God sent them into captivity, not because He ordained them to be rejected, but because they (by their own free wills) rejected Him first. This is the only way this passage can make sense. Take away the free will of God’s people to be able to reject Him (to receive Him not) and you end up with a God who tells His people to obey Him while secretly ordaining that it be impossible for them to do so.

Or else the calvinist God has two separate wills, a view that is taught by many calvinists including Piper. Piper apparently feels that his God may too easily be portrayed as schizophrenic, judging from his efforts to deny his God is such when looking at all the obvious discrepancies in calvinist teachings. “My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world. …..
Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least “two wills” in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass.” (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god)
But without free will of mankind, God can have whatever He wills to have. Only free will introduces the “problems” Piper is trying to cover up. If man has no free will, God does not need two wills!

However, no amount of verbal gymnastics will ever remove the inconsistencies in calvinist doctrine. The sheep who hear Jesus’ voice in John 10:27 are not the same as “His own” in John 1:11. “His own” in John 1:11 rejected Jesus because they were not His sheep, yet they were His elect people, Israel. The Bible teaches clearly that if these elect people of God sinned against Him, then God would reject them as He did the workers in His vineyard. If calvinist doctrine is right, then it would be impossible for God’s own people to reject Him. Calvinists teach that when God calls you, you have to come; His call is irresistible. Yet Jesus’ apparent call to His people Israel in John 1:11 was not as irresistible, for they received Him not.

The Bible therefore teaches consistently that the sheep who hear and follow Jesus are those who believe by their own free will, just as the ones who didn’t believe, the pharisees, were not of the sheep of Jesus.
John 10:26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Please, please calvinists, be consistent for once! For, if you cannot be consistent with the truth, then you are being persistent with lies. Sola scriptura!

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!

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 11:3Through 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, 28Professing 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 4

So why did I start this website? Part 4

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 3

So, summarising 3 posts of explanation so far, the reason why I started this website was to have some way of warning Christians of the dangers of calvinism. When our local Living Springs church (apparently influenced by the calvinist GraceWest church) chose their current pastor, they brought a lot of trouble upon themselves. Not only did this result in Todd Friel heresy being taught, it also brought the satanic kundalini yoga and tantric sex teachings of Gary Thomas into their devotions. When my son (who was actually still officially a member of that church even for a while after he left) wrote to them with information on some of the heresies they were beginning to be taught, the church secretary told him to not contact the members again. He was told to send all correspondence to the pastor (who never replied at any stage to any of the correspondence consequently sent to him!).

Ezekiel was told by God to warn the people of Israel of their sin and its consequences.
Ezekiel 3:16-2116 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 21Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

If Ezekiel warned them, then the sin was their responsibility. If he didn’t warn them, then Ezekiel was failing the call of God to warn them. He was called to be a watchman for the nation of Israel. A watchman watched out for dangers and cried out when he saw danger. That was what he was required to do. Likewise, we believed that we had a calling from God to warn God’s people of the danger facing them. We gave a few warnings but were either ignored or told to leave them alone. But the danger still existed, and still exists even now, in spite of their refusal to acknowledge anything as such. Just like Israel in the days of Ezekiel, they were apparently comfortable in their ignorance, and preferred to stay that way, even when it leads to destruction.

Therefore, after finding no clear means of warning God’s people locally, we decided to broadcast our warnings to the wider community via the internet. In fact, this website came about simply because we had a warning of danger for God’s people and the local people just weren’t interested in listening. And, instead of a small number of people hearing the warning of danger, we now cry out this warning to a far larger group of people. Currently we have more people every day visiting our website than we would have had listening at the local church. In a way, it was good that we were pushed into this situation (for we probably wouldn’t have gone this pathway if the locals had listened and taken note). An internet search on the topics we write about will often find us on the first or second page of suggested sites. Our message is reaching far more people than we could ever had imagined a few years ago. At that time my emails went to a few people; now the website reaches out to far greater numbers.

Every site visitor reads an average of 1.6 pages. Or, put another way, more than half the visitors read a second page (or else some visitors read more than 2 pages). Let me explain further. If the number of visitors is the same as the number of pages visited, then all visitors are hitting a single page but not necessarily reading it through. But when the pages visited is greater than the number of visitors, then some visitors have to be hitting more than one page, and therefore have probably read through at least the first page, before going to another page to read further.

I realise that some who read are calvinists who do not agree with my writings. And, of course, some have responded less than favourably, though not really all that many, perhaps because they do not know how to respond to anything presented biblically (sola scriptura). Calvinists do seem to prefer an argument where they can defend using one or more of their calvinist writers. If you desire to stick to the Bible alone, they tend to avoid getting into an argument!

Many visitors, though, generally seem to have some agreement with what I write. People are more likely to comment when they disagree with you; people who agree tend to just peruse the information and go when they have gathered enough information for their needs. I have no problem at all with people using the information in my documents for their own information and for the purpose of warning others of the dangers as long as they do not misrepresent what I say. My writing is a calling from God and as such is not to be charged for. God’s warnings are free to all who will listen and take note.

Many also read this website information because they simply do not know what it’s all about, or did not realise the danger presented by so many wolves pretending to be God’s sheep today. In particular, many do not realise the danger presented by the aggressive calvinists of today, through so many books and DVDs (by false calvinist teachers such as Piper and MacArthur) being sold to churches and passed around the congregation for all to partake of their heresies. These false teachers sound so biblical and on-the-ball that many will refuse to acknowledge that their calvinism could be dangerous. Or they will even deny that such people are actually calvinist. Or they will say that they listen to their teachings but ignore the calvinist bits and pieces. But all of this is dangerous, for how do you separate the poison from the wholesome food in such as rat poison?

I don’t expect a lot of comments, either good or bad. Some genuine ones have come in, mostly condemning me for my sinful attitude to such “godly” people as Friel, Piper, MacArthur and such. Although, not one has actually said what it is that I have got wrong, and not one has actually used the Bible to demonstrate an incorrect doctrine of mine. I know I’m not perfect, I don’t know everything that the Bible teaches, and that I’m still learning from other Christians, but it’ll always be the proper use of the Bible that will correct me, not name-calling criticisms. And for the few who have written in appreciating this website, thank-you. I do know that many like reading my documents, and hopefully gain some helpful information that will assist them to resist the danger that calvinism is presenting to fundamentalist Christianity today.

If you see a fault or doctrinal mistake in a document, please let me know. Sometimes I make typing mistakes, sometimes I get Bible references mixed up, and sometimes I may miss out on picking up a biblical inconsistency in what I am saying (although I do try hard to check everything properly). I definitely have learned much from godly websites, teachings that make me think about the issues. I would like to think that all who read here would be likewise encouraged to check out what the Bible says and to think things through for themselves. For some that means being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel for themselves, rather than having to rely upon someone else seeing that light on their behalf.

This website not only fights against heresies (especially calvinist) but our Sunday messages have been put online for over 2½ years now. Unfortunately most of the messages for the previous nearly 3 years haven’t yet been put online. Hopefully, given time, we’ll make those available as well, but it’s a gradual process indeed.

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 3

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 why did I start this website? Part 3

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 6:10And 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.

 

 

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 2

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

(So why did I start this website? Part 3)

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

So, if you read my last post, you’ll understand why I have a bit of a problem with the lies of calvinism. It’s this false teaching which is destroying the truth in our local fundamentalist biblical churches. And, therefore we are under attack! That brings the battle right up to me, for this attack has been made upon me and my family through churches we once attended. The price we have to pay for freedom is ongoing vigilance, for if we ignore this attack, then the next attack will just demand more and more of our freedom to be permitted to believe the truth of God’s word. Already the teaching of God’s truth has been eroded; already too many local Christian acquaintances have lost significant freedom to be able to test all things, taking on instead the words of calvinist bullies simply because they say them so forcefully. Too many Christians just take it all so meekly, not willing to argue, thus falling into the trap set for them. The major problem is that most genuine Christians are too “nice” to cause a serious argument with an alleged Christian brother or sister! And will generally agree to some false teaching in order to keep the peace. Compromise is better than conflict, they say.

But Christians are to be soldiers in battle for the truth of God’s word and the gospel of Christ. If we are attacked, we must defend vigorously, for it is the freedom to believe that it is God’s word of truth, not Calvin’s lies, which is the truth that we must defend here. Christians must take up the fight by firstly testing against the Bible everything they are taught. If it doesn’t sound quite right, then check it out! (Even if it sounds right, still check it out!) Don’t ever just meekly accept something just because you are afraid of offending other Christians, for if they are teaching anything other than biblical truth, then they are either ignorant fools or not Christian at all (and therefore not worth your time listening to them!). These false calvinist teachers all recommend each other; they all belong to the same club. And, they, like Calvin, are all walking the road of heresy.

It is interesting to note that, while genuine Christians seek to evangelise the lost, calvinists all too often seek to evangelise the non-calvinist Christians. Many calvinists see non-calvinists as less-spiritual Christians, or even not saved at all. This makes non-calvinist churches a target for militant calvinists who consider that their doctrines are far superior to all others. Note what Mohler, an influential new calvinist, says about new calvinism.
Al Mohler: Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they going to need and where else are they going to connect. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth.
(https://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/)

Therefore Living Springs is a mission field for the calvinist GraceWest to seek and save from their non-calvinist “heresies”! Interestingly, GraceWest’s apparent “interest” in Living Springs appears to have started long before I applied for the pastor position at Living Springs. It seems that the current pastor of Living Springs and the GraceWest pastor may have been well-acquainted before GraceWest’s apparent interest in Living Springs. (Or maybe that’s why the GraceWest pastor became better acquainted with the Living Springs pastor.) Certainly, though, GraceWest does appear to have successfully set its sights on gaining some measure of control over the doctrinal teachings at Living Springs.

But the false teaching was not only to come from GraceWest. After the current Living Springs pastor took over in 2013, there appeared to be a strong emphasis on the works of the calvinist MacArthur, especially his “Fundamentals of the Faith” which are anything but fundamental if you study it carefully. Later on, the heresies of Todd Friel were taught in their small group studies. They used “Drive by theology” by Friel and Lawson which claims to teach the Bible properly. However, Friel also teaches the calvinist heresy that you do not choose to accept Jesus into your life; instead God chooses you. He has written a document titled “Ten reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your life”, in which he says such things as “Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved…is not. and People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. For further reading on this issue, please go to The Heresy of Todd Friel.

But this was only the beginning of heresy, it seems, for the next year Living Springs advertised on their website that they would commence (on 5th March 2017) a series of Sunday evening studies by Gary Thomas titled “Sacred Marriage”. Now Thomas’ teachings have more to do with spiritual mysticism, yoga and tantric sex than Christian doctrine. In fact, it is difficult to isolate out any serious “Christian” teaching in his writings without contamination by satan’s lies. Thomas even quotes someone who says that a healthy look at sex can provide fruitful meditation on our need and desire for God (Thomas Hart). He also quotes many times another who writes about tantric sex and kundalini yoga (Mary Oliver). Yet another quote is from Friedrich Nietzche (an extremely anti-God person, who teaches that God is dead – nihilism). I am deeply shocked to think that a Christian church would be studying such filth and evil. In another book (Sacred Pathways) Thomas teaches centering prayer using what can only be described as using demonic mantras as a means of praying to God. He writes: It is particularly difficult to describe this type of prayer in writing, as it is best taught in person. In general, however, centering prayer works like this: Choose a word (Jesus or Father, for example) as a focus for contemplative prayer. Repeat the word silently in your mind for a set amount of time (say, twenty minutes) until your heart seems to be repeating the word by itself, just as naturally and involuntarily as breathing.
For further information, please read Gary Thomas – new age teacher.

It is clear that all who are involved with the leadership at Living Springs are going to have serious problems when they stand before God in the judgment, concerning their offence to those in the flock that they are supposed to be caring for.
Matthew 18:6-76 But 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!
False shepherds of the flock will be punished severely for their abuse of their authority over God’s children, and Living Springs (with GraceWest’s approval and support) has demonstrated a serious lack of proper pastoral care for its flock. False shepherds are wolves among the sheep! And wolves now control the sheep-fold known as Living Springs!

But, not to be outdone by such heresy of Living Springs, it seems that Open Door church also tried the pathway of false teaching when it allegedly used studies by Paul Tripp more than 2 years ago. Paul Tripp has been heavily involved with the development of the Biblical Counselling program as developed by CCEF through Westminster theological seminary in USA. (Westminster itself has probably had more to do with the development of new or neo calvinism than anything else, and Biblical Counselling is new calvinism’s main tool for putting its doctrines in place in churches.)
For further information on new calvinism or Biblical Counselling, please go to
Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today  or The gospel of new calvinism
or posts The new calvinism gospel or Biblical Counselling as an aid to control the church or New calvinism is Biblical Counselling or The Seventh Day Adventist connection to new calvinism

Paul Tripp’s doctrine is based upon an understanding that all Christians have a sickness that they need help with. “There is a plague that has infected the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s a sad disease, it’s left us weakened, and broken and discouraged, and afraid. It’s almost no sooner than you come to faith in Jesus Christ than you get infected. ….. What is it you ask? It’s identity amnesia. We have forgotten who we are. And in forgetting who we are we frantically look for identity in thousands of places where it will never be found, places where you were never meant to look for identity. You probably do it so instinctively; you probably do it so frequently, you probably do it so naturally, you don’t actually know you are doing it. You’re so used to carrying the burden that you don’t know you are carrying the burden anymore. Your spiritual back has hurt you so long you’ve forgotten you’re in pain.“(https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/beware-of-paul-tripp/)

Put simply, Tripp tries to convince all Christians (if possible) that they have a problem that can only be alleviated by special counselling (which then leads into Biblical Counselling). That is, if you desire a change, you introduce the problem that will make people desire the change. It’s called the Hegelian dialectic: introduce the problem that pushes people toward your preferred solution.

Tripp also calls the characteristics of the Lord as dangerous theology that has infected the church. He (Tripp) claims that the identity you assign to yourself dictates the course of your life. “You never escape the identity that you assign to yourself, ever.” And so come Tripp’s big questions: “Who do you think you are? Where will you look today, for identity?” Referring to the first five verses of Psalm 27, Tripp describes the characteristics of the Lord — the Lord is light; the Lord is salvation; the Lord is stronghold. Then he says, “What I’ve just given you is nasty, dangerous, bad theology — but it’s the theology, I’m convinced, that has infected the Church of Jesus Christ.” (https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/beware-of-paul-tripp/)

So, I went to his website to see what his gospel was. I could find nothing that could (even with “the imagination of an over-sensitive nature” to quote what a certain pastor said to me) be called a gospel of sorts, other than Christians having the victory in Christ. But victory over what – he doesn’t really specify! I listened through an Easter message on his site; I thought I would have to get some gospel here! But, no, nothing at all, except a mention of sin at the very beginning which had no apparent connection with the rest of the message. He focuses upon the self-worth of Christians, and would probably be in full agreement with such as Rick Warren who teaches that we should never be negative about our witnessing; we should never say something that could make people feel bad.
Tripp also believes in what can only be described as mystical meditation.

Tripp is a wishy-washy speaker who says a lot without saying anything at all. He might sound good to anyone who wants to be spoon-fed like a baby. However, my recommendation for Christians is to leave him well alone, for then and only then perhaps you might actually start growing as a Christian. His teachings are like poison and his philosophy is straight from the depths of hell. Truly he teaches a doctrine of demons. For further information, please read Paul Tripp – heretic or tare?

And now Open Door has Biblical Counselling advertised on its website. If it is affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia, then it is likely to be used as a tool for establishing and reinforcing new calvinist doctrines among the church members.

I used to be unconcerned about calvinism apart from a refusal to believe in it, especially its doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election. But, as I explained in my last post, after researching calvinism in recent years, I have learned that it is a dangerous and insidious heresy that takes over the thinking of Christians, rendering them more like brainwashed cult-members than rationally thinking people. A good friend of ours used to preach at our country church years ago. He was clearly calvinist, yet we thought at the time that his biblical teaching was sound. However, when he was recently challenged concerning how his calvinist views conflicted with the Bible, instead of lovingly “correcting” us (as a reasonable Christian would be expected to do), he merely said that he should have no more to discuss with us on that matter. We haven’t heard back from him since.

I am a logical and practical person, with a desire to serve God wherever He should call. That has led us to leave our little farm in the country years ago and go to other places in Australia, including working with aboriginal people in Alice Springs in central Australia. I’ll look at this aspect of my life next time.

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 3

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.