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
You have not addressed most of the questions I put to you, and those you have addressed, you have quoted the same old rhetoric that calvinists in general are forced to quote for fear their heresies might be revealed. I have given up hope of getting some real answers for a change. Instead you appear to be trying to convert me (without success) to that doctrine of devils commonly labelled calvinism. The one thing you have demonstrated that is abundantly clear is that the calvinist gospel is not the same as the non-calvinist gospel. They are literally incompatible. The Bible says that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and the calvinist gospel says the opposite.
Note what Todd Friel says about the traditional gospel: “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment.“ (“Ten reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart” – Friel) This is dangerous ground, for what Friel is really saying is that unless God chooses to save you, you aren’t saved. Even if you ask God to save you, you cannot be saved unless God has previously decided that you should be saved.
Therefore, if the calvinist gospel is right, then the non-calvinist gospel is wrong, or, if the non-calvinist gospel is right, then the calvinist gospel is wrong. One denies the other; that’s why we have had such arguments. You have defended your calvinist gospel at the expense of the non-calvinist gospel. If you are right, then (according to calvinist Friel), I am lost in my sins. And, if my non-calvinist gospel is Biblical, then you are lost in your sins. Either one or the other of us is lost because we both cannot be right here. Whichever of us is right will label the other’s doctrines as heresy!
So I will just define why you are wrong, and leave you with that. If you choose (by your free will, no doubt) to reject my statements, then so be it. I will continue to believe what I believe and you have the option of believing what you wish to believe. However, if the Bible is right, then you are clearly wrong, for your gospel can have a person saved with eternal life before a person comes to Christ to be saved and receive eternal life (something very clearly attested to by Spurgeon).
I will not pay any attention to all the extra waffle that you have added this time as a smoke screen to the fact that you don’t have any real answers anyway. Over a year ago (January 2017) I demonstrated to you that MacArthur had misquoted the Granville Sharp rule in a futile effort to somehow demonstrate that Acts 2:23 “proved” that God’s determinate counsel and His foreknowledge mean the same thing. I gave much evidence to support what I said. Yet, despite not being able to refute any of my document at all, you chose to believe that MacArthur couldn’t be wrong. You did, however, state a major problem for calvinists: that they are willing to interpret the Bible such that it suits the point they are trying to get across. Calvinists are very good at reinterpreting the Bible to suit the point they are trying to get across! ) Note that the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:3 use “feigned words” to get their point across. “feigned” is the Greek term plastos = carefully moulded or sculpted. Thus, “carefully sculpted words”!
You said (and I quote): “I’m thinking perhaps the rule itself can be interpreted in a way to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across. There is one thing I am certain of and I have no reason to think otherwise and that is that I see no evidence that Macarthur would purposely mis-interpret anything to make his point.“
And why would MacArthur be right and therefore I must be wrong? You also said: “the only criticism seems to come from free will believing Christians“
So I am wrong simply because I do not believe in calvinism? This is illogical.
This does not seem to be a very good defence of something that is so critical to the calvinist cause: that foreknowledge must be proven to be other than God’s perfect knowledge of the future. For if MacArthur is indeed wrong (which he is without a doubt), then he has literally demonstrated by such efforts that it is absolutely necessary for him to prove this point. (Clearly MacArthur has “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?) Thus, if he cannot prove it, then he must accept that he is wrong. Therefore, by MacArthur’s lack of proper support for his assertions, he has demonstrated a concern that foreknowledge does not mean determinate counsel. Why has he felt to need for the carefully sculpted words?
You were unable to prove me wrong then, and have done nothing to change that state of affairs! MacArthur is wrong on this issue until someone can demonstrate that he is right. And therefore, so are all calvinists wrong who take the same method to “prove” that which cannot be proven! (Because they interpret the Bible “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across” perhaps?)
You have yet to prove that God’s foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2 is anything other than God’s perfect knowledge of the future. Your words indicate that you are still obsessed with MacArthur’s teachings on this matter. (Is he still trying “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?) I have already demonstrated in other documents that God’s foreknowledge (prognosis) is His perfect knowledge of the future, but I won’t bore you with material you probably won’t read anyway, so I’d be wasting my time. You have not been able to disprove that God’s foreknowledge here is simply His perfect knowledge of the future. Your “explanation” is totally dependent upon man not having any free-will which you also haven’t been able to prove otherwise (more on this later). If man has free will, then God’s foreknowledge is to determine such future decisions (such as those that He has not foreordained). Much as calvinists would love the Bible to say what they teach, it must be a great disappointment to those calvinists who realise that it doesn’t say anything of the sort. Just try disproving that God’s foreknowledge is His perfect knowledge of the future! You said that foreknowledge “does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen“ and yet the Greek word for foreknowledge, prognosis, means exactly that, its first use being by Hippocrates in his medical treatises about 400 BC. The word prognosis was used to describe what a doctor does when he determines what your future health might be, that is, he is referring “to (an) awareness of what is going to happen“ to you medically – please check this out.
(By the way, when a doctor gives a prognosis on your future health, what is he doing? Remember that Luke was a physician and used prognosis (Acts 2:23) as a medical man, having studied Hippocrates as a major part of his medical training.)
Romans 3 does not prove man’s inability to seek after God; it merely demonstrates his total lack of desire to seek after God. Prove me wrong using logic this time!
And you say that I don’t understand because I misunderstand the theology of the calvinists? How does this in any way determine the rightness of one side over the other? How can you be right because I allegedly don’t understand you? This is totally illogical! (Although I consider that I have more understanding of calvinism that most calvinists do. I have read much of their works, including Calvin and MacArthur etc, and have found so many inconsistencies that many calvinists refuse to believe exist, even when they are written in print! Try researching Calvin’s teaching on temporary faith which he termed an inferior operation of the Spirit! Read more on this at The living-dead calvinist zombies – as taught by Calvin.) And, note carefully, I was brought up a good elect calvinist until I was 19 when I was saved by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.
And what about the other questions I raised in my last document? For example, matters of free will brought up in Deuteronomy 30:19 which raises a choice that only man’s free will can answer? What about Isaiah 5:4 where a lack of man’s free will makes the calvinist God either tell lies or not know his own mind, as also in Jeremiah 32:35.
And what about some more of the questions I raised? How do you answer on my statement that John 12:32 and John 6:44 together demonstrate man’s free will because “all” means “all”? (Or else you have to prove that “all” cannot mean all mankind without exception.)
What about John 15:16 where your theology has to admit that Judas was one of the elect chosen to bear fruit?
Matthew 22:14 says “For many are called but few are chosen.” Calvinists have to explain this by claiming that there are two callings of God, effectual and general. Where does the Bible state clearly that there are two callings of God, effectual and general? Or is this just another calvinist “interpretation” or point of view that should never be used to prove a doctrine?
How can Spurgeon teach that a man already has life before he comes to Jesus for life, when John 3:36 says clearly that a man cannot have life until he has the Son of God?
How can Spurgeon have the incompetent gall to make “will not” into “cannot” in John 5:40? It is by such ridiculous word-changing that calvinists are able to interpret the Bible “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“. For Spurgeon to have presented such a confused message demonstrates that his opponents must have really been getting under his skin annoying him the week before! His message is more indicative of a bad temper than logical reasoning.
You also have yet to demonstrate to me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 cannot mean the whole world without exception. For, until you do, you are forced to accept that “the whole world” can, in fact, actually mean “the whole world”! Why do you along with so many calvinists avoid this issue? They tell us (again with their “feigned words“) that “the whole world” only means a limited group of people, but they never prove that it cannot mean the whole world without exception.
In “A portrait of false teachers, Part 2” on 2 Peter 2:1, MacArthur tells us that there are two ways you could view this passage. His “second sense” of understanding here does not in any way demonstrate why his first option cannot be an option at all. He says it could be viewed as a universal provision for the redemption of sinners, so therefore it remains a viable option in his document unless he refutes it, which he doesn’t even try to do! Avoiding the issue does not get rid of his problem here. And this “second sense” is no more than what MacArthur thinks, that is, his opinion, his “feigned words“!
“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.”
I have asked many questions, yet have not received any satisfactory answers for any of them. I will not bother myself to waste my time further by writing answers refuting all your other “proofs”, many of which I have already refuted online. (And will continue to write about online.) Your lack of quality in your answers is more than made up for in quantity, a smoke screen tactic that so many calvinists use. For when they cannot answer properly from the Bible, they will all too often just clog the whole system up with irrelevancies that waste the time of those trying to prove the truth to those who just won’t see the truth. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Just one final comment: You said: “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.“ No, I do not agree, for only the blind leading the blind (who both fall into the ditch) could say that man’s calling upon the name of the Lord proves man’s free will to be non-existent. For where does the Bible say that man’s free will is non-existent because God has the final say? If God has the final say, that strongly implies that this is His response (final say) to man’s response according to his free will (which is to call upon the name of the Lord). Is this merely “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?
I do not expect to continue this fruitless conversation in future. May God bless you with an understanding of the truth of the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura)!
PS. If MacArthur is so always right with all his teaching, then why did he teach that you could take the mark of the beast and yet could still be saved? The Bible says clearly otherwise. Is MacArthur actually one of the beast’s followers? The evidence does show that his spiritual harvest (as claimed by him to come from his great grandfather who was a high-level freemason) is actually that of freemasonry. Do some serious research for a change, please.
MacArthur says “Now, the question is, if you’re living in the Tribulation period, and you take this mark, in other words, you identify with the beast’s empire, will you still be able to be redeemed? And I think the answer to that is yes. ……
So I don’t think the fact that someone takes that is a sentence to…to permanency anymore than you being a part of this world system once in your life means you have to be a part of the system all your life.“ (MacArthur, Bible Questions and Answers, Part 11, Selected Scriptures Code: 1301-I https://www.gty.org/library/Print/Sermons/1301-I)
Of course, calvinists have to believe, also, that if they were of the elect, they could only take the mark of the beast if God foreordained that they should do so! Really?
I should just mention though that this website was set up mainly because of the heresies that Living Springs Baptist Church of Rockbank were getting involved with. Thank you, Living Springs, for giving me the incentive to fully investigate the doctrines of calvinism!
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.
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.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.