Free will proves calvinist doctrine to be false

I am amazed at just how devious calvinists can be. And that they claim to base their doctrines on the Bible alone, yet use the Bible far less than their other documents of extra revelation, such as Calvin. I have yet to see even one single calvinist doctrine demonstrated from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) without inconsistencies having to be explained away using their excuses that man has no free will and that God’s foreknowledge is not His perfect knowledge of the future.

The Bible says clearly (so clearly, in fact, that Blind Freddie could see it) that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Keep in mind that John wrote this epistle without the chapter and verse breaks. It is clear that 1 John 1:9-10 keeps on going through to 1 John 2:1-2; there is no real break in the narrative just because a chapter break has been added. Note also that 1 John 2:1 and 1 John 2:2 are two parts of the same sentence. In fact, Vs 1 is necessary to define the pronouns (he, our, ours) used in Vs 2.

1 John 1:9-10; 2:1-2 – ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
¹ My 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: ² And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

“he” in Vs 2 is “Jesus Christ the righteous” in Vs 1;
“our” in Vs 2 is defined in Vs 1 as “we” who “have an advocate with the Father”, and “we” in Vs 1 is also defined as those to whom John is writing.
“we’ also is the same group who are to confess their sins as per 1 John 1:9 & 10.

How can anyone miss the point here: that “the whole world” must include more people than just those defined by “we”, “our” and “ours”. If all Christians claim that we can confess our sins to be cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9), and that we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1), then there must be more than just Christians included in “the whole world”. (and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.) Yet calvinists steadfastly assert that “the whole world” can only include those who believe!
Clearly they do not believe in Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), or else they have a different Bible with writings from another (false) god.

Thus, in order that they might not look the fools that they seem to be, they have to “invent” doctrines that appear to support the lies that they teach. If Jesus died for all mankind (which the Bible so clearly teaches), making full payment for the sins of all mankind, and if mankind is given the free will choice to accept or reject that full and complete payment (also a Biblical truth), then God’s judgment of man will be based upon man’s free will choice. God has given man free will to choose, and God will honour the choice that every person makes. The full payment has been made in any case; therefore further payment will never be required for any of mankind’s sins. All accounts for sin were settled by Christ on the cross, thus “It is finished” was the cry.
John 19:30 – When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Those who accept this payment in full by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved, will, by God’s faithful promise, be saved indeed to the uttermost. Those who reject this payment will remain imprisoned by their sin, not because of any payment required, for that has already been paid in full, but because they refuse to accept such a gift. This is mankind’s free will in action. And God will honour man’s free will choice in this matter. No-one will be forced to be saved, ever. Not even Paul, of whom MacArthur says:
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. …..
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)
I challenge anyone to find all this detail written in the Bible! If it isn’t there, then MacArthur has invented extra revelation to support his erroneous teachings.

So what teaching do calvinists invent to explain away their false teaching on limited atonement? Well, they claim that if Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and some still go to hell, then those in hell would be paying for sins that had already been paid for. MacArthur calls it “double jeopardy”. He says that if all sins have been paid for, then no-one would go to hell, and therefore all the world would be saved. He claims that full atonement would merely provide a potential salvation, not an actual one, and that if Jesus died for the whole world without exception, then no-one could really be saved. (For further information on potential vs actual salvation, please read Potential Vs Actual Salvation? What’s the difference?)

MacArthur says:
That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven and the only difference hinges on the sinner’s choice? That is to say the death of Jesus Christ then is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved. ……….

Well the only answer to the question that makes any real sense is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded. If Jesus actually paid in full the penalty for your sins, you’re not going to go to hell, that would be double jeopardy. ……….

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.
Now we all have to accept that or be universalists. We know not everyone is going to heaven. In fact, it is a little flock, it is the few which if we were to hold on to this sort of evangelical idea means that the vast majority of people for whom Christ died and paid in full the penalty for their sins are going to go to hell. And that’s just something very difficult to believe. So we do believe in a limited atonement. It is limited to those who believe. ………..

You hear people say, “Well, you know, when you say the atonement is limited, people don’t feel very special.” Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, “Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.” That doesn’t make me feel very special. That’s kind of a hard way to do evangelism. Christ died on the cross for your sins and all the people in hell, too. That’s not special. That’s anything but special. You mean to tell me He paid for my sins and I’m paying for them forever? Then I’ll tell you, whatever His payment was, it was bogus. You see, it’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its power. It’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its effectiveness. It’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its accomplishment. If He paid in full the penalty for your sins, you will receive that salvation. (MacArthur, The Doctrine of Actual Atonement Part 1)

But then I read that Spurgeon makes the same false arguments in Sermon No.694 “Sin Laid on Jesus”. We hold that from the very nature of the satisfaction of Christ it could not have been made for anyone except for his elect; for Christ either did pay the debts of all men or he did not; if he did pay the debts of all men they are paid, and no man can be called to account for them. If Christ was the surety of every man living, then how in the name of common justice is Christ to be punished, and man punished too?

What! Are all these calvinists so blind that they cannot see the truth of the matter? If Christ paid the penalty in full, then no more penalty remains to be paid. Cannot they see that no person goes to hell to pay for his sins? They go to hell because they refuse to accept the gift of payment that has already been made in full for their sins. A gift may be accepted or rejected. In fact, one of the definitions of a gift is that it must be offered free of charge and also must be accepted by the donee (the one who receives a gift). If I pay for a boat cruise and give the ticket to another person, does that person have to go on the cruise? Is that person forced to go? Or has that person the right of free will to refuse to go? Likewise, by paying for everyone’s sins and offering it as a free gift to all mankind, God will not compel any to take it.
Romans 5:15 – But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Salvation is a gift of God and may be accepted or rejected by the person to whom it is offered. Otherwise it is not a gift but a requirement that it must be received. That is, if God were to require that certain people took His salvation, then it is no longer a gift at all! But, if I offer a prisoner a free pardon for his crimes, he must accept it before it can be his. No prisoner can ever be forced to accept a pardon for the crimes of which he has been convicted. For one thing, acceptance of a free pardon has to include the acceptance of guilt for such crimes in the first place. If a person refuses to accept responsibility for a crime, then they cannot receive a pardon for a crime they claim they never committed. The atonement was for the whole world without exception, and the penalty for all sins was paid in full for all mankind. However, only those who plead guilty may receive the effective pardon for sins. This is a requirement of the gospel, that acknowledgement of personal guilt must be a part of accepting one’s free gift of salvation. That is, if you do not consider yourself guilty of such sins, then it would be pointless to receive a gift that atoned for such sins if you hadn’t allegedly committed any!

So, if mankind has free will to choose (see So you think free will isn’t in the Bible), then those who reject the free salvation offered to them will have also rejected any right to eternal life in heaven. Therefore, those who reject God’s salvation will go to hell for eternity, not to pay for their sins, but because they refused to be rescued from such a fate. For how may a person choose to go to hell? The Bible teaches that you may go to hell by doing absolutely nothing at all. You are already condemned until you choose to do something about it!
John 3:18 – He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It’s a pity the calvinists have to deny the free will of man in order to present their false doctrines. No man ever goes to hell to pay for his sin. In fact, it’s impossible for anyone to pay for any sin at all in hell. The truth is that not one person will ever pay for even just one sin, even if he were to spend all eternity doing so. For, if a person could pay for just one sin, then, given enough time (and he has an abundance of that!), he could pay for all his sins. And, what would happen if a person went to hell to pay for his sins and actually managed to pay for them all? Could he then be set free from hell? Get real, calvinists! No-one in all eternity can ever pay for even one single sin in hell. No-one goes to hell to pay for their sins! Just find one verse which states this.

You go to hell because of your sin, you can die in your sins and go to hell, but you do not ever go to hell to pay for your sins. Jesus has already done that, and you will go to hell for eternity because you by your free will have rejected that free gift of salvation: payment for all your sins for all time right now. You go to hell because you refused the free gift of salvation offered by God through Jesus Christ.

I have studied many calvinist documents and statements, and have presented Biblical support in refuting their false doctrines. All doctrines stand or fall according to their support from the Bible, and the calvinist doctrines fall harder than many when lined up against the truth of the Bible.
If any calvinist wishes to refute this from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), then I invite you to do so. Not one calvinist has ever managed to use the Bible alone to refute my statements; in fact, not one has even tried to refute what I say from the Bible alone. So, here’s the challenge: if you are what you claim to be, then prove your teachings Biblically, or else admit that you cannot do so, and that your doctrines were all lies from start to finish!

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

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.

Calvinism – the losing debating team!

This post is written in response to a recently-received email from a calvinist who will remain nameless other than he is a calvinist.

Calvinists do tend to come up with some ridiculous statements when trying to defend the indefensible. I so often wonder just why they are prepared to demonstrate themselves to be fools when trying to defend their non-Biblical doctrines from the Bible. But, they are determined to be seen as Christians, and, not only mere Christians, but the better, more on-the-ball Christians who serve a more sovereign God who shows more grace to fewer people. (Were you expecting another “more” there? Sorry, that’s one thing the calvinist God will not ever do: his grace will only be shown to a very small minority of people. The calvinist God just doesn’t care enough about most of the people he allegedly created; as far as he is concerned, they can all go to hell! Literally!)

God having the final say proves man has no free will?
But, don’t just take my word for it. Observe what the calvinists demonstrate themselves to be! Here’s a comment recently received in an email from this calvinist: I can see that we also agree that even though a man calls out to God for salvation it is God who has the final say, which tells me that mans free will is non existent. Now, what sort of logic is that? How does having the final say (or the last word on a matter) prove that it is the only say? If I have the final say on a matter of disagreement between myself and another person, it is foolishness to suppose that the other person therefore had no free will to oppose me!

In fact, God desires that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4) and that if anyone calls upon the name of the Lord, he will be saved (Romans 10:13). God offers the gift of salvation to all mankind and sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). God asks man to respond to this offer of salvation, promising to save to the uttermost all who come to Him (Hebrews 7:25). When man responds, he is trusting in God’s promise to save him to the uttermost, and then God, being faithful to His promises, has the final say by accepting that person into His family as a child of God.

God’s final response is the culmination of a series of actions, but calvinism would have me believe that because His response is the final one, therefore it is the only one? Even the word “final” is defined as “coming at the end of a series”, so the final say would have to be that which comes at the end of a series of “sayings”. But, this is the logic of calvinism: that defines its logic as that which agrees with its doctrines; anything that doesn’t agree with its doctrines is therefore illogical.

Using logic to read the Bible leads to error?
But, says the calvinist, for me to use logic to determine truth is unacceptable. Clearly I am not to be permitted to use logic unless it is calvinist logic.

Let’s take another example from this calvinist email to further demonstrate this calvinist avoidance of logic: Now you refer to Rom 3:10-18 as man simply being unwilling to seek after God and this is a great example of you adding your logic to the express teaching of this verse. It matters not; even if man was willing (which he is not) he does not seek for God, can Paul be more specific about this verse, no he cannot. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS; NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD, irregardless of mans ability to seek or not. If we were to add implications to scripture as you just did and not read it as literally as possible then its open slather for all to put their own two bobs worth in and how are we to ever come to the truth of God’s word. There are rules to follow and we must follow them. (sic)

So what is it that I said that was so logical yet so wrong? I had written: You quote Romans 3:10-18, yet not one bit of it can deny that it is merely the total unwillingness of man to seek after God; it can never be read as man not being able to seek after God. It says there is none that seeketh after God and yet where does it say that none are able to seek? Otherwise you cannot use this to prove man’s total inability to seek after God, just his total unwillingness to seek (which remains a matter of free-will!).
I simply pointed out that “not seeking after God” could not be re-written as “cannot find God”. “seeketh” or its negative “seeketh not” are acts of the will. When you look for (seek) something, you also have the option of deciding to not look for something. Unless qualified otherwise, “seeketh not” can never be re-defined as “can not”! Now that would indeed be illogical!

In similar fashion, I have been told by the same person: 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.
What the verse does say that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But calvinists then redefine “see” to mean “believe in” or “have faith in”, and suddenly the verse says what they want it to say. And this person has then stated that a man must be born again before he can repent and believe, based on this bit of verbal gymnastics.

Note the following from another calvinist teaching on John 3:3:
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!
(P 8, Studies in the Atonement, Robert A. Morey)

However, proper Bible study must rely upon careful analysis of the context of the information, the meanings of the words in the Greek or Hebrew, the consistency of the derived meaning across the whole of the Bible, and particularly not reading into any verse information that is just not there in the first place. This may be termed a method of logical analysis. I highly recommend such a method to calvinists in order that they might seek the truth and see the error of their ways (or doctrines!). 

When God uses foreknowledge, it isn’t really foreknowledge?
So, let’s look further at this email. It says: You have misinterpreted 1 Pet 1:2a the word foreknowledge (foreknown) does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen (for God never learned anything, he already knows all things) but it clearly means a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of the Lord.
Did he actually say that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen? Does he realise that Luke, as a doctor, used a lot of medical terminology in his 2 books (Luke and Acts)? Foreknowledge is just one of those many medical terms. Foreknowledge is the Greek word prognosis which was first used as a medical term by Hippocrates as early as 400 BC.

“Prognosis (Greek πρόγνωσις “fore-knowing, foreseeing”) is a medical term for predicting the likely outcome of one’s current standing. (Wikipedia)

One of the earliest written works of medicine is the Book of Prognostics of Hippocrates, written around 400 BC. This work opens with the following statement: “It appears to me a most excellent thing for the physician to cultivate Prognosis; for by foreseeing and foretelling, in the presence of the sick, the present, the past, and the future, and explaining the omissions which patients have been guilty of, he will be the more readily believed to be acquainted with the circumstances of the sick; so that men will have confidence to intrust themselves to such a physician.”
For 19th century physicians, particularly those following the French school of medicine, the main aim of medicine was not to cure disease, but rather to give a medical diagnosis and achieve a satisfying prognosis of the patient’s chances. Only several decades later did the focus of efforts in Western medicine shift to curing disease. (Wikipedia)

Also note To trace the course of a disease through its various stages, and to be able to see what is portended by symptoms in different diseases and at different stages of those diseases, was an art upon which Hippocrates laid great stress. He called it πρόγνωσις (that is, “prognosis”), and it included at least half of the physician’s work.
(Hippocrates Collected Works I By Hippocrates Edited by: W. H. S. Jones (trans.) Cambridge Harvard University Press 1868)

And the calvinist thinks that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen? If a doctor gives you a prognosis of what your future might be like if you should continue as you are, then is that not based upon an awareness of what is going to happen according to his expert understanding? And if Luke were a doctor, then he, too, would have been very much aware of the full meaning of such a word when he penned Acts 2:23 – Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
And it would be difficult to understand why Paul, who travelled so much with Luke, would not also have known the proper meaning of the noun form of prognosis (proginosko) when he penned For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).
And Peter, who had more contact with Paul and Luke than any other of the 12 disciples, wrote Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).

So you will find it difficult indeed to prove that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen, when the most logical and accurate translation of this medical term is, in actual fact, an awareness of what is going to happen. Of course, calvinists are forced to prove foreknowledge to be something else, because if foreknowledge is simply God’s perfect knowledge of the future, then all the other calvinist beliefs are shot down in flames!

And the calvinist writer of this email says: Now if you can find me one verse where it can be emphatically  proven that God predestined his chosen elect because He first saw that we will choose him first, I will surrender in defeat. Sir, you are a liar, for I have given you 1 Peter 1:2a and you have refused to see the proper understanding of the verse. You are so obsessed with your belief that God unconditionally chose an elect group from the beginning of the world, that they (and only they) would go to heaven, and that no man may have the free will to decide one way or the other for himself. You say that such foreknowledge cannot explain the predestination of God. You said: If you study the true meaning of predestination you will realize that by looking into the future first before predestinating anyone does not give true meaning to the word predestined so your understanding of 1 Pet 1:2a is flawed.

But how can that be so? If God should use His foreknowledge (His perfect knowledge of the future) to determine who to write in the Lamb’s book of life, written before the foundation of the world, then do you tell me He is not allowed to do that? And having chosen His elect according to His foreknowledge, can God also then predestinate those people to be saved for all eternity according to His promises to save to the uttermost? After all, if God has a list of His elect from the foundation of the world, then He will do with that list of elect what He promises to do, regardless of whether the election is unconditional or conditional upon foreknowledge. How does being conditional upon the foreknowledge of God change one iota of what God says He will do with and for those elect of His?

Whether the election is conditional or not cannot change what God does with His elect group. Calvinists say the election is unconditional; the Bible reveals that it is conditional upon God’s foreknowledge. But regardless of how the election has been determined, God will use that list to determine the salvation of everyone on it. The true meaning of predestination is that anyone on that list will be saved to the uttermost according to God’s promises. It’s actually the list of the elect that saves everyone on it, not whether the list is unconditional or not! This waffling on about my understanding of 1 Peter 1:2a being flawed because of predestination must also condemn the calvinist election as well, for predestination is according to that list, not how it was obtained. So, we’ll let the Bible have the final say on this: Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis – which does indeed refer to an awareness of what is going to happen) of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).

So how are the calvinists going to try and win this debate? They continually avoid facing the issues I raise by trying to dismiss good argument with unacceptable excuses. Here’s their chance to demonstrate that they can actually read the Bible alone for its truth. Thy word is truth – John 17:17.

If you want to read further, please try these links.

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.

Reply to a calvinist (who cannot see that the Bible teaches the free-will of man)

Firstly, there is no way we would agree on no free-will for man. Free-will is not proven as nonsense. Spurgeon was talking nonsense when he said this: It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. (“Free Will – A Slave” 02/12/1855) for he has given no proof whatsoever to support his unbiblical claim here. Free will exists as a consistent doctrine throughout the Bible and cannot be proven nonsense. It is acknowledged that no man may come to God unless God intervenes, yet that intervention is through the gospel of Christ. Man is totally unwilling to come to God, yet this cannot ever be translated into total inability (that is, absolutely unable to come to God even if he wanted to). Without the gospel, man cannot see what he is to do in order to be saved; therefore he will never be saved without the gospel. But the word of the gospel brings the light of understanding into a man’s life, which is why satan tries so hard to prevent it as per 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 – ³ But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: ⁴ In 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.

It is incomprehensible that anyone who claims to be a reader of the Bible should not understand this role of the gospel. When God’s word is preached, it will achieve that purpose for which it was sent (Isaiah 55:11). In particular, when the gospel is preached, it will achieve the purpose of illuminating the soul so it understands man’s sinfulness and God’s solution through the cross of Jesus. Man is then asked to confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, and he shall be saved (Romans 10:9). For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Even when man calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved, can he demand that God now save him? Emphatically no! For the calling upon the name of the Lord is in faith, trusting in the character of the God who promises to save such a man to the uttermost. Even though man cries out to be saved, it is still by God’s choosing that such a man will be saved. God has the final say on all cries for salvation; no-one may demand salvation merely because he followed the rules.

And the election is a Biblical fact, only it is conditional upon the foreknowledge of God to know such things from the beginning according to His perfect knowledge of the future. Thus we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 2:1a). The Bible so consistently teaches the foreknowledge of God as such; it is scripturally unethical, not to say blasphemous, to insinuate that God may not be permitted to do that which He says He will do!

This is why calvinists absolutely refuse, against all Scriptural teaching, to permit God to determine His elect according to His perfect knowledge of the future, that is, His foreknowledge! If God’s foreknowledge is His perfect knowledge of the future, then it is simple for Him to determine the free-will decisions of man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. And don’t go on about such being a work of salvation. It is no more a work of salvation than is a drowning man crying out to be saved. His crying out cannot save him. His calling out cannot help him even if someone were to hear. It is entirely the work of the one who saves such a man. Even the acceptance of a gift cannot in any way improve or add anything to the value or worth of that gift. This is ridiculous side-stepping of the real issue, trying to turn the focus away from the errors of calvinism everywhere else! Prove the rest of calvinism right and perhaps you might get listened to when pleading that calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved is a work! But if God says to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that’s what you do! Do you dare question what God requires you to do?

I challenge any calvinist to demonstrate that God does not (or can not) use such perfect knowledge of the future to determine man’s free-will decisions to call upon the name of the Lord! But they won’t because the Bible just doesn’t support them at all. You see, calvinists refuse to permit any teaching that permits the free-will of mankind because the free-will of man can destroy all calvinist heresies.

You still haven’t demonstrated from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that the free-will of man is nonsense. And don’t call me an Arminian for I make no such claims! I only claim the true teaching of the Bible to establish my beliefs. When will you stop the irrational name-calling and get down to the facts of it all: can you demonstrate from the Bible that free-will is nonsense? And don’t quote other men, for they may only teach the commandments of man. Only the Bible has the doctrines of God. And don’t say that most people agree with you; that is called common sense, and the Bible says that such ways that seem right to man (= common sense) lead to destruction (Proverbs 14:12).

You quote Romans 3:10-18 to “prove” that free-will is nonsense, yet not one bit of it can deny that it is merely the total unwillingness of man to seek after God. It can never be read as man not being able to seek after God. It says that there is none that seeketh after God and yet where does it say that none are able to seek after God? You simply cannot use this to prove man’s total inability to seek after God, just his total unwillingness to seek (which remains a matter of free-will!).

You likewise quote Romans 9:16 in support of your calvinist no-free-will heresy, yet you fail to understand that God will only show mercy to those who come to Him by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved. God will not show mercy to those who demand it; rather He will show it to those who cry out to Him to be saved. In the final analysis, it is still God who must will that any man be saved, but His condition is that man should firstly call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Romans 9:16 cannot demonstrate that free-will is nonsense.

Note that the word for “hardeneth” in Romans 9:18 is skleruno which means to harden in the shape that it already is in, thus we get sclerosis of such as arteries in the body. Romans 9:18 – Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
God merely hardens a person in the condition that he has already chosen to be in.
Thus neither can Romans 9:18 demonstrate that free-will is nonsense, for God merely sets that man in his choice. That is, man has chosen and now God says that man must stay the way he has chosen. Literally, a man makes his bed, and then he has to sleep in it, as the saying goes.

By the way, Romans 9 is a chapter the calvinists should steer clear of. In Vs 3 Paul desires to be lost for the sake of his lost fellow-country-men, yet if calvinism is right, then Paul should have known that he couldn’t be lost and that those who were not elect could never be saved. How does calvinism explain this? Did Paul get it wrong?

Then Romans 9 discusses the election of the nation of Israel over the nation of Esau/Edom. The election of a nation cannot ever equate to the election of individuals, ever. Only those grasping at doctrinal straws would try to use this to “prove” the unconditional election of man! The election of a nation had to exclude all others from being elect; does this mean that only one person may be chosen and all others excluded. And if calvinism is right, without free-will Israel had to have been foreordained to rebel against God so that God could reject them as His elect nation. Can this be used to prove that God would also foreordain His unconditional elect to rebel and be condemned to hell? Please explain!

Romans 9:23 says that there are vessels of honour and dishonour which calvinists also use to “prove” that you are made a certain way, unchangeably so. Then why does Paul tell Timothy that a vessel of dishonour may be purged to become a vessel of honour (2 Timothy 2:20-21)??

And John 1:13!! If you only did some Bible study (Sola Scriptura!) you would see that the whole sentence is as follows:
John 1:12-13 – ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: ¹³ Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Now try and prove that God’s will here is not in any way dependent upon the believing on the name of God in Vs 12! Note carefully that these 2 verses form one complete idea, that Vs 13 is grammatically dependent upon Vs 12. Prove to me that those who received Him could not have been using free-will to so choose. Also try proving that believing on His name can not in any way be using free-will! It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that this can in any way “prove” that free-will is nonsense!

And for those who believe that John 6:44 somehow proves that only those who are called by God will come, note that it can only be used to demonstrate this if you first of all make the assumption (assumption, mind you) that free-will is nonsense. If free-will cannot be proven nonsense, then John 6:44 can simply mean that many are called but few are chosen (as per Matthew 22:14)! Can you explain that? And don’t try that worn-out excuse that the call of God may be either effectual or otherwise! Please answer this if you can: where in the Bible does it teach that there are two calls of God, one effectual, the other not effectual? Really, you must think me somewhat limited in intelligence to have the wool pulled over my eyes this way! But, the calvinists have to come up with some explanation, no matter how tenuous the Biblical support for it, or else accept that they have doctrines that may be mocked by all those people who actually think for themselves. Talk about the commandments of man being taught as the doctrines of God! Matthew 15:9 – But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

And further to this, in John 12:32 Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself on the cross. Note that “draw” in this verse is the same as “draw” in John 6:44. Now, unless you can prove that “all” can only mean those who believe, then Jesus must be drawing all mankind, and thus the Father in John 6:44 also draws all mankind, and thus, if not all come, then some of mankind must be resisting due to their free-will. If “all” means “all” mankind, then the combination of John 12:32 and John 6:44 can only mean that some are resisting the drawing of the Father through their own free-will. Can you explain that free-will is nonsense in this light??

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 30:19 – I 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:

And what about Isaiah 5:4 – What 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?
If God has ordained that Israel should produce bad fruit, then He has not done enough to ensure that they would bring forth good fruit. In fact, the only way that God can say this and remain sovereign holy God is to have given Israel a free-will to reject His truth. Can you explain this?

And also Jeremiah 32:35 – And 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 God is a liar, or He has forgotten what he foreordained, or else He is sovereign God who has given Israel a free-will to choose between serving Him or other gods! Can you explain this otherwise?

And how can calvinism give glory to God when calvinists such as Spurgeon teach that you have eternal life before you come to Christ for eternal life (according to that document of Spurgeon on free-will). 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 (“Free Will – A Slave” 02/12/1855) Effectively, a calvinist then believes that he is saved for heaven even before he comes to Christ for eternal life. In this calvinist heresy, Christ has become irrelevant and thus written out of the gospel of salvation for mankind. For what need is there of Christ if a man has eternal life without Christ? How can Christ now say “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” when a sinner has come to the Father through regeneration before he may believe in Christ and be saved? And how can a person have eternal life before he comes to Christ, if he cannot see life without Christ?
John 3:36 – He 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 where does the Bible teach beyond any doubt at all that “the whole world” (1 John 2:2) can never mean the whole world without exception? Yet the calvinist consistently assumes the lie that the whole world can only include those who believe! But, unless they prove that “the whole world” cannot mean the whole world without exception, then Jesus died for all mankind, and their limited atonement heresy is shot down in flames.
Questions, questions, questions! Can you answer any of them Scripturally??

Just a little more! You say that John 15:16 puts an end to the argument of who chose who. Obviously you are assuming that all those that Jesus chose here were the elect going to heaven? But there’s a bit of a problem for you in this one too. Firstly, Judas was one of those chosen in John 15:16. Can you explain how the choice of Judas fits into your explanation, considering that he was never bound for heaven, it seems? In fact, John 15:16 had nothing to do with election to salvation (for if it had, then Judas would not have been chosen among them). It was the custom that disciples chose their masters, yet Jesus now says that He did not follow the usual custom because He chose His disciples. Even Gill (that calvinist commentary) says his (Jesus’) choice of them was entirely free, did not arise from any character, motive, or condition in them: the allusion is to a custom of the Jews, the reverse of which Christ acted; with whom it was usual for disciples to choose their own masters, and not masters their disciples
It is a mistake to think of this as anything else than the master choosing his disciples in opposition to the custom of that day!

Also, why did Jesus say that He had chosen the 12 disciples and one of them was a devil? If this represents the unconditional election to life and heaven, then do calvinists really believe that devils go to heaven?
John 6:70-71 – ⁷⁰ Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? ⁷¹ He 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, how did He lose Judas in John 17:12?

If you liked this post, here are some more links to try.

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 apparent from the number of hits that this website is attracting people from a wide range of religious backgrounds. Many of them are certain to be calvinists looking for another victim to hit on. I have noticed that other non-calvinist websites often have a lot of angry and aggressive verbal attacks, with most of the calvinists defending calvinism largely by insulting the non-calvinist writer. Very few actually attempt to defend from Biblical grounds, and not one of those (that I have seen) has ever succeeded in demonstrating logically and truthfully their point of view from the Bible. Still, it seems that to be a non-calvinist is to attract the vitriol and ire of those self-appointed calvinist teachers who know everything (with the non-calvinist apparently knowing nothing!). In fact, one point seems to stand out in all of this: calvinists can never be wrong! No matter how carefully one might document the truth from the Bible, if it offends a calvinist, then the calvinist is always right.

I have spent more than a year now challenging calvinists. I have labelled them false teachers, cultists, counterfeit Christians, even demonic, and yet have had little opposition. (And even what opposition I’ve had hasn’t defined at any time just what it is that I’ve stated incorrectly. I have accused them of teaching oxymorons and have heard not a whimper from any self-respecting calvinist – are there any?). I’ve been accused of misrepresenting calvinists, and yet not one example of such has ever been documented. If I quote what other people say and use that to define their errors, then that can never be misrepresentation, especially when they’re the ones who make the statements that I use! I have been told that I am the problem, but what problem that might be I have no idea because it wasn’t defined at all. I have challenged calvinists to just try and refute what I say, using the Bible to support their accusations, yet not one has, to date, managed to refute even one of my accusations. Not one has made an effort to use the Bible to demonstrate my errors.

Is this the best that calvinists can do? Are they only able to refute those who have little grasp on Biblical doctrine and how it applies to calvinist teachings? And those out there who are genuine Biblical Christians: do you search the Scriptures daily to see if what others say is true? There’s one thing a calvinist seems to fear, and that is a Christian who knows his Bible well. If they think you have a good understanding of the Bible, they are unlikely to pick an argument with you. Or else they’ll just state what they want to say and totally ignore what you have to say. They just don’t seem to want to be drawn into a discussion on doctrines using the Bible alone in case they are left without any support for their stand, especially if you do know your Bible well. If you know your Bible well and refuse to let them introduce other calvinist “teachers” to demonstrate their beliefs, then they will usually pack up and leave, refusing to discuss things any further with you! Having a rule that says Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) generally scares off the aggressive calvinist who might then be heard to say that you lack spiritual discernment and therefore just don’t understand!

So, this is for all those calvinists out there who think they’re right (and therefore I’m wrong). Just tell me where I’m wrong by demonstrating from Biblical truth the errors of my ways (my beliefs, that is). I have laid down the gauntlet; are there any who might just dare to take up this challenge? The ground rules are simple: only the Bible may be used in defining your particular brand of truth, and no Biblical verse or passage may be taken out of context or out of consistency with the rest of the Bible. Simple, isn’t it? It should be so easy for all you such knowledgeable 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.

Calvinist Non-Biblical Copouts!

That is, When will calvinists become Biblical?

I am amazed at the number of times allegedly calvinist apologists (I daren’t call them teachers!) make bold statements about the error of the non-calvinist views without any Biblical documentation to support their assertions. For example, Spurgeon (a dubious calvinist at best, anyway) says, “It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.” (“Free Will – A Slave”), yet he provides not one supporting Biblical fact for this wide-sweeping statement. How is it nonsense? Who has indeed proved it? Where is their apparently non-existent evidence for such extreme claims? Yet, all too often, I have been told (or have read) calvinist words to the effect that the doctrine of no free will is consistently taught in the Bible.

Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion as to what the Bible teaches, but if that opinion is to carry any credibility at all, it must be supported by properly documented evidence from the Bible itself. What amazes me (well, I shouldn’t really be amazed, actually) is that I cannot recall any time ever when such a calvinistic denial of free will has been accompanied by some genuine effort to explain this from the Bible. They will aggressively state their opposition to the doctrine of free will, and then launch into a full-scale sales pitch on the lack of free will for man.

Of course, it is essential that calvinists set in concrete their assumption of no free will, because every one of their heretical teachings would come tumbling down like a house of cards if free will for man were to be added to their sales pitch. Note that well-worn verse of theirs that so many calvinists claim to literally put an end to all discussion on the free will of man: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (John 6:44a) It is clear that no-one may come without that drawing, but is it also clear that all who are drawn must come? The answer is, “No!” The only way they can claim that all who are drawn must come is to deny all mankind the right to resist God’s drawing. That is, they have made the assumption that man has no free will to resist that drawing. However, if you add free will to the mixture, their teaching becomes somewhat non-Scriptural! No small wonder that they have to deny any doctrine of free will for mankind at any cost! (By the way, that same word for “draw” in the Greek is used in John 12:32 where Jesus says He will draw all to Himself when He is lifted up on the cross. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. If Jesus draws all to Himself and none may refuse such drawing, then this verse demonstrates calvinists to be universalists!)

In order for calvinists to push their false teachings, they have to knock out inconvenient Biblical truths first. They do this by firstly aggressively denying the Biblical doctrine (without any genuine Scriptural evidence, of course, because no such evidence exists). Then, while hopefully some significant doubt has been bullied into their opponents, they leave this attack on Biblical truth hanging while they then push their own alternative which now becomes the “truth” once the real Biblical truth has been “shot down”. Most genuine Christians are not prepared for such aggressive tactics; under such an onslaught they tend to back down somewhat and try to take some middle ground in order to defuse the situation. The calvinist is usually quite happy to accept middle ground for the time being; he can always build on this foundation more strongly the next time. The key to it all is to aggressively deny any inconvenient Biblical truth, and then apply their own heresy as “truth” and seek, if at the very least, some agreement to begin with.

Look at the following from MacArthur (on 2 Peter 2:1). These false teachers — watch this — can be recognized because they characteristically say no to whom?  To the Master who bought them.
There are two ways to understand this, apart from the analogy.  The analogy simply says “unthinkably, unimaginably, having been bought by a master they refuse to submit to his authority.”  In the spiritual dimension you would ask the question: In what sense did Christ buy these false teachers?  Two ways to view it.  First of all, you can view it as universal provision for the redemption of sinners, even though they refuse it and are damned.
But I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this, that they have made an earthly identification with Christ’s redemption so that they claim Him as the one who bought them and they claim Him as their Redeemer, testifying that He indeed has bought them and their word then is taken at face value.  No matter what they say, though they say they are Christ’s, they refuse to say yes to His sovereign lordship and thus they are false teachers. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/61-17/a-portrait-of-false-teachers-part-2

Do you see how MacArthur firstly says that this verse can be viewed in two ways? The first option is that these false teachers are part of a universal provision for the redemption for all sinners (which is clearly not the calvinist point of view!). But, MacArthur then adds his opinion on what he thinks it means, with the assumption that he must be right, so therefore those who believe the first option must be wrong. He doesn’t actually demonstrate in any way at all that the first option is incorrect. He gives no Biblical support to oppose the first option; he just pushes his own opinion (“I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this”), similarly without Biblical support. Everything either stands or falls on the opinion of MacArthur, and thus, because MacArthur has taught such (regardless of any Biblical support or otherwise) then MacArthur must be right, and therefore the other view must be wrong. This is typical calvinist “teaching” methodology.

If MacArthur’s good standing as a “teacher” of the Bible is questioned, then other “heroes of the faith’ such as Jonathan Edwards, A W Pink, Calvin, Hodge, etc are called upon to add their vote of confidence to MacArthur’s “opinion taught as truth” (note Matthew 15:9). And, if those poor traditional fundamentalist Christians won’t accept such “erudite teachings” from such “great” men, then they can label them (shock! horror!) Arminians or even Pelagian! (Or maybe, if they are feeling kind, they might just call them “semi-Pelagian”!) It doesn’t matter if their opponents haven’t a clue what an Arminian or Pelagian is, the name-calling does seem to make calvinists somehow feel better. It’s a bit like MacArthur saying that he wouldn’t feel special if all those sinners going to hell also had their sins paid for on the cross; it would just spoil MacArthur’s day no doubt.

You hear people say, “Well, you know, when you say the atonement is limited, people don’t feel very special.” Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, “Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.” That doesn’t make me feel very special. That’s kind of a hard way to do evangelism. Christ died on the cross for your sins and all the people in hell, too. That’s not special. That’s anything but special. You mean to tell me He paid for my sins and I’m paying for them forever? Then I’ll tell you, whatever His payment was, it was bogus.
(https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-277/The-Doctrine-of-Actual-Atonement-Part-1)

Genuine Biblical Christians are often ill-equipped to defend true Biblical doctrine and often end up giving some ground in order to retreat and regroup. Instead, they should be taking the high ground of Biblical truth and requiring that calvinist false teachers demonstrate from the Bible alone – Sola Scriptura – why traditional Biblical truths (such as the free will of man) must be dismissed as untenable. The doctrine of the free will of man should never be dismissed just because some calvinist says so. Only the Bible may demonstrate such doctrines to be true or false, and when it comes to opposing such doctrines as the free will of man, the calvinists are almost always quite tongue-tied concerning Scriptural evidence. But the time has come for genuine Christians to stand up to these bullies and demand that they give clear Scriptural evidence for their dismissal of such basic Biblical doctrines.

If you were to establish the Biblical doctrine of free will, then not one single false calvinist teaching would be able to stand; instead all calvinism would be demonstrated to be the lies that it is. Every time a calvinist makes a statement that can only stand in the absence of free will for man, then ask him to demonstrate from the Bible that free will in salvation just cannot exist under any circumstances at all. If he dismisses your request as trivial, or says that it has already been shown beyond all doubt that free will does not exist, or that it is nonsense, or that the Bible consistently demonstrates that no such free will exists, then continue to demand that he show this clearly from the Bible. Ask him to prove it. Ask him to show from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that such free will is nonsense. Do not accept any waffling on about this, that and everything else, avoiding the issue; demand that he just stick to the point and demonstrate it! But, he won’t because they can’t!

And, it’s not only free will that is denied by them, either. They also deny that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 can possibly mean “the whole world”! Most calvinists teach that “the whole world” can only include Christians, or those who believe, or only the elect or anything else that only allows the calvinist Jesus to die for the sins of only those whom God has chosen for heaven from the beginning. They vary in their documentation and explanations as to why they say that the calvinist Jesus only died for the sins of believers; in fact, they can go to great lengths to push their views home to their opponents. However, I have never once heard (or read) a calvinist actually trying to convince non-calvinists (especially from the Bible) that “the whole world” can never mean “the whole world without exception”.

In general, calvinists, having “established” by their own belief that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”, then proceed post haste to ram their non-Scriptural doctrine of limited atonement down their opponents’ throats. At this point, genuine Christians should demand of those calvinist “teachers” that they firstly demonstrate from the Bible that “the whole world” just cannot ever mean “the whole world without exception”. Don’t be put off by wild talk that suggests this and that, but never gets to the point of it all. Don’t be distracted by their talk of great calvinist authorities who support their views. Don’t be bullied by accusations that you aren’t spiritual enough to understand, or that you are Arminian or whatever they think might put you down. Just keep bringing them back to the point: where does the Bible teach that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”? If they cannot demonstrate their opinions satisfactorily from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura – they love those words!) then inform them that they are out of order and have no right to teach you anything unless they can show you clearly that what you believe is non-Biblical.

And, of course, another doctrine they side-step so adroitly around (in order to leave it behind) is that of the foreknowledge of God. They will tell you that God cannot use foreknowledge because common sense tells us so (Boettner – The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), or that it is futile to discuss foreknowledge because God has already foreordained everything (Calvin – Institutes Book III Section 23 Part 6) or that the calvinist God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in Him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know (Piper – What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism 1998). They might even tell you that God’s foreknowledge refers to the establishment of a love relationship with that person (MacArthur – Considering Election Not Politics) or that it is an intimate predetermined relationship between God and His people (MacArthur – Chosen by God Part 2). And so on ad infinitum!

There are many times when calvinists so confidently inform you that you are wrong (with little or no scriptural documentation for their accusations) and then proceed to give you all the “benefits” of their “superior” intellects and understanding, after which, if you have been paying attention, you might be confused enough to think that some of what they so aggressively threw at you might be right. So, next time this happens, work out what it is they are not telling you, or what it is they have dismissed without any Biblical basis for doing so. Just keep on bringing them back to the real question: please explain from the Bible why my belief in the free will of man in salvation is wrong. Please show where the Bible teaches that “the whole world” cannot mean “the whole world”. Please tell me why God is not to be allowed to have a perfect knowledge of the future (= foreknowledge). Do not let them get onto their bandwagon of lies, but force them to demonstrate why you should listen to them in the first place. Compel them to tell you why your traditional fundamentalist beliefs are wrong, using Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone. Be single-minded in your adherence to Biblical truth. Don’t be distracted by aggression, bullying, name-calling, mud-slinging and other derogatory behaviour against you. If you believe the Bible to be true, do not let someone else come and tell you that there’s a new truth called calvinism that redefines Biblical truth into greater truth. What they really mean is that you believe a lie, so now they will reveal the truth. Esoteric knowledge? Yes! Biblical? No!

My next post will focus on why Christians should consider treating calvinists as they would Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormans etc. After all, their man-made commandments are not compatible with the doctrines of the Bible alone, so how can light have fellowship with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14-17a – ¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ¹⁶ And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ¹⁷ Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing];

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

The Seventh Day Adventist connection to new calvinism

I have documented this connection to some extent elsewhere; however, it is necessary to demonstrate the extent to which the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) teaching on daily justification has influenced the development of new calvinism.
“Seventh Day Adventists Believe …..”
Daily Justification. All believers who are living the Spirit-filled sanctified life (Christ-possessed) have a continuing need for daily justification (Christ-bestowed). We need this because of conscious transgressions and because of errors we may commit unwillingly. Realizing the sinfulness of the human heart, David requested forgiveness for his “hidden faults” (Ps. 19:12, RSV; cf. Jer. 17:9). Speaking specifically of the sins of believers, God assures us that “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).
(https://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-10.htm)

SDAs believe that it is necessary for them to continue to obey the Law of God in order to demonstrate that they are saved. They do not necessarily believe that the works of the Law save them; rather, they believe that if they are truly saved, then they will indeed obey the Law. Effectively it results in their obedience to the Law of God being that which saved them, because that is what they have to demonstrate in order to be considered saved. Obedience to the Law is theoretically a consequence of their salvation, yet in practice it becomes the cause! Therefore, if you sin, you may demonstrate your lack of justification and so you must repent, confess and renounce your sin in order to be restored to justification with God. The act of repentance remains the responsibility of the SDA believer, though.

The SDAs were not the only ones to perceive a need for daily or ongoing justification to maintain their salvation. Luther also taught that justification was ongoing: On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. (Luther’s Works Vol.34, p.167.)
Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured. (Luther’s Works Vol.34, p.191.)
Of course, Luther was still very catholic in his doctrines, being an Augustinian monk, and hadn’t quite broken free of the need for daily or regular confession for justification.

Even Calvin couldn’t clearly rule out ongoing justification when he claimed that justification and sanctification couldn’t be separated. “Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.” (Institutes Bk 3 Ch 11 Section 6)
Reformed writers such as John Murray also taught (in his document “Law and Grace”) that continuing obedience to the Law was necessary to maintain your elect status.
Puritan Anthony Burgess in 1654 wrote Thus it is here, God out of his mere grace did upon our believing put us in a state of Justification, from which favour we should fall every moment, did not God continue us therein. Hence in the Text its (unclear word) God that is continually justifying of us; ….. thus it is in our Justification, we need a constant remission, we want a perpetual imputation, because our sins and imperfections are renewed daily. (The True Doctrines of Justification Asserted & Vindicated – Anthony Burgess)

And the Gospel Coalition (of new calvinist leaders) states:
As we sin daily, so he justifies daily, and we must daily go to him for it. Justification is an ever-running fountain, and therefore we cannot look to have all the water at once.
(Quoted from puritan William Fenner, by Ray Ortlund, Renewal Ministries, www.ortlund.net, at the The Gospel Coalition National Conference, 13 April 2011. Ortlund’s website states that he is a Council member with The Gospel Coalition.)
It is reasonable to assume that the Gospel Coalition believes in both a once-off justification when born again, and an ongoing justification (by God) to maintain our righteous status before a holy God.

It was the SDA teaching of an ongoing justification process that Robert Brinsmead (an Australian who declared himself to be a Reform SDA) would take to USA with the Australian Forum around 1970. It was also in 1970 that Jay Adams, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (USA) wrote “Competent to Counsel”, a book that would abruptly change the direction of church counselling. And it was Jon Zens’ connection with Robert Brinsmead through Westminster Theological Seminary where he completed studies in 1972. It was at Westminster that he read Brinsmead’s Present truth magazine (which outlined Brinsmead’s views in the Australian Forum). Zens was reformed Baptist, but saw no real conflict with Present Truth which was reformed SDA.

It was Zens who was to do much of the pioneering work in the development of New Covenant Theology, which would play a major role in the development of Sonship Theology, which would, in turn, become known as new calvinism.
Zens’ groundbreaking articles in the late 1970s, “Is There a ‘Covenant of Grace’?” and “Crucial Thoughts on ‘Law’ in the New Covenant,” were highly instrumental in developing what came to be called “New Covenant Theology.”
(https://frankviola.me/jonzens/)
The Sonship movement finds its roots in the ministry of the late Dr. Jack Miller, founder of World Harvest Mission, a sending missions agency.
(Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church’s position on Sonship Theology)
(Jack Miller) served as pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, and taught practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. Miller founded World Harvest Mission (now named Serge) and the New Life Presbyterian network of Orthodox Presbyterian churches. He was known for emphasizing the Christian’s status as a child of God, a view known as sonship theology. (Wikipedia)

However, it was Prof Jay Adams who would be the pivotal person in the development of counselling that would support this new theology at Westminster. His ground-breaking book “Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling” came around the same time as the SDA input from Brinsmead, and the New Covenant Theology of Jon Zens. From Adams’ input came nouthetic counselling which was designed to provide counselling support for the new thinking that was developing at Westminster Seminary.

But the new nouthetic counselling movement apparently wasn’t as supportive of the developing Sonship Theology as it could have been. Jay Adams himself appears to have had strong views on the justification being a once-off event; thus his counselling methodology was going to be a problem for a theology that had taken the SDA doctrine of an ongoing or daily justification on board. If nouthetic counselling were to be an integral part of the new theology, then it had to be able to counsel for ongoing repentance and restoration by God’s grace. Nouthetic counselling allowed for God’s forgiveness, but it also assumed that God’s elect were justified once at regeneration, and that such people would demonstrate this by their puritan lifestyles. A puritan lifestyle didn’t really permit those with serious sin to continue to be declared God’s elect. If you sinned badly, you were out, off the list of elect! The nouthetic counselling of Jay Adams was therefore more suited for keeping people living within the puritan lifestyle, rather than counselling for restoration back to the puritan lifestyle if they had departed from it!

Adams didn’t actually see a problem with the name Biblical Counselling; rather, it appears that his disagreement would eventually be over its application to a doctrine of an ongoing justification for ongoing restoration.
In a 1976 book, What About Nouthetic Counseling, Adams said he actually preferred the title “biblical counseling.”
Powlison was to take over Adams position in the development of Biblical Counselling. Note that “Pastoral Practice” now becomes “Biblical Counselling”!
The next big leader in Adams’s counseling movement was David Powlison, who succeeded Adams as the editor of The Journal of Pastoral Practice and immediately renamed it The Journal of Biblical Counseling.
The new Biblical Counselling movement was then developed further by Powlison, Welch and Tripp into the Biblical Counselling in churches today.
Biblical Counsellors identify with second-generation leaders like David Powlison, Ed Welch, and Paul Tripp.
(All these quotes from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/two-sides-of-the-counseling-coin/)

All of this (that is, Sonship theology/new calvinism) has come about as a result of the fusion of ideas at Westminster, ideas such as (a) the ongoing justification of the SDA, (b) the traditional calvinism upon which Westminster was commenced (but which same doctrine was losing popularity to the young evangelical fundamentalists), and (c) the need for a church counselling model that was supportive of the doctrines taught. In fact, new calvinist John Piper says that There would be no New Calvinism without Westminster Seminary. (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-reasons-why-the-new-calvinism-is-worth-supporting/)

The fusion of these ideas initially produced nouthetic counselling which was to become Biblical Counselling, and from these counselling models developed the Sonship Theology which would then become new calvinism. It was the early development of Biblical Counselling which came first, which then required a new theology framework in which to present the new counselling model. Biblical Counselling was not greatly supportive of any theology which required living a good life (which automatically cancelled out traditional calvinism). Instead it was more supportive of a theology that catered for people who sinned regularly. Traditional calvinist theology strongly discouraged people from committing sin in the first place, and frowned upon a lifestyle that appeared to condone, even encourage sin among God’s people. But Biblical Counselling was best used to restore sinful people back to a righteous relationship with God. And, best of all, people who sinned badly didn’t have to be removed from church membership, that is, if they repented and were restored again (by God’s grace, naturally).
See New Calvinism is Biblical Counselling

The most effective theology platform for Biblical Counselling to use was therefore one that permitted God’s people to sin, yet also to repent and be restored, all by the grace of God. Such theology may not actually openly encourage people to sin – it was always accepted that proper theology should appear to discourage sin – but it should make it much easier for people to repent and be restored to fellowship in the event of them sinning.

The New Covenant Theology of Jon Zens was indeed supportive of Biblical Counselling. New Covenant Theology was refined further to become Sonship Theology, which taught that no matter how much God’s elect sinned, God’s grace would always be sufficient to overcome their sin. Basically, no matter how much you sin, you cannot ever lose your salvation if you are one of God’s elect.
Sonship Theology is an attempt to elevate grace, the assurance of salvation we have in Jesus Christ, and the intention of God to preserve Christ’s sheep so that not one is ever lost. (https://covenant-presbyterian.church/articles/from-the-pastors-desk/sonship-theology)

Sonship Theology was a perfect consequence of the development of Biblical Counselling. Sonship Theology was an effective tool for Biblical Counselling. But many calvinists were not as supportive as they could be. It just didn’t have the right image to get people’s attention. It needed a new marketing image in order to escape the obvious accusations that it was only an excuse to be able to sin without penalty from a holy God. New Covenant Theology had been seen as a development of traditional Covenant Theology; it wasn’t an alien theology but just a “new” upgraded version of the “old”. And likewise, the new marketed image of “new” calvinism (instead of Sonship Theology) was seen as an upgraded version of the “old” calvinism. And in the past 12 or so years, new calvinism has become the name of the theology that was developed to support the doctrines of Biblical Counselling in the church today. The marketing has indeed been very successful, so far.

For further related reading please go to:

New calvinism is Biblical Counselling

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

The New Calvinism Gospel

Biblical Counselling & New Calvinism today

The Gospel of New Calvinism

Also try these:

The False Calvinist Gospel blog

The False Calvinist Gospel

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.

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

This is part of a larger document called The Gospel of New Calvinism which covers both the gospel and Biblical Counselling of new calvinism today.
New calvinism is a term loosely applied to a syncretistic belief system based upon the merging of Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) beliefs and traditional calvinist beliefs. It was a Seventh Day Adventist with calvinist leanings named Robert Brinsmead who was largely responsible for kick-starting what we call new calvinism today. Brinsmead led the Australian Forum (a think tank group of people to discuss calvinist SDA beliefs). In 1970 the Australian Forum commenced to spread its reformed or calvinist SDA views, and these views were taken up by Westminster Theological Seminary (USA).  

Also, in 1970 Jay Adams of Westminster Seminary published “Competent to Counsel”, a document that would eventually lead to what we know today as the Biblical Counselling movement. But, the views of the Australian Forum were to also merge with the traditional calvinist views of Westminster Seminary to lead, firstly to Sonship Theology, which was then adapted and relabelled as new calvinism. The traditional calvinist views were to be transformed into the new calvinism of the Young, Restless and Reformed (YRR), a phrase apparently coined for new calvinists by Christianity Today in 2006.

So what are the distinctives of new calvinism? It is clear that Brinsmead (with his Australian Forum) and Jay Adams (with his new direction on counselling) both played a major part in this new calvinist belief system. New calvinism is a fusion, a merging together, of traditional calvinism and SDA beliefs. Take the traditional calvinist gospel of the unconditional election which taught that if you were one of God’s elect, you were guaranteed your salvation forever. But if you didn’t persevere in the works of righteousness, then you were not one of God’s elect and therefore you were not going to heaven, ever. That is, one major sinful strike and you’re out!

However, add the SDA gospel which taught that if you fell into sin, you could choose to repent, confess and renounce your sin. In this way God would provide regular sanctification so that you could be regularly justified. Thus, you add the SDA fusion of an ongoing justification based upon an ongoing sanctification (which resulted from your ongoing repentance, confession and renouncing of sin).
This is a major tenet taught by new calvinists today, that we need an ongoing or daily justification.
As we sin daily, so he justifies daily, and we must daily go to him for it.
(Justification Vs Self-justification, The Gospel Coalition National Conference 13/04/11)

Calvinists could now sin and regain their justification and still have a guarantee of salvation at the end. And, the SDAs gained from this a guarantee of salvation which their old gospel didn’t give them.
(For further reading, see The New Calvinism Gospel post and The Gospel of New Calvinism.)

This new gospel of the new calvinists was a seller. That it wasn’t scripturally correct didn’t matter; when did being scripturally correct matter today in an age of such consumerism? (That is, you deliver the goods that the population wants, and they’ll beat a pathway to your door!) No longer did they have to, as calvinists, kick out those who sinned badly, and declaring them to be not of God’s elect. No, that was a thing of the past. Now, if a person could be convinced to repent, confess and renounce his sin, then he could remain in the church, for God would only have granted repentance to his elect. Losing members due to sinful behaviour had been a problem in the past. Not only did it lower the numbers in church (and, very importantly, the offering!) but it prevented the scandal of having sinful church members being the cause of others not coming to their church. But now even the sinners could stay (and play and pay!).

This was to form the basis of 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. Now the demonstration of your election had gone from living a puritan lifestyle to a willingness to be able to repent of and renounce any sin you committed!

But how do you administer such a loose belief system? If people may be permitted to sin, then repent, confess and renounce such sin in order to remain acceptable to their God (often for the sake of the church and its leaders!), then what’s to stop them from abusing this system? What’s to stop them from committing sin as and when they like, knowing that they’ll be still able to get up and continue running the race? What checks and balances are there in such a system? You don’t want to kick people out because a good business never kicks out its better customers. But you do need some form of control to prevent it turning into a sin free-for-all. You need “control”!

Enter Biblical Counselling! Over the centuries the catholic church has used the confessional to control its members. Originally known as nouthetic counselling, Biblical Counselling has now taken the place of the catholic confession. New calvinism theology required an ongoing repentance leading to ongoing justification, and Biblical Counselling would provide the practical means by which God’s “elect” would demonstrate their election by the repentance allegedly given to them as a gift from God.

Biblical Counsellors often encourage people to confess sins, telling them that sin is the basis for their problems, and that the removal of such sin is the first step toward solving their problems. If you have a problem, then sin is responsible somewhere, and that includes you. What sin might you have committed that could have helped cause the problem? If you have a problem with another person, for instance, what is your particular responsibility for what has happened. If your husband has been unfaithful to you, then what might you have done to lead to this happening? Perhaps if you’d been a better wife, then maybe this mightn’t have happened. Biblical Counsellors are seemingly more interested in keeping the peace in the church than they are with seeking actual truth. In fact, truth becomes a problem if it might get in the way of reconciliation!

Church leaders want their churches to be big, rich and successful. This means lots of people putting lots of money into the offering plates! Sinful behaviour and scandals aren’t helpful. Reconciliation for all is the name of the game, even if some truth has to be sacrificed for the sake of the unity of the brethren!
Of course, if these sinners had sinned against another member of that church community, then it required that those alleged victims of the sin (or crime as it would often turn out) also should forgive and forget such sin. If God had forgiven such sin, then those offended church members should be able to do no less than to also forgive and forget. The sinner was now reconciled to the new calvinist God and therefore the victims should likewise be reconciled to the sinner who had offended them – even if that sin was a crime such as child abuse or rape, wife-beating or being unfaithful to one’s spouse.

All this was usually dealt with under the heading of Biblical Counselling, in an effort to get the sinner to repent, confess and renounce his sin. And, of course, the victims were also counselled (biblically, of course!) to give up their feelings (of anger etc) that were not helping in the process of reconciliation. Biblical Counselling became a means by which the church and its leadership might try to retain control over a church which was breaking up due to the aggravated sin of some members.

But many victims of such crime became upset, when they saw the church accept the repentance and renouncing of the sin of the perpetrator. They couldn’t understand why the church was refusing to hand it over to the police, preferring to deal with it within the church body. The victims felt that the church had sided with the perpetrator at their expense, all for the sake of keeping the church “clean” from scandal. The sinner might have been “rescued” for God, but the victims were expected to deny justice to their family because it might harm the eternal security of the sinner. And it was best to keep it out of the hands of secular authorities too. The victim all too often then became the criminal, being treated as such by many churches. The anti-“whistle-blower” mentality is strong in churches that strive for success rather than the gospel. The catch-cry was the fight to maintain the unity of the church, even if it meant creating division to achieve such unity! Divisive elements could easily be persuaded to leave.

Because ongoing justification was dependent upon ongoing sanctification, and because it is to be expected that all will commit regular sin (even church members in good standing), then Biblical Counselling requires that all should be ready and willing to regularly confess sin, repenting and renouncing it. In this way all sin would hopefully be brought out into the open (and dealt with). If a Biblical Counsellor perceived (rightly or wrongly!) a problem with someone, he or she could report such confession to the church for possible disciplinary action. Such disciplinary action could lead to the one confessing a sin to be approached by the church, often in the public forum of a church members’ meeting or church service, in order to challenge that alleged “sinner’ with his or her sin, and a requirement that they deal with it. (Even if they had actually been the victim!)

Public naming and shaming is a part of the discipline of many new calvinist churches. Many also have discipline agreement documents that prospective members are required to sign before they may be permitted to join. Biblical Counselling can be used as a means of control of church members, especially in new calvinist churches such as C J Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries (which has also been extensively exposed as having child abuse problems within its ranks with alleged evidences of cover-up by church leaders – see https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/14/the-sex-abuse-scandal-that-devastated-a-suburban-megachurch-sovereign-grace-ministries/).
The confidentiality of the confessional has also been used to attempt control in new calvinist churches – see https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/has-god-foreordained-an-alleged-child-sex-abuse-cover-up-in-sovereign-grace-ministrieschurches-is-that-why-cj-mahaney-is-so-sacred/ to see how C J Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries tried to blackmail one of his members.

It is good that a church should be able to counsel its members and good also that such counselling be Biblical. However, counsellors accredited with Biblical Counselling Australia (as most accredited church counsellors in Australia are today) are neither Biblical, nor good counsellors. And if you feel you have the need of a Biblical Counsellor, be very careful what you say, for what you say may be taken down as evidence and used against you. (Except that they don’t have to read you your “rights” before they start the interrogation!)

In conclusion, when looking for a suitable church to attend, try to avoid those who advertise Biblical Counselling, as it is all too often a euphemism for overly strict discipline and control of its members. And don’t sign a discipline agreement before joining a church. Church discipline is certainly a necessary part of a Christian’s life; all of us must be accountable to someone somewhere for our actions. But when counselling is used for the purposes of establishing authority, rather than helping the person, it becomes a controlling whip in the hands of the church. Control without compassion is a dictatorship.

See also

Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today

The New Calvinism Gospel blog

The Gospel of new Calvinism

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.

Local Fundamentalist Pastor Heresy

The day and age in which we live is rapidly defining itself as the Laodicean age (Revelation 3:14-22). The Laodicean church was a lukewarm church, neither hot (representing fervour for God) nor cold (fervour for the world). God says that He would prefer it to at least come out in the open and proclaim just exactly what it believed in, either for or against Him. But the Laodicean church couldn’t commit itself one way or the other. No doubt, like many churches today, it regularly taught one thing and practised another, or held back on any controversial teachings because they might cause conflict, rock the boat so to speak. Getting along with your fellow Christian has become so important today that even truth must be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the peace! Community overrules truth! People these days are so afraid to rock the church boat that they will put up with borderline (or worse) heresy rather than create a disagreement with another “Christian”. Of course, that’s when they actually know that what’s being taught is not the complete truth of the Bible. However, all too often they trust their pastors and teachers so much that they are seemingly reluctant to test everything they say against the truth of the Bible. And ignorance is no excuse! “What you don’t know can’t hurt you” appears to be the catch-cry of so many “Christians” today. And they’re wrong!

It is essential that each genuine Christian ascertain the truth of what he believes directly from the Bible. To this end he is encouraged to make use of the experienced teaching of pastors and mature Christians, whether personally or via media such as books and DVDs, etc. However, never should Christians accept any teachings without also assessing them against the truth of the Bible.
Acts 17:10-12 – ¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. ¹¹ These 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. ¹² Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

So, if you desire to see many around you believe in the truth of the Scriptures, then you must search the Scriptures daily to see if those things that you have been taught are actually true! By doing so, you may then declare yourself to be a fundamentalist believer, one who believes in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, rightly dividing the word of truth as taught by the Bible.

But, many alleged fundamentalists are only that because they claim to be such. For instance, John MacArthur is often proclaimed to be a respected theologian and Bible teacher, therefore a fundamentalist. He has produced many books and other documents including a book called Fundamentals of the Faith which may be found in many church libraries and in the homes of many church-goers. However, MacArthur is far from being fundamentalist; in fact, his doctrines include many serious unacceptable heresies. Being a calvinist, MacArthur teaches a false gospel that is in conflict with the gospel of the Bible. Read MacArthur Teaches Works Salvation, The False Calvinist Gospel blog, The False Calvinist Gospel, Calvinism is the Non-gospel and Calvinists Born Again before they are Saved.

MacArthur claims to be a Christian, yet he has no testimony of when he was saved at the cross of Jesus. He appears to claim that he has never been lost!
PHIL: How old were you when you first recall sensing your need for Christ?
JOHN: Well I always believed the gospel. I don’t ever…I don’t ever remember a time when I didn’t believe the gospel.
(MacArthur’s Life Testimony Code 80-33)
Apparently MacArthur has been so good all his life that he’s never needed to be saved!

He claims his ministry to be the consequence of a godly heritage, yet his immediate ancestors were apparently more involved with freemasonry than Christianity. He claims that his spiritual fruit and harvest has come through from his great grandfather who was a Presbyterian minister and a Freemason Grand Master, both at the same time! Read Is MacArthur a Freemason?

MacArthur also teaches as if he is an expert scholar of Greek and Hebrew, yet he gets even basic interpretations wrong. Read MacArthur is Wrong where MacArthur misquotes a Greek rule to “prove” from Acts 2:23 that God’s foreknowledge is the same as God’s predetermined counsel. In MacArthur is Wrong – Again! MacArthur teaches that, because of Hebrew parallelism, “many” cannot mean the same as “many” if they are both used in the same verse (Romans 5:15), and that “all” cannot mean the same as “all” if they are both used in the same verse (Romans 5:18). Is MacArthur incompetent or is he a liar? Each of these documents has extra links to other calvinist documents for further reading.

Many churches worldwide have taken MacArthur’s false doctrines on board, demonstrating a distinct lack of discernment in doing so. A local church, Grace West Bible Church, is a clone or franchise of MacArthur’s church, having almost identical doctrinal statements. Thus, it claims to teach the same false doctrines and heresies as MacArthur’s church, including the same false gospel. This false calvinist gospel states clearly that God has from the beginning unconditionally chosen a small group of people (the elect) to go to heaven, while also choosing the vast majority of the world’s population to go to hell. “Unconditionally” means that no-one has any say in the matter, whether they are going to heaven or (most likely) hell. For all people, it is your destiny to be chosen by God to go to either heaven or to hell! Read The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 1.

In fact, MacArthur, being a calvinist, has to teach that Jesus only died for the sins of God’s chosen elect. The calvinist Jesus didn’t die for any of the sins of the vast majority of the world. Even if one of those not chosen by God wanted to be saved, the calvinist God would still reject them, because their sins were never paid for on the cross. They literally can’t be saved, ever! (Read The Big Lie of the Calvinists.) MacArthur says that it was never the intention of God to save everyone anyway! Read The False Calvinist Gospel blog and The False Calvinist Gospel. Also read The Calvinist God created most of Mankind for Torment in Hell and MacArthur Teaches Works Salvation.

Of course, God of the Bible does choose an elect group of people, the election. However, it is dependent upon Him knowing by foreknowledge who will call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (which is the true gospel of the Bible). (Which is why the calvinists cannot accept that God’s foreknowledge means His perfect knowledge of the future!)

If you want to get saved, don’t go to Grace West, for if their God doesn’t want to save you, then according to them you will remain lost, even if you wanted to be saved! In fact, they have to teach that if you prayed a prayer asking God to save you, then you are still lost, unless the calvinist God has already previously decided that he wants you on that list of elect, regardless of your goodness or evil! If you are not on that list, no prayer can, or ever will, save you! They are forced to teach that you do not choose God; God chooses you! You have no say in the matter at all! If God has chosen you to be saved, then you will be saved; nothing you can do will ever prevent you from being saved. And, if God has chosen you for hell, then you will go to hell! This is truly the Non-gospel of the calvinist. Read Calvinism is the Non-gospel.

Another local church, Living Springs Baptist, while pretending to be a fundamentalist church, claims on its website to be a like-minded sister church to Grace West Bible Church. Therefore Living Springs has, by their own admission, a false doctrine similar to Grace West, and thus they likewise teach the same heresies, including the same false gospel. Otherwise they could not be a like-minded sister church! Living Springs has used materials by calvinist Todd Friel (as advertised on the Living Springs Baptist website under Ministries/Small Groups), who teaches that if you prayed the sinners’ prayer, you are not saved and you are still going to hell. No Christian ministry should be teaching their members such heresy as Todd Friel teaches. Read The Heresy of Todd Friel.

But wait! That’s not all! Living Springs also apparently considers Gary Thomas to be a good Christian teacher. According to their website, they have been studying Thomas’ book “Sacred Marriage” which claims to be Christian. However, it quotes favourably from “Conjugal Spirituality” (by Mary Anne Oliver), a book that teaches how to use kundalini yoga and tantric sex, both involving demonism. Thomas also quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche (who teaches nihilism, and that God is dead). Gary Thomas elsewhere also advocates heresies such as contemplative and centering prayer (which is little more than crying out endless mantras to demons, a very un-Christian practice). Read Gary Thomas – New Age Teacher.

In both of these churches, it is the pastor who ultimately must take responsibility for the doctrines taught in his church. Pastors have an awesome responsibility to serve God by shepherding His flocks. This demands that they be called by God to do so, or else they will certainly fail. And if such pastors cause such heresy to be taught to their church members, then those pastors are guilty of offending those little ones of God as per Matthew 18:6 – 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.
That is, it is better to not be a pastor than to pretend to be a pastor called by God and offend His little ones by teaching such heresies.

Yet another pastor of a supposedly fundamentalist church in our area has allegedly chosen to use Paul Tripp study materials. If this is true, he has shown a distinct lack of discernment. Paul Tripp, a calvinist, focuses upon what he would call Biblical Counselling, yet much of his teachings are far from Biblical. He teaches that when we become Christians we are infected with a terrible disease called identity amnesia. What’s worse, we don’t even know we have this disease until a friendly neighbourhood “Biblical Counsellor” comes along to tell us all about it and to be “healed” by this counsellor. It sounds far too much like snake-oil salesmanship to me! That is, you need to sell your snake-oil medicine, but no-one wants it, so you persuade them that they are actually sick and have need of your snake-oil. Consequently they buy it, thinking they’re now going to be healed of a sickness which they most likely don’t have, never had, or doesn’t even exist at all! These so-called Biblical Counsellors of the Paul Tripp type create the problem that they then try to “cure” for you! This creation of a problem in order to solve it is called the Hegelian Dialectic. Read Paul Trip – Heretic or Tare?

This same church now advertises Biblical Counselling as one of its ministries, which is quite interesting considering that Paul Tripp material is used extensively by Biblical Counselling Australia (BCA) – see https://www.biblicalcounselling.org.au/training-in-biblical-counselling/ where workbooks and DVDs produced by Tim Lane and Paul Tripp are advertised as part of their “biblical counselling” training. The four directors of BCA (as noted on their website) have all done courses through CCEF (Christian Counseling & Education Foundation) which is closely affiliated with Westminster Theological Seminary (USA) which is (and has been for many years) a training and resource centre for calvinism and reformed theology. Much of today’s aggressive marketing of “New Calvinism” (embraced by such as Piper, MacArthur, Mohler, Keller) has been initiated at Westminster Theological Seminary, including what is widely known today as “Biblical Counselling” (although much of its teachings are far from Biblical!). Biblical Counselling was for many years known as nouthetic counselling which was originally developed by Prof Jay Adams of Westminster Seminary through the writing of his book “Competent to Counsel” in 1970. Nouthetic counselling was developed further into Biblical Counselling by David Powlison along with others such as Tim Lane and Paul Tripp. For further information, please read Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today.

If this local supposedly fundamentalist church is using BCA materials to support its Biblical Counselling ministry, then such a ministry is based upon the corrupt calvinist (reformed) teachings of Westminster Theological Seminary. Such a counselling ministry cannot be acceptable to the God of the Bible, for calvinism itself is a doctrine without an effective gospel for mankind’s sin. Although, if they have chosen to use Paul Tripp materials in the past, then they would probably see no problem with continuing to use Tripp’s heresies under the pretense of calling it “Biblical” Counselling. And the use of Paul Tripp (and related) materials can only lead a church into apostasy.

I am told that when this supposedly fundamentalist pastor was challenged (in the past) regarding the use of Paul Tripp materials, he allegedly said that he took the material on the recommendation of another church pastor. This might be so, perhaps, although it does seem possible that it could have arisen from studies in Biblical Counselling. Of course, a genuine pastor should be very wary of following up the recommendations of another without firstly testing all things. He has a responsibility to shepherd his flock, which will always overrule making agreements with pastors of other churches!

However, the truth remains: that if he has taught heresy through the use of Tripp’s materials, whether or not on the advice of another pastor, he has offended those little ones of God. And, could the alleged “another pastor” be a friendly neighbourhood calvinist pastor who cannot see any conflict between his own calvinist heresies and Tripp’s false teaching, consequently recommending Paul Tripp to other local pastors? In any case, any pastor who cannot discern danger (such as Tripp’s heresies) for his church members should reassess his calling to be pastor. And God will hold all pastors responsible for their leadership of their flocks, and not for how well they get along with other pastors of other churches! For information on Paul Tripp, read Paul Tripp – Heretic or Tare? and The Gospel of New Calvinism.

And finally, it’s ironic that just a generation ago, fundamentalists were quite rightly condemnatory of the heresies taught via the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV), yet today they use a revised version of the RSV in many supposedly fundamentalist churches. And what is that version called? Well, just to throw fundamentalists off the scent, they have renamed this version the English Standard Version (ESV).
The English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible. It is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version (Wikipedia)
With this name change and the backing of the calvinists (who had a significant input into the ESV), that which was rightly despised has now become highly desirable! Funny how views can change if you’re not doing your homework properly, isn’t it!

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.

John 6:44 – Does it really prove calvinist teachings?

Calvinists are quite fond of taking hold of a verse (usually in isolation) and using it, often aggressively, to “prove” that they are right and therefore all others are wrong. They will teach in such a way that makes it difficult at times to oppose them without openly accusing them of heresy. If you have some respect for the person who is pushing his calvinist views largely to the exclusion of other views, it can be uncomfortable to argue without feeling as if you might be offending that person. And many good Christians are reluctant to think that they might have offended another “Christian”.

All too often, calvinists will imply, suggest or even openly state, that to not believe as they do defines the other person as a somewhat lesser Christian, or even, perhaps, lacking spirituality because they are bereft of God’s spiritual guidance. If you disagree, then they will quote their “experts” in books and articles written by calvinist “teachers”, many of whom may be well-known, if not necessarily correct. It can be quite overwhelming, even daunting, for a Christian to be inundated with such a flood of opposing teachings. All too often those Christians will tend to agree in order to avoid an argument, and, if they “agree” as such for long enough, they may even start believing what the calvinists are saying. It’s a mild (or not so mild) form of brainwashing.

(Jehovah’s Witnesses use a similar form of aggressive argument: they are taught to answer most opposition by using suitably impressive references including Bible verses that, in isolation, appear to support their views. Their Watchtower Society constantly trains them for such debate.)

John 6:44 is one of the classic calvinist verses that is used to “prove” that (a) those who come to Christ are the only ones called by the Father, and (b) therefore man has no free will to choose to be saved.

John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The calvinist will interpret this verse to say that if the Father draws a person, then that person will come to Christ. They teach that if a person doesn’t come to Christ, then the Father did not draw him. Therefore, says the calvinist, this demonstrates that no-one has the free will to choose for himself, for this verse “proves” that God chooses for all people. (That is, unconditional election or choosing by God alone, rather than an election or choosing conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of future decisions to be saved.)

And, in fact, if this calvinist teaching is presented aggressively, it can appear to be correct, unless you test all things. It is not always easy to oppose views when they are presented so forcefully, even when you feel that such views might not be consistent with what you believed concerning the Bible. When opposing such forceful and aggressive teachings, it is essential to know exactly what you believe and why.

For instance, MacArthur’s church (Grace Community Bible Church, California) states “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” (John 6:44 is one of their supporting verses.) That is, everyone who is called by the Father will come in faith and be received. If you are called, you will come; therefore, if you do not come, you were not called. To the unthinking Christian, this interpretation of John 6:44 can appear correct. But such teaching is actually false. That is not what John 6:44 is saying at all! All it is saying is that every person who comes must have been called by the Father, yet it doesn’t say that every person who is called by the Father must come.

In Jesus’ day, to refuse a gift or invitation was to offend the one who offered it. Even if you didn’t want the gift or invitation, you would usually accept unless you desired to offend the one who offered it. In the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) many are called but these refuse the invitation, some violently. So, the king punishes them and then calls others to the feast. The passage ends with “For many are called, but few [are] chosen.” (Matthew 22:14) Being invited (or called) to a wedding feast was an important event not to be treated lightly. But you could still refuse that invitation!

You couldn’t attend a wedding feast unless you had an invitation, a calling to be there. (Matthew 22:3 says “bidden” which means to be called or invited by name.) No-one might come unless they had been personally invited by the father of the groom. But getting an invitation did not mean you had to go; you were greatly obligated to go, but you could still refuse the invitation.

Now look at John 6:44 again: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him. But, the calvinists say, the word “draw” means to drag or force. Yes, in many cases it actually means that. But what about John 12:32 where Jesus says “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.” That is the same word “draw” used here. In order for calvinists to explain this, they are forced to teach that “all” does not mean “all” but perhaps “all the elect” or similar. The word “draw” can mean to use debate to persuade someone, that is, to draw someone to your point of view, or to draw their attention to something.

Take another look at John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Where does it say that a person cannot refuse or resist the drawing of the Father. The calvinist then says that the grace of God is irresistible and cannot be refused. (This is one of their basic calvinist doctrines.) But that assumes man has no free will to be able to choose to resist. It assumes that God forces the person to come, and that person cannot resist. But does this verse teach such or is it an assumption based upon calvinist heresy?

Paul taught that man could indeed resist what God has ordained.
Romans 13:2 – Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[ordinance = a law set forth by a governmental authority; Merriam Webster says that an ordinance is something ordained by fate or a deity (such as God).]

And Stephen, sitting in the council of the religious leaders, said to them:
Acts 7:51 – Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.
Thus it is scriptural to teach that man has a free will to accept or resist God. Of course, the calvinists then have to teach that God foreordained their acceptance or resistance of Him, because it cannot be by their free will! (And they do teach such!)

So what John 6:44 is really saying is that you cannot come to Christ unless the Father has drawn you. It cannot deny that all have been drawn to Christ (see John 12:32) with many people consequently resisting that drawing.
All who come must have been drawn, but it cannot equate to all that are drawn must come. That’s backward logic, like saying that because a dog is an animal with four legs, then all animals with four legs must be dogs.

John 6:44 does not deny free will to mankind, especially noting that free will to choose between good and evil, between God and the world, is taught consistently throughout the Bible. Therefore, in order for calvinists to demonstrate that John 6:44 “proves” their definition of the election, they must also demonstrate that free will of mankind is consistently denied throughout the Bible. This they cannot do. Only without the existence of free will can calvinists teach that all whom the Father calls must come in faith! Their teachings are based upon false premises and are only as truthful as the lies upon which they are based.

For further reading on the subject of John 6:44, go to John 6:44.

As a postscript, here’s some more questions for calvinists:

1/. Why did Jesus say to His disciples further down, in John 6:72, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” where “chosen” is the verb form of the adjective form used in 1 Peter 1:2 – Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
Why did Jesus choose Judas when He knew Judas would serve satan?

2/. Why did Jesus say to all His disciples in John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” when Judas was still one of that group? Judas has been chosen, ordained, to bring forth fruit, yet he doesn’t.

3/. Why does Jesus say in John 6:39 say, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”
Yet, after having chosen a devil (Judas) in John 6:72, and ordained that they should bear fruit (including Judas) in John 15:16, why does Jesus say of His disciples in John 17:12, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
What? Jesus kept them all, none of them is lost, except Judas. If John 6:39 is teaching about all the elect of God being given to Jesus, that He should lose none of them, then how is Judas lost after he has been chosen as per John 6:72? Clearly, to be consistent, calvinists cannot interpret John 6:39 as they do.

4/. If “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), then why is the number chosen less than the number called. Why would God call a large number of people to the wedding feast, yet only choose some of them? How can this be explained without the free will of mankind? How does this compare with MacArthur’s church doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” if in fact not all who are called will be chosen! (Of course, MacArthur says that Matthew 22:14 is “the general call of the gospel, the general outward invitation of the gospel” and that only the elect or chosen of God get the efficacious or effectual call to be saved. (https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call)
Clearly, to the calvinist, the gospel is merely the general outward invitation which, according to MacArthur, will be ineffectual to save!

That brings us to question 5/. Why does God make a general call for all to be saved when calvinism teaches that Jesus only died for the sins of those who will receive the effectual call? Isn’t this deviousness at best from the calvinist God, to invite people when he has no intention of letting them in the door? Truly the calvinist God is no better than a politician who makes many promises but only delivers a few (if any)!

6/. Why does God say (in Jeremiah 32:35), “And 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.” if He has ordained such decisions from the beginning (as calvinists would have us believe)? God says here that He did not command them to do such things, nor did it even come into His mind (mind; knowledge; thinking; reflection; memory; inclination; resolution; determination of will). How can Judah do such things unless it is by their own free-will rebellion against God?

If calvinism is true doctrine, then why are there so many anomalies in their “explanations”? And why, after having asked such questions many times, has not one calvinist been able to refute these statements from a Biblical viewpoint? In fact, my arguments have been read by many people, some of whom must surely be calvinist, yet not one has been able to refute satisfactorily from the Bible alone any of my challenges to them! Clearly they don’t believe in sola scriptura (the Bible alone)!

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.

As I read through the Bible I keep finding things that don’t add up with what Calvinists such as John MacArthur and John Piper, etc, try to tell us. That people have no free will to choose God, and that they are already ordained to either heaven or hell before they are born. And that foreknowledge doesn’t mean that God knows the future before it happens because He can see from outside of time and therefore knows who will choose to follow Him, but instead they say He knows who the Christians will be because he’s already written the script!!  My current reading is from Jeremiah 6 and I will put in relevant parts to show what I mean:

The LORD speaking through Jeremiah to the people of Israel and in particular those in Jerusalem. In the previous chapter also there are relevant verses quoted.

“O LORD, are not Your eyes on the truth? You have stricken them, but they have not grieved; You have consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to return. Therefore I said, ‘Surely these are poor. They are foolish; for they do not know the way of the LORD, the judgment of their God.'” – Jeremiah 5:3-4

“I will go to the great men and speak to them, for they have known the way of the LORD, the judgment of their God. But these have altogether broken the yoke and burst the bonds. ………………..Because their transgressions are many; their backslidings have increased.

How shall I pardon you for this? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by those that are not gods when I had fed them to the full, then they committed adultery ………….every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the LORD.” – Jeremiah 5:5-9

“And it will be when you say, ‘Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?’ then you shall answer them, ‘Just as you have forsaken Me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve aliens (strangers) in a land that is not yours’.

“But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; they have revolted and departed. They do not say in their heart, ‘Let us now fear the LORD our God’. ………………….Your iniquities have turned these things away (the good seasons and harvests etc.), and your sins have withheld good things from you.” – Jeremiah 5:23-25

“Be instructed, O Jerusalem, lest My soul depart from you;” – Jeremiah 6:8

“To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? ……..the word of the LORD is a reproach to them; they have no delight in it. Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD…………..Everyone is given to covetousness; …………everyone deals falsely. ……Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;”  – Jeremiah 6:10-15

“Thus says the LORD: ‘stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls’. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’ ………………..Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not heeded My words, nor My law, but rejected Me.” – Jeremiah 6:16-19

“The smelter refines in vain, for the wicked are not drawn off. People will call them rejected silver, because the LORD has rejected them”. – Jeremiah 6:29-30

The more I read different passages of the Bible, the more I see clearly that man was given free will. Calvinist stand on the doctrine of man having no free will (or only free will to choose their evil in the words of some well known Calvinists).

Let’s go to Jeremiah chapter 7 today and see what the prophet Jeremiah says about what the Lord God says (We cant argue against the words of God Himself can we?). I will include a number of verses from Jeremiah 7 but please read and study yourself to see if it is so. Do not ever take the words of a preacher as truth. Check God’s word and see if what they say is truth.

Jeremiah Chapter 7 (KJV):

1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,

3 Thus saith the Lord of host, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.

4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD are these.

5 For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;

6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:

7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.

9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;

10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices;

23 But this thing commended I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

28 But you shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

So here we have clearly written that God commanded them NOT to do all these abominations which provoke God to wrath, neither did it come into His heart! It wasn’t on His mind for them to do this. Yet Calvinists would have you believe God ordains evil? Or would a simpler approach be to be consistent with the entire bible in believing the truth that man has free will. This free will given by God and man will be held accountable for their free will choices. God giving man free will in no way makes God less sovereign nor does it add one bit to Salvation as a work of man. Accepting a gift as any dictionary can tell you, does not add to the gift. If your parent gifts you a new car, you accepting it is not adding to the car. It is still a car whether you receive it or not. All you have to do is choose. All we have to do is tell people about the free gift so they can choose.

In the passage above and other passages in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32) it is clear that the people of Israel rebelled against God and chose to do things which God did not intend for them. He had no desire for them to do abominations which would provoke Him to anger and cause Him to have to punish them. God has made it clear throughout the entire bible that He desires the salvation of man. He sent His son Jesus Christ to die in our place to redeem us. And as clearly stated throughout the Bible, the payment on the cross was for all (all of course not meaning anything other than all – unlike what many Calvinists will teach).

Is MacArthur a Freemason?

MacArthur (of Grace Community Church) makes a lot of his claims that he is so Biblical in his teaching, with Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time heading each of his online documents. He does teach but one verse at a time, as a result notably ignoring many contextual truths in his efforts to teach false doctrines, thus denying his claim to be teaching God’s truth! It would be a vast improvement on the accuracy of his teachings if he were to teach using the consistency of many verses at the same time. It can be truly said that just about anything can be taught using one verse at a time, while genuine Scriptural doctrine is best taught using all relevant verses at a time! But so many people believe MacArthur because he sounds so genuine in his claims to be so Biblical. It’s a pity they don’t check out his teachings first.

Of course, a lot of people have read this document, and not one yet has attempted to demonstrate that MacArthur is not a freemason; obviously no-one is willing to deny such an accusation! Or else they’d tell me otherwise, wouldn’t they? Silence is always taken as an inability to defend. Does such silence mean that MacArthur serves the same god as freemasonry? Please feel free to comment on the  Contact page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

So many of those gullible people (who consider MacArthur to be incapable of ever making a doctrinal mistake) just accept what he says as gospel truth. When he states that the Granville Sharp rule (of Greek) demonstrates that God’s foreknowledge is predetermined by God (Acts 2:23), people then quote it as absolute truth, disregarding the fact that MacArthur has misused this rule either deliberately or through sheer incompetence. (See MacArthur is Wrong). Or his misuse of the rules of Hebrew parallelism in a vain attempt to demonstrate that “many” cannot mean the same as “many” if the word is used twice in the same verse (Romans 5:15) and that “all” cannot mean the same as “all” if the word is used twice in the same verse (Romans 5:18). (See MacArthur is Wrong – Again!)

Some people have stated that MacArthur is opposed to Freemasonry, so I searched to see what he said about them – see the following from True Worship Pt 3.
Now, that (Masonry) is a religion.  Anything that says it’s a divinely appointed institution, designed to draw men nearer to God, to give them a clear conception of their proper relationship to God, to men and the ultimate destiny of their human soul, that’s a religion.  Masonry is a religion even though they don’t want to admit it. ……..

…… Well, I think you understand, that’s enough, frankly, to sicken anyone because that’s (i.e. Masonry) a Satanic false religion.  It is unacceptable.  And there are myriads of such unacceptable kinds of worship.  And destiny is determined by that.  You may think you’re worshipping God, but you’re not.
(https://www.gty.org/library/print/sermons-library/2006)

So it does appear as if MacArthur has correctly understood that freemasonry is a satanic false religion, one that seeks to serve its master, satan. Freemasonry is indeed satanism, witchcraft, false worship of the worst kind. You would also expect that if MacArthur personally knew of any freemasons, he would openly condemn their false religion of worshipping satan. So, let’s see what our research reveals!

MacArthur wrote in A Father’s Legacy in 2005:
My Dad, Dr. John “Jack” MacArthur, was born March 30, 1914, in Calgary, Alberta, to Harry and Olivia Fullerton MacArthur. His mother’s father was a Presbyterian minister on Prince Edward Island, and his father, who dedicated his life to Christ as an adult, served as a pastor and an example for his young son. …….
My grandfather took over the church’s pastorate in 1943 as Dad moved to Fountain Avenue Baptist Church in Hollywood, California. At Fountain Avenue, Dad helped establish the Holly wood Christian group, an outreach to people in the film and television industries. He counted Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, who came to Christ under his preaching, as close personal friends.
(https://www.voiceofcalvaryradio.com/legacy3.htm)

In “A Father’s Legacy”, MacArthur makes two interesting statements. One is that his father’s maternal grandfather (Thomas Fullerton) and therefore MacArthur’s great grandfather, was a Presbyterian minister on Prince Edward Island.
MacArthur also praises the spiritual harvest that has resulted from that ministry of his great grandfather Thomas Fullerton:
The good news is, when the soil is prepared by God, there’s going to be an explosion of spiritual fruit and the harvest will go on and on and on and on and on and on. A nice young man in our church was recently in Prince Edward Island and I had said in the church service that my great grandfather was a pastor of St. James Kirk Presbyterian Kirk in Prince Edward Island back in the 1800’s. So when he was up there, he started digging around and found all kinds of things about my great grandfather. Thomas Fullerton was his name and he was pastor there at the main church in Charletown(?) (Charlottetown) for about twenty-eight years. He was a chaplain in the Canadian Military and he went to the Bower(?) (Boer) War in South Africa and fought and did ministry among the troops. And you look back and that and you say, “Okay, there’s a…his father was also a pastor who had been in Scotland and then gone to Australia and come there and at some point the Lord plowed the heart of that family and it just kept going and it just kept going and it kept going and it came down through my…from my great-grandfather to my grandmother, his daughter, and then through her to my father and then through me and this is the explosion and we’re all in this process somewhere.
(https://www.gty.org/library/print/sermons-library/41-18)

Up until now it looks like MacArthur (according to his statements) belongs to a great evangelistic family with a spiritual harvest that we might tend to assume was somewhat akin to a vibrant Christian missionary ministry. It says of Thomas Fullerton’s father (MacArthur’s great great grandfather) in “A Father’s Legacy” that he dedicated his life to Christ as an adult, serving as a pastor and an example for his young son (who would have been MacArthur’s great grandfather, Thomas Fullerton). (Or it says of MacArthur’s father’s father that he was an example for his young son – the statement doesn’t make it clear here.) And, upon hearing all this, we might well think that MacArthur’s ancestry was really full-on with Christian teaching and preaching the gospel of Christ. It does show just how misled we can get when we are only given one side of the story, for some very important facts have been completely left out!

Now the truth: MacArthur’s great grandfather, Rev Thomas Fullerton, was a high-ranking freemason, attaining the 32^nd degree (the highest level a freemason can reach in the Scottish Rite, with the 33^rd degree often given as well but only by invitation). He was Grand Chaplain, 1907-10; Senior Grand Deacon, 1911; Deputy Grand Master, 1912 and Grand Master, 1913, plus he is designated PGM – Provincial Grand Master. The following is from the Prince Edward Island (PEI) freemasonry lodge website.
Most Worshipful Brother
Thomas Fraser Fullerton, PGM
Grand Lodge of Prince Edward Island, A.F. & A.M.;
Grand Master 1913 – 1914
Thomas Fraser Fullerton was born at Glasgow, Scotland, on March 28th, 1861.
He received his early education at a Public School, matriculating into Glasgow University from which he graduated as Prizeman.
Having fitted himself for a life of theological work he came to America in 1889, and after a short Pastorate in St. John, N. B., he accepted a call to St. James Presbyterian Church, (Kirk) in Charlottetown, P. E. I. This charge he still holds, and has held continually for twenty-one years, with the exception of one year while in active service as Chaplain with the Royal Canadian Regiment in the South African War in 1900.
He received the Degree of Doctor of Divinity from the Presbyterian College at Halifax, N. S. in 1913.
In Masonry he received his first light as an Entered Apprentice in St. Johns Lodge, No. 1, Charlottetown, on March 15th, 1901, as a Fellow Craft, April 16th, and as Master Mason, May 14th, of the same year. He presided as Worshipful Master of St. Johns Lodge in 1911. In the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite he received the degrees of the Lodge of Perfection and Rose Croix Chapter in 1903, and the intermediate degrees to 32degree in Charlottetown Consistory in 1911.
In the Grand Lodge he was Grand Chaplain, 1907-10; Senior Grand Deacon, 1911; Deputy Grand Master, 1912 and Grand Master, 1913.
From the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Communication of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Prince Edward Island A.F. & A. M. (1913).
(https://peifreemasonry.com/thomas-fraser-fullerton-pgm/)

It is likely that Thomas Fullerton’s father was also a high-ranking freemason who may have held the position of Grand Secretary of the Provincial Grand Orange Lodge for the Province under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of British America.
Note also that MacArthur’s middle name is Fullerton, as was his father’s middle name, his grandmother’s maiden name (Olivia Fullerton MacArthur), and the surname of his great grandfather and great great grandfather. Many would see this as evidence of a satanic bloodline where a certain name of significance is carried from one generation to the next as evidence of their heritage.

Note also that one of the lodges associated with Prince Edward Island Grand Lodge, Alexandra Lodge No. 5, states that Worshipful Brother D Fullerton gave an address on October 3^rd, 1991. The Fullerton bloodline apparently still lives on!
Alexandra Lodge No. 5
The lighted case for the Trowel was constructed and presented by W.Bro. Byron Hutchison. Bro. Yeo’s Past Master’s Jewel is also in the case. A Memorial Tablet on the East Wall of the Lodge Room was unveiled by R.W.Bro. George Wakeford PDGM during Grand Lodge Visitation on June 27, 1928. Bro. Yeo’s portrait was unveiled in the Lodge Room on October 3, 1991. An Address for the occasion was presented by W.Bro. D. Fullerton. An earlier portrait had been presented in 1874.
(https://peifreemasonry.com/alexandra-lodge-no-5/9/)

So what spiritual harvest can you expect of a high-ranking freemason such as Thomas Fullerton? Certainly not a Christian one, that’s for sure. Apparently the spiritual harvest that MacArthur boasts of having come down to him through the generations clearly is not Christian. MacArthur has stated that freemasonry is a satanic false religion. Therefore his great grandfather Thomas Fullerton served a satanic false religion, according to MacArthur’s teachings. You cannot serve both God and satan; therefore Thomas Fullerton did not serve the one true God of the Bible. So why doesn’t MacArthur mention anywhere that his great grandfather (from whom he claims that great spiritual harvest came) was a freemason, a servant of a satanic false religion? If MacArthur is truly opposed to freemasonry, then we would expect him to denounce those in his family who were freemasons, not praise their spiritual harvest!

But what about that mention of Roy Rogers in “A Father’s Legacy”? “He counted Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, who came to Christ under his preaching, as close personal friends.”
Roy Rogers was a close personal friend of MacArthur’s father, and the current MacArthur would have seen them often while he was growing up. He appears to praise Roy Rogers and Dale Evans in “A Father’s Legacy”; he certainly doesn’t denounce them. And yet, Roy Rogers (real name Leonard Franklin Slye) was a 33^rd degree freemason; this fact is chiselled into his gravestone. He is said to have been led to Christ by John “Jack” MacArthur (John MacArthur’s father) in 1948, attained the 32^nd degree in the Scottish Rite of freemasonry in 1950, and then accepted an invitation to the 33^rd degree in 1979. Roy Rogers clearly did not renounce his satanic false worship when he became a “Christian”; instead he climbed even further up the satanic freemasonry ladder after he became a “Christian”!

So why hasn’t the current MacArthur denounced Roy Rogers for his satanic false religion? In “A Father’s Legacy” he apparently considered Roy Rogers as a Christian and a close personal friend of his father’s. Why doesn’t MacArthur mention or even hint at the dark nature of Roy Rogers’ satanic false worship? A genuine Christian who knows the Bible well would certainly denounce freemasonry as a satanic false religion, and MacArthur does appear to do just that. Then why does he not denounce it in his family and family friends, and even praises the spiritual harvest of his freemason ancestors.

To denounce freemasonry from the pulpit while also refusing to acknowledge its significant presence in his family and acquaintances draws a serious charge of double standards, and strongly suggests that MacArthur, while trying to be seen as opposing such satanic false worship, is actually a secret worshipper of the same god that his ancestors and family friends worshipped: satan. Is MacArthur, in fact, a secret or closet worshipper of satan? At least his ancestor Thomas Fullerton was open about his ties with the false religion of freemasonry.

See The False Calvinist Gospel for further evidence of the satanic false worship inherent in the calvinist gospel. Calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet never preach it to anyone until after they have already been initiated into the rites of calvinism. Why do they claim that they are most Biblical, yet not openly advertise the reality of their doctrines to non-calvinists? See The Oxymorons of Calvinist Doctrine.

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.

Spurgeon was no genuine calvinist!

Don’t those calvinists just love to boast that Spurgeon was one of their own! But, much of what Spurgeon said about calvinism was a product of his need for social acceptance with the acknowledged religious leaders of his day. It is true that a lot of what he said appeared to be blatantly calvinist.

For example, almost all calvinists know and love to quote Spurgeon’s claim that calvinism is the gospel!
“And I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. … It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”
(Page 58 Spurgeon’s Sermons on the Cross of Christ)
And if, as Spurgeon claims, calvinism is the gospel, then why was Spurgeon apparently saved by the simple preaching of the gospel at a Primitive Methodist church without any adornment of any kind regarding the doctrines of calvinism? It was only later on that he became aware of calvinist doctrine.

Spurgeon also appeared to teach that calvinism was the only fully correct doctrine.
“I do not ask whether you believe Calvinism. It is possible that you do not. But I believe you will before you enter heaven. I am persuaded that as God may have washed your hearts, He will wash your brains before you enter heaven.” (Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 92)

But there were occasions when Spurgeon just couldn’t be pushed into the calvinist corner. The same man who claimed that calvinism was the gospel also taught doctrines which actively opposed those very doctrines that he claimed were the gospel!
For example, on 1 Timothy 2:4 (Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.), calvinist doctrines force calvinists to have to teach that
either (a) God does not will what He desires; that is, God is in two minds concerning what He desires versus what He actually commands. (Both Piper and MacArthur allow God at least two wills: a will of desire and a will of command or decree.) This makes God out to be double-minded, a condition that Christians are told not to be in, therefore, unacceptable to teach such for sovereign God.
or (b) “all men” does not actually mean “all men” but all kinds of men, all sorts of men, men of all nations etc. This is the view of most traditional calvinists. But if God meant less than all, then He would have made that clear. Apparently Spurgeon considered this to be the case!

Spurgeon refused to accept that “all men” could mean anything else than a literal “all men”! This placed him in direct conflict with the prominent calvinists of his day.
“All men,” say they; “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “All sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestion­ably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth.
(Spurgeon v. Calvinism Iain Murray, P150-151)

And, when it came to Spurgeon’s teaching on whom Jesus actually came to save, it wasn’t the elect, or the chosen of God. Rather, it was for the lost, which has to assume that Jesus came to save all mankind (all being lost) or that only the elect or chosen of God are actually lost. The calvinist with their doctrine of limited atonement cannot accept that Jesus died for all mankind, leaving the one logical option, that only the elect are lost! It is clear that Spurgeon was not a calvinist when preaching such a gospel!
Beloved Friends, “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Does not the description suit you? are you not among the lost? Well then, you are among such as Jesus Christ came to save.
(Twelve Sermons for the Troubled and Tried P 82 Charles Spurgeon)

And, yet another problem for those calvinists who claim Spurgeon as one of their own: Spurgeon stated clearly that the gospel was an unnecessary thing for those who were already regenerated. If there’s one thing calvinists must all be consistent on, it is the doctrine that teaches that a man cannot spiritually respond to God in any way until after he has been regenerated (that is, born again) to new life by the Holy Spirit. They teach (using Ephesians 2:1) that until we are born again we are all dead in trespasses and sin, that is, we are all dead corpses without any ability at all to respond positively to God in any way until we have been quickened (been made alive) by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the calvinist is unable to even respond to the gospel until after he has been regenerated. Calvinism teaches that we must be regenerated before we can respond to the gospel.

Yet Spurgeon here claims that preaching the gospel to those already regenerated is unnecessary and ridiculous!
…. here my first observation is that any other way of preaching the gospel-warrant is absurd. If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it (the gospel) only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.
(The Warrant of Faith Sermon 531 20^th September 1863, C H Spurgeon)

Calvinists, however, are required to believe many illogical teachings and statements if they are to be consistent with the doctrines of calvinism (they prefer the terms “doctrines of grace” or even “reformed”). For example, John MacArthur maintains a very high profile among seemingly fundamentalist believers, yet if his followers just took the time to check out his teachings thoroughly, they would certainly find inconsistencies and errors. There are many other calvinists with inconsistent and irrational teachings such as Piper and Sproul.

Check out the following documents for further information. If you have a comment, please feel free to contact us. If you disagree with anything that is written in these documents, please feel free to comment, but also ensure that your comments are Biblically consistent. Please do not quote calvinist “teachers” to support your claims unless you also demonstrate that they are Scripturally consistent. Far too many calvinist “teachers” are far too free and easy on their interpretation of the Bible!

In MacArthur teaches Works Salvation MacArthur teaches that God saves those who are important or valuable enough, thus choosing not to save those who are not important or valuable enough to be considered for salvation.

In MacArthur is Wrong, MacArthur misuses a little-known Greek rule to “prove” a false doctrine. Is it a deliberate misuse, or is it simply incompetence? Either way, such an acclaimed “teacher” should be above such behaviour! Unless, of course, he is not the acclaimed teacher that he would like to be!

In MacArthur is Wrong – Again! MacArthur is again attempting to blind his gullible listeners with theological terminology, by misusing a rule (Hebrew this time) to prove that when “all” is used twice in the same verse, it has to have two different meanings. And he not only says that “all” cannot mean “all” if they are both in the same verse, but he also says that “many” cannot mean “many” if they are both present in the same verse.

Other calvinist “teachers” such as Todd Friel, Paul Tripp and Gary Thomas also preach another gospel, a false gospel without hope.

Todd Friel says that if you prayed the sinner’s prayer, you are still going to hell. Read  The Heresy of Todd Friel

In his study materials on Sacred Marriage, Gary Thomas uses new age kundalini yoga advice to help you in your marriage. Read Gary Thomas – New Age Teacher

And Paul Tripp says that we all need counselling (of the type he recommends) to become healthy Christians, because we are all infected with a terrible disease called “identity amnesia” from the day we are saved. Read Paul Tripp – Heretic or Tare?

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.

I have often put forward what the bible says on certain Christian doctrines to calvinists on my facebook page. Many of them like to post what sounds like a biblica truth, and usually quoted by a well known calvinist such as Paul Washer or John MacArthur or Sproul or Piper, etc. I firstly find it strange that many of the evangelical Christians I know, dont have an issue with posting anything from a calvinist such as MacArthur, yet its a no no to post a quote from a well known pentecostal. Whilst some of the quotes are often true or great bits of inspiration, those posting them probably arent aware if the person they are quoting, even agrees with them biblically, or is even a Christian.

Satan knows the bible well and he will appear as an angel of light. He wont appear to a Christian as some evil lying murderer as that would be too easy to spot. For some reason majority of Christians in Australia have such as lack of discernment to be able to understand spiritual warfare. Just because you are a Christian does NOT mean you cant be attacked by Satan. Any teacher or preacher telling you that you cannot be attacked by Satan and that spiritual warfare is between God and Satan only, is lying to you.

How does Satan attack solid evangelical biblically fundamental churches? Well for a start, he will use different tatics on each church depending on what weaknesses he can find. You may say, but the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church. Well that is true, but if the church invites Satan in then the gates arent going to keep him out now are they?

Same concept with our lives. If in our daily walk, we invite Satan into our lives through COMPROMISE and SIN, then he will gain some form of control. He gains that control through us giving him that right, through sin and compromise.  The first thing I believe Satan will take control of if we continue in sin or compromise is our discernment. It is a very dangerous weapon against Satan as with discernment, we can see through his evil schemes and lies. Without it though, we are not fully equipped for battle.

We gain discernment through reading and studying the Bible and through a close relationship with God. Even through fellowshipping with other like minded believers. The Holy Spirit gives us discernment. If we ignore the Holy Spirit and decide we are going to compromise through listening and accepting false doctrines or sin through whatever means, then how are we going to hear the Holy Spirit? I would like to study this more and there are so many answers in the Bible on all this, such as Ephesians 6 talking about the armour we are given by God and unless we wear that armour, we cannot fight effectively. If we werent in spiritual warfare, there would be zero need for armour right?

So onto calvinist doctrines (which I pray you have the discernment to see through any non-truths).  I often see someone talk about faith being a gift from God. I know straight away they are from a reformed belief when they say that, or else they are being led towards reformed. I then ask, ok so where in the bible does it say faith is a gift? I see many places it talks to faith being a response to God’s character, trusting in who He is and His promises, and a choice mind you, but I dont see anywhere in the Bible where it mentions faith being a gift.

The response is almost always either silence (as the believer doesnt really know why they believe that, they may have just been told it by their calvinist pastor), or else a ‘i’ll get back to you’ and so far they never have. You may have heard this verse quoted:

Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (NASB).

However, when you read this verse or if you study the greek and understand what it says, you will quickly find out that this verse does NOT say faith is a gift. It says that by grace you have been saved through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. The gift of course being by grace you were saved. Salvation is the gift. Is this consistent with the rest of the Bible? I say yes. Salvation as a free gift is spoken of many times in the Bible. The verse of course says that it is received THROUGH faith. Faith not being the gift. However, many calvinists will twist this verse to say faith is the gift. The verse doesnt say that. Is faith being a gift consistent with the rest of the Bible? I cant find anywhere in the Bible stating faith being a gift so I say no. If the doctrine conflicts with the rest of the Bible then throw it out. If it isnt found elsewhere, and there is a doctrine in that passage or verse that is consistent, then I would go with the one that is consistent elsewhere. The Bible does NOT contradict itself (contrary to belief by many non-Christians that it does – they just dont understand it).

Is the atonement limited to just the elect? Or another way to put it, did Christ only die for the elect? Calvinists usually believe in limited atonement. Evanglical Christians believe it is for all people for whom Christ died and therefore all can come. I wont go into the logic (or illogic) that calvinist go into to prove this one, but very simply, throughout the Bible there are numerous passages that say Jesus Christ died for the whole world, or all men, gentiles and jews. However calvinists will try and prove a verse says something else. Thing is, their proof means re-writing verses to suit the doctrine. Now that is a no-no and we know what the warning is to those who change the Bible.

1 John 1:9 to 1 John 2:2 say:

If we confess our sin he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My 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: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Note that ‘our sins’ applies to the same group of Christians. So the same group of Christians for whom he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse from all unrighteousness, he is also the propitiation for the sins of. But then goes onto say BUT also for the sins of the whole world. So if ‘us’ is the Jewish Christians and the ‘whole world’ is the rest of the Christians (and not the whole world as the verse does actually say), then it gets a bit confusing given John only says the Jewish Christians have an advocate with the Father and not the rest of the Christians.

Again, consistency issue. John 3:16 backs up the reading of these verses in 1 John as that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Christians and the whole world (all including non-Christians). It says that God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. According to the calvinists, they need to rewrite this one also as the world referring to the elect only. Apparently God didnt love the rest, the other 95% of the population. Yet He says He desires all men may come. So now we have an issue with God having two wills. See how changing the meaning of a verse creates all this confusion. God is NOT the author of confusion. Satan is. So in conclusion, I believe Calvinist theology, which has its roots in Augustine (father of catholic and lutheran beliefs as well), is a counterfeit alternative to church to catholicism and is from Satan himself. Just research Augustine and you will see he was certainly no role model. Neither was Calvin for that matter.

God bless. I pray that you do your own research and checking what I have written and checking anything on this website for Biblical consistency. Also test whatever you learn in church or from other sources. I do understand that knowing and spreading truth will often lead to a lonely life, one of suffering or persecution, even from those whom you would call Christian brothers and sisters, but for the short time we are here on earth, it is worth fighting the fight and standing firm on the Biblical truth.

Over the past week I have been thinking about the music style we have in many churches these days. I grew up attending a fairly conservative church, with conservative music. However, most of those I attended youth group with, had a preference for what we called Christian rock back then in the early 90’s. I just accepted that it was the same as worldly rock in that it was wrong to listen to. This was because I was just told that is how it is.

After moving out from home to complete my diploma, I of course started to listen to Christian rock. It sounded good and was addictive. So much more upbeat than the hymns and choruses I was used to. From there of course I progressed to listening to just any rock music. It all sounded so good and easy to listen to.

Whilst I could have said the Christian rock as good Christian words so it is different to secular rock, I would have been kidding myself. The only difference between the two was that because you would occasionally hear the word Jesus in Christian music, it was a little harder to listen to if I was off track, backsliding.

My thoughts this week though were more on why some people are so set on ensuring that Christian rock (or contemporary music as they like to call it), is in every church. As in rather than a person leaving a church to attend one with the music they prefer, it seems that people like to introduce it into the church they are in. Now, they may just be ignorant, but there are some who don’t feel comfortable singing with a loud beat in the background.

At first they play it softly and then it grows and grows as they push people into the ‘music ministry’, which I have seen can then cause other ministries to suffer as a result. Real ministries that have real impacts. Then I head the amplifier getting louder each sunday and they will try to add a few hymns in to keep the ‘traditionalists’ happy. However the beat they play to those hymns just destroys them as they were never written to add a beat to. So then they just start ‘buying’ the license to use songs that were written to have a beat.

So rather than focussing on ministry, and solid preaching and testing all things, the focus seems to be on ‘worship’ as they call it, but is it? Would those same people who worship God with a loud band, also be able to worship if there was just a lowly organ up the front? Do they care about anyone in the church who actually prefers not to have a loud band up front? Even those who cant attend a church with a loud band because it affects their health?

Couldn’t the people with a different preference for music just leave and start their own church? Well I think the issue here is that there is a much much bigger picture that I believe 95% or more of people in even fundamental churches these days do not even realise is unfolding.

Think of it this way, there is an enemy and he is smarter than you. You cannot outsmart Satan. Only God can. You do all things through the strength of Christ. So if we stop testing all things within our churches, and we stray even 1% towards the enemy, we have compromised. If we compromise, we will leave the door open to Satan having some control or influence. He works on the basis of control. If we sin, the same thing, we open the door to satanic influence. Satan wouldn’t bother tempting Christians if his tempting us had no effect.

He tempts us to hopefully entice us into sin. Then he tries to keep us there. By doing this, he not only distracts us from doing what God wills us to do (such as the great commission – unless you are a Calvinist and the great commission is irrelevant just like the sinners prayer is to the Calvinist), he also gains some influence. We sin once, we may find it easier to sin in that way again. It takes us further away from God in our relationship. We spend less time with God. Satan is more than happy to use the guilt thing too. The you have sinned too much so just give up and don’t bother with Christianity anymore. The Christian backslides. We know there are verses in the Bible that talk about people falling away. Some may come back but some may fall away never to again be renewed (wont go into this in this blog – will do another one on eternal security).

How this relates to the church? Well if we compromise on the music that is played in a church, we also give Satan influence in that church. God can bless His church, but how can He bless it if they don’t want to obey Him? If we take people from other ministries and put them on a stage each Sunday morning to do their show, rather than focus on truth and real worship, then the church may look like it is growing, but it is only numbers, not spirituality. The church will die spiritually at some stage.

I have previously discussed the state of Israel prior to the birth of Christ. Read Malachi and some of the other prophetic books of the old testament. There is a very clear message that in the final days of Israel (before the church), the Israelites were worshipping God. But they were telling God how He should be worshipped and then wondering why God was not blessing them, rather sending judgment.

I believe that in the final days of the church age we will see the same thing. I believe we already are seeing this. I believe there are very few churches left now in the western world at least, which are truly worshipping God in spirit and in truth. How can the church profess to be worshipping in spirit and in truth with their African drumbeats (used to worship demons), mixed with some nice sounding lyrics that makes everyone happy and have had enjoyed their time at church, if there is no teaching by the pastor to even test all things?

Your pastor is not God and will make mistakes. They are not perfect as they are human. As I have alluded to before, don’t disrespect them. However, test all things that are taught. Do this by spending time in the word studying what you have learnt and ensure that it is in line with the Bible in its entirety. Of course there are many pastors today in churches who were not called by God, rather are there for other reasons. You will only find this out if you test all things.

I found it strange that over the past 15 years, a large percentage of the leadership or pastors I have known, have been the ones to either introduce the drums into the church, or their children have. Seems strange to me that God is calling all these pastors to change the music so that drums are introduced.

If a church really wants to grow, stop focussing on how to get people into the church. Focus on worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and test all things so you understand what is the truth. Preach truth and don’t add man’s doctrines (i.e. Calvinism). Any doctrine that relies on a book other than the Bible, is unlikely to be all truth. For example, Calvinism studies or interprets the bible through the institutes of calvin. There are lots of cults out there that use the Bible but have their own literature to interpret the Bible.

Please feel free to comment on any of the above. I would love to have more discussion.