So why did I start this website?? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 3

So why did I start this website? Part 4

It’s been a busy year writing comments on a number of topics, mostly to do with the heresies of calvinism, although I cover many other topics in other ways. For example, in our home church we completed our studies in Hebrews, then looked at Revelation Ch.4 – 22 in detail, and are presently studying the first 11 chapters of Genesis. (Most of these have been posted on our website although some may be a few weeks late arriving online.)

I have posted 26 comments so far during 2018, an average of 1 per fortnight, not necessarily evenly spread, though. Posts generally get written when I notice something not quite right with doctrinal issues in whatever we are involved with at the time. In fact, this website commenced because of a need to expose some of the doctrinal heresies being used to control good Christian people in our local allegedly biblical, fundamentalist churches. Our area (on the edge of a state capital city of Australia) has a large immigrant population, and a wide range of beliefs, many of which are not remotely Christian. And many who claim to be Christian fail to believe what the Bible teaches.

When we moved to this area over 20 years ago, even then there were only a few local churches that had beliefs we felt comfortable with. Before this we had spent many years in an independent Baptist church in a small rural town, and had considered its doctrine to be good, and although not perfect, it was very good. It was a conservative church, with preaching expected to be from the Bible alone (fundamentalist, not calvinist), and the music reasonably free from rock music influences (we didn’t have the ubiquitous rock band out the front, and we avoided Hillsong-type hype music like the plague).

When we moved to the city we found a limited number of churches that matched what we were used to. And, as some of these added loud rock bands with earth-shaking drums, that number of acceptable options decreased. I could never see how such music could honour the creator God of the universe – it all seemed so disrespectful. And, rock music’s origins were very anti-God into the bargain. The old (and much-loved) hymns were being replaced by Hillsong rock, and the organs and pianos turned into drums and amplified guitars.

Note that I do play the guitar (both 6 and 12 string acoustic, non-amplified) and I don’t mind a bit of beat in music. But the off-beat of rock music (like people clapping on the off-beats in some songs) was off-putting indeed. I had been church organist for many years at our rural church and felt that rock bands had done away with so much good music. (I had also been secretary of this church which, more often than not, hadn’t had a pastor, so in many ways I had been doing much of the day-to-day running of this church, including a lot of preaching when needed.)

So when we arrived at our present location, we commenced at one church, only to leave after a year when the rock music became too pronounced (that is, painfully loud; it hurt my ears!). We went to a second fundamentalist church (Living Springs which my sons attended) only to find them creeping inexorably toward the rock band model as well. We then went to the local Presbyterians who, at this stage, were actually evangelical, with a pastor who genuinely believed in the free will of man to choose his salvation. (In fact, too evangelical, it seems, because they then replaced him with one who better-supported their calvinist origins.) At that time the Presbyterian church in Australia was going through a renewing of its Westminster catechism foundations, and is now back firmly in the clutches of calvinism. When they asked us (after being absent on a 6 month outback trip) if we could give any reason why they shouldn’t remove us from their membership roll, we agreed to resign. (In the Presbyterian church, you are not permitted to be a good Christian if you happen to not go near your local Presbyterian church for 6 months, because that somehow proves you are no longer a good puritan. It matters little that you are just not in the area for that 6 months!)

So, on the recommendation of a pastor-friend, off we went to yet another allegedly biblical fundamentalist church, Open Door. (The list of possible options in our area was growing rather thin by now!) For a little while we were reasonably happy and satisfied there. The music was not loud, not rock, and the old hymns were appreciated. The preaching appeared to be reasonably on the ball, although occasionally a bit vague. However, after a year or two, this vagueness soon clarified itself into calvinism rumbling just below the surface. The previous pastor (who had stayed on until a replacement was found) finally admitted that he believed MacArthur’s brand of calvinist heresy to be really quite scriptural (according to him, anyway). I asked him what was the point of the Great Commission then – to preach the gospel to all nations. His answer was simply that Christians did that because that’s what Christians were commanded to do. (It was the typical calvinist statement on this passage, because, to the calvinist, there is no point to preaching the gospel to anyone unless they have already been regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit. Their only justification for it is that God commands them to do so.)

We stayed there for a bit longer, however, because the calvinism wasn’t obvious, and at this point in time we hadn’t seen the full picture of what calvinism really represented. At that time, calvinism was, to us, an awkward doctrine that had some incorrect beliefs about evangelism. However, we were still prepared to declare calvinists fellow-Christians even though we could not believe in it ourselves.

Then I was told that the church where two of my sons still attended (Living Springs) was looking for a pastor, and had advertised for one, in fact. So I applied, having done my apprenticeship in running a church in a country town for many years, including much preaching and pastoral care work. One of the deacons at Living Springs then invited me to preach, after which I was told they’d get back to me. But, eight months went by without any getting back to me, so I contacted them again. This appeared to stir up some immediate action: (a) Living Springs started making their building available to a near-by calvinist church (GraceWest), apparently through contact with the deacon, and (b) I was offered some preaching, firstly being asked to name as many days as I wished, an offer that was quickly downgraded to: Here’s four Sundays in the next few months that we haven’t managed to fill yet; take your pick. (I picked all four!)

I was also told that I was applying for a part-time position, and therefore it would be unworkable. Yet, this same deacon who had said this then put his own name down for the pastor position just a month later. I did my four services and then was told that they’d selected that church deacon as pastor. (And, yes, it was still a part-time position, apparently only unworkable if someone other than the current pastor were appointed!)

By this time it was ultra-clear that the local calvinist church (GraceWest) was getting quite involved with Living Springs, including regular use of their property for meetings and services, and providing pastoral messages on some Sunday mornings. So, with Living Springs doctrinally unacceptable now, and because the options for local Bible-believing churches were fast disappearing, I started up our home church. We were small then, and are still small, yet we have managed to learn Bible truths more effectively now we aren’t encumbered with doctrinal hindrances from established church dogmas. I also started to look more seriously at calvinism, because it was clear that calvinism had been able to infiltrate Living Springs so effectively that not long after this, the Living Springs website declared GraceWest to be a like-minded sister church. Therefore, if GraceWest is MacArthur calvinist (which it is, having an almost identical doctrinal statement to MacArthur’s church), then Living Springs, being like-minded, must also be a calvinist church (after the doctrines of MacArthur) now. (Of course, they denied this, but then, why are they like-minded sister churches?)

Since then we have had communications with one of Living Springs’ members who has become so full-on with calvinism that he has now spouted forth MacArthur heretical teachings in an effort to try to convert us. We have also been told (by Living Springs officialdom) not to have any contact with Living Springs members; all communications must be made to the pastor alone (who then, to my knowledge, has never answered any of the enquiries made). It is indeed a strange situation, where a church (Living Springs) that allegedly disapproves of hyper-calvinism should be so much in agreement with the MacArthur calvinism of GraceWest.

And what of the last church we left? We left Open Door (in September 2013) initially to commence our home church. At that stage we had intended returning once we had sorted out things through our home church. We had enjoyed attending their services. However, a few months after we left, their newly-appointed pastor came to visit us, apparently with one aim in mind: to pressure us to send our son back to Living Springs (which he had left to attend our home church). The pastor offered to be mediator between my son and the Living Springs pastor so that my son could return without prejudice. When I said that Living Springs had loud rock music, he said that was unfortunate but nevertheless my son should return. (This, of course, was from the Open Door pastor who just 2 months earlier had informed me that he was doing a series of studies on the problems of rock music!) It was clear that we would not come to a satisfactory agreement on this issue.

Then, after some more disagreements, he then accused me of having the imaginations of an over-sensitive nature. (I wonder if that is legalese for “You’re mad!”) I said that perhaps it would solve all our problems if we resigned from membership of Open Door. (He did not appear to be happy about this.) After we finished our “discussion”, he left. Just over a week later we sent in our resignation email. No response was ever received to this. We have never returned.

Then in 2016 I was informed that Open Door was doing studies by Paul Tripp, a neo or new calvinist who is heavily involved with Biblical Counselling, an active arm of the new calvinist movement (with its foundations largely at Westminster Theological Seminary in USA). After making enquiries I was told (14/05/16) that “Pastor took material on recommendation of another church pastor” and “Pastor is trying to repair damage in Sunday School by going over the material again but no admission of why as yet.” I then questioned why a pastor would want to go over this material again; why not just throw this heretical material in the bin where it belongs? However, I backed off at this point in time, willing to give maybe some benefit of doubt. But, earlier this year I noticed that Open Door now had Biblical Counselling advertised on their website. If the counsellor is affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia, then he or she would probably have done their training through CCEF (closely affiliated with Westminster Seminary USA), or one of the Presbyterian theological colleges in Australia, or through a person allegedly qualified to train such counsellors (such as the current calvinist pastor at GraceWest might indeed be, having allegedly done Master of Arts studies in Biblical Counselling through The Masters College in Los Angeles). All these options have calvinist or reform doctrines. Therefore, if the counsellor at Open Door is registered with Biblical Counselling Australia, then he has probably studied new calvinist doctrine such as that which Paul Tripp adheres to. Of course, there might be an alternative, even innocent, explanation for all of this, but if the Biblical Counselling is registered with Biblical Counselling Australia, then it could look like the alleged Tripp studies in 2016 might be connected here.

So, how many churches in our area are untainted by happy-clappy dancing, and/or unbelievably loud rock music, or the calvinist threat to many of our biblical fundamentalist churches? The answer is that very few even moderately acceptable churches now remain within out local area (encompassing a population of maybe ½ million). No wonder home churches are popping up all around the world, in an effort to escape the doctrinal pollution being taught by so many churches today, claiming to be Christian, while preaching another gospel. And even if your church claims to be non-calvinist, does it have Biblical Counselling available? If so, then it is likely to be affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia which is a very active tool for the spread of new calvinism. Even biblical churches can be deceived by the insidious heresy of calvinism, accepting it at face value. If only they had tested (proved) all things according to the scriptural admonition!

So now I run a small home church, and I constantly research what appears to be the biggest danger facing our fundamentalist biblical churches in our part of the world today (other than loud rock music). Calvinism has the appearance of being ultra-Christian on the surface and many good Christian people including church leaders are being hoodwinked by its devious claims of sola scriptura (the Bible alone), when they actually rely more upon calvinist authors for doctrine than they do the Bible. I believe God has let me see the danger of this heresy labelled calvinism, reform belief etc. This website is now my means of warning those Christians who genuinely seek the truth of the Bible, warning them of the danger of accepting at face value the teachings of any person just because they say they are biblical (and use biblical-sounding terminology). This is clearly happening to churches around the world. And the worst thing about it all is that most people who are deceived never actually see what is happening to them until it is too late. So often calvinists enter your church by stealth, pretending to be good biblical Christians, only revealing their real agenda after they have built a good support base in that church. They pretend to be ultra-fundamentalist biblical Christians, they use all the right terminology, yet most of their doctrine is not Bible-based, but instead defined by Calvin and other writers. Once they have revealed their calvinist standing, they quote their calvinist authors and teachers as if they are infallible, and when anyone disputes their views, they fall back upon the teachings of such as MacArthur who is far from being scripturally correct.

They will often come into the Bible-believing church, appearing as mature Christians who are willing and able to take up leadership roles in the church, such as deacon, elder, study-group leader, prayer-group leader, or even pastor. They avoid declaring their support for the more extreme doctrines of calvinism, preferring to appear moderate in their beliefs. They often seek out immature Christians, offering to mentor them toward a higher view of God’s sovereignty, a more biblical view of doctrines, in fact, offering to lead young Christians to be better Christians. All this is attractive to those young Christians who genuinely desire to be better Christians, to be better used in service for God. Calvinism appears to offer all this, yet deceives instead. I have personally witnessed such a change in one of the local Christians who probably desired to be a better Christian yet is now brainwashed with all the doctrines of MacArthur. And the worst thing is that he just cannot see that his calvinist beliefs do not make biblical sense at all.

Calvinists do not make many converts through their calvinist teachings. Their doctrines don’t make Christians; instead they make good puritans (who are not necessarily Christian, just doers of pure or good works). Most calvinists who are also genuine Christians became Christians before they were converted to calvinism. If you belong to a Bible-believing fundamentalist non-calvinist church, watch, be vigilant, for this attack is being carried out on churches like yours in many places already.

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 3

So why did I start this website? Part 4

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1)

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2)

In Part 1 I looked at some of the more-quoted passages often used to demonstrate the eternal security of the believer. The question was raised as to whether or not the believer could still exercise freedom of will, not only to accept salvation, but to also reject it after accepting it.
In Part 2 I looked at the passages that are used to demonstrate that a person may lose his salvation. I decided that, while it appeared possible for a Christian to lose his salvation, it wasn’t a clear-cut conclusion. It did appear that it might be possible for new (or immature) Christians to be drawn back into the world which they may not have fully let go of.

In the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage it is clear that The Writer to the Hebrews considers it possible for them to lose their salvation through God not permitting them (Hebrews 6:3) to renew their repentance, after falling away from what clearly looks like a description of a born-again Christian. But The Writer also makes it clear that a certain type of Christian is at risk here: the new-born baby Christian (Hebrews 5:12-14). The Writer also teaches that going on toward perfection will probably remove or at least greatly minimise the risk of losing salvation (that is, apostatising).

Of course, some will claim that an apostate is an unbeliever who has rejected the gospel, yet the word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word apostasia which is translated “a falling away” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. An apostate is someone who falls away from belief in the gospel and his salvation; it doesn’t define someone who never believed in the first place. You can’t fall away from where you never were in the first place!

The Writer to the Hebrews is teaching that in order to not fall away, one must grow as a Christian, and continue to grow, for it is the lack of growth that he associates with a falling away. On this basis, a more mature Christian should be better protected from falling away. But is this teaching consistent with other passages? In 2 Peter 2:18 it describes those who fall away as having firstly “clean escaped from those who live in error”. That word “clean” means clearly or obviously, yet some dispute this, claiming that the original word was “barely”. That is, those who have “barely escaped”. Either way, however, it is clearly talking about those who have escaped, either cleanly or barely. However, “barely” would be more consistent with Hebrews 5:12-14 which describes these people as new-born babes, ones who had barely escaped the world and its error.

But, are there passages that teach that less mature Christians are somehow more at risk than those of mature age? Look at Luke 9:23-25 – ²³ And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. ²⁴ For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. ²⁵ For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? Look at the choice in Vs 25 which is clearly part of taking up your cross daily and following Jesus. This passage (similar to passages in Matthew 16:24-26 and Mark 8:34-37) does tie this choice to whether or not you take up your cross.

Jesus also said that if you didn’t take up your cross and follow Him, you were not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:38) nor could you be His disciple (Luke 14:27). It is clear that taking up your cross somehow takes you across some line drawn in the sand that commits you fully to the task. So, what does it mean to take up your cross and follow Jesus?

Tozer wrote some very thought-provoking words on this in Ch.10 (The Old Cross and the New) of his book “Man – The Dwelling Place of God”.
The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.
The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said goodbye to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

It seems that there are two kinds of Christian: (a) those who take up their crosses (thus they can be Jesus’ disciple and are worthy of Him) and (b) those who don’t take up their crosses (thus they cannot be Jesus’ disciple, nor are they worthy of Him).

There’s a choice that all Christians must make in order to be a disciple of Jesus, and to be worthy of Him, and that is to take up their crosses and follow Him. For unless you take up your cross and follow Him, you are what I would call a de facto or P-plate Christian, one who still has significant desires for the world (1 John 2:15-17). Too many become Christians for the benefits to themselves: forgiveness for sins, eternal life, heaven forever, etc, but fail to do it for what they can give to God. (See Romans 12:1-2) They want their salvation, but aren’t yet ready to give up the world. They will continue to have conflict in their lives, between Christ and the world. At some point they’ll have to make up their minds which one they really want, Christ or the world. This is the choice associated with taking up your crosses and following Jesus. To take up your cross you must make a choice to forsake the world. If you cannot forsake the world, then you cannot take up your cross and eventually you are likely to succumb to the love of the world (that is, you will have traded your soul for the world). “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26)

People today want to have Christ without losing the world. But we may only be a true follower of Christ by taking up our crosses and turning our backs on the world. Until a Christian turns his back on the world, it will always be there, tempting him and demanding his return. Such a Christian is unworthy of Christ, and is always going to be at risk of returning to the world (at the expense of his soul). Such a Christian cannot be Christ’s disciple, for he loves the world too much. He might declare himself to be a Christian, having repented with godly sorrow, and prayed the sinner’s prayer for salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10a – For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of).

His name is written in the book of life. He is one of God’s children, having called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). But he still has friends and a social life in the world, and so he shares his Christian life with those of the world, not to win the world for Christ, but to keep those things of the world that which he cannot afford to let go of yet. Note what Hebrews 2:1 says – Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them] slip. That “let slip” has the idea of having hold of a boat rope in your hand, yet through being distracted by something else, we let it slip out of our grasp without realising that it has gone. We then look up and notice the boat is drifting down stream, already out of reach. Too late!

Many teach that this applies to those who have heard the gospel, yet let it slip through not giving it the importance it deserves. They then quote Hebrews 2:3a – How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation. But that word “neglect” refers more to a careless disregard of something already in your possession, something which is a responsibility of yours, rather than being careless of something you don’t have yet. You either neglect your responsibility, or you ignore something that is not your responsibility. You have hold of your salvation, your eternal life, your future in heaven – it’s in your grasp right now. Yet, your attention is drawn back to the world that you never really left, and you fail to notice that your grasp on your salvation is slipping. Your love for the world is strong and quenches your love for Christ, and, when faced with the decision to take up your cross and really follow Jesus, you decide that your love of the world is more important. Like Demas who loved this present world, you gain this present world, yet lose your eternal soul, your salvation. That which was once yours is no longer in your grasp.

Demas, that one who, along with Paul and Luke, sent greetings in Colossians 4:14. Demas, that one whom Paul called a fellow labourer (Philemon 1:24). Demas of whom Paul then declared “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Timothy 4:10). Demas, who had now regained the world he had forsaken when he accepted salvation in Christ. Demas who gained the world yet lost his soul! Demas who let slip his salvation because of his stronger grip on the world. Demas who could never come back again to Christ!

Becoming a Christian is easy! Just receive Christ into your life and all your problems are over, forever! Or are they? Are you growing in Christ or are you constantly going back to new-born status through your love of the world? Have you matured enough to be able to test all things, especially the lies of the false teachers? Do you suffer as a Christian, keeping in mind that this is what Christians are called to do (1 Peter 2:21)? Remember that those who live Godly lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). Is the Christian life so tough that you would rather give it up?

Like the Hebrews who were hard-hit with persecution such that they desired to go back to the temple worship which they had left behind when they became Christians. In fact, this is a major theme of Hebrews, the need to fight on in spite of the persecution.
… let us run with patience the race that is set before us – Hebrews 12:1. Note that the word “race” actually means fight, conflict, contention, and is translated “fight” in 1 Timothy 6:12 and 2 Timothy 4:7.

Paul told the Romans, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:1-2) Being a Christian means all or nothing. You don’t hand over a part of your life; you hand over all your life! You take up your cross daily (that is, take up the suffering to which you were called). You give God the right to choose what happens in your life, much like giving someone an Enduring Power of Attorney to control all your assets. No longer should you demand the right to have a say in your future; commit to God everything in your future. (You should be, after all, “a living sacrifice“.)

In particular, this means giving up the right to choose what you should do or say. God does not force Christians to hand this right over, but if you give Him this right willingly, then he will take control and you will then see the victory God has planned for you. You may (and will) fall at times, but you will always turn to God for help at those times, knowing that He is in total charge. And it is hard to see how you would ever be able to give up your salvation now. (I would say impossible. For such people their eternal salvation should indeed be secure.)

It’s like grasping your salvation with one hand while grasping the world with your other hand. It’s a tug of war, and sooner or later one side will win the battle. And the other side losing out. For the Christian, it should be the world that he lets go of, to then grasp his salvation with both hands. But, what if he should let go of his salvation to grasp the world with both hands? (Like Demas did!)

Thus, my conclusions on eternal security? I have already outlined them in this Part 3. If you want to hold onto the world, want to keep your options open, want to keep your worldly friends and social life, and don’t want to suffer as a true disciple of Jesus, then you are at risk of losing your salvation. And, if you gain salvation and then forsake it again, there can be no second option, for if Christ’s first and only sacrifice were perfect yet still insufficient for you, then no further sacrifice can ever achieve any more. Your repentance can never be renewed again. It would be better to have not known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then turn away from it (2 Peter 2:21).

However, if you wish to be eternally secure in your salvation, to know beyond any doubt that you have a place in heaven because your name is written in the Lamb’s book of life, then you must take up your cross daily, follow the example of suffering set by Christ, forsake the world (that means burning all bridges that permit your return), and hand over to God all (that means all) your decision-making, that is, give to God an Enduring Power of Attorney. What you control, you can lose; what God controls, you can never lose!

Like the song (in part) says: I have decided to follow Jesus, No turning back, No turning back; Though none go with me, still I will  follow; The world behind me, the cross before me. 

Yes, you have free will to choose; sovereign God has given you that right. And it is as easy as believing in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9) and calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13). If you genuinely desire salvation in Christ and desire to fully serve Him, then you are saved from this point on. You may fall again and again, confessing your sins for God to restore you to fellowship with Him (and He will do so, again and again!). But if your desire is to be holy as God is holy (and this means turning your back on the world and its pleasures), then you will remain saved to the uttermost, eternally.

If you desire to keep hold of your salvation, you must hand over your right to free will here. That is, by your own free will decision you must choose to forego any further free will decisions on your eternal future. You must give this right back to sovereign God. Permit God to lock down every option that could cause you to let go of your salvation (or even to think about it). Instead, let go of the world and its pleasures forever! “No turning back, No turning back!”

And, with God’s guidance you must grow toward perfection. (Despite never being able to be perfect in this life, you must nevertheless still strive for that perfection, or rather, give God the decision-making to get you there, to be conformed to the image of Christ – Romans 8:29.)

It really comes down to who is making the decisions in your life, you or God? It comes down to what your life is built upon, your dreams and aspirations, or God’s will for your life?

What you choose you can fail in. What God chooses for you can never fail you.
What you build, you can lose. What God builds, you will never lose.
Psalm 127:1 – Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh [but] in vain.

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 1

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2)

(Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3)

This is a hotly-contested issue upon which many will take sides largely based upon what they have been taught to believe. I have done some research on this matter over a number of years and was very surprised to find that what I had been taught (and had also believed) was not necessarily so. So often Bible passages are explained according to what the “teacher” already believes to be the truth, such that we get interpretations of verses and passages that are compromised by such beliefs before they are “proved” or “tested” according to 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Too many interpretations are made to fit what the person already believes to be true (and this occurs in more than just this particular doctrinal issue).

There are a number of “proof” verses that each side of the debate claim to “prove” their stand; these should all be looked at to determine if, in fact, they teach what they are claimed to teach, without any added preconceived ideas from beliefs already held by the teacher. I have, for a number of years now, settled upon my views on this matter, and I no longer fully believe what I had always been taught to believe. And, this is one of those topics that can only be seen in its proper light if one puts aside all previously held beliefs and investigates the issues with an open and rational mind. Also, all too often, a person is labelled with a particular “-ism” according to what they determine to believe, regardless of whether or not they actually are of that “-ism” belief. There should be room for allowance for Christians to actually read the Bible itself to determine what they perceive to be the truth independently of other doctrinal belief systems (with “-isms” such as calvinism and arminianism being thrown around like confetti).

At first glance, there appear to be two main camps of opinion, loosely described as “Yes, you may be assured of your salvation for eternity; you cannot under any circumstance lose your salvation!” (sometimes termed Once-Saved-Always-Saved) or “No, you cannot be assured of your salvation for eternity; certain circumstances may prevent you from continuing with your salvation!” Yet, on closer inspection, a third view may be understood: that you cannot lose your salvation unless you by your own free will renounce such eternal life. Of course, it is difficult to understand why anyone who had eternal life would ever want to give it away for the sake of the world, but nevertheless it may be seen as a doctrinal point of view on this issue.

There are even more views on this. They include the belief that you have to lose your salvation at least once. I never could understand this from any Biblical point of view; no doubt the person who told me this was certain that he was right. Another view states that all names of all mankind are written in the book of life and are removed at death if that person hasn’t made a decision to be saved by that time. Hal Lindsey in “There’s a New World Coming” P 48 says (of Revelation 3:5) that “his name will remain in the Book of Life. This Book contains the names of all the individuals ever born. If a person does not receive Jesus Christ as Savior by the time he dies, his name is blotted out of the Book of Life.” However, I’ll concentrate on the 3 main options as first listed above.

Firstly I’ll look at verses and passages which support the assurance of eternal salvation.

1/.  1 John 5:12-13 – ¹² He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ¹³ These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

This states two facts that cannot be denied: (a) that the one who has the Son of God (Christ) has life, and (b) that those who believe on the name of the Son of God have eternal life. It may be assumed that this means born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. In addition, this verse has clearly been written with the purpose of assuring such Christians that if they have the Son and believe on the name of the Son of God, then they may be assured of eternal life, and that they may continue to confidently believe in the name of the Son of God.

This verse appears irrefutable, yet some comments must be raised: (a) If life is attached to having the Son, and not having the Son means not having life, then all this verse is saying that having life eternally is dependent upon you having the Son eternally. Permanence of life is dependent upon permanence of having the Son. It really comes down to whether or not you can choose to stop having the Son at any time. Thus, personal free will may be an objection to the claim of assurance of having eternal life. (b) Why assure those who believe on the name of the Son of God that they may believe on the name of the Son of God, if in fact this is a permanent state of belief?

This verse is strong evidence of the assurance of salvation, yet does appear to rely upon continuing to have the Son and to believe on His name. Can a person choose to not have the Son after firstly having the Son? Or is it impossible to reject the Son once you have Him? If free will permits a person to choose to have the Son, can free will also permit that same person to then stop having the Son? Thus this verse teaches assurance of salvation as long as the Christian does not have a free will to turn away from the Son again.

2/.  John 5:24 – Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The question of eternal security rests upon the promise of having eternal life that can never be lost under any circumstances. So, this is an assurance of everlasting life as long as it is impossible for a person to choose to not believe. Does this verse require the person who believes on the Son to continue to believe on the Son for the rest of his life? Or does this verse allow the possibility that a person may cease believing on the Son? Once again, if free will permits a person to choose to believe on the Son, can free will also permit that same person to then stop believing on the Son? Thus this verse teaches assurance of salvation as long as the Christian does not have a free will to cease believing on the Son.

3/.  Jude 1:24 – Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Being able to keep the Christian from falling, and being able to present the Christian faultless before the presence of God’s glory does not actually promise that it will happen but is simply a statement of capability. God is able to keep a Christian from falling into sin, but does He actually do it without the Christian wanting God to do so? I may be able to jump into deep hot water, but does that mean that I will do so? The truth is that Christians do fall into sin when God commands them not to do so; therefore it is clear that personal free will is involved in this situation. This verse simply states what God is able to do, not necessarily what He actually will do. It’s the calvinist denial of personal freedom of will that makes what God is able to do the same as what He actually will do. Thus this verse does not necessarily assure the Christian of eternal security of salvation.

4/.  Romans 8:16 – The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

A very good verse to demonstrate eternal security of the believer, as long as we have the Holy Spirit eternally (and unquenched) in our lives. Ephesians 4:30 says that we are sealed by that same Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. But, we may also quench the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) in which case does the Spirit then continue to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God? Does that mean then, that if the Spirit (through being quenched) cannot bear such witness, that we are not the children of God? This verse appears to teach assurance of salvation, yet also appears to depend upon whether or not we choose to commit sin which may quench the Spirit of God. Once again, freedom of will may be a factor here.

5/.  Hebrews 7:25 – Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

As per the argument for Jude 1:24, this states the ability of God to save to the uttermost, yet does not actually say that he will do so. Again, if by our free wills we choose to disobey God, then we demonstrate that we do not love Him (John 14:15) So, can our disobedience jeopardise God’s ability to save us to the uttermost?

6/.  John 10:28-29 – ²⁸ And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.

This passage, along with Romans 8:38-39, does make it very clear that no-one may take us out of God’s hand. This is quite conclusive, except for one thing which must be noted. We do have eternal life and shall never perish while we are in the Father’s hand, and certainly He will not permit anyone to take us out of His hand. And, if God is infinitely more powerful than all His creation put together, then literally no-one may overcome God’s protection of His children. These facts cannot be denied. But, are we able to take ourselves out of the father’s hand?

7/.  Ephesians 4:30 – And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

This verse certainly looks like a bullet-proof defence of eternal security. A seal is just that: a seal, something that cannot be broken by anyone except an authorised person. And if it is the seal of God, then who can break it. It is definite that this is as strong a verse in support of eternal security as you can get, up there with not being able to be plucked out of God’s hand. After all, who is going to be able to overcome God’s authority?

But, does anyone other than God (via His Holy Spirit) have the authority to break this seal? A seal was put on a document or correspondence to ensure that only the authorised person could open and read it. Thus, only two people had the authority to break that seal, the one who put the seal there, and the one to whom the document was addressed (or two parties to a covenant or contract). In this case, a seal is placed upon the covenant that God makes with the Christian in ensuring the eternal salvation of that believer. There are two parties to this covenant, God and the Christian. It is clear that God will not break this covenant, but does the other party to this covenant (the Christian) have the authority to break that seal? Once again, this would rest on whether or not the Christian is permitted the freedom of will to make such a decision.

8/.  John 6:47b – He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

As with John 5:24 above, this assurance depends upon whether or not a Christian is permitted the freedom of will to cease believing? It is hard to understand why any Christian would wish to cease believing in the Saviour, but if he could, and did so, then he would lose his eternal life. But, can he cease believing in Christ? Is this a choice God permits him to make? Once again it really depends upon whether free will may be applied to our belief in Christ after as well as before we believed.

9/.  Romans 8:38-39 – ³⁸ For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, ³⁹ Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is the one verse which seems to be absolute in its support for the assurance of our eternal salvation. It covers just about everything. Absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Once we’re on that train to heaven, nothing whosoever or whatsoever can ever take us off it, because God will prevent every effort to remove us from His love. However, that one problem still raises its head: Are we able to get off that train to heaven if we should choose to do so? Unless you’re a calvinist who denies the free will of man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then you will believe that anyone who makes a genuine decision to be saved does so by their own free will. Does the person who chose to be saved by his free will, have the right to reject that salvation also by his free will? Can he choose to lose his salvation? Or is that prevented by God by not permitting man free will to choose the world once he is saved for heaven?

Two of the above passages (3, 5) have more to do with God’s ability to save to the uttermost, rather than whether or not He will actually do it. But many passages (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) do not allow for any possibility of loss of salvation/eternal life unless one is permitted to use freedom of will to recant one’s belief in Christ.

Basically this is what it comes down to: Can a person, after coming to Christ of his own free will, also have the right to leave Christ by his own free will. A major difference between calvinist and non-calvinist doctrines is that calvinism demands no freedom of will especially with respect to spiritual matters such as salvation and its consequences. Non-calvinist doctrine teaches the free will of mankind to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation. However, does salvation remove that freedom of will from the person once he is saved? This will be looked at in further posts.

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 2

Eternal security? or Can you lose your salvation? Part 3

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

Calvinists, in requiring that their God be the only sovereign will in the universe, have created a massive problem that will not go away, and at best can only be dealt with by huge cover-ups (lies) and verbal gymnastics (re-wording the Bible or false interpretations). For, if the calvinist God is the only sovereign will in the universe, then no other may oppose his will, ever. No other will can exist unless it is permitted by his sovereign will.

And for those calvinists reading this (and some do, I know), if you don’t agree, then demonstrate clearly (sola scriptura, of course) without going around in circles – all those brave enough to answer so far have clearly gone around in circles, just not brave enough to get straight to the point! List clearly the offending item and why it is not acceptable (remember – sola scriptura). Of course, if you have no way of refuting my statements, then you have my permission to hold your tongues; silence (that great “weapon” of calvinist heresy) is always taken as evidence of an inability to refute! So far, no-one has effectively refuted anything I’ve said (and I’ve been saying a lot of it online for almost 3 years now).

Calvin says “it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch. 23 , Section 6)
Calvin also teaches that all things are decreed by God, even criminal acts. “Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree.” (Institutes Bk 1, Ch. 16, Section 9)

That is, the calvinist God foreordained all things before creation; he wrote the complete script before the play began! The only problem here (and it is a massive problem indeed) is that no free will of man can be permitted unless it is completely subject to the calvinist God’s sovereign will at all times. No-one may ever do anything that the calvinist God hasn’t already foreordained as part of his sovereign will. This includes sin, for if man cannot oppose God’s sovereign will at any time, then he must sin whenever the calvinist God has decreed that he should do so. Sin must be committed according to the calvinist God’s will at all times.

But, sin is described as rebellion against God. MacArthur describes sin as wilful rebellion against God. “It is not only defiling; it is rebellion.  It establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.  It is, by its own nature, as Leviticus 26:27 says, “Walking contrary to God.”  It is just walking in constant opposition, in constant rebellion.  A sinner tramples on God’s law, tramples on God’s character, willfully crosses God’s will, affronts God, spites God, mocks God.  And the Hebrew word for “sin,” one of the Hebrew words, pasha, signifies rebellion.  Is it, at its core, rebellion.  That’s what it was for Lucifer.  That’s what it was for Eve.  That’s what it was for Adam.  That’s what it is for all of us.  Perhaps a good definition, Jeremiah 44:17, “But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth.”  That’s it.  God, we will do exactly what we want to do.  ……  So, sin is defiling, and sin is open, incessant rebellion.” (90-233 What is Sin? Jan 30, 2000)

Clearly MacArthur sees sin as an act of the free will of man, yet unless that man also has the free will to deny sin, then there is literally no free will at all. Free will requires a choice, in this case between rebellion against God, and obedience to God. MacArthur teaches that sinful man may choose his own poison, but may never have the right to choose to not sin. “But within the framework of our sinfulness we could pick our poison. When you talk about free will, we’re talking about the freedom that the sinner has to choose his iniquity. That’s what his freedom is, that’s the sum and substance of his freedom. The one thing he’s not free to do is to choose salvation, or to choose righteousness, or to choose holiness, or to choose God, or to choose Christ unaided and on his own.” (from “Answering the key questions about the doctrine of election” GTY 106)
And yet, if the calvinist God’s will is that which determines all events in the universe, then even the choice of poison (sin) must be fully controlled by his sovereign (and only) will. Free will never exists when it is totally controlled by another will!

How can sin be such rebellion against God and still not be seen as another will in opposition to God’s will. For, if sin is rebellion against God, then there are only two logical options here: either (a) the sin is wilfully opposed to God’s will [that is, the person has chosen, through his freedom of will, to oppose God’s will], or (b) God has decreed by his sovereign will that the person should sin [that is, the person has been given no freedom of will to oppose God’s will]. The first option (a) requires that man has an individual free will of his own in order to oppose sovereign God. The second option (b) excuses man from any culpability for committing the sin, but instead places all responsibility for that sin upon the sovereign will of the calvinist God who decreed it. Thus the calvinist God, in denying any freedom of will to oppose his will, is actually wilfully sinning against himself.

You can’t have it both ways. Either man has a free will to wilfully sin against God, or else God is dictating to man that he must sin against God without any free will to resist. The key to it all is free will, and it is why calvinism, in refusing the free will of mankind, has created a massive headache for all calvinists. Many, of course, will deny that man has no free will at all, claiming that man can make choices in his life. However, they always put in a codicil that in all spiritual matters, such as salvation, there is still no free will to make any choice at all, crying “There is no free will unto salvation”. (Note MacArthur’s illogical statement that man can choose his own poison, but is unable to choose to not take poison in the first place!)

There are, of course, many calvinists who actually state the truth without trying to do any cover-ups. Their words are unpalatable, even to many calvinists, yet at least they are not telling the lies that other calvinists tell. The truth is that the calvinist God decrees sin, yet punishes those who commit the sin, even though they had no say in the matter. The calvinist God who blames others for his decisions is both unjust and unrighteous.

From Sproul we read (in “Almighty over All”, P 53-54) that “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that He created sin. … God desired for man to fall into sin.” But, please explain, calvinists, how one may create sin without actually sinning?

From MacArthur we read (in “The Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe”, P 113) that “Ultimately, we must concede that sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it – or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it.” So, according to MacArthur, God decreed sin which he (MacArthur) has defined as defiling and incessant rebellion against God. So, please explain how holy God may create that which “establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.” That is, MacArthur teaches that the calvinist God has decreed defilement, filth, pollution, corruption and rebellion, yet still claims to be holy! Such teachings would be blasphemy indeed if applied to the God of the Bible; however, MacArthur is defining a God who is not the God of the Bible.

Edwin H Palmer, a calvinist writer, says (in “The Five Points of Calvinism”, P 25) that “It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.”
(Palmer was educated at Westminster Theological Seminary and the Free University of Amsterdam, and was even an instructor in systematic theology at Westminster 1960-64. This clearly defines his calvinist standpoint.)
Then the calvinist God must love sin since he has foreordained so much of it. How can the Bible say that Christ knew no sin, yet the calvinist God knew so much about sin that he foreordained it.
2 Corinthians 5:21 – For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Boettner says (in “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, P 169 & P 172) that “The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of His glory.”
So sin is that which makes the calvinist God look good?
“And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity; otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption.”
And it was necessary for Adam to be made to sin to prevent the calvinist God from creating an unnecessary plan of redemption? What? Is the calvinist God unable to know what’s going to happen in the future? According the Boettner God cannot foretell the future unless he has foreordained it. “Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined.” (Ibid P 30)

Vincent Cheung says (in “The Author of Sin”, P 4) that “Those who oppose me stupidly chant, “But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin.” However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.  The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin.”
Of course, this is abundantly true if this particular God is actually satan.

Cheung also says on P 10 of that same book that “We are not using the word “create” in the same sense as God’s original creation out of nothing, but we are referring to God’s control over things that he has already created. Although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature, and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already created.
It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God who “creates” this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to function and the person to act according to it.”
Cheung’s God is an unrighteous sadist, because he actively creates man’s evil nature, yet punishes him for sinning according to his created nature.

Further to this, Cheung says (in “The Problem of Evil, God’s Sovereignty”) that “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory” (https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm)
Please explain, calvinists, how God can decree evil for his glory? Evil world leaders and dictators may make evil decisions for their glorious benefit, but they serve satan, don’t they?

A W Pink says (in “The Sovereignty of God”, & also “The Wisdom of Arthur W Pink Vol 1”, P 445) that “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed.”
The calvinist God willed that man rebel against him? That man be disobedient? Yet the Bible says that if we love God, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15 – If ye love me, keep my commandments.) So does this mean that it is the calvinist God’s will that we do not love him?

Piper says (in “Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?” and quoting from Jonathan Edwards) “Why Does God Ordain that there Be Evil? It is evident from what has been said that it is not because he delights in evil as evil. Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it. ….. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.” That is, God has ordained sin (evil) in order that He may produce good! And, without sin, God’s glory would be lacking (imperfect!). In fact, God’s glory could scarcely shine forth at all without sin! Does that mean that I have to sin in order to give God greater glory? Am I committing sin by not sinning?

Piper also says “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” (as quoted in https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin August 29, 2007)
So sin is glory? Vainglory? (See Galatians 5:26)

Piper also has co-edited a book (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God) which says (on P 42) that “(God) actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory. …. This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child.”
Any God who brings about such evil causing Hitler and his sadistic crew of Nazis to commit the atrocities of the 2^nd World War is himself sadistic! This is a sick belief system indeed!

Calvin says (in “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”) that “The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. ……
First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil. …… But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it. ……. For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. …… But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils. ….. Many go astray in not holding that God wills what men by sinning do. …… Must we then impute the guilt of sin to God, or invent a double will for Him so that He falls out with Himself? I have shown that He wills the same as the criminal and the wicked, but in a different way.” That is, Calvin’s reasoning leads him to discover that God must be the author of all evils, yet when God wills the criminal to sin, God is not guilty of the sin; rather, the criminal is guilty of the sin he committed by the will of God. The calvinist God is either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for his own actions.

Calvin also says “But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service” (Institutes Bk 1, Ch.17, Section 11)
Please explain, calvinists, how the devil can only do that which is God’s will for him to do!

Charles Hodge (in Systematic Theology Part 1 (Theology Proper) Ch.9 “The Decrees of God”) says “The Bible especially declares that the free acts of men are decreed beforehand. ….. The Scriptures teach that sinful acts, as well as such as are holy, are foreordained. ….. It is therefore beyond all doubt the doctrine of the Bible that sin is foreordained.”
This is truly systematic satanic theology. Satan must love all these false calvinist teachings. Let’s put the record straight! It was satan, not the God of the Bible, who tempted Adam and Eve to sin!

Edwin Lutzer says (in “The Doctrines that Divide” P 220-221) that “Satan, regardless of how evil his actions, always serves the purposes of God. God frequently uses the devil to serve his higher ends. …. (the devil) always stands in opposition to God even when he does what God ordains.” Lutzer says (Ibid P 210) of God and evil that “Nonetheless, his (God’s) permission (for evil to occur) necessarily means that he (God) bore ultimate responsibility for it (evil). After all, he could have chosen ‘not to permit’ it.”
So satan opposes God yet always according to God’s will? God ordains that the devil commit sin?

Yet another calvinist explanation says that God by permitting sin has effectively predestined it. “If God knows that Adam will sin—or that you and I will sin—and could keep it from happening, but does not, and God’s knowledge is infallible, then it is just as certain as if he had predestined it. In fact, it is the same as being predestined.” (https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2011/11/does-calvinism-make-god-a-moral-monster/)
That’s a big leap in poor logic indeed! Permitting sin is the same as predestining it? Giving permission for an action is the same as ordering that action to be carried out?

And then, from the Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist “club”) we get the following:
“If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.
But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?
….. The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.
One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.
A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.”
(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall/)

In other words, the sin of Adam (and consequently the rest of mankind) was necessary for the calvinist God to exhibit his full glory. Without sin, the calvinist God is lacking in glory!! The problem for the calvinists is that in making their god’s will unique in the universe, they have to make him the reason for sin. Effectively the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe. Otherwise there would have to be another will in the universe that could wilfully oppose him. To the calvinists man is still a sinner, but he can never sin wilfully unless he has some measure of freewill. Without free will, he can only sin according to God’s decree or will.
Therefore, to allow man as the wilful author of sin would have to allow man the free will to do so. Therefore, the calvinist god logically has to be the only wilful sinner in the universe.

And, did you notice the lack of scriptural support for their claims? They claim sola scriptura, yet use everything else but the Bible!

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.

Is it true that only calvinists can be saved?

Well, if you were to ask a calvinist, and he were to be completely truthful, then he would have to answer, “Yes!” Of course, most calvinists reading this would immediately get upset that I should so misrepresent their revered religion, but if they could just see why I say this, they may have to think again. I may only misrepresent if I say something that is not true. I challenge all calvinists to show clearly where I have said something that is not true of their beliefs. If they can’t, then they should just accept what I say. I get accused of misrepresenting them, yet not one has actually named what it is that I have said that misrepresents them.

It’s simple, really. Calvinists believe that you must be regenerated (born again) by God’s Spirit before you are able to do anything else spiritually. They claim that until you are regenerated (born again), you are spiritually dead and, like a dead body, you are incapable of doing anything good spiritually. Unless you are born again, you cannot effectively hear the gospel, nor have faith in or believe in Christ (based upon their interpretation of John 3:3). And even then, according to calvinists, faith is a gift of God, only given to those who have already been born again. (Of course, faith is not a gift of God but instead it is the response of man’s free will to the character of God who promises such full salvation. They misunderstand – probably deliberately – the grammar of such as Ephesians 2:8-9.)

The first stage of a calvinist’s salvation is that you must be regenerated (born again). Therefore, to a calvinist, unless you have been regenerated (born again), you are incapable of hearing the truth of the gospel and responding. Even if you did hear the gospel, you couldn’t respond because you wouldn’t have the faith to believe in it, because the calvinist God only gives the gift of faith to those whom he has already regenerated. And the calvinist God will only regenerate those whom he has chosen; you do not have a say in the matter at all. If you were not chosen for salvation by the calvinist God, then you can never be saved, ever!

That is, the calvinist God only gives the gift of faith to calvinists, those of his elect that he has chosen for salvation. If you were not chosen by the calvinist God for salvation, then because you have no free will of your own, you can never be saved, even if you wanted to be saved. You will not be regenerated and therefore you will not be given the gift of faith, and therefore can never believe and be saved!

You see, calvinists believe that faith cannot be the response of the free will of man, because (according to them) non-regenerated man has no free will to respond to anything spiritual. Unless a man be born again, he cannot have faith in the kingdom of God (according to calvinists’ interpretation of John 3:3).

Let’s say you are a non-calvinist Christian, having heard the gospel, and by your own free will accepted the gift of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That is, you called upon the name of the Lord to be saved. God offered the free gift of salvation and you gratefully accepted by faith in God’s promises. However, if calvinists are acting faithfully according to their doctrines, then they have to declare you to be yet unsaved unless God has previously regenerated you. They have to say (as many calvinist do openly state) that if you choose to receive Jesus as your Saviour, then you are not saved and are still heading for hell. They say that you do not choose God; instead, God chooses you! If you insist that you accepted the free gift of salvation, then they have to say that unless God chose to give it to you, you haven’t received anything of the sort. And their God only chooses a small proportion of mankind to save!

If calvinists teach according to their beliefs, they have to say that, unless you are firstly regenerated (born again as a calvinist), you cannot have faith to believe, you cannot be saved, you cannot be a Christian, you cannot have eternal life, and you cannot go to heaven. Calvinist doctrine has to declare any non-calvinist Christian as lost and going to hell, because they do not declare themselves to have been regenerated by God first. Therefore, if you claim to be a non-calvinist Christian, then they are required to evangelise you in order to see if God might regenerate you as one of his elect so that you might be saved. According to the calvinist, you cannot truly be saved unless you are a regenerate calvinist believer like themselves.

Some calvinists do actually tell non-calvinists that if they were truly Christians, they would know that they had been regenerated first (born again, made alive by God’s Spirit) before they understood what they had to do to be saved. And, if they do not accept calvinism as the truth, then they cannot be true Christians. Note what Al Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and avid calvinist) says about this subject: Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they going to need and where else are they going to connect.
(https://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/)

Clearly to Mohler, calvinism is the only good option available out there! All we non-calvinist Christians are either truly lesser Christians or not Christians at all. According to calvinists, they (the calvinists) are the only true Christians. Others are either not (yet?) saved, or greatly deluded in their understanding of the truth! To the evangelical calvinist, the non-calvinist Christian is their mission field. If you claim to be Christian but are not calvinist, then their task is to preach the “true” gospel of calvinism to you in the hope that you might yet be truly saved. After all, one of the catch-cries of the calvinist is that “calvinism is the gospel”!

Christians see the lost world as their mission field; calvinists see non-calvinist “non-regenerate” “Christians” attending churches as their mission field! Christians go out into all the world to preach the gospel. Calvinists go into all the churches to preach their gospel! When I asked a calvinist why he bothered with the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20, he answered that he was commanded to do so, and could come up with no other logical reason other than he was commanded to do so! Christians believe the lost are to be found in the world; calvinists believe that the lost whom God has chosen for salvation will be found in the church.

Calvin taught that there was no salvation to be found outside the walls of the mother church; you couldn’t be saved unless God had firstly brought you to the church through his regeneration (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk IV, Chap I, Part 4). The first sign to a calvinist that you have been regenerated by God is that you will be drawn to the church for salvation. They teach that the non-elect are totally unable to seek after God and thus should not be found in church. (Although Calvin did teach that God could give you a lesser, non-saving temporary faith as an inferior operation of the Spirit – Institutes, Book III, Chapter 2, Part 11. No doubt Calvin was plagued by the knowledge that there were people that he called “lost” still attending church. He was forced to declare them lost, yet given a temporary faith by God to make them look and act like the elect but only for a season. Such people with a temporary faith were never of the elect and would never go to heaven. Read more here The living-dead calvinist zombies – as taught by Calvin)

Therefore, if the calvinist is put on the spot, and forced to declare what their religion actually teaches, they are forced to admit that only the regenerated calvinist may be declared saved; and all non-regenerate Christians cannot be saved until (and if) the calvinist God declares them his elect. If a Christian denies such calvinist teachings, then he must be assumed to be lost and heading for hell. Your testimony of salvation at the cross of Jesus is of no value to the calvinist who says you should have been regenerated first before you could claim Christ’s salvation. To them you are still lost until you accept the “truth” of regeneration as necessary for salvation.

It is true that calvinism teaches that only calvinists may truly be saved. They may deny this as much as they can, but they still have to admit that unless you are regenerated (born again as a calvinist), you cannot have faith to believe in Christ and therefore can never be saved. Regeneration comes before faith; so to the calvinist, without regeneration you cannot be saved, cannot be a Christian, cannot go to heaven, cannot have eternal life. As calvinist Todd Friel says, “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. How tragic that millions of people think they are right with God when they are not. How many people who will cry out, “Lord, Lord” on judgment day will be “Christians” who asked Jesus into their hearts?”
(Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart, by Todd Friel)

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.

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.