100% Bible Based Teaching
Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God
Clear distinction between worldly and Christian music
Aim to fulfill the great commission as commanded by Jesus
Seeking to find answers to your faith based questions from God’s Word
Calvinists lack good debating skills.
Calvinist comments to this website are, in general, irrational and disorganised. Very few would be able to present an acceptable debate. They are either incapable of intelligent rational discussion, or pretending to be so.
Good post-writing is like a well-presented debate
You see, I do a lot of research and study before putting any of my documents and posts online. I check reference details, I assess biblical consistency, and I definitely focus on the specific point I am trying to make. All in all, it takes a lot of time and effort to write something properly. Like a good debate, I seek to present my views clearly and accurately.
Calvinists totally lack good debating skills
However, calvinists on the other hand appear to totally lack any idea of good debating skills. They rarely try to refute my views, and often try to change the topic. Their statements lack cohesion, and they rely far too much on merely quoting some alleged “expert” (verbatim) or give unexplained lists of biblical references to check out. They will even quote large amounts of scripture without any explanation, obviously assuming (quite falsely) that the Bible must always be read according to their interpretations alone. In any debate, such behaviour would score very low, if at all.
Calvinist comments disagree with me yet are so vague that defence is impossible
You only have to check the Comments page to discover that calvinists regularly disagree with me, yet never actually clearly specify exactly what it is that I have written that they disagree with. It is impossible to effectively defend against such vague statements, and they know this. In fact, they prefer this.
Calvinists do not like to commit themselves too much for fear they might be refuted
The more specific a statement is, the more easily it can be accepted or refuted. Vague statements merely suggest certain things without presenting a clear topic that can be refuted. Calvinists hide behind such vague statements because they are afraid of being shown up as incorrect. This is a sign that calvinists do not fully trust their own doctrines as being biblical. They are afraid to go out on a limb in defence of their doctrines.
Calvinists attack the person, not the belief
Most calvinist comments are focused upon the person and not the actual belief itself. This is poor debating and not worthy of refuting. It demands that their opponent defend his/her own reputation rather than their beliefs. One only has to read many comments posted on my website to see the truth of this statement.
Comments must be made according to good debating practice
Calvinists do not appear to have much understanding of good debating practice. Keep in mind that it is my website and that the comments must be based on an agreement or disagreement of what I have written. Anything else is an irrelevancy.
I will state some basic rules.
1/. The topic must be clearly understood and reinforced by those who debate.
If calvinists disagree with anything I have written, they must clearly define what I have written that they disagree with. This will usually be a reference to a specific document, even quoting what it is that I have stated that they disagree with. Without the establishment of the topic in this way, there can be no debate.
2/. A good debater must be able to refute his opponent’s claims.
If a calvinist cannot refute anything I have written, then there is no point in presenting any counter claims of his own. If he cannot destroy opposing statements, then he is effectively agreeing with them. Calvinists tend to ignore or make light of opposing claims. They may say that my opposing claims could be right but that their claims also could be right. For example, a recent comment stated “The 1 Pet 1:2 verse could mean God’s foreknowledge of a sinners repentance and faith in Salvation and Jesus as Lord”. Could mean? Could be right? Since when is a debate won on “could mean”? If they are to be right, then they must demonstrate me to be wrong! Otherwise I remain right! Debaters must be definitive, not vague!
3/. A good debater must produce proof statements directly related to the named topic.
Calvinists are far too prone to presenting topics that they feel more comfortable with rather than dealing with what I have actually written. They do tend to avoid trying to directly refute what I have written because that so often takes them out of their comfort zone (something they very much dislike). And, as well as avoiding directly refuting my statements, they attempt to divert attention to topics that keep them in their comfort zone. Therefore, instead of sticking to the named topic, they would rather select one of their “calvinist proof passages” as a substitute topic. And, if they quote a verse normally used to “prove” calvinism, and I counter with a question that undermines them, they will quickly move on to another topic again.
For example, one calvinist stated that John 15:16 demonstrated that God chose us (and not us Him). I then asked if he realised that Judas was one of those chosen here. His next correspondence totally disregarded this issue and went onto another unrelated topic. My query regarding Judas went unanswered!
4/. A good debater must express himself personally.
A good debater will use references judiciously to support his own views of the topic. He may name expert references that support his stated views, but should always concentrate on said references supporting his own views. The quoted references should not be independent views in themselves. The debate is focusing on the skills of the debater, not the skills of his references. His references should always be in support of his own views. The debater should avoid quoting long passages verbatim from some alleged “expert” reference; otherwise it would be that expert reference who is debating, and not the debater himself. Expert references should only be used as support and not as extra debaters on the team.
Too many calvinists think that presenting a list of Bible references and/or long passages quoted verbatim is sufficient in itself to prove their views. Therefore, comments may only use Bible references demonstrated to be directly supporting the debater’s views. Long Bible passages should be avoided; the debate is not a lecture or sermon.
5/. A good debate is concise.
A good debate should be limited in size. Most debating competitions have a time limit on the time each team member may speak. Many debating teams may have perhaps 3 members on each team, with each person limited to 3 or 5 minutes. (Team numbers and time limits may vary.) No-one wants to sit listening to a speaker drone on for ages; such people can quickly lose the attention of their listeners. So keep it short and sweet, and straight to the point – no waffling on.
Unfortunately, calvinists tend to be long-winded and vague; by the time they get to the end, most listeners have forgotten where they started. In particular, calvinists rarely get straight to the point. Being too specific permits opponents to home in on indefensible points, so calvinists tend to be vague on purpose, making it more difficult for others to point out specific errors.
6/. A good debater always focuses on the topic, not the opponent.
A poor debater who has little to offer in support of his topic will be tempted to make personal comments about his opponent. It is a tactic often used by lawyers: that if you are likely to lose the case, throw some dirt and some might stick. Discredit the opposing counsel and/or his witnesses.
Time after time, calvinist comments focus on me as a poor example of a Christian. (Just check the Comments page to see this!) According to them, I am a satanist (actually a good one, too!), I have pride, I am arrogant, I am not humble, I disdain and abuse other Christians, I am clueless, rude, a slanderer, non-elect, etc etc.
(Of course, they provide little to support such claims other than they have been unable to demonstrate me to be wrong doctrinally.)
7/. A good debater avoids deception in his statements.
If a debater thinks he is fighting a losing battle because the topic favours his opponents, then he may hope to get in first by taking the high ground before his opponents get a chance to speak. That is, to take a great weakness and present it as a great strength. This is deception. The idea is to make the first move and hopefully put your opponent on the defensive from the start, making your opponent defend what they should be attacking with. It is effectively using lies to cover up your weaknesses. Deception may win debates but only if the opposition fails to recognise the untruths being told.
Calvinists make use of this tactic so often that it is amazing more have not seen the pattern. For example, they will regularly claim Romans 9 to be a most definitive passage in support of calvinism. And yet, if you look at Romans 9 carefully, it is clear that it opposes calvinism. (Just look at Romans 9:1-3 to see that Paul himself could not have been a calvinist!) Every one of their claims re that chapter is actually a weakness and not a strength at all. Note that this lying tactic is not likely to work with those who have a good knowledge and understanding of the Bible.
8/. A good debater does not use the debate as his soapbox.
A good debater sticks to the selected topic and does not let himself be distracted onto personal views unrelated to the topic.
Calvinists often commence by stating a vague opposition to something I have written, only to then go onto another topic that is probably more to their liking. (That is, probably a topic more easily discussed vaguely than the one I have presented.) I have accused a few of trying to treat my website as their soapbox. If they want a place to air their own personal views, then they should start their own website!
In future all comments will have to adhere to good debating rules.
Future comments will need to be focused on the topic (as defined by one or more of my documents). They will be concise, rational and logical.
If calvinists make vague, unintelligent and irrational discussion, then they will not be published on this website. In fact, this requirement will apply to all comments. If you disagree with any statement I have written, then clearly define that statement and why you are opposed to it. (Or, in fact, why you are in agreement with it.) Do not change the topic. Keep your debate concise.
You may use Bible references where they are integrated into your debate. Please do not quote Scripture verbatim, especially long passages. Keep in mind that any Bible quoted must be public domain. Any literary references must be properly documented.
If I had used these requirements to assess Comments up until now, many who write in disagreement would not have been published.
I will be more lenient with those who agree, of course. This is not unfair; it is, after all, my website (I pay all costs without using advertising). I may choose how I assess any incoming mail. Note that all people tend to accept emails more readily from supportive people, and this is no different to that. To any who disagree with this policy, I would ask how many of you move unwanted emails to the trash or spam folders rather than dealing with them. Naturally you prefer friendly emails; so do I. Therefore, any unacceptable Comments (that do not adhere to the above listed requirements) will be moved to the trash or spam folders. Thank you.
************************************
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.
The Westminster Confession – a scholarly critique
After some serious study of that belief statement much beloved and much quoted of calvinists – the Westminster Confession – I have concluded that it is quite contradictory and encourages confused thinking. This is to be expected, seeing as it is based upon those likewise contradictory and confused teachings of Calvin.
Calvinism teaches that sin and evil are perfect and therefore good.
In “Calvinism is madness itself”, I pointed out that calvinists are forced by their doctrines to believe that all things in this world must be perfect, including sin and evil.
Yet sin can only be by the free will of man
Calvinism teaches that man has no free will to choose to sin. Spurgeon (that preacher much-loved-and-quoted by calvinists) said: “It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.” (“Free will – a slave”) Yet, Spurgeon was unable to provide any scriptural evidence to support this.
Free-will proves calvinism to be a lie.
Calvinism stands or falls on whether or not such free will exists. In particular, calvinists strongly oppose any freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey God. They teach that God created a class of people who could never seek after God and could never be saved.
Man sins by his free will alone.
The issue of who created sin is a much-argued subject, even between calvinists. The Bible teaches that man chooses to sin (to disobey God’s will) of his own free will. This alone is biblical; any option that takes man’s free will from him when sinning is to make God a sinner against His own will. God cannot sin against His own will; he cannot disobey Himself, nor will He cause or incite someone to sin against His will. He doesn’t even permit sin – He can only permit the free will of others to choose to sin in disobedience to His will.
The Westminster Confession teaches that God cannot be responsible for sin.
The Westminster Confession says: “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Ch.5 Part 4) This on its own is biblical.
It also says that “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6) That is, disobeying God’s will (as enshrined in His law) is sin. This, too, is biblical.
The Westminster Confession also teaches that God ordered sin for his own glory.
But this document also says “Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.” (Ch.6 Part 1)
That is, God has not only permitted them to sin, but has ordered it for his glory. Note that Calvin clearly stated that “God is the author of all evils.“
The calvinist God orders sin for his glory while also condemning it?
How can God “purpose to order” sin “for his glory” if he is not “the author or approver of sin”?
God cannot ordain, decree, nor even permit sin.
God cannot ordain or decree sin, ever. It would be the equivalent of decreeing that He disobey Himself. Nor can God even permit man to sin, for permission itself assumes approval of such action. Thus permitting man to sin would require God to approve of disobedience against Himself. Holy God cannot do this. In Genesis 2:16 God gave Adam permission to eat of all the trees in the garden, but denied him that same permission to eat of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17).
Sin is an act of disobeying God’s will.
Sin is defined as man disobeying God’s will. God is holy and cannot have anything to do with sin. Even the Westminster Confession admits this much: “Every sin” is “a transgression of the righteous law of God”. (Ch.6 Part 6)
Because God neither orders nor approves of sin (Ch.5 Part 4), it was impossible for Him to make Adam sin, or even to influence him in any way to cause him to sin. When Adam sinned, he was committing an act of disobedience by his will alone against God’s will. God told him to not eat the forbidden fruit; this was God’s law to Adam. Therefore, to eat of it was disobedience against God’s law and therefore sin. It could only be an act of Adam’s free will to choose to sin against God.
Everything God does must oppose sin.
It could never have been God’s will in any way that Adam should sin because then God would be inciting sin against Himself, and holy God cannot do that, ever. Adam’s sin was opposed to God’s will, and therefore an independent act of a will other than God’s holy will. God will at all times oppose disobedience against Himself. Everything God does must oppose sin (which is disobedience against Himself) or else He is no longer holy.
God did not create Adam with a sin nature.
Some calvinists, recognising that Adam has to have chosen to sin by his own free will, then say that it was Adam’s nature that caused him to sin. But this would require God to have created Adam with a sin nature that had to sin of necessity. And that would also require God to incite disobedience against Himself, thereby committing sin against His own will.
The calvinist “free-agency” makes man do only that which God has decreed that he do.
Others say that while Adam had no free will, he had a free agency to sin. But free agency merely says that while Adam was free to choose, he could only choose that option which God had already provided for him to choose, and no other. Effectively free agency is no freedom at all; free agency would still require God to provide the sinful option that Adam would be required to choose. And that would still make God a sinner against Himself.
The Westminster Confession says that man has liberty to choose between good and evil.
The Westminster Confession says: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” (Ch.9 Part 1)
The Westminster Confession also says that God foreordained all things that will ever happen.
It also says: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (Ch.3 Part 1)
Therefore it teaches that man has free will to choose, yet only what God has foreordained that he choose.
Literally, therefore, God has given man free will to choose between good or evil, yet God has also ordained all things that will happen, including all good and evil. Thus, God has given man free will to choose whatever God has already ordained that he should choose. This is the classic definition of the calvinist “free agency”.
Salvation is a free gift offered to all mankind.
God has offered a free gift of salvation and eternal life to all mankind. To reject such a gift would be to disobey God whose will is that all mankind be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Calvinists say that man does not have the free will to make such a choice; that God has ordained from the beginning who will obey and who will not obey God’s will here. Those who do not obey will be sent to hell for eternity for their disobedience against God’s will. However, according to calvinism, their disobedience can only be the consequence of not being ordained to obey.
Calvinism makes God complicit in man’s sin.
This makes the calvinist God at the very least a co-sinner alongside those whom he will send to hell for their ordained disobedience. And, at worst, the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe! The true God cannot make anyone sin, nor will He ever set up circumstances that inevitably send people to hell without any option of being able to obey Him.
The Westminster Confession teaches that God has predestinated most of mankind to hell without man having any say at all.
The Westminster Confession says: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” (Ch.3 Part 3) Not only does this teach double predestination, but in Ch.3 Part 5 it states that this was decided “before the foundation of the world”.
The Westminster Confession teaches that the calvinist God randomly selects who will go to heaven.
Ch.3 Part 5 also states that God’s decision regarding predestination was “out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto”, that is, unconditional. It doesn’t matter who you are or how you behave, for every single person has just as much chance of being chosen as anyone else (or else a condition would exist). And, noting Westminster Confession Ch.10 Parts 3 & 4, even Hitler could have been one of the elect. Or Judas (oh, that’s right, according to the Bible, he was one of the elect!). Unconditional election equals random selection.
Therefore in calvinism eternal life or death rests upon a celestial lottery of all mankind.
But if the election is unconditional, then all mankind is in this celestial lottery, and theoretically everyone has an equal chance of being drawn. But no, it does appear that white Caucasians are far more likely to be chosen than any other racial group. Maybe the calvinist God stacked the draw, or rigged it somehow so that those people were favoured? But then it wouldn’t be unconditional! Or, perhaps, unreached nations could actually have the elect among them too, only they do not produce the works and therefore we aren’t counting them, but maybe we should? Note that Tim Keller (a co-founder of the new calvinist Gospel Coalition), believes (along with C S Lewis) that God may have a back door somewhere for such unreached peoples to access heaven. And maybe many of those who claim to be of the elect because of their good works may not actually be saved! ………
The Westminster Confession teaches God’s foreknowledge doesn’t really exist.
Note that God’s foreknowledge is discounted in the Westminster Confession Ch.3 Part 5 (“without any foresight of faith”) as a means of selecting his election. Calvinists hate foreknowledge to mean God’s perfect knowledge of the future because it demands the free will of man to choose salvation which would then be known by God according to His foreknowledge. Genuine foreknowledge demands future decisions to be foreknown!
Even Calvin taught that foreknowledge was irrelevant for God.
…… or to just state that discussion of foreknowledge (or prescience) is futile because God would already foreknow all things by reason of having appointed them from the beginning. (eg Calvin – “If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain (irrelevant) to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” – Institutes, Bk 3, Ch.23, Section 6) Yet the Bible says (in 1 Peter 1:2) that our election is by that “irrelevant” foreknowledge!
If God’s foreknowledge is true, then calvinism is heresy.
Therefore, prove foreknowledge to be God’s perfect knowledge of the future and you destroy calvinism’s “no-free-will”. If foreknowledge exists as such, then the free will of man to choose salvation must also exist.
Holy God will never have anything to do with sin.
God is holy, and can have nothing to do with sin at all, ever. All sin therefore is a free-will act against the will of holy God, an act that God condemns. If man has no free will to choose to obey or disobey, then the responsibility falls back upon God who must therefore be effectively making man’s choices for him. Either man has free will to choose to obey or disobey God, or God has made that choice for him. Whoever makes such a choice is responsible for the consequences of that choice. If man makes that choice to disobey, then he deserves God’s condemnation. If that choice were by God’s decree (as calvinism clearly teaches) then God has put himself into the awkward situation of putting himself on trial and being found guilty. God can neither ordain (decree) nor approve (permit) sin.
The Westminster Confession teaches that those without works can still be saved.
Please note that the Westminster Confession has a few more problems. Apparently there are those who live their lives without any outward evidences of salvation because of some alleged incapability who are also among the elect. This obviously would cover those calvinists who turn up to church when required but otherwise have no works to demonstrate their faith!
“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Ch.10 Part 3)
And others who show evidences of being called by the ministry of the Word are not actually saved.
“Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.” (Ch.10 Part 4)
This rests upon Calvin’s doctrine of a temporary faith.
Of course, Calvin taught the same: that by “an inferior operation of the Spirit” … “by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11) Some who were chosen for hell from the beginning could be made to think they were saved, and would even have the works to demonstrate to others that they were saved, yet would be dropped from God’s grace before they died.
The Westminster Confession is irrational, contradictory and unbiblical.
People can be of the elect even though they have no supporting works, and others can be not of the elect even if they do have supporting works. Sounds like none of them can actually know if they are saved or not until they die and stand before God. In fact, according to the Westminster Confession no-one can really be sure what their God has chosen for them until they stand before him in the judgment. So, which Westminster Confession set of options do you choose? And what if you choose the wrong options? And stand before God one day and be told to depart from Him because you were never one of His!
Matthew 7:22-23 – 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
************************************
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.