Calvinism’s Roman Catholic Connection

Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection

by Hunt, Dave

THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.” ¹

In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism , Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name….” ² Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him….” ³ B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” ⁴ Thus the debt that the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most highly regarded “saints.”  John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman Catholicism. ⁵

C. H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.” ⁶ Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” ⁷ For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:

Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated…whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment. ⁸

C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” ⁹ Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists. ¹⁰ Calvin himself said:

Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. ¹¹

Augustine and the Use of Force

The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.” ¹² This is, of course, the biblical view.

Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted….” ¹³ Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics…who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.” ¹⁴ Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.” ¹⁵

Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke:14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled., ¹⁶ Augustine declared:

Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return?… The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in….” Wherefore is the power which the Church has received…through the religious character and faith of kings…the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled. ¹⁷

Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman Catholic Church followed consistently for centuries. Henry H. Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.” ¹⁸ And he justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke:14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.. How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such abuse of this passage?

Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no matter how it is intepreted!

Augustine’s Dominant Influence

There is no question as to the important role Augustine played in molding Calvin’s thinking, theology, and actions. This is particularly true concerning the key foundations of Calvinism. Warfield refers to Calvin and Augustine as “two extraordinarily gifted men [who] tower like pyramids over the scene of history.” ¹⁹ Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion make repeated favorable references to Augustine, frequently citing his writings as authoritative and using the expression, “Confirmed by the authority of Augustine.” ²⁰ Calvin often credits Augustine with having formulated key concepts, which he then expounds in his Institutes . The following are but a very small sampling of such references:

• “We have come into the way of faith,” says Augustine: “Let us constantly adhere to it….” ²¹

• The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains…. Augustine disguises not that…he was often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too freely, but…he abundantly refutes the charge…. For it has been shrewdly observed by Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram, Lib V) that we can safely follow Scripture…. ²²

• For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says…. ²³

• I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. ²⁴

• If your mind is troubled, decline not to embrace the counsel of Augustine…. ²⁵

• I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that…those things will certainly happen which he [God] has foreseen [and] that the destruction [of the non-elect] consequent upon predestination is also most just. ²⁶

• Augustine, in two passages in particular, gives a [favorable] portraiture of the form of ancient monasticism. [Calvin then proceeds to quote Augustine’s commendation of the early monks.] ²⁷

• Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply…. ²⁸

• This is a faithful saying from Augustine; but because his words will perhaps have more authority than mine, let us adduce the following passage from his treatise…. ²⁹

• Wherefore, Augustine not undeservedly orders such, as senseless teachers or sinister and ill-omened prophets, to retire from the Church. ³⁰

We could multiply many times over the above examples of Augustine’s influence upon Calvin from the scores of times Calvin quotes extensively from Augustine’s writings. Leading Calvinists admit that Calvin’s basic beliefs were already formed while he was still a devout Roman Catholic, through the writings of Augustine—an influence that remained with him throughout his life.  [Emphasis added]

Augustinian teachings that Calvin presented in his Institutes included the sovereignty that made God the cause of all (including sin), the predestination of some to salvation and of others to damnation, election and reprobation, faith as an irresistible gift from God—in fact, the key concepts at the heart of Calvinism.

We search in vain for evidence that Calvin ever disapproved of any of Augustine’s heresies. Calvinist Richard A. Muller admits, “John Calvin was part of a long line of thinkers who based their doctrine of predestination on the Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul.” ³¹ In each expanded edition of his Institutes, Calvin quotes and relies upon Augustine more than ever.

Is Calvinism Really a Protestant Belief?

That many prominent evangelicals today are still under the spell of Augustine is evident—and astonishing, considering his numerous heresies. Norm Geisler has said, “St. Augustine was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time.” ³² Yet Augustine said, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the [Catholic ] Church.” ³³ [Emphasis added] That statement was quoted with great satisfaction by Pope John Paul II in his 1986 celebration of the 1600th anniversary of Augustine’s conversion. The Pope went on to say:

Augustine’s legacy…is the theological methods to which he remained absolutely faithful…full adherence to the authority of the faith…revealed through Scripture, Tradition and the Church…. Likewise the profound sense of mystery—“for it is better,” he exclaims, “to have a faithful ignorance than a presumptuous knowledge….” I express once again my fervent desire…that the authoritative teaching of such a great doctor and pastor may flourish ever more happily in the Church…. ³⁴

In my debate with him, James White claims that “Calvin refuted this very passage in Institutes , and any fair reading of Augustine’s own writings disproves this misrepresentation by Hunt.” ³⁵  In fact, Calvin acknowledged the authenticity of the statement and attempted to defend it as legitimate reasoning for those who had not the assurance of faith by the Holy Spirit. [Emphasis added] ³⁶ Vance provides numerous astonishing quotations from Calvinists praising Augustine: “One of the greatest theological and philosophical minds that God has ever so seen fit to give to His church.” ³⁷ “The greatest Christian since New Testament times…greatest man that ever wrote Latin.” ³⁸ “[His] labors and writings, more than those of any other man in the age in which he lived, contributed to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion.” ³⁹

Warfield adds, “Augustine determined for all time the doctrine of grace.” ⁴⁰ Yet he [Augustine] believed that grace came through the Roman Catholic sacraments. That Calvinists shower such praise upon Augustine makes it easier to comprehend why they heap the same praise on Calvin.  [Emphasis added]

As for the formation of Roman Catholicism’s doctrines and practices, Augustine’s influence was the greatest in history. Vance reminds us that Augustine was “one of Catholicism’s original four ‘Doctors of the Church’ [with] a feast day [dedicated to him] in the Catholic Church on August 28, the day of his death.” ⁴¹ Pope John Paul II has called Augustine “the common father of our Christian civilization.”  [Emphasis added]  ⁴² William P. Grady, on the other hand, writes, “The deluded Augustine (354–430) went so far as to announce (through his book, The City of God  ) that Rome had been privileged to usher in the millennial kingdom (otherwise known as the ‘Dark Ages’).” ⁴³ 

Drawing from a Polluted Stream

Sir Robert Anderson reminds us that “the Roman [Catholic] Church was molded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained. Of all the errors that later centuries developed in the teachings of the church, scarcely one cannot be found in embryo in his writings.” ⁴⁴ Those errors include infant baptism for regeneration (infants who die unbaptized are damned), the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins (martyrdom, as in Islam, does the same), purgatory, salvation in the Church alone through its sacraments, and persecution of those who reject Catholic dogmas.  Augustine also fathered acceptance of the Apocrypha (which he admitted even the Jews rejected), allegorical interpretation of the Bible (thus the creation account, the six days, and other details in Genesis are not necessarily literal), and rejection of the literal personal reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years (we are now supposedly in the millennial reign of Christ with the Church reigning and the devil presently bound).

Augustine insists that Satan is now “bound” on the basis that “even now men are, and doubtless to the end of the world shall be, converted to the faith from the unbelief in which he [Satan] held them.” That he views the promised binding of Satan in the “bottomless pit” (Revelation:20:1  And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.–3) allegorically is clear. Amazingly, Satan “is bound in each instance in which he is spoiled of one of his goods [i.e., someone believes in Christ].” And even more amazing, “the abyss in which he is shut up” is somehow construed by Augustine to be “in the depths” of Christ-rejecters’ “blind hearts.” It is thus that Satan is continually shut up as in an abyss. ⁴⁵

Augustine doesn’t attempt to explain how he arrived at such an astonishing idea, much less how one abyss could exist in millions of hearts or how, being “bound” there, Satan would still be free to blind those within whose “hearts” he is supposedly bound (2 Corinthians:4:4 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.). Nor does he explain how or why, in spite of Satan’s being bound,

•    Christ commissioned Paul to turn Jew and Gentile “from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts:26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.)

•    Paul could deliver the Corinthian fornicator to Satan (1 Corinthians:5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.)

•    Satan can transform himself “into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians:11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.)

•    Paul would warn the Ephesian believers not to “give place to the devil” (Ephesians:4:27 Neither give place to the devil.) and urge them and us today to “stand against the wiles of the devil” (6:11)

•    Satan could still be going about “like a roaring lion…seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter:5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:)

•    Satan could still be able to continually accuse Christians before God and, with his angels, yet wage war in heaven against “Michael and his angels” and at last be cast out of heaven to earth (Revelation:12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,–10)

Augustine was one of the first to place the authority of tradition on a level with the Bible, and to incorporate much philosophy, especially Platonism, into his theology. Exposing the folly of those who praise Augustine, Vance writes:

He believed in apostolic succession from Peter as one of the marks of the true church, taught that Mary was sinless and promoted her worship. He was the first who defined the so-called sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace…. The memorial of the Lord’s supper became that of the spiritual presence of Christ’s body and blood. To Augustine the only true church was the Catholic Church. Writing against the Donatists, he asserted: “The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ…. Outside this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one…[and] he is not a partaker of divine love who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church. ^{46 [Emphasis added]}

And this is the man whom Geisler calls “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time.” On the contrary, Calvin drew from a badly polluted stream when he embraced the teachings of Augustine!  How could one dip into such contaminating heresy without becoming confused and infected? Yet this bewildering muddle of speculation and formative Roman Catholicism is acknowledged to be the source of Calvinism—and is praised by leading evangelicals. One comes away dumbfounded at the acclaim heaped upon both Calvin and Augustine by otherwise sound Christian leaders.  [Emphasis added]

An Amazing Contradiction

Calvin’s almost complete agreement with and repeated praise of Augustine cannot be denied. Calvin called himself “an Augustinian theologian.” ⁴⁷ Of Augustine he said, “whom we quote frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity.” ^{48 [Emphasis added]}

Calvinists themselves insist upon the connection between Calvin and Augustine. McGrath writes, “Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.” ⁴⁹ Wendel concedes, “Upon points of doctrine he borrows from St. Augustine with both hands.” ⁵⁰ Vance writes:

Howbeit, to prove conclusively that Calvin was a disciple of Augustine, we need look no further than Calvin himself. One can’t read five pages in Calvin’s Institutes without seeing the name of Augustine. Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as “holy man” and “holy father.” ^{51 [Emphasis added]}

As Vance further points out, “Calvinists admit that Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine in forming his doctrine of predestination.” ⁵²  How could one of the leaders of the Reformation embrace so fully the doctrines of one who has been called the “principal theological creator of the Latin-Catholic system as distinct from…Evangelical Protestantism…”? ^{53 [Emphasis added]}

Calvin’s admiration of Augustine and his embracing of much of his teaching is only one of several major contradictions in his life, which will be fully documented in this book. The situation is contradictory on the Roman Catholic side as well. Their dogmas reject some of the most important doctrines held by the most famous of their saints—the very Augustinian doctrines that Calvin embraced.

Here we confront a strange anomaly. Warfield declares that “it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation” ⁵⁴ —yet at the same time, he also acknowledges that Augustine was “in a true sense the founder of Roman Catholicism” ⁵⁵ and “the creator of the Holy Roman Empire.” ^{56 [Emphasis added]}

Strangely, Calvin apparently failed to recognize that Augustine never understood salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Philip F. Congdon writes,

“Another curious parallel is evident between Classical Calvinist theology and Roman Catholic theology. The two share an inclusion of works in the gospel message, and an impossibility of assurance of salvation…. Both hold to the primacy of God’s grace; both include the necessity of our works.” ⁵⁷ Augustine’s heresies, especially his Romanist view of faith in Christ being supplemented by good works and the sacraments, were not lost on Luther, who wrote: “In the beginning, I devoured Augustine, but when…I knew what justification by faith really was, then it was out with him.” ⁵⁸

Yet leading Calvinists suggest that I side with Roman Catholicism by rejecting Calvinism, even though it comes largely from the ultimate Roman Catholic, Augustine. Here is how one writer expressed it to me:

And given that the position you espouse is, in fact, utterly opposed to the very heart of the message of the Reformers, and is instead in line with Rome’s view of man’s will and the nature of grace, I find it tremendously inconsistent on your part. You speak often of opposing the traditions of men, yet, in this case, you embrace the very traditions that lie at the heart of Rome’s “gospel.” ⁵⁹

On the contrary, the Reformers and their creeds are infected with ideas that came from the greatest Roman Catholic, Augustine himself. Furthermore, a rejection of Election, Predestination, and the Preservation of the Saints as defined by Calvinists is hardly embracing “the heart of Rome’s ‘gospel.’” The real heart of Rome’s gospel is good works and sacraments. Certainly Calvin’s retention of sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration for infants, and honoring the Roman Catholic priesthood as valid is a more serious embrace of Catholicism’s false gospel. The rejection of Calvinism requires no agreement with Rome whatsoever on any part of its heretical doctrines of salvation. [Emphasis added]

It seems incomprehensible that the predominant influence upon Reformed theology and creeds could be so closely related to the very Roman Catholicism against which the Reformers rebelled. Yet those who fail to bow to these creeds are allegedly “in error.” How the Protestant creeds came to be dominated by Calvinistic doctrine is an interesting story.

The Role of the Latin Vulgate

Along with the writings of Augustine, the Latin Vulgate also molded Calvin’s thoughts as expressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion . Fluent in Latin, Calvin had long used that corrupted translation of the Bible, which, since its composition by Jerome at the beginning of the fifth century, was the official Bible of Roman Catholics. It was again so declared by the Council of Trent in 1546, when Calvin was 37 years of age. More than that, its influence reached into the Protestant movement: “For one thousand years the Vulgate was practically the only Bible known and read in Western Europe. All commentaries were based upon the Vulgate text…. Preachers based their sermons on it.” ^{60  [Emphasis added]}

The Vulgate was permeated with Augustinian views on predestination and the rejection of free will.  [Emphasis added]  According to Philip Schaff, “The Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing in particulars.” ⁶¹ Others have expressed the same opinion. Samuel Fisk quotes Samuel Berger, who in the Cambridge History of the English Bible , Vol. 3 (S. L. Greenslade, ed., Cambridge, England: University Press, 1963, 414), called the Vulgate “the most vulgarized and bastardized text imaginable.” ⁶² Grady says, “Damasus commissioned Jerome to revive the archaic Old Latin Bible in A.D. 382…the completed monstrosity became known as the Latin ‘Vulgate’…and was used of the devil to usher in the Dark Ages.” ⁶³ Fisk reminds us:

Well-known examples of far-reaching errors include the whole system of Catholic “penance,” drawn from the Vulgate’s “do penance”…when the Latin should have followed the Greek— repent .

Likewise the word “sacrament” was a mis-reading from the Vulgate of the original word for mystery . Even more significant, perhaps, was the rendering of the word presbyter (elder) as “priest.” ⁶⁴

Augustine described the problem that led to the production of the Vulgate: “In the earliest days of the faith, when a Greek manuscript came into anyone’s hands, and he thought he possessed a little facility in both languages, he ventured to make a translation [into Latin].” ⁶⁵ As a consequence of such individual endeavor, Bruce says, “The time came, however, when the multiplicity of [Latin] texts [of Scripture] became too inconvenient to be tolerated any longer, and Pope Damasus…commissioned his secretary, Jerome, to undertake the work” of revision to produce one authorized Latin version.

Bruce continues:

“He [Jerome] was told to be cautious for the sake of ‘weaker brethren’ who did not like to see their favorite texts tampered with, even in the interests of greater accuracy. Even so, he went much too far for the taste of many, while he himself knew that he was not going far enough.” ⁶⁶

Unger’s Bible Dictionary comments:

For many centuries it [Vulgate] was the only Bible generally used…. In the age of the Reformation the Vulgate [influenced] popular versions. That of Luther (N. T. in 1523) was the most important and in this the Vulgate had great weight. From Luther the influence of the Latin passed to our own Authorized Version [KJV]…. ⁶⁷

The Geneva and King James Bibles and Protestant Creeds

Of no small importance to our study is the fact that this corrupt translation had an influence upon the Protestant churches in Europe, England, and America. That influence carried over into the Geneva Bible (which has further problems; see below) as well as into other early versions of the English Bible, and even into the King James Bible of today.

As the Vulgate was filled with Augustinianisms, the Geneva Bible was filled with Calvinism, in the text as well as in voluminous notes. H. S. Miller’s General Biblical Introduction says, “It was a revision of Tyndale’s, with an Introduction by Calvin…the work of English reformers, assisted by Beza, Calvin, and possibly others.” J. R. Dore, in Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible , 2nd edition, adds that “almost every chapter [of the Geneva Bible] has voluminous notes full of Calvinistic doctrine.” Andrew Edgar, in The Bibles of England , declares, “At the time the Geneva Bible was first published, Calvin was the ruling spirit in Geneva. All the features of his theological, ecclesiastical, political, and social system are accordingly reflected in the marginal annotations…. The doctrine of predestination is proclaimed to be the head cornerstone of the gospel.” ^{68  [Emphais added]}

W. Hoare says in The Evolution of the English Bible , “Considered as a literary whole it [the Geneva Bible] has about it the character of a Calvinist manifesto…a book with a special purpose.” F. F. Bruce adds,  [Emphasis added]

The notes of the Geneva Bible…are, to be sure, unashamedly Calvinistic in doctrine…. The people of England and Scotland…learned much of their biblical exegesis from these notes…. The Geneva Bible immediately won, and retained, widespread popularity. It became the household Bible of English-speaking Protestants…. This became the authorized Bible in Scotland and was brought to America where it had a strong influence. ^{69 [Emphasis added]}

Butterworth points out: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this [Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume…. The Geneva Bible…had a very great influence in the shaping of the King James Bible.” ⁷⁰ Robinson is even more emphatic:

A large part of its [Geneva Bible] innovations are included in the Authorized Version [KJV]…. Sometimes the Geneva text and the Geneva margin are taken over intact, sometimes the text becomes the margin and the margin the text. Sometimes the margin becomes the text and no alternative is offered. Very often the Genevan margin becomes the Authorized Version text with or without verbal change. ⁷¹

Further documentation could be given, but this should be sufficient to trace briefly the influence from that ultimate Roman Catholic, Augustine, through the Latin Vulgate and his writings, upon Calvin—and through Calvin, into the Geneva Bible and on into the King James Bible. And thus into the pulpits and homes of Protestants throughout Europe, England, and America. It is small wonder, then, that those who, like Arminius, dared to question Calvinism, were overwhelmed with opposition. Of course, various synods and assemblies were held to formulate accepted creeds and to punish the dissenters, but the decks were stacked in favor of Calvinism, and no influence to mitigate this error was allowed. This will be documented in the next chapter. [For additional detail, see T.U.L.I.P. and the Bible: Comparing the Works of Calvin to the Word of God, and What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. ]

The New Geneva Study Bible and Reformation Truth

Today’s New Geneva Study Bible (recently reprinted as The Reformation Study Bible ) is being widely distributed in an effort to indoctrinate the readers into Calvinism. Its New King James translation is appealing. As with the original Geneva Bible, however, the notes are Calvinistic treatises. In his foreword, R. C. Sproul writes,

The New Geneva Study Bible is so called because it stands in the tradition of the original Geneva Bible…. The light of the Reformation was the light of the Bible…. The Geneva Bible was published in 1560…[and] dominated the English-speaking world for a hundred years…. Pilgrims and Puritans carried the Geneva Bible to the shores of the New World. American colonists were reared on the Geneva Bible…. The New Geneva Study Bible contains a modern restatement of Reformation truth in its comments and theological notes. Its purpose is to present the light of the Reformation afresh.

In fact, its purpose is to indoctrinate the reader into Calvinism, which inaccurately is marketed as “Reformation truth”—as though Calvinism and Protestantism are identical. There was, in fact, much more to the Reformation than Calvinism, Calvinists’ claims notwithstanding.  [Emphasis added]

The Necessity to Clarify Confusion

Calvinism is experiencing resurgence today. Yet there is widespread ignorance of what both Augustine and Calvin really taught and practiced. Has the truth been suppressed to further a particular theology? Consider Boettner’s declaration that “Calvin and Augustine easily rank as the two outstanding systematic expounders of the Christian system since Saint Paul.” ⁷² Spurgeon, also declared: “Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ”. ^{73 [Emphasis added]}

One cannot but view such statements with astonishment. How incredible that Loraine Boettner, one of the foremost apologists opposing the Roman Catholic Church, praised Augustine, who gave the Roman Catholic Church so many of its basic doctrines that he is among the most highly honored of its “saints” to this day.

As for Spurgeon, would he have considered that Augustine’s teaching of salvation by the Roman Catholic Church, through its sacraments alone, beginning with regeneration by infant baptism; the use of force even to the death against “heretics”; acceptance of the Apocrypha; allegorical interpretation of creation and the prophecies concerning Israel; a rejection of the literal reign of Christ on David’s throne; and so much other false doctrine, had also all been received from the Holy Spirit? How could Augustine—and Calvin, who embraced and passed on many of his major errors—be so wrong on so much and yet be biblically sound as regards predestination, election, sovereignty, etc.? Is there not ample cause to examine carefully these foundational teachings of Calvinism?

One can only respond in the affirmative. For that reason, the key Calvinist doctrines will be presented in the following pages and compared carefully with God’s Word.

source:  http://www.thebereancall.org/content/july-2012-classic

—————————————

Endnotes

 

1. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 19.
2. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, rev. ed., 1999), 37.
3. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism (Edmonton, AB: Still Water Revival Books, 1990), 78.
4. Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine , ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 22.
5. John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 24-25.
6. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, ed., Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace (Pasadena, CA: Pilgrim Publications, n. d.), 298.
7. Alvin L. Baker, Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1981), 25.
8. St. Augustine, A Treatment On the Soul and its Origins , Book IV, 16.
9. C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Abingdon Press, 1989), vii.
10. Vance, Other Side , 40.
11. John Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” in John Calvin, Calvin’s Calvinism , trans. Henry Cole (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1987), 38; cited in Vance, Other Side , 38.
12. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Sarasota, FL: Christian Hymnary Publishers, 1991), 33.
13. Petilian II.85.189; cited in W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 671.
14. Frend, Rise , 671.
15. Ibid., 672.
16. F.F. Bruce, Light in the West , Bk. III of The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1956), 60-61.
17. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Port Colborne, ON: Gospel Folio Press, reprint 1999), 49.
18. Henry H. Milman, History of Christianity (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1886), 3:176.
19. Warfield, Calvin , v.
20. John Calvin, contents page of Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998 ed.), III: xxiii, IV: xvii, etc.
21. Calvin, Institutes , III: xxi, 2.
22. Ibid., xxi, 4.
23. Ibid., xxiii, 1.
24. Ibid., 5.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 8.
27. Ibid., IV: xiii, 9.
28. Ibid., III: xxiii, 11.
29. Ibid., 13.
30. Ibid., 14.
31. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 22.
32. Norman L. Geisler, What Augustine Says (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982), 9.
33. Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament c.v.
34. John Paul II, Sovereign Pontiff, Augustineum Hyponensem (Apostolic Letter, August 28, 1986. Available at: www. cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
35. Dave Hunt and James White, Debating Calvinism , (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004), 244.
36. Calvin, Institutes , I: vii, 3.
37. Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism , 78; cited in Vance, Other Side , 39.
38. Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (n. p., 1927), 139.
39. N. L. Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1985), 13.
40. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in The Princeton Theology , ed. Mark A. Noll (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983), 258.
41. Vance, Other Side , 41.
42. Richard N. Ostling, “The Second Founder of the Faith” ( Time , September 29, 1986).
43. William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible (Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1993), 54.
44. Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible or the Church? (London: Pickering and Inglis, 2nd ed., n. d.), 53.
45. Augustine, The City of God , trans. Marcus Dods. In Great Books of the Western World , ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952), XX:7, 8.
46. Vance, Other Side , 55.
47. Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism , 79.
48. Calvin, Institutes , IV:xiv, 26.
49. Alister E. McGrath, The Life of John Calvin (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1990), 151.
50. Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 124.
51. Vance, Other Side ; citing Calvin, Institutes , 139, 146, 148–49.
52. Vance, Other Side , 113; citing Wendel, Origins , 264, and Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1988), 232.
53. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint 1959), III: 1018.
54. Warfield, Calvin , 322.
55. Ibid., 313.
56. Ibid., 318.
57. Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society , Autumn 1995, 8:15, 55–68.
58. George, Theology , 68.
59. James R. White to Dave Hunt, August 4, 2000. On file.
60. David Schaff, Our Father’s Faith and Ours , 172; cited in Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 68.
61. Philip Schaff, History , II:975–76.
62. Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced (Raleigh, NC: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 68.
63. Grady, Final Authority , 35.
64. Fisk, Calvinistic , 67.
65. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd., 1950), 191.
66. Bruce, Books , 194–95.
67. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1969), 1151–54.
68. Fisk, Calvinistic , 70–75.
69. F.F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), 90-91.
70. Charles C. Butterworth, The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), 163.
71. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Bible In Its Ancient and English Versions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 186, 206–207.
72. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ : Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 405.
73. Spurgeon, Exposition , 298; cited in Vance, Other Side , 38.

—————————————

Posted by: Dave Hunt | On this date: January 29th, 2013 | Tags: Alvin L. Baker, America, Andrew Edgar, B. B. Warfield, bible, C. Gregg Singer, Cambridge History of the English Bible, Christ, Christian, church, Curtis Thomas, David Steele, Discerning the World, DiscerntheWorld, End Times, England, error, Europe, Faith, False, God, Gospel, Grace, Henry H. Milman, heresy, J. R. Dore, Jesus, Kenneth G. Talbot, Loraine Boettner, Love, New Geneva Study Bible, Norm Geisler, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, Pastor, Philip F. Congdon, Philip Schaff, Preaching, prophet, Religion, Richard A. Muller, Samuel Berger, Samuel Fisk, scripture, Sir Robert Anderson, South Africa, Spirituality, Teaching, The Bibles of England, The Evolution of the English Bible, The Other Side of Calvinism, The Reformation Study Bible, Theology, truth, verse, verses, W. Gary Crampton, W. Hoare, Word of God, Youth - Categories: Amillennialism, Preterist, Victorious Eschatology, Angels, Archangels, Messengers, Angel of Light, Apocrypha, Magisterium, Canon Law, Sirach, Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Susanna Unbiblical Texts, Augustine (354-430), Roman Catholic Philosopher, Baptism, Immersion, Sprinkling, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Blessed Virgin Mary, Marian, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Mary Co-redeemer, Calvinism, Calvinist, Reformed Theology, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), Thomas Spurgeon, Constantine the Great (272–337 AD), Dave Hunt, The Berean Call, Donatists, Eucharist, Sacramental Union, Transubstantiation, Mass Holy Communion, Indulgences, Authority of Pope, Evangelism, Evangelical Christian, Gentiles and Jews, Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), James White (Alpha & Omega Ministries), Jesus Christ Crucified for Whole World Not Elect, Jewish, Judaism, Israelites, Rabbi, Jerusalem, John Calvin (1509–1564), Geneva Catechism, John Piper, Laurence M Vance, Lutheran Church, Martin Luther (1483–1546), Protestant Reformation, The Ninety-Five Theses (1517), Mary, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Millennium Kingdom, Millenarianism, Chiliasm, New Calvinsim, Neo-Calvinism, Paganism, Neopaganism, Penance, Do Penance, Persecution, Suffering, Martyr, Torture, Predestination, Election, Chosen by God, Fore-ordained, Protestant Church, Protestant Reformers, Purgatory, Last Rites, Indulgences, RC Sproul, Roman Catholicism, Catholic, Rome, Vatican II, The New Evangelization, Nostra Aetate, Pope, Sacramental Salvation, Satan, Lucifer, Sovereignty of God, The Abyss, Bottomless Pit, The Last Supper, The Vulgate, TULIP, 5 Points of Calvinism, Total Hereditary Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints |

40 comments to Calvinism’s Roman Catholic Connection

• William Saunders

  29 January, 2013 at 4:17 pm

  Could it be the Reformist Movement are the “other side” of Rome’s “Hegelian Dialectic” with Rome controlling both sides?

  The greatest way to separate “the resistance” (an internal threat to Rome) from Roman Catholicism is create a counter movement, a place for the “the resistance” to go to, still be under Rome’s control and not threaten Rome’s flock any longer.

  Going from the frying pan in to the fire.

  The evidence suggests this could be a very real possibility with Augustine as the connection.

  Rome created and still run their own counter movement.

  We have been considering this for a while now, the evidence we have observed thus far points to this.

  
• Carolyn

  30 January, 2013 at 12:47 am

  Great article by Dave Hunt! Thanks for posting.

  William…re comment #1…when you think about the similarities between Catholicism and Calvinism…pretty astounding, held together by the glue of Augustinian-isim. The message is: you have no part to play in your personal faith apart from allegiance to the Church and being saved by following its doctrines. Both systems act as a replacement for the individual’s relationship to God through his Son.

  1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

  *Important to note: It does not say the Father, The Word and the Catholic Church or Calvinism…

  Yes we are seeing a Counter Reformation today using Ecumenism as the strategic platform of unification and return to the Catholic Church.

  
• Redeemed

  30 January, 2013 at 7:07 am

  Strange – you will find Calvinists such as Mike Gendron who have a ministry specializing in converting Roman Catholics. Of course there may be people like Gendron who are oblivious to the hidden agenda.

  Of course this is a case where the truth is used as a cloak for the error.

  Certainly proof that all is not as it seems.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  30 January, 2013 at 10:05 am

  Carolyn

  >> when you think about the similarities between Catholicism and Calvinism…pretty astounding, held together by the glue of Augustinian-isim. The message is: you have no part to play in your personal faith apart from allegiance to the Church and being saved by following its doctrines. Both systems act as a replacement for the individual’s relationship to God through his Son.

  Exactly…

  Read this horrific comment by Grant Swart from FOR THE LOVE OF HIS TRUTH ministries (the one that Professor Johan Malan loves to support) and you will see that what you said is EXACTLY what he said…

  Now we are NOT Arminian (DTW and those who comment here do not follow Jacob Arminius, never have never will, it amazes me that Calvinists can’t understand that just because THEY FOLLOW A MAN now everyone else must too….totally and utterly rediculous.) But look at what Grant says about the ‘Calvinistic Christ – His so called Christ of the Bible’:

  Grant Swart • 19 days ago
  My apologies for this rather lengthy comment, but I thought it relevant in this instance.

  1. The Christ of Arminianism – loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.

  The Christ of the Bible – earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27,John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)

  2. The Christ of Arminianism – offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.

  The Christ of the Bible – effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40,John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)

  3. The Christ of Arminianism – can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own “free will.” All men have a “free will” by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That “free will” may not be violated by Christ.

  The Christ of the Bible – sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man’s contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)

  4. The Christ of Arminianism – died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.

  The Christ of the Bible – died for only God’s elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26,Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)

  5. The Christ of Arminianism – loses many whom he has “saved” because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them “eternal security,” as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ.

  The Christ of the Bible – preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)

  As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign “free will” of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.

  If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Lord and God. —http:/ /hil001 . blogspot . com/2013/01/ tom- lessing. html

  Calvinists are the supreme masters at pulling one liners out of the bible to support their most devilish doctrine, they twist scripture unlike any other.

  So like you said Carolyn, they “play no part in your personal faith apart from allegiance to the Church and being saved by following its doctrines…”

  Now the question I was asked is, how does a Calvinist KNOW he is Elect? And the only way this:IF HE BELIEVES IN PREDESTINATION then they are ‘saved’. This is the crux of their doctrine. If they believe they are Elect then… they are Elect. How profound is that, or not…errrr. Then they ‘spiritually’ join the Mother Church of ‘Elects’ and follow Augustinians Eucharist Christ.

  
• Redeemed

  30 January, 2013 at 3:58 pm

  Deborah, you may have hit upon something very significant here in mentioning the Eucharist that is not normally brought out in discussing the similarities between Reformed/Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.

  Calvinistic Baptists, in agreement with Presbyterians and the Reformed churches, hold to the doctrine of Pneumatic Presence.

  The doctrine is articulated in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Catechism.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theologies_summarised#Calvinism

  Many Reformed Christians hold that Christ’s body and blood are not corporeally (physically) present in the Eucharist, but really present in a spiritual way.[43] The elements are spiritual nourishment in Christ by faith. According to John Calvin,

  The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. [...] I hold…that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs.[44]
  Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that “no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith.” “The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God’s elect believers”, Calvin said. Faith, not a mere mental apprehension, and the work of the Holy Spirit, are necessary for the partaker to behold God incarnate, and in the same sense touch Christ with their hands; so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ’s actual presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.[44] The ‘experience’ of Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper, has traditionally been spoken of in the following way: the faithful believers are ‘lifted up’ by the power of the Holy Spirit to feast with Christ in heaven. The Lord’s Supper in this way is truly a ‘Spiritual’ experience as the Holy Spirit is directly involved in the action of ‘eucharist’.

  Although Calvin rejected adoration of the Eucharistic bread and wine as “idolatry” later Reformed Christians have argued otherwise. Leftover elements may be disposed of without ceremony (or reused in later services); they are unchanged, and as such the meal directs attention toward Christ’s bodily resurrection and return.[44]

  
• William Saunders

  30 January, 2013 at 4:41 pm

  Carolyn #2 -

  Evangelicalism is the “handshake” between Catholicism & Calvinism.

  Evangelicalism is the new Ecumenism.

  http://www.evangelicalcatholic.org/

  http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Calvinism-Resourcing-Continuing-Reformation/dp/1608998576

  
• Carolyn

  30 January, 2013 at 7:31 pm

  William….to see all those denominational leaders shaking hands (literally) with the Pope: Starting at approx. 2:59 on this You Tube video clip, you will see some astonishing ecumenicism in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QyICe8v5sg

  I will look at some of those links later when I have some time.

  Redeemed…Pneumatic Presence…Another tradition passed down to divert attention from Christ to works.

  Debs…delusion is a unexplainable phenomenon. How do you explain that they can look through the lens of Calvinism and see the opposite of what is written? John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
  They oppose the Truth. Everything we believe, they believe opposite, as demonstrated remarkably by Grant Swart in the above post. Who is their teacher? Calvin..not Christ. Who holds the keys of understanding for them? Calvin…not Christ. Who is telling the truth? Calvin….not Christ

  Our beliefs become strongholds, formidable walls erected in our minds that nothing but a correct knowledge of God can demolish. Acknowledgement that God is loving to all and that he would not predestine certain individuals to hell would be the truth that could remove their blindness if they were only willing.

  Here’s another question. How can it be disobedience if you don’t have the choice to disobey? Their arguments make no sense but they continue on in their delusion.
  2 Corinthians 10:4-6
  4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

  Their blindness boggles the mind. I have no answer for it. Their dogged resistance to free will cannot be comprehended apart from a stronghold in opposition to the knowledge of God. If we are not able to choose, why then, does unbelief anger God? Why get angry at someone who has already been destined to the lake of fire?

  A Calvinist does not know if he is Elect. He has no assurance of salvation….how could he? A very confusing, ambiguous doctrine venerating a god who is Sovereign but One they cannot know in Truth.

  To all Calvinists: you must be born again. You must believe Christ’s atonement by your own free will, which God by his sovereign will, has chosen to grant mankind. It would seem he prefers willing subjects rather than unwilling robots in service to him (BTW another illustration of granting choice to his creation was allowing 1/3 of the angels to rebel in order to preserve their “free will”. There is no other way to be saved. If you are born from above you will be freed from your sins, you will have the witness of the Spirit that you are a child of God, and you will have assurance of eternal life with Christ. Repent and believe the gospel. This is genuine faith.

  
• Carolyn

  30 January, 2013 at 10:18 pm

  William…wow. The words “merger”, “marriage” come to mind in the process of “assimilation”.

  Also, I should add a disclaimer to the topic of the link I provided to the handshaking ecumenicals. I came across the bowing and scraping ecumenical dance as I was doing research on the phenomenon of KJVO. Although there is some good information, it is all biased toward proving something I have come to disagree with…splitting the fundamental community over KJOism.

  
• vincent holloway

  31 January, 2013 at 1:24 pm

  Thank you Deborah/Mr Grant Swart for challenging my understanding of the mechanics of salvation.
  I’ll need to sit and read the scriptures to those points to ensure they are in complete context, but at the moment I’m a little stunned.
  I think I may have to go back to my mother-in-law and tell her she’s right=p

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  31 January, 2013 at 2:16 pm

  vincent

  I’m confused, are you in agreement with the evils that Grant writes? Oh I hope not! :( Make sure you study those scriptures ACCURATELY and IN CONTEXT because if you don’t you will land up believing the utter garbage of Calvinism. There are a whole host of articles on Calvinism on this website that I urge you to read. http://www.discerningtheworld.com/category/all-keywords/churchs-church-movements/calvinism-calvinist-reformed-theology/

  
• Carolyn

  31 January, 2013 at 5:06 pm

  The fact that Grant uses the word Arminian to describe those who aren’t Calvinist is his own deception. May God hold him responsible for this untrue tactic. We do not call ourselves Arminians because we do not follow Arminius. They call themselves Calvinists because they do follow Calvin.

  The Scriptures they use prove nothing except that they are grasping at straws and inserting their own context into the Word.

  God has predestined those whom he FOREKNEW to eternal life because he can see the past, present and future, all at the same time. He knows who will and who will not believe His gospel. To put a twist on this foreknowledge of God, attributing wickedness/hatefulness to God, is pure evil, a Satanic presupposition, to be sure.

  God is sovereign, but he does not use his sovereignty for evil. Listen and live!
  2 Peter 3:9
  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

  
• Michael

  31 January, 2013 at 7:30 pm

  Carolyn wrote…delusion is an unexplainable phenomenon. How do you explain that they can look through the lens of Calvinism and see the opposite of what is written? and,
  Our beliefs become strongholds, formidable walls erected in our minds that nothing but a correct knowledge of God can demolish. Acknowledgement that God is loving to all and that he would not predestine certain individuals to hell would be the truth that could remove their blindness if they were only willing…and,

  Here’s another question. How can it be disobedience if you don’t have the choice to disobey? Their arguments make no sense but they continue on in their delusion.
  Their blindness boggles the mind. I have no answer for it. Their dogged resistance to free will cannot be comprehended apart from a stronghold in opposition to the knowledge of God. If we are not able to choose, why then, does unbelief anger God? Why get angry at someone who has already been destined to the lake of fire?

  Precisely Carolyn…Satan, from the very beginning in Eden, used delusion and confusion because he knows man’s tendencies of the flesh.

  This posting is a revealing one but it should not be a surprise to the true mature truly born again Christian but can be very confusing to the newly-born babe in Christ.
  It took me a long time to separate the leaven of man that hides in the church…the teachings of man in opposed to what’s directly and plainly written and proclaimed in the scriptures. And this was only possible by the Helper, God’s Holy Spirit.

  Man’s sheep like inclination to follow man and not the God of the bible and his tendencies to imagine vain things.

  On a very much lighter note (excuse the humour)…they all seem to love wearing hats although these adornments have changed over time…
  Maybe it gives off a symbol of authority…lol.

  Sorry I couldn’t resist it!

  
• Carolyn

  31 January, 2013 at 7:49 pm

  And one more comment about strategic arguments. Why does calling Bible believers, Arminians work for Grant Swart? Because it lumps us into a category he can deal with. Now he doesn’t have to defend his Biblical error, according to Jesus and the Apostles. He only has to defend his position according to the error of Arminius.

  Satan has strategic tactics, oh yes. And anyone who lies is acting in Satan’s defence.
  “John 8:44
  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

  Calvin was both a murderer and he lied about Predestination, Election and God’s Sovereignty. As well, he introduced many other unbiblical practices to his followers such as infant baptism and supported by means of his authoritarian position and propaganda. Who then was his Father?

  I don’t hate people. I hate the devil’s lies. Let’s stand for truth. Truth divides. Love conquers. And genuine faith prevails.

  
• JJ

  1 February, 2013 at 12:39 pm

  Calvinism is probably the most confusing thing in the world. I grew up in the ng church and reformed church, but never realised what is was all about. I think most of the church members don’t really understand what Calvinism is all about. I don’t think they actually take the time to read and understand the “doctrines of grace”. Once they are shown the errors and compare it to the Bible, they go straight from despair to denial. They usually, out of my experience, skip the part to actually do something about it.

  Calvinist claim “Sola Scriptura”. But the ministers have to preach according to all the “Three Forms of Unity” (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dordt). So the bible has to be aligned according to this. The Bible has to play second fiddle here. And herein lies the confusion. I want to show a couple of examples that I discovered when I first started to question Calvinism. I can’t really cover all the contradictions I came across, it will take to long.

  Infant baptism: article 34 of the Belgic confession of faith states the following:
  “and that he, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, hath instituted the sacrament of baptism, instead thereof by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions”
  “when sprinkled upon him; so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of God”

  “Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children”

  So according to article 34 and Calvinist teachings, infant baptism is the rebirth Jesus referred to in John 3:3. Also infant baptism replaced circumcision. Really? So why do we baptise girls? How were woman saved in the Old Testament. Now John Calvin was baptised as a child in the Roman Catholic church, and one of his worst enemies were Anabaptists, so now we know why this Roman Catholic practice were kept.

  John 14:6 Jesus cannot be clearer here on the how to get to the Father. There is one way, and one way only!!!!

  Here is what the Heidelberg Catechism says about entrance to the Kingdom:
  “Question 83. What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
  Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline, or excommunication out of the Christian church; by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers”

  Now how are one excommunicated from of the church? The answer you will find is question 85 of the Heidelberg Catechism:
  “Question 85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?
  Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church, or to those, who are thereunto appointed by the church; and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments; whereby they are excluded from the Christian church, and by God himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and his church”

  The doctrines they refer to are probably the Three Forms of Unity, not the Bible. No minister is allowed to preach the Bible outside of context of the Three Forms of Unity. They will be burned at the stake, with green wood.

  So from the above, by implication the sacraments are your salvation. Sounds Roman Catholic does it not? I know in the Reformed Church I attended, if you sin, for example divorce or if you question calvinism, the church leadership places you under censorship, then you are not allowed to use the sacraments, and you’re out of the Kingdom. Until the church decides you have repented, and after about 6 months you are allowed to use the sacraments again, and you are back into the Kingdom. This happened regularly. But if you are one of the elect, how do you not have entrance to the Kingdom? If I am elected, through irresistible grace, how can I not get into the Kingdom? Yet another one of the contradictions. Just remember the minister himself is a sinner, will he ever placed under censorship?

  The bible teaches that a child can understand the scriptures 2 Tim 3:15. I doubt if anyone, let alone a child can understand Calvinism.

  I honestly once sat in Church one Sunday, and all of sudden I thought to myself this is a cult. It is similar to Roman Catholic teachings. Calvinism is all about control. The more control they have over you the better. Have you tried to argue with a Calvinist? Impossible. They will take words like “all people”, “everyone”, “the world” from the Bible and tell you it means the elect. How do you argue against that?

  There are so many contradictions, this is just a few that made me question Calvinism at first. I wish the people will just understand what Calvinism actually teach, read the bible and compare, it is as obvious as daylight.

  
• Carolyn

  1 February, 2013 at 4:26 pm

  JJ – well said. I agree that it is one of many “systems” that try and get you into the sheepfold through some other door besides Christ. If you trust in any system, you are not saved. Christ is enough. We don’t need anything man-made, works, traditions, covenants, creeds or even “Peter’s Chair” to direct our faith. That’s such a good point…a child can understand the doctrines of Christ. The doctrines of man…including the distorted and complex teachings of Calvinism…not likely…

  Paul – if you are interested, here is a link which is the other side of KJVO.
  http://www.kjvonly.org/other/demystify.htm
  Read it through with an open mind. This is presently where I am on the subject. I think this sheds some light on how one sided their argument is and why they have turned it into almost a cult following. KJO adherents are separatist from other believers. I was really struggling with the whole issue myself, until I read this and some other material. Let me know what you think.

  Michael…lol…yes, hats tend to add some measure of distinction, respectability, or a sense of authority to the role they’re playing. They also work well in the “art of disguise”. Beware of the “long robes” and the “hats”…
  Luke 20:46
  “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

  To quote you, Michael: “Man’s sheep like inclination to follow man and not the God of the bible and his tendencies to imagine vain things.” Truly…people who follow the Bible by the Light of the Holy Spirit, with open ears are not deceived. Those that follow the hats…are.

  
• Redeemed

  1 February, 2013 at 7:17 pm

  Carolyn said:

  Why does calling Bible believers, Arminians work for Grant Swart? Because it lumps us into a category he can deal with. Now he doesn’t have to defend his Biblical error, according to Jesus and the Apostles. He only has to defend his position according to the error of Arminius.

  You have nailed it Carolyn as with your other truthful and concise statements!

  
• Martin Horan

  2 February, 2013 at 4:06 am

  So Paul thinks Dave Hunt is a wolf. I remember reading on a Calvinist site that Dave Hunt is a Jesuit! That’ll be why Dave wrote “A Woman Rides the Beast”!
  I had a “friend” (who runs a Calvinists site on-line) accuse me of still being a Catholic. The irony was, he is more of a Catholic than I ever was. After all, he is an Augustinian and I never have been one. So it doesn’t suprise me when Calvinists falsely accuse others.
  It shows also that they cannot argue logically or biblically.
  Calvinists claim that anyone who disagrees with them is an Arminian. That’s on the level with saying someone who isn’t a Moslem is therefore a Christian or that if something isn’t black it must be white. It is that ridiculous.
  Jesus tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Anyone with a little knowledge of Calvin’s Geneva knows that Calvin most certainly did not treat others as he would like to have been treated by them. Unless, of course, he was a perverted masochist, considering the way he did treat his enemies.
  The most famous British Calvinist I can think of is Ian Paisley. I can remember watching on a TV news bulletin stirring up armed Protestants. Another time he publicly called Catholics vermin, which was widely reported here in Britain. 1 Corinthinas 10:32 would have been way over his head.
  I never like to get personal in debates–as Calvinists often do with Dave Hunt, merely because he compares Calvinism with the Bible–but when I have gone onto their sites and listened to their “reasonings” I have often thought the wives of such men really need our prayers. I mean, how can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone who has such a blasphemous view of God Who does not will that ANY should perish?
  You have as much hope of reasoning with a Moslem.

  
• Valerie

  4 February, 2013 at 7:48 pm

  For further insight into the continued atrocities attributable to Augustine/Calvin I urge all interested to check out a book by John Immel;Blight in the Vineyard/Exposing the Roots Myths,and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny. Thinking caps are required for this read but your eyes will be opened.

  
• Denny

  8 February, 2013 at 12:15 am

  William wrote in # 1: “The greatest way to separate “the resistance” (an internal threat to Rome) from Roman Catholicism is create a counter movement”

  This is what I believe. Even their name, Reformed. Reformed what? Catholicism. It’s a sham.

  On the other topic, Dave Hunt has openly supported calvinists like John MacArthur. Just to give some info on that topic. That is why I personally don’t regard him for myself. I’m not saying what others should do. But I’ve been done with him for some time.

  
• Carolyn

  15 February, 2013 at 2:30 am

  Back to the topic at hand…the roots and fruits of Calvinism and linking him to the Catholic Augustinian. A couple of excerpts to bring us back to apostolic foundational thinking from:

  http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

  Besides, I like this guy…he calls a spade a spade. Even a casual perusal of this paper will dispel any doubt that Calvin was NOT a nice man, let alone a Christian.

  John Calvin studied the voluminous writings of Saint Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo (354-430 AD), much more so than those of Martin Luther, his contemporary. Calvin is continually praising Augustine’s work with numerous references and quotations. Augustine was greatly influenced by the Gnostics, an early Christian sect, whose doctrine was heretical. Gnostics believed that mankind was wholly evil, and some sects even renounced marriage and procreation. They also believed in two gods, one evil and one good. Their teachings are believed to have influenced Saint Augustine in the development of his theology of the “total depravity” of mankind and his concept of God. For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of “total depravity” and the claim that they were the “elect.” Augustine could not advance in his Manichaeism religion because of his sinful lifestyle. He had a reputation as a “womanizer” and a fornicator.

  *****

  All great Christian fathers from the Apostles to Martin Luther taught that the sovereign God placed free will in mankind to choose either good or evil. This free will is present and obvious in Scripture before the fall of Adam and thereafter. Calvin incorporated the heresies of Augustine into his doctrines. Was the Apostle Paul such a poor teacher that his followers didn’t understand his teachings? Certainly not. All of the writings of Church leaders that came after Paul and before Augustine taught that mankind had a free will to either choose the gospel or reject it. The truth was presented in a beautiful expression of free will and the supportive work of the Holy Spirit by John Chrysostom (347-407 AD).

  *****

  The Dutch Church convened the Synod of Dordrecht in 1610 to resolve the dispute between Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius) and the Reformed Church (followers of John Calvin) concerning the correct interpretation of the Bible. In the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Jacob Arminius began to teach doctrines contrary to the Reformed faith. The Remonstrants drew up five statements of doctrine in which they set forth their own views. The Calvinists answered the Five Points of the Arminians with their own, which have come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism which form the acrostic T-U-L-I-P. The approval of the Calvinist position was sealed by a packed prejudiced Synod before it began, and the Calvinists relished the victory by murdering many of their opponents as they fled for their lives. This appeared to be a great victory for Calvinism at the time, but it has since been shown to have been the high point in their theological domination. Calvinism has continued to decline over the centuries, because John Calvin’s technique of terror is no longer allowed for the spread of his theology.

  *****

  Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles raised a finger against those who disagreed with them, but Calvinists continued to use the sword, beheading axe and burning at the stake as methods to eliminate any opposition well after the passing of John Calvin. Charles I succeeded King James in England. The Calvinists gained control of the English Parliament and waged a civil war against the king. They abolished episcopacy, ejected two thousand royalist ministers, summoned the Westminister Assembly, executed Archbishop Laud, and eventually executed the King himself in 1649.

  *****

  Ah…Calvinism’s history is dark and ugly. Glad I’m an Orminion…just kidding…you know I’m not an Orminion…I can’t even spell it….

  
• Carolyn

  28 February, 2013 at 11:25 pm

  I was just re-reading some of the earlier comments and once again I am totally aghast at this comment #4 by (Edit: those 2 Calvinists from fortheloveofhistruth.com) – [Edited by DTW - DTW is legally not allowed to mention their names, so I had to edit your comment. Freedom of Speech in South Africa is being choked.]

  “As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign “free will” of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.

  If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Lord and God.”

  If that isn’t the most divisive, elitist comment ever made! I can still hardly contain my surprise. But then, of course…two tributaries from the same river…Augustinianism and flowing out as Catholicism and Calvinism. As Dave Hunt says…there is a surprising connection and I add… a very great divide. I guess I naively imagined that the walls of denominationalism weren’t so formidable since the internet. But this certainly dispels that myth.

  Sometimes I have thought that it was my imagination that I was regarded as an unbeliever, but reading this, I am left doubting, no longer. I would be regarded as an unbeliever by a Catholic as well because I didn’t take part in the Mass. So Grant is saying that the dividing line between Calvinists and other believers is that my God has given me a choice to serve him or not and his God does not offer him that choice. Indeed, his God is different from mine. I should never have seen it quite so clearly, but from the horse’s mouth…

  If our God is really a different God than the Calvinist’s God, then this is a most serious matter. How shall we regard them????? How about divisive??? What are we to do with divisive people? But instead there seems to be a strange disconnect by those of us with free will. We choose to graciously include the Calvinists, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they are indeed Christians. How strange…

  Will it one day work against those who have enmeshed themselves into the Calvinist camp in the same way that it will work against those who assimilate with Catholicism? Perhaps it will since we are commanded by our Lord to come out from among them and be separate. If they are believing a lie, it can only get worse. And how can we hope for their true salvation if we pretend that we are all believing the same lie? Oh yes, once we see just how far apart we are, we are responsible to hold to the truth. I believe the principle of this Scripture is true for us today:

  Galatians 2:4-6
  King James Version (KJV)
  4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
  5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

  
• Jimmy

  1 March, 2013 at 3:26 pm

  People, this is a fallacy to equate Roman Catholisism and Calvinism! These arguments (which are not from Scripture anyway but from a reasoning of words taken out of context) rest on dubious renderings of the authors. Surely, if you critique a man’s viewpoint, you need to take into account his whole teaching and not an isolated quotation!
  Then also, one does not take a caricature of a teaching and shoot it down and then think you have achieved something! It is called a strawman fallacy.

  Please avail yourself of the proper teaching of what you call Calvinism, which is basically Biblical exegesis. I am a Baptist myself and think many of these great men floundered on some aspects like baptism, but that does not make them heretics – I wonder if the same yardstick is used for the people writing here, what will be the outcome?

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  1 March, 2013 at 3:56 pm

  Jimmy

  This blog knows all to well what CALVINISM really is and that is a deceitful, devilish doctrine that trashes the gospel message of salvation and destroys the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Calvinism is a root of Roman Catholicism and always will be.

  
• Colin Ford

  2 March, 2013 at 12:33 am

  [delete - LOL, YOU are a CALVINIST, you have NO right to speak against someone else claiming they follow false teaching, please Colin, seriously.]

  
• Justin

  2 March, 2013 at 8:14 am

  LOL.

  The author forgot some Spurgeon quotes on Calvinism.

  Like this one:
  It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

  Oops.

  On Augustine- his doctrine of the Church rad head-on into his doctrine of the Church, and he never did escape the influence of neo-platonism.

  That does not invalidate all of his work.

  
• Carolyn

  2 March, 2013 at 8:38 am

  Jimmy re your comment 121…in addition to my comment # 114, did you read comment the Calvinist’s comment #104? Which side are you on because the lines are drawn up, not by a Bible believing Christian, but by a 5-point Calvinist claiming to believe the Scriptures but guided by the acronym of T.U.L.I.P. You cannot be on both sides of the debate at the same time, from the horse’s (Calvinist’s) mouth…

  If you are not a Calvinist, it’s hard for you to understand that they have a different view of Predestination than you do. We believe that God predestines according to his foreknowledge (emphasis on foreknowledge). I said that to a Calvinist and he said, “No no…you have twisted that Scripture…it actually means….God foreknows what he has already predestined.”

  I think that about sums it up. We have it wrong. They have it right. Comment #104 is quite succinct. If you cannot fall in line with their twisted logic, I mean Calvin’s twisted logic, oh wait, make that Augustine’s twisted logic…then you are marginalized and ostracized.

  Jimmy…Calvinism (like any other cult) can take the same Scriptures and come up with a totally different gospel. How is that possible if they are using proper exegesis when we not considered Christians(by them) if we just take the word at face value?

  Because, they add works to their gospel. You have to do it their way, the TULIP way, or you aren’t saved. It is therefore, no more by grace are ye saved. It is by works. Lordship Salvation is WORKS…they will deny it…but there is.

  If you believe their twisted gospel…they will accept you. If you don’t…they won’t. Choose a side, brother….

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  2 March, 2013 at 8:48 am

  Justin

  Errr, Spurgeon was a Calvinist and Augustine was a Roman Catholic. Both are FALSE DOCTRINES through and through.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  2 March, 2013 at 8:53 am

  The most disturbing thing about Calvinism is every Calvinst has their own understanding of predestination; Calvinism is a doctrine of a million and one different interpretations on salvation, just as long as you are elect in the end it does not matter how you got there, you don’t have to understand it, or it’s too difficult to understand, or God is so sovereign that you can’t understand His ways, just believe it and then you must be chosen, if you think you are Elect, then you must be? surely? Quote one liner verses out of the bible to support your twisted views and wallaaaa, you are predestined. Calvinists are not saved, they are predestined.

  
• Carolyn

  2 March, 2013 at 11:26 am

  Oops. Correction on my comment #136..when I said comment #104, I meant #4…Brain dead….:-)

  I was also thinking about a comment that was made when I was blogging with the Calvinists (before I knew that what Calvinism was)…some girl made a plea to the facilitator of the blog that she hoped he and her “granny” were right about this doctrine because eternity was a very long time to spend if he wasn’t right. At the time, I didn’t know what she meant…but I do now. Obviously, she was raised in the Reformed Church and her “granny” had been telling her she was Elect, but she herself had no assurance. And now she was wondering if perhaps the Church was standing in her way by it’s assumption over her life. Her plea of sad desperation haunts me to this day….

  The good news is that we can have assurance. Trusting in Christ and walking by the Light of his Word, in the Fellowship of the Father and the Son, we have assurance…it is given to us as a guarantee, a seal that we are his. I know that I know that I have eternal life. It has nothing to do with my works…it is only the work of Christ completed on the cross. It is finished!

  Debs, yes, the doctrine of Sovereignty and Predestination in the false Election of Calvinism is so so soooooo ambiguous and unknowable. It’s Satan’s masterful playing field….the broad road where one can get lost in the crowd. But Christ said, “narrow is the way”…where it’s impossible to get lost in the crowd for it is an individual’s walk with the Lord.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  2 March, 2013 at 12:07 pm

  Yes that is what amazes me, and I mentioned this to my mother, Calvinist doctrine states that the children of Calvinists are AUTOMATICALLY Elect. Now the question arises and it’s one of those questions Calvinists can’t answer because it’s just too complex LOL, if you are not a child of generational Elective parents, how then do you become Elect and KNOW you are Elect?

  1) By believing you are Predestined?
  2) By saying you are a Calvinist and agreeing you are Predestined?

  I think that’s it really… how cheap.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  5 March, 2013 at 11:33 am

  Carolyn

  I am going to move these comments away from this article to a new article once my maintenance on this blog is complete.

  
• Paul (Continue in His Word)

  15 March, 2013 at 3:39 pm

  Debs,
  The latest comments I see on the blog are dated Feb 28, and I don’t see the article on Angus Buchan’s pseudo-Bible. Is there something wrong with my computer?

  
• Carolyn

  18 March, 2013 at 1:26 am

  Paul, you said “We give all praise to Jesus Christ for TBC’s decision to scrap the book.
  It is a step in the right direction. Will they go all the way? For example, will they look into the case of Tozer (Carolyn wrote: >>Paul..Tozer’s Recommended Reading List…I find damning, not inspirational….I’m eating my words as I speak)? And all others?”

  “And all others?” You’re kidding right? Now there’s a jab that was uncalled for.

  I think we have to remain respectful in our discernment and not make sweeping judgements on people or their character because when it comes our turn, it doesn’t feel so good. None of us has everything right. We can stick to critiquing doctrine that violates Scripture in major ways. Yes, I find the list damning. But that does not translate as everything he did or said being wrong. It also doesn’t translate into everything I said on the subject as being wrong.

  If we took that route, we could find something in every Christian’s life that was off base, and scrap the whole sha-bang. In the process, we would injure a lot of babes in Christ who are just beginning to grow in faith. They don’t need to hear about every little nit picky doctrinal error in those who are in discernment ministries.

  Let’s use love in our discernment of others, the same love we want for ourselves. Love covers a multitude of sins.

  Hopefully, this sort of connect the dots into infinity will end here. We are here to discern major doctrinal errors that are leading people away from Scripture. The Spirit’s job is to bring conviction not condemnation. And we are to follow His lead.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  18 March, 2013 at 8:19 am

  Paul

  Try clearing your cache and browsing history, that might fix the problem.

  
• Paul (Continue in His Word)

  19 March, 2013 at 8:30 pm

  Carolyn,
  I too used to find Tozer inspirational, and I have many of his writings in my library. When I found the info I share with you, I found it damning too, and that is why I wrote TBC in Sept 2012.
  When I put your quote in parenthesis in my comment, it was a way to show that someone else (you) found Tozer damning. IT WASN’T A JAB AT YOU, nor at anyone else for the matter.
  >>”An all others”.
  Yes and all others, starting by TA “wolf” MacMahon himself. and I am not kidding. TBC is a deception shop (as of now) and is an abomination to God!
  you wrote: >>”We can stick to critiquing doctrine that violates Scripture in MAJOR ways”
  I am appalled by this statement. Paul said twice “A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump”
  Read the Scriptures references that William Saunders provided, then give me the Scriptures to back what you are saying.

  you said >> “we could find something in every Christian’s life that was off base”.
  I agree with that, but that is not what we are talking about here. It has nothing to do with TA’s personal Christian life (is he really a Christian?). It is about the gullible, men-trusting, men-fearing, men-exalting, men-following, blind, non-berean sheep, being deceived and led to other deceivers by him.

  We have to speak the TRUTH in LOVE (Eph 4:15). We cannot compromise one for the sake of the other.

  By the way, one week after TA wrote to Debs that they were scraping “The Power of The Spirit”, the book is still being offered on TBC’s website: http://www.thebereancall.org/content/power-spirit
  and William Law is still featuring in the list of authors:
  http://www.thebereancall.org/store/Law%2C%20William

  
• Redeemed

  20 March, 2013 at 1:15 pm

  There you go again Paul, recklessly slapping the term “wolf” on people. You first called Dave Hunt a wolf, remember?

  You astound me. You actually thought that TBC would IN A WEEK purge the book from their inventory? Puleeeeeeze!

  Yes, there is leaven at TBC, but it is NOT corrupt or dangerous as are many others! Paul, you are OBSESSED with this book and you can’t just let it go! Debs closed down the thread about it and end of story, but NOOOOOOOOOO, you have to come over here and dredge it up again!

  Then you start harping on Tozer again. Yes, Tozer would not be my choice. But is he at the top of the list as a dangerous deceiver? NO! Do I feel the need as a watcher on the wall to shout and call attention to him? NO! I won’t recommend him to anyone. If the occasion arises when I can in the course of conversation alert someone, YES!

  I exhort you as a brother in Christ to shine your spotlight on the REAL & DANGEROUS enemies of the faith who are deceiving masses of people such as Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, the “social justice” friends of Rome, such as Rick Warren, and then the “feel gooders” such as Joel Olsteen. And what about the “Christian” networks that are anything but! There are real scary wolves out there ravaging the flocks as we speak. We can’t afford to waste our time swatting flies while killer bees are swarming.

  
• Carolyn

  20 March, 2013 at 7:27 pm

  Paul, Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, when I wrote this ”We can stick to critiquing doctrine that violates Scripture in major ways”, I said that wrong. I should have said we should spend our time critiquing heretical doctrines that are MOST INFLUENCING Christian thinking at the present time. So Redeemed said it better than I could…

  The thing is, that Tozer doesn’t have a great following. We don’t hear that Tozerites are opening churches. In fact no one even calls themselves Tozerites (that I’ve heard). But Calvin on the other hand, although also dead, has made great inroads into the philosophies of Christianity and has been around a much longer time. Branhamites (NOLR, NAR, IHOP) have also gathered a rather large following. The same spirits that began his movement, the same angel, Emma, that spoke to William Branham is still showing up today, as well as a myriad of others and speaking to those who follow his in his steps. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2909690/AN-ANGEL-CALLED-EMMA

  There are so many nightmare gurus today, why should we spend so much time on someone like Tozer? or “all the others”? If you want to discuss all the others, you shouldn’t be using this thread as an opportunity for your agenda.

  This thread is about Calvinism and Catholicism. They are two cults that are bringing the vast majority of Christians into bondage and keeping them from simple faith through idolatry and extra biblical teachings. In the bigger picture of apostasy, ecumenists today will be the vehicle used to bring the charismatics back to the mother church. Too many have bought into the credibility and influence of these two anti-christ churches while being too intimidated to speak out against their doctrine because of fear. Fear of man has indeed proved to be the snare that has engulfed the weak in faith.

  Many in Christian circles do not understand how this all came about or where it’s headed. The article being discussed has brought historical and documented evidence of the misguided and deceitful doctrines of Augustine flowing downhill. After the connections are made, it will be the responsibility of every individual to make their own decision to leave Babylon. Will they stay or will they go?

  
• John Chingford

  23 March, 2013 at 6:35 pm

  For those of you wondering what has happened to the rest of the comments within this article; please go to Debs 2 new articles:

  http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/03/13/dave-hunt-and-the-book-the-power-of-the-spirit/

  http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/03/22/mystery-babylon/

  The old comments have been transferred by Debs to those 2 articles as it is a better place for them.

  
• Truthful Conversation

  17 April, 2013 at 4:42 pm

  For those interested, this is the JESUIT OATH, and the oath the current Pope will have taken.

  http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html

  
• Dave Hunt and the book: The Power of the Spirit

  13 March, 2013 at 9:53 am

  [...] Redeemed on Calvinism’s Roman Catholic Connection [...]

135 queries. 12.208 seconds.