Peeps around the World

Blog Stats

wordpress stat

20 Most Recent Comments Scrolling

Christian Top 1000
SA Topsites ::

Calvinism’s Last Stand Totally Dismantled – A look at Romans Chapters 8, 9 and 10

Icon Camel Icon75 Calvinism’s Last Stand Totally Dismantled   A look at Romans Chapters 8, 9 and 10

CalvinismsLastStandTotallyDismantledALookAtRomans89101 Calvinism’s Last Stand Totally Dismantled   A look at Romans Chapters 8, 9 and 10by Steven M. McCalip

(A look at the surrounding chapters of Romans 8 and 10 to show the immediate context of Romans Chapter 9)

Romans chapter 9 is claimed by many to be the best defense of predestination and the gospel of Calvinism. I would agree  that this passage is a formidable weapon, for I, too, formerly believed these doctrines. And  let me say also from the outset here that I am not condemning those who have come to believe in eternal election and predestination after their salvation, rather, I am calling out their beliefs as to what is error and heresy. I am well aware that men can be saved and  believe the doctrine of Calvinism-I was one of them. I have several close friends that hold these same beliefs. It is my belief that any man can come to Jesus and later get deceived by error, and I could point out several people from scripture who as Christians did these very things. I don’t believe, however, that a man can believe the gospel of Calvinism for his initial salvation. Paul talked about the gospel saving us, not a false gospel. Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 that the first teaching of the gospel is that “Christ died for our sins”. That is primary and of utmost importance. To misunderstand who “our” is is to misunderstand the gospel. So my dear reader, please understand the difference being spoken of here. Being deceived after salvation is one thing, but believing a false gospel for your salvation is quite another.

Romans 9, at first glance, does appear to bolster the Reformed position. I will give them that much. If it can be proven otherwise, however,  Calvinism will lose the heart and soul of its doctrine in the New Testament. Until now, I have not felt that I had a strong enough case against this chapter teaching predestination. I knew Romans 9 didn’t teach predestination as Calvinism teaches it, but I couldn’t prove it sufficiently, that is, until now.

In the past, I have had brothers ask me to answer Romans 9, and I would reply that I wasn’t ready. I recently had a woman on YouTube challenge me again, and it really hit me that I was neglecting it. I wasn’t trusting God enough to show me the answers himself. I knew that if I tackled Romans 9, it would be quite involved. But like most of my studies of late, I knew the Lord would guide me through it. I couldn’t avoid it any longer. I had to confront it head on. I had to “beard the lion” as they say.

It is a difficult chapter unless approached with much prayer and much study. But the Lord Jesus opened up my understanding, and because of him and my belief in his words, and my love for those who hold this position, I will now make my case against Calvinism’s teaching that Romans 9 is the best defense of predestination. This study will be no small endeavor indeed. Strap yourself in, for this is going to be a long and wild ride.

Romans 9 is chock full of Old Testament quotations, and it is these references that show the true meaning of Romans 9, and that correct understanding has nothing to do with Calvinism, predestination, or any other such thing. There are at least 15 quotations from the Old Testament in Romans chapter 9 alone. Not fully understanding the passages and the context of those passages quoted in this chapter is a prime example of how to misunderstand and wrest the scriptures to one’s own destruction. The word of God is so sharp, that if you don’t divide it correctly, it will cut you in pieces. You cannot approach scripture with the attitude that extensive study is not necessary or that comparing New Testament scripture with the Old is too time consuming and so forth. It is absolutely necessary for proper understanding; otherwise, you will be deceived. I was, and I admit being led away with the error of Calvinism.

In the beginning of my walk, I didn’t compare scripture with scripture like I should. I didn’t study scripture, I just read it. I saw scriptures in Romans 9 like “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” and just assumed that was speaking of predestination of souls. I fear that is the case with way too many Christians as well. What you are about to embark on is a study of Romans 9 like you have probably never seen, and I can say that having read plenty of studies on it back when I was led astray.

I pray that God will keep you from the same grievous error, for bear in mind, as I have stated before and shown on videos, Calvinism is not just another doctrine that we can “agree to disagree on.” It is a false gospel, and though I know that is a serious charge and will upset quite a few of you, I say it will all gravity and compassion, for Calvinism changes the foremost meaning of the gospel found in 1 Corinthians 15 that said “Christ died for OUR sins.” By saying Christ died only for some people’s sins, the gospel of Christ dying for our sins is changed. “Our” is construed to mean a select few, and so all other references to Jesus being “the Saviour of the world” and “tasting death for every man” and being “the propitiation for our sins and NOT FOR OURS ONLY but also for those of the whole world” are attacked. The gospel is corrupted under the guise of exalting a sovereign God.  This teaching beguiles the people of God into believing a false gospel while at the same time  convincing  people that they are exalting God and putting down man’s abilities. I would be neglecting my duty as a Christian not to point this out.

Romans 8:1

No discussion of Romans 9 is in proper context unless you look at what was before this chapter in Romans 8 and what came after it in Romans 10. With that in mind, let me just mention some highlights from Romans 8 and 10 that will form the framework and background for Romans 9. Romans 8:1 tells us the following;

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…” Romans 8:1

As I have mentioned before on video and in articles, the fact that all sinners, including the elect, were condemned to hell at one point, shows that the “elect” Calvinists were not predestined to heaven, for they themselves were condemned to hell just like anybody else.  Jesus spoke of this same word “condemned” and said in John 3:18 that if you are not a believer, you are “condemned” to hell: “he that believeth not is condemned already.”

You cannot be predestined to heaven and be condemned to hell at the same time, Yet that is precisely what people are forced to believe and trying to make you believe. Those two points are irreconcilable. They show the impossibility of being predestined to heaven before or when you were born. I have yet to be proven wrong on this understanding, yet I am open to listening to any who would challenge this belief.

Condemnation to hell and being God’s elect are not both simultaneously possible. How can one be condemned to hell and picked for heaven at the same time? You might as well say someone is a child of Satan and a child of God at the same time. My friends, consider what I say, and the Lord Jesus give you understanding.

Romans 8:9

Keep in mind here that two of the greatest reproofs of Calvinism are shown in the immediate chapter preceding Romans 9. Paul did not give us this strong opposition to Calvinism and then go into an essay on predestination in Romans 9. I used this next verse also in a previous video, but it is so simple and so devastating to Calvinism that it must be pointed out here in Romans 8:9-”

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

My friends, unless you have the Spirit of Christ IN YOU, you are “NONE OF HIS.” Do we see the impact of that statement as to Calvinism? Do we really? Calvinism teaches that the chosen are HIS ELECT (with my emphasis on “HIS”) before they were born millions and millions of eons ago. That is a standard teaching of  Calvinism.  They say that they have always been “HIS” from all eternity. Oh really? Scripture defies that teaching in three simple words: Before one gets saved a person is “NONE OF HIS.” No “elect” chosen person will say he had the Spirit of Christ in him before he was saved or even before he was born, so how can “his elect” be “none of his”? You are either his or not his, and if you are not “his,” you are also “none of his.”

My point is this: you can’t be “his elect” if you are “none of his.” You may not technically be his children yet, but you are “his elect”; therefore, in one major respect, you are his. However, you cannot be “his elect” and be “none of his” at the same time. The word “none” eliminates any ambiguity here. Since you were “none” of his, you were no part of Christ’s whatsoever in eternity past. There cannot exist a group of people called the elect who were selected millions of years ago and called “his elect.” Why? Because they are “NONE OF HIS” UNTIL they have the Spirit of Christ IN them. “His elect” have no claim to be any of his, for they are “NONE” of his.  Scripture teaches that you are not his UNTIL you have the Spirit of Christ in you. You are none of his, not even “his elect.”

“None” is a strong word, my friends, and you simply cannot get around it. You were none of his just like I was none of his until, and only until, I believed in him and his Spirit dwelled in me. Do you seriously think Paul is teaching that there is a special class of people that were chosen in eternity past in Romans 9 just after telling us that no one was “His” in Romans 8 until they were in Christ Jesus? If he did, then Paul taught that you were “none of his” in Romans 8 and then taught you were “his” in eternity past in Romans 9. I don’t think we can accuse Paul of being that messed up.

Romans 8:17

Thirdly, Romans 8 contains another major proof against Calvinism, and it is found in verse 17:

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

Calvinism teaches that billions of years ago as his “elect,” you were predestined to inherit all things as children of God.You were guaranteed to inherit, or be an heir. If you are a guaranteed heir, then you are, in effect, an heir already. You have already been decided to be the heir.  Since you supposedly are his elect and will inherit all things, you are no different than an heir already. Scripture refutes this false doctrine soundly and says that “if children, then heirs.” You must be his child to be an heir to the kingdom of God and Christ.  There are no other heirs. There is not another class of heirs called “his elect” that are guaranteed to be heirs. You must be his child and have his Spirit inside you to be an heir.

Let’s look at scriptural proof of how you become an heir of God.

This is highly relevant because if you are supposedly God’s elect from all eternity, then you were already set to inherit everything of Christ. You were already decided to be his heirs though you weren’t physically ready to inherit it. However, scripture says you weren’t his heirs UNTIL you became his child. Calvinism destroys the doctrine of heirship, and grants heir status to the elect. If you are one of the chosen few elect, then those same elect from billions of eons ago were the heirs of salvation. They were chosen to be his heirs before they ever became children. They were, for all practical purposes, his heirs already. They just haven’t received it yet.

And if children, then heirs; heirsof God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Rom. 8:17

Again, this verse demonstrates that you have to be his child to be an heir, yet if you are his elect from eternity past, you are also his heir. Therefore, Calvinism creates another kind of heir-his elect.You become an heir without being a child yet. You are promised an inheritance just by being his elect. Calvinism has made becoming his child an afterthought to becoming his heir because you were already his heir. You were his elect.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

Here we see that in order to become an heir, it had to happen THROUGH the righteousness of faith. Faith had to be exercised and righteousness given to the believer before he could be called an heir. That obviously doesn’t happen in eternity past, and the point is that heirship again is bestowed when one becomes his child through faith, not being picked as his heir ahead of time in eternity past. That would bypass “through the righteousness of faith.” Faith would not be necessary to be an heir since you were already guaranteed an inheritance and heirship simply by being his elect.

And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal.3:29

This scripture very succinctly tells us how we are his heirs-”if ye be Christ’s.” You have to be saved, be his child, and be “his” before you are his heir. Anyone believing these erroneous doctrines should never claim that they were Christ’s before they were born, or if they do, then they would have to claim they were born again in eternity past, for that is the only way you become “Christ’s.”

Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Gal. 4:7

Another confirmation of how we are an heir-”if a son, then an heir…” Again, you must be his son before you are his heir. With Calvinism, you are an heir in from eternity past, so becoming a son is unnecessary for them to be an heir. In fact, they might as well proclaim they are his sons from eternity past, for those elect have all the benefits of being his son including being his heir.

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7

There is no other way to be an heir, yet for Calvinism, there is another way to be an heir. Just be elect and be the one of the chosen few. Becoming his child is just an afterthought because you were already guaranteed to be the heir anyway. If you are confused about this, you should really think about these two points made thus far. They are “none of his” and not his heirs from eternity past because to be “his,” you have to have to be “in him” and HIM in you. To be an heir, you have to be his child. Jesus allows no other methods, especially man-made attempts such as Calvinism. Calvinism gives you another way to be an heir and gives another way to avoid condemnation.

Romans 8:28-29

Lastly, Romans 8:28-29 are other scriptures that are used by Calvinism to make its case, but in actuality, these scriptures are another strong case against it.

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

The first part of this verse is used by Calvinism to teach that the elect from eternity past are “the called.” But again, they have the order backwards. All things do indeed work together for these “called” or “elect.” But notice that all things work together for good TO THEM THAT LOVE GOD. Unless and until you LOVE GOD, things don’t work together for good for you. That means, of course, that things don’t work together for good for you as some class of “elect” that were picked in eternity past. This verse has nothing to do with some group of people supposedly picked in eternity past. It has to do with those that love God. You didn’t love God as an elect chosen billions of years ago.

Notice next that “them that love God” ARE NAMED “THE CALLED.” You are not “the called” until you love God. That excludes the chosen elect from eons ago being “the called.” It is only those who love God who are the called. Unless you loved God billions of years ago, you were not the “called” back then. Of course, this eliminates an elect that was called long ago.

These scriptures are used by Calvinism to teach predestination of souls, especially because they see the word “predestination” in there and ASSUME it means predestination of the soul. Though it may SOUND like that, it means nothing of the sort. Look at exactly what is predestinated: us being conformed to his image. Nothing is stated or even implied about our eternal destiny being predestinated. Once we come to Christ, it is automatic and predestined that we will be “conformed to his image.” It is like you becoming friends with someone: once you do, you set off a series of events that will transpire that will occur because of your friendship. You will do things together, you will influence each other, etc. Once we come to Jesus, he will begin the process of conforming us to his image. Our predestination of being conformed to his image begins at that point, not millions of years ago. We are predestined to become like him once we know him and are born again. That verse said nothing about predestination of souls. I should know. I used to do the same thing, and many of you probably do too. We must be extremely respectful of every word of scripture, for every word of God is pure, and every word of God matters. When you have that attitude, you begin to see things like I’m showing you and like the Lord showed me.

Let’s also look at the context of chapter immediately following Romans 9, Romans 10. For the same reasons we looked at Romans 8, let’s not overlook the fact that Romans 10 is just as packed full of scriptures that defy Calvinism as Romans 8. Romans 9 is not some passage that breaks from the flow of thought of the preceding chapter and subsequent chapter. It is part of the whole. An essay on predestination is not stuck between two of the greatest chapters speaking against predestination.

So, before we get to Romans 9, let’s briefly look at many of the scriptures given in Romans 10 that show that anyone can come to the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, not just the chosen few, and everyone else is left out in the cold. Bear in mind that I am showing you this to demonstrate that Paul’s foundation in Romans 8 and his follow up chapter in Romans 10 both demonstrate that anyone can come to Jesus Christ. Romans 9 is not some aberration or exception stuck in the middle of Romans 8 and 10. You want context? Well, here it is:

Romans 10:1

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom. 10:1

Just like chapter 9, Paul is agonizing over Israel because they are lost.  Doesn’t he know that they are lost because God chose not to save most of them as Calvinism want you to believe? As I mentioned earlier, why agonize over what God chose to do? Paul agonizes because it is Israel’s choice they they are lost, not God’s; otherwise, Paul’s agony is futile and is an affront to God’s sovereignty to do as he pleases. There is absolutely zero chance that Israel “might be saved” if they are not his elect. Why agonize over that? If Paul believes in Calvinism, he must assuredly know that most won’t be elect.

Romans 10:9-10

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom. 10:9-10

Notice that it is “man” believing God, not “elect,” preordained believers. The last time I checked, the word “man” as used here means everyone on this planet. “One small step for man” would be pretty funny if it didn’t mean all. There are no “chosen few” that are automatically believing in God because he selected them to. In that scripture, you have not been given a new heart to believe him yet. You believe him with your old heart, and he gives you salvation and a new heart. You believe “unto righteousness” with your old heart, so you get righteousness by believing with your old heart. Confession is made “unto“salvation; therefore, you are confessing and believing without having been saved so that you can get saved. That word “unto” is very important. It shows the direction of your faith and the object of it. It shows that you don’t have righteousness yet but are believing to get it. It shows that man is believing with his old heart “unto” righteousness and getting righteousness because of his belief. Otherwise, you are getting saved and being regenerated with his Spirit so you can believe in God. How absurd that is!

Romans 10:11

For the scripture saith,Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 10:11

That scripture is a direct lie if only certain ones are “able” to believe on Jesus as Calvinism says. If that were the case, that scripture would be better rendered “whosoever is elect and able to believe on him” shall not be ashamed. That is exactly what Calvinists say it means, and I kid you not. “Whosoever” is such a strong word because it emphasizes everyone without exception. The word “whosoever” eliminates any meaning of some limited group like an “elect.” For those of you who like to use dictionaries to prove meanings (I don’t), Webster’s says “whosoever” means “no matter who.” So then, the scripture teaches “No matter who believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” It means every man, woman, and child on this planet has a chance to believe on Jesus. If “whosoever” means only a very  limited, select few, then we might as well say black means white, for “whosoever” is the polar opposite meaning of an “elect,” chosen few. Those terms couldn’t be further apart, yet Calvinism will have us believe they mean the same thing. To them, “whosoever” means a “select, chosen, few elect.”

What Jesus really should have said, then, is “Come unto me, SOME of you that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give a few of you rest.” No, no, and a thousand times no. He said “Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Maybe Jesus should have said, “For God so loved SOME of the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER of the elect that believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus said God so loved “the world,” not “some of the world.” Can you imagine Jesus saying God so loved some of the world, and yet, that is exactly what Calvinism teaches. That is no exaggeration whatsoever. Jesus said “whosoever” believes on him can be saved, not whosoever is able to believe on him can be saved. If you want to know how to add to the word of God and wrest the scriptures, Calvinism is your best example.

Romans 10:12-13

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The witness against Calvinism continues by the apostle Paul in the very next chapter of Romans 10. Paul is making several points here, and one in particular is that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.” I wrote another article on that alone showing the similarities between the self righteousness of the Jews thinking they were the only chosen people to go to heaven and the people today who think the same exact thing. Believers of Calvinism are his new “chosen people,” and if you don’t happen to be one of those lucky few who got his number called in eternity past, you’re up a creek.

If you noticed in this scripture, the word “all” is used twice, and the first time it speaks of the “Lord over all.” Well, the Lord is over all, not just some, and the next few words uses that same “all” and says “all that call upon him.” That same “all” that the Lord is over, which is the whole earth unless you think the Lord is not over all, is applied to those who can call upon him. It is all, the same all that comprises the whole world over which the Lord reigns. If you say “all” can’t mean all the earth in that verse, then you must say the Lord is not over the whole earth, or the elect. You see how the Lord can trap you, my friends?

Paul tells us there is no difference, and that difference applies to elect and non-elect. The Lord is “rich unto all that call upon him.” Did you see that? He is rich to ALL THAT CALL UPON HIM. Well, Calvinism will start playing games and say that all CAN’T call upon him. Funny though, I didn’t see that disqualifying statement in that passage where it should have been if that were the case. What Calvinism says it actually teaches is this: “the same Lord over all is rich unto all THAT CAN CALL UPON HIM. Once again, they are adding to the word of God by this teaching. God nowhere even hints that men can’t call upon him. Jeremiah says “Call unto me and I will answer thee.” All the way back to Genesis, men have been calling upon the name of the Lord, and wasn’t just elect calling upon him, it was “men”: “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to callupon the name of the LORD” Gen. 4:26.  “For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee” Psalm 86:5. God all throughout scriptures says for men to call upon the name of the Lord, and not once, not once, does he say men are unable to call upon the Lord.

Romans 10:14,17

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

It is scriptures like this that make Calvinism really look totally contradictory. Calvinism likes to talk about its “golden chain” in Romans 8:30, but how about this “chain” in Romans 10? In the following verse, it gives the answer to the lame assertion by Calvinism that only certain ones (elect) are even able to “call” upon the name of the Lord. It answers the question of who is able to call, and by doing this, destroys the doctrine of Total Depravity which says only the elect can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. This verse ties in “call” with “believe” and “heard” and “preacher.” Nothing is said about inability to call on the name of the Lord. It does say that the reason why they don’t call, and that is because they have NOT BELIEVED. And nothing is said about their inability to believe because they are not “elect.” Their faith comes by hearing the word of God, and it does not come as some transfusion of faith God imparts because they are elect. It comes from a lost man hearing the word of God and believing it. It is that simple and that powerful. Any add-ons to that are just that-add-ons. They are adding to the word of God.

The following verse is how Romans chapter 10 ends, and what a fitting ending it is to the teachings of Calvinism. Here you have God stretching his hands forth and pleading with the lost house of Israel, and for those today who hold this position, that is repugnant. They accuse people like myself of having a god that is weak and can’t save those he wants to. How utterly foolish is that statement! How indicative of a complete lack of understanding that is of who God really is. God does plead with the lost sinner to get saved. And there are many that don’t get saved who he pleads with, in fact, most of them. Does that make God weak and unable to save? I trow not.

Romans 10:21

But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Points to keep in mind that Paul made in Romans 8 and 10:

As a review, then, let’s keep in mind what Paul taught us in the chapters directly before and after Romans 9, the supposed stronghold of the doctrine of Calvinism and predestination.

1. Calvinism claims he was condemned and elected at the same time. Calvinism teaches that they can be on their way to hell (condemned) and on their way to heaven (elect) at the same time. This is unscriptural, impossible, contradictory, and unreasonable. Everyone ever born was condemned to hell, including the elect of Calvinism. No true condemnation to hell can occur if you are picked to go to heaven regardless; therefore, the elect doesn’t experience true condemnation and bypasses what Jesus himself said everyone truly suffers: “he that believeth not IS CONDEMENED ALREADY” John 3:18. No Calvinist can claim he was ever truly condemned, no matter if he says he was, because he was not. He was never going to hell and never was in danger of it from all eternity past according to their beliefs. True condemnation is a joke as applied to Calvinism.

2. Since Calvinism claims its people have been God’s elect from all eternity and that they were “His elect” forever, they are in direct contradiction to scripture that says they were “none of his” UNTIL they had the Spirit of Christ in them: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” Romans 8:9. You cannot be “his elect” and be “none of his” at the same time, and just like the verse about being condemned, Calvinism is in another catch 22 of significant proportions. They were “none of his” from all eternity, yet they claim they were “his.” They have a controversy with the Lord. They were not his. They are liars and are making the word of God a lie by saying they were his before Christ was in them.

3. A child of God, one that has been born again, is the only legitimate heir of salvation and Jesus Christ. You are not an heir until you are his child: “if children, then heirs…”. Also, in Galatians 4:7, it says, “if a son, then an heir.”

4. The word “predestination” as used in Romans 8 has nothing to do with the predestination of a man’s soul, though many will not look at the context of how it is used and just assume that is what it is speaking in reference to. Paul said “he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son…” We are predestinated alright, but we are predestinated to be conformed to his image. Every child of God that has gotten saved is NOW predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. That happens as a result of salvation, not before it.

5. Paul says in Romans 10 “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”That shows that any man with his old heart can believe UNTO righteousness. That scripture shows a man with his old heart believing UNTO righteousness. He didn’t have it yet as Calvinists claim he must in order to believe.

6. The word “whosoever” is used several times in Romans 10, directly speaking of who can be saved. “Whosoever’ can be saved. Whosoever, by the way, according to Webster’s dictionary, means “no matter who.” “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” No matter who believes on hims shall be saved. Rom 10:11

7. Romans 10 ends with the statement that the Lord, who is over all the whole earth, is rich unto that same “all” that call upon him: “…for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Romans 10:12

Dear reader, please don’t lose sight of the fact that all the verses I just showed you from Romans 8 and 10 are the immediate context of Romans 9. With that background and foundation of Romans 8 and 10, the immediate context of Romans 9, and with their many indisputable passages opposing Calvinism on many fronts, let us now enter Calvinm’s stronghold and break down the verses line upon line to show that this chapter, considered by many to be Calvinm’s best defense, is actually no defense at all. What I will show you and prove by Old Testament references and other means is that this chapter has nothing to do with the predestination of souls, and because that is the case, this chapter, the so-called fortress of Calvinism, comes crumbling down. (Be sure to see Part 2 of this study, an over 50 page essay).

source:  http://kingjamesman.com/?p=504    Copyright 2008

Now please read: —> Calvinists’ Last Stand Dismantled: Romans Chapter 9

pixel Calvinism’s Last Stand Totally Dismantled   A look at Romans Chapters 8, 9 and 10

81 comments to Calvinism’s Last Stand Totally Dismantled – A look at Romans Chapters 8, 9 and 10

  • val

    A gift for you…The true Gospel is now delivered to you from the wilderness Rev 12:6 as a witness Matt 24:14.
    Our heavenly Father will NOT put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins. Sin doesn’t scare God! He created it Isa 45:7 to teach us all the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 for our eternal placement in his coming kingdom. Throwing a child of his into a hell fire has never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer7:31, Jer 19:5. Anyone preaching a hell fire to God’s children has been deceived into teaching lies. The whole world has been believing in a god of hate murder and revenge (The devil Rev 12:9). The true word of God John 1:1 is now delivered Rev 12:5 here http://thegoodtale.wordpress.com/

    God chose a woman Rev 12 to be the prophet like unto Moses Num 12:3 and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17. Those professing themselves to be Christians would be wise to hear all Acts 3:23 BEFORE making any judgment. The proof of what I tell you is in the hearing.

    Prove ALL things 1 Thes 5:21. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 until now.

  • Sharon

    Debora, Steve wrote excellent articles on the topic of this heresy we call Calvinism. There is so much scriptural evidence that refutes Calvinism that it boggles my mind how anyone can believe such false teachings. The really sad part…it doesn’t matter to a Calvinist. Their conscience has been seared over so much, they’re like rabid dogs, foaming out their damnable heresy. They refuse to see how glorious and how simple the true Gospel of Jesus is. They are deaf to the words “unlimited atonement.” We all have sins that can beset us. The normal Christian when confronted with their sin, confesses and forsakes it. The Calvinist just says, “it’s God’s perfect will that I did such and such a sin”. What filth they are most willing to drag God’s name into.

    Calvin the heretic died a little over 500 years ago and yet his venom is still being spewed out of the mouths of Calvinism’s fellow heretics. I have been saved a long time and I have heard preaching from my home State of Michigan all the way to the tip of Miami and just about every state in between. I am not highly educated but I am smart enough to see the filth that is done in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Calvinism is nothing but a “doctrine of man.” It seems to me that his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” are more important than the Word of God to a Calvinist. Calvin was religious but was he saved? Calvin was a tyrant and consented to the deaths of more than just Servetus. Calvin never felt regret over any of this, he remained unrepentant and for years still tried to justify his murders.

    The truth and simplicity of the gospel perhaps is too easy for the Calvinist to believe. They feel they are so smart, so educated and we little people just need to get off their stage and scamper along. But wasn’t it the “common people” that gladly heard the gospel and received it? I’m so thankful I am a “common woman.”

  • james jordan

    The truth is much easier than this: Paul was wrong.

    We can go through all kinds of acrobatics trying to make Romans 9 right and good–but it isn’t. Paul took every passage he cites there from the Old Testament OUT OF CONTEXT and gave it a good twist. And on the potter, he didn’t quote Jeremiah 18 like he should have, but rather quoted Wisdom 15:7-8 from the APOCRYPHA and he even took that out of context. Paul is simply wrong and at some point that just has to be admitted.

  • Are you an anti-Pauline heretic?

    Paul did not glean his knowledge from the Apocrypha. He received the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ.

    But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.(Gal 1:11-12)

    And that’s precisely why he warns you in the very same chapter:

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we [Jesus Christ and Paul] have preached unto you [James Jordan], let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8)

    I urge you to repent before it’s too late.

  • Redeemed

    James Jordan’s comments show just how perverted the Calvinist mind can get. He is actually insulting the Holy Spirit of God who inspired Paul’s writings. That is dangerous ground.

    Just a note: My protection software will not allow the link to the source of this article to open – says it is a dangerous page that contains malicious malware. From the title it sounds like the author is KJV only and I wanted to check it out.

  • james jordan

    Did you read Wisdom 15:7-8? I mean the software turned my citation of it into a link to biblegateway and everything. If you had read it you would see that Paul is indeed quoting on the whole notion of the potter making vessels of honor and dishonor from the same lump. You don’t find that in Jeremiah 18 where each type of vessel is made from a SEPARATE lump and where the clay is featured having FREEWILL which obviously demolishes the point that he is trying to make. Why does he bring up the potter to begin with? (By he I mean Paul.) Because someone objected to his predestinarian scheme saying “Wait a minute Paul. If God controls all our actions, then sin is no longer real. If God made me do it, then I didn’t resist his will; I did his will. HOW THEN can he still find fault?” What’s Paul’s answer? Basically “Shut your mouth” following by a quotation (out of context) of Wisdom 15:7. He leaves off verse 8, of course, because that verse brings home the point that the author of the Apocryphal book is talking about potters to make fun of Pagans who makes from the same lump 3 things: vessels for clean uses, vessels for unclean uses, and idols. From the same lump they make a cup for a king, a litter box for their cat, and a god to worship! But Paul wants to use the concept to deny freewill, not to make fun of idolators–so who’s really the heretic?

  • I think you should read Jeremiah 18 again but this time you should clean you reading glasses. This is what Jeremiah 18:4 says:

    And the vessel (singular) he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it (the very same lump; not a separate lump) into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. (KJV)

    And the vessel that he was making from clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he made it over, reworking it into another vessel as it seemed good to the potter to make it. (AMP)

    That’s precisely what Paul says:

    Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom 9:21)

    Romans 9 addresses God’s righteous judgements on people who persist in hardening their own hearts despite His continued efforts to bring them to their senses when He repeatedly spreads His hands out to them and saying:

    If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ (Jer 18:7-11)

    Why would God plead with them to repent of their evil ways when He had already sovereignly decided to send them to hell?

    Anyone who hardens his own heart and persists in an attitude of unrepentant obstinacy WILL be made fit for destruction (hell). (Romans 9:22). The vessels prepared for destruction are people whom He knows will remain unrepentant to the very end of their lives, and yet, though He can send them to hell immediately, He endures their sins and rebelliousness for his own purposes, such as Pharaoh and Judas. It does not mean that He arbitrarily and monergistically decides whom He will save and whom He wants to damn.

  • james jordan

    No, you need to read Jeremiah 18 again. He reworked the very same lump after it changed its mind. He did not, however, make two different things from the same lump. That is, as it says, God said of a nation “I will destroy” so he is working it into a vessel of destruction, but it repents, so he instead makes it a vessel of honor. He only made one type of vessel out of that lump in the end. Then of another nation, another lump, he said “I will build it up” and so he was working it into a vessel of honor, but it repented of righteousness and became wicked, so instead he worked it into a vessel of destruction. But again, he only worked the lump into one thing. God doesn’t make vessels of honor and destruction both from the same lump: nor does he work the clay in a deterministic way without its freewill involved as the twisting of Wisdom 15:7 found in Romans 9 alleges.

    “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” No he does not. And this kind of stupid question is not a proper response to the objection that was raised against Paul’s predestinarianism, namely that it makes sin “fake” by making it as if God controls our actions, which in turn would mean that sin is not truly disobedience after all. Paul’s dismissive attitude does not solve the problem that his erudite opponent in Rome raised.

  • The Bible consistently makes a distinction between Israel and the heathen. The heathen is ONE lump out of which He is able to form like clay two different instruments – some to dishonor and the others to honor. Similarly Israel (the whole house of Israel) is ONE lump out of which He can form two different instruments.

    You are doing exactly what Paul warns us against – to say that God is only capable of forming out of one lump a single vessel, either for honor or dishonor. Paul says, no! God is sovereign and is quite capable of making two vessels out of the same lump of clay. Had He not done so, it would mean that the entire heathen world as a whole (ONE lump) would either have been destroyed or saved. Surely you must agree that their have been billions throughout the ages among the ONE lump who’d been saved and used mightily of God, whilst billions of others (out of the same lump) had been dishonorable instruments. The same argument applies to the ONE lump, Israel.

    Paul never once says that man has no free-will or that God is controlling mankind like a puppet on a string. You are misinterpreting Romans 9. The fact that he was willing to be cast into hell for the sake of his brethren (the Jews) proves that he did not promulgate election and predestination unto salvation. Why would we want to be cast into hell for those who supposedly are going to be cast into hell because God sovereignty ordained their damnation before the foundation of the world? And why would he want to go to hell for the elect whom God supposedly predetermined to go to heaven before the foundation of the earth? Would you be prepared to be cast into hell for a bunch of reprobates who do not have a snowball’s hope in hell of ever being saved? Or would you be prepared to be cast into hell for a bunch of elect who are going to heaven in any case. Poor Paul. Imagine him burning in hell for the reprobate who are going to sit with him in hell in any case because they were chosen for hell, and also burn in hell for the elect who never had a snowball’s hope in hell of ever being lost.

    Your exegesis is faulty and dangerous. To say that God has no right to form out of ONE lump two vessels, one for honor and the other for dishonor, is to deny God’s sovereignty. Like the Calvinists, you are making the same mistake to interpret Romans 9 in the light of God’s sovereign choice to save whom He wishes and to damn whom He wishes. It has nothing to do with this. Romans 9 deals with God’s choice to use whomsoever He wills in his service when they had made their own choice and of their own accord to either be saved or not to be saved. God foreknew before the foundation of the world that Pharaoh would harden his own heart and decided to use him (raised him up) for the purpose of showing to the heathen nations that He is the only true and living God. And how did He do that? – by delivering a whole nation from slavery in Egypt through ten magnanimous miracles. Once again, you are denying the sovereignty of God to use whomsoever He wishes for his own purposes.

    I really think you should repent.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    My goodness gracious me, not only do Calvinists trash the gospel of Jesus Christ but some of them are also anti-Paul the apostle as well. WOW, who would have known that one.
    This is what I love about DTW, we always find out the most amazing things (mostly mind-boggling) in the comments section.

  • Leon Petersen

    Thomas Lessing (Watch and Pray / Waak en Bid) wrote:

    Why would God plead with them to repent of their evil ways when He had already sovereignly decided to send them to hell?

    Hi Thomas,
    Just to be clear, I do not in any way agree with James Jordaan, and agree for the most part in what you have said concerning his post.
    But with reference to the above: (and perhaps this is why I am perhaps not a “classical” Calvinist),God is not constrained by Time in the same way as we are. His foreknowledge of one’s choice has absolutely no bearing on the freedom one has to make that choice. For one to have the freedom to make that choice, He,(God), still has to make the choice available to us.(in our constraint of linear or cyclical time). There is no conflict here. The fact that He has foreknowledge of one’s resultant choice, is what He uses for His Divine and Sovereign purposes.

    Anyone who hardens his own heart and persists in an attitude of unrepentant obstinacy WILL be made fit for destruction (hell). (Romans 9:22). The vessels prepared for destruction are people whom He knows will remain unrepentant to the very end of their lives, and yet, though He can send them to hell immediately, He endures their sins and rebelliousness for his own purposes, such as Pharaoh and Judas. It does not mean that He arbitrarily and monergistically decides whom He will save and whom He wants to damn.

    TOTALLY agree!!

  • Redeemed

    It would seem that there is no point in even continuing the discussion w/James Jordan. He doesn’t even believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. That is the bottom line.

    James, please go back to square 1. What do you base your faith upon? Is it saving faith? That is the most important question you will ever answer – your eternal destiny depends upon it.

    To simply tell James to repent and that he is a heretic is frankly not helpful. He needs help to understand the basics of the Gospel and what he needs to repent of. He cannot comprehend the Word led by the Holy Spirit if he believes in a false gospel.

    He is even farther off the charts than the average Calvinist who would reject his anti-Pauline position.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    My goodness gracious me, not only do Calvinists trash the gospel of Jesus Christ but they are anti-Paul the apostle as well. WOW, who would have known that one.
    This is what I love about DTW, we always find out the most amazing things (mostly mind-boggling) in the comments section.

    Not all Calvinists ( Thankfully ).
    James Jordaan has embarked on the dangerous process of selecting which of the Inspired writings of Paul are Inspired or not.( if any )

    In my view, Calvinists of the order and ilk of JMA do not trash the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Calvinism taught by JMA is not preached as a Gospel, ( there is only one Gospel ), it is taught as an understanding of the Nature of God, and His sovereignty, His Grace, and His Mercy.( as taught by Paul )

    I use the term “Calvinist” because it is short and easily understood. However, I would say that in terms of one’s understanding of the Nature of God, labels can be used as a means of over-simplifying what one believes in, and is convicted of, by the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God. To agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism, does not make one “Calvinist”. It simply makes one “Calvinistic” in some beliefs.
    Splitting hairs, maybe, but I have to make the distinction here.
    Unlike Joyce Meyer, who once famously stated that one who “does not believe that Jesus suffered in Hell at the hands of demons before he was raised”, cannot be saved,( another Gospel ), John MacArthur makes no such claim about the principles of Calvinism. He preaches good, solid Gospel, and presents good, solid exegeses on Scripture. He also reacts and responds with kindness and grace befitting a man of God when criticized or vilified, unlike so many others.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    To Deborah:

    I realise I must come across as an apologist for John MacArthur.
    I make no excuse for this, and will no longer belabour the point.

    Keep up the good work on the site.

    Love and Peace to All

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> I realise I must come across as an apologist for John MacArthur.

    Ever so slightly LOL :)

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Val

    So what you are saying is that you are a prophetess like unto Moses and Elijah to witness for the End times? Really?

    I’ve gone to read your blog, I can’t make heads or tails or what you are saying, it’s nothing but confusion. You think by listing verses all over the place you can try intimidate those with a lack of knowledge? We’ll you came to the wrong blog to try prove to us you are some sort of end times champion when you are nothing but an end times false teacher.

  • Redeemed

    Thank you Leon for your gracious attitude – it is refreshing.

  • Sharon

    So you are highly educated like Paul and you’re Jewish also. You can do miracles like Paul. According to you Paul was WRONG? LOL, LOL, LOL, and more LOL’s

    Methinks YOU thinks too highly of oneself. Paul was a highly educated man, sat at the feet of Gameliel. (excuse my spelling) He was a member of Sanhedrin. LOL, LOL, LOL excuse me while I laugh again. While Paul certainly was not perfect he knew what he was talking about. He went to “Christian School” for 3 years.

    Are you really trying to correct a man, a God called, eyes blinded by the light, Jewish Man? LOL, LOL, I just can’t keep from laughing!

    Your either crazy or scripturally bankrupt.

    LOL, LOL, LOL…………………….

    james jordan wrote:

    The truth is much easier than this: Paul was wrong.

    We can go through all kinds of acrobatics trying to make Romans 9 right and good–but it isn’t. Paul took every passage he cites there from the Old Testament OUT OF CONTEXT and gave it a good twist. And on the potter, he didn’t quote Jeremiah 18 like he should have, but rather quoted Wisdom 15:7-8 from the APOCRYPHA and he even took that out of context. Paul is simply wrong and at some point that just has to be admitted.

  • Leon Petersen

    Hi Val,

    I have read through some of the stuff on your site:
    On the subject of the Crucifixion and Resurrection:
    You submit that the “3 days and 3 nights” referred to in Mat12:40 is literally 72 hrs.
    How then do you reconcile Jesus being raised “ON the 3rd Day”?
    Luk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
    Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
    Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
    Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
    The phrase “3 days and 3 nights” is an idiomatic expression meaning ANY part of 3 days.
    Even the Jewish enemies of The Way understood Jesus’s claims, and sent guards to secure the tomb until the third day:
    Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
    Mat 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
    Mat 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the THIRD day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

    With regard to the Resurrection, and it’s Day, refer to the text:
    Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the FIRST day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

    As this is someone else’s blog, I will not do a complete exegesis, (nor am I qualified), but these are the basics.
    [Edited: removed link as it is a Calvinist website and Calvinists are false teachers]
    This is a good place to start to learn Scripture.
    Jesus does not contradict himself. Scripture does not contradict itself.
    I suspect this is but the tip of the iceberg of errors on your site. Please consider taking it down.

  • Leon Petersen

    Please forgive the omission of Capitilization in the last paragraph of my previous post.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen wrote:

    To agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism, does not make one “Calvinist”. It simply makes one “Calvinistic” in some beliefs.

    Do you agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism with regard to their doctrines of grace and their views on salvation?

  • Carolyn

    Leon said: “I use the term “Calvinist” because it is short and easily understood. However, I would say that in terms of one’s understanding of the Nature of God, labels can be used as a means of over-simplifying what one believes in, and is convicted of, by the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God. To agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism, does not make one “Calvinist”. It simply makes one “Calvinistic” in some beliefs. Splitting hairs, maybe, but I have to make the distinction here. Unlike Joyce Meyer, who once famously stated that one who “does not believe that Jesus suffered in Hell at the hands of demons before he was raised”, cannot be saved,( another Gospel ), John MacArthur makes no such claim about the principles of Calvinism. He preaches good, solid Gospel, and presents good, solid exegeses on Scripture. He also reacts and responds with kindness and grace befitting a man of God when criticized or vilified, unlike so many others.”

    Leon…sorry. Graciousness does not prove truthfulness. Many cult leaders are terribly gracious…especially on the surface, but underneath they are ravening wolves.

    The TRUTH is the only thing that we listen to. And how can one be a partial Calvinist? One thing leads into another. I know some people claim to be 2 point or 1 point Calvinists, but it’s not logical. The TULIP is a five point package.

    The truth is simple. Christ’s blood was shed for the remission of our sins. When we have to follow complex teachings of someone who claims to have superior knowledge of Greek texts and in fact has to write his own Bible in order to prove his points, I sit up and take notice. If MacArthur changes the gospel, he is a false teacher, period. It matters not what other things he does right i.e. not preaching heresies of Joyce Meyer or WOF. There are some great Catholic apologists speaking up against Charismatism. That does not now make the Catholic heretical teachings forgivable. Your logic is faulty. You are misdirecting the issue.

    Redeemed: We should all be gracious to each other, but a spade is a spade. A false teacher is a false teacher. No way around it. Let’s examine the fruit of his mouth and we’ll see if it lines up with Scripture. We can make our judgements based on truth. If MacArthur refuses to repent, at least a few sheeple might listen to reason.

  • Redeemed

    Good question Thomas. I hope Leon comes back and gives us his answer. What he believes about the Gospel and how one is saved is key. Does he believe that we have free will to make a choice or does he think that God elects some to heaven and so to hell? Would God create a being and consign them to hell?

  • Leon Petersen

    Thomas Lessing wrote:

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    To agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism, does not make one “Calvinist”. It simply makes one “Calvinistic” in some beliefs.

    Do you agree with some of the precepts of Calvinism with regard to their doctrines of grace and their views on salvation?

    John MacArthur says it best, so I hope you don’t mind me quoting him: :-)
    ” I do not like the term “lordship salvation.” It was coined by those who want to eliminate the idea of submission to Christ from the call to saving faith, and it implies that Jesus’ lordship is a false addition to the gospel. As we shall see, however, “lordship salvation” is simply biblical and historic evangelical soteriology. I am using the term here (and have done so through the years) only for the sake of argument.” ( That’s John Mac )
    …and so on

    “Faith without works is dead”
    “works” and “fruit” are as a RESULT of genuine conversion, and the characterizing distinctive marks of a Christian, in submission to Christ.
    (that’s me)

    Grace is God’s free gift to man so “none may boast”. The repentant sinner appeals to God and receives His Grace freely through the sacrifice of His Son, who died vicariously for us to satisfy the Father, who is Just. ( the wages of sin is death ).

    As I may have stated earlier, LS or Calvinist precepts are teachings for BELIEVERS, not a preaching of another Gospel.

    Back to you

  • Leon Petersen

    Redeemed wrote:

    Thank you Leon for your gracious attitude – it is refreshing.

    Grace to You too!!

    Thanks Redeemed :-)

  • Leon Petersen wrote:

    “Faith without works is dead”
    “works” and “fruit” are as a RESULT of genuine conversion, and the characterizing distinctive marks of a Christian, in submission to Christ.
    (that’s me)

    As you know, like all Calvinists, John MacMarthur believes that faith is not a requirement/precondition for salvation. You may believe as much as you want, if God does not love you, you’re lost because Jesus Christ did not die for you. MacArthur says:

    “Why did God not choose to love everyone like that [in a saving way]? I’ll give you a good guess and maybe not a guess. The reason God did not choose to love everyone savingly is because the love of God is qualified and controlled by his glory, by his glory.”

    So, as you can see, it is not the so-called elect’s faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross that saves them but God’s choice to love them to the exclusion of the so-called non-elect. If that’s not elitism, then I don’t know what is.

    This is what MacArthur says about faith:

    Faith comes to the believer as a gift from God. It is not something that individuals are capable of mustering up on their own. Were faith a work of man’s own doing, man would be in a position to take partial credit for his redemption. But such a concept is foreign to the writers of Scripture. Paul anticipated that men would tend to boast of their part in salvation when he wrote that faith (one of many components of salvation) “is the gift of God…that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

    Faith comes as a result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit-He quickens our hearts to believe. Apart from the new birth, there can be no true faith. Therefore, faith, though it manifests itself in action, comes as a result of God’s work in us. God grants us faith and that faith is evidenced by our walking in the good works that “God [has] prepared beforehand” for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). . .

    MacArthur denies faith as a prerequisite for one’s salvation because it becomes a “work of man’s own doing” when the sinner places his faith in Jesus IN ORDER to be saved. And yet, ironically MacArthur says that submission to Christ’s lordship is a must for one to have saving faith. According to his liking, faith is a work but submission is not. What kind of Gospel is this?

    Paul never based his salvation on MacArthur’s lordship salvation or his good track record. He said:

    Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timotheus 1:11-12)

    Paul uses the past tense, not because he once believed and then no longer believed. He used the past tense because he was referring to that day in Ananias’ house in Damascus when he first believed in Jesus for his salvation. Note carefully, he says: “I know whom I BELIEVED” and NOT “I believed because I was first regenerated.” Was Paul boasting or taking partial credit for his salvation? I don’t think so.

    Like all Calvinists or “Calvinistic believers” (as you coined it), you too seem to misunderstand James 2:20. If “faith without works is dead” meant that no one can claim to be saved if he does not give evidence of his faith through good works, then the thief next to Jesus on the cross was never saved. What kind of good works and fruit did he produce while hanging on a cross? He was saved by his faith in Jesus, nothing more and nothing less. Yes, good works ought to follow one’s salvation but it is not the evidence of your salvation. Many Christians’ so-called good works are going to go up in smoke because they were never good in the first place, but does that mean they were never saved?

    If any man’s work shall be burned (destroyed because they were never good), he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15)

    You seem to be saying exactly what John MacArthur believes, but just in a slightly more “biblical” way?

  • Redeemed

    Oh my, we now see Leon pulling the Lordship Salvation card as a devotee of MacArthur. The plot thickens.

    The reason I commented on Leon’s gracious manner because it is so unlike most Calvinist/Reformed folks who are arrogant and nasty.

    Don’t worry, Carolyn, I have never backed away from calling a spade a spade. That should be clear from my other comments But when I detect a note of civility I see a ray of hope. I am crystal clear on exactly what Calvinist/Reformed theology stands for and TULIP which is nothing but a stink weed. So don’t think for a moment I am going soft. I honestly have found Leon’s gracious manner to be refreshing when compared to other Calvinists I have encountered.

    I realize that MacArthur is one of the “nice guy” Calvinists who has managed to ensnare the unwary.

    So rest easy girl, I haven’t lost the plot. LOL

  • Leon Petersen

    You seem to be saying exactly what John MacArthur believes, but just in a slightly more “biblical” way?

    Carolyn
    I don’t wish to play semantics, but if what one says is biblical, is that not the point?
    The teachings of Paul on the subject of submission to Christ’s Lordship are not meant to be used as some sort of “measure” by which we gauge whether or not a brother in Christ is “saved” or “damned”. That is merely conjecture of a theological nature. Conjecture in which I do not indulge, it is fruitless and benefits noone. Nowhere in Scripture are we called to make this kind of judgement.
    This is as far as Paul goes:
    1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
    This what he teaches us to do:
    1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
    and on the unrepentant fornicator in the church:
    1Co 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.

    Paul never says “therefore this brother is damned”. He only says the repetitive and continual unrepentant behaviour is grounds for excommunication from the body of believers.

    We cannot go beyond these guidelines.

    The only time Paul says something severe of “believers”, or “ex-believers” is when they embody the spirit and teaching of the Anti-Christ, of which he says “..shows they were, in fact, never really of us to begin with..” ( i paraphrase )

    Hope this clears up my position.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    Redeemed wrote:

    Oh my, we now see Leon pulling the Lordship Salvation card as a devotee of MacArthur. The plot thickens.

    The reason I commented on Leon’s gracious manner because it is so unlike most Calvinist/Reformed folks who are arrogant and nasty.

    Don’t worry, Carolyn, I have never backed away from calling a spade a spade. That should be clear from my other comments But when I detect a note of civility I see a ray of hope. I am crystal clear on exactly what Calvinist/Reformed theology stands for and TULIP which is nothing but a stink weed. So don’t think for a moment I am going soft. I honestly have found Leon’s gracious manner to be refreshing when compared to other Calvinists I have encountered.

    I realize that MacArthur is one of the “nice guy” Calvinists who has managed to ensnare the unwary.

    So rest easy girl, I haven’t lost the plot. LOL

    Hi Redeemed
    We’re all nice guys! :-)
    In fact, if you were here, I’d kiss you
    1Pe 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

    Except, of course, I don’t know whether or not you consider me a heretic or not, (and do the same ).
    I guess the DTW Jury’s still out on that one….

    No worries. Until the time comes when boolean logic, scriptural exegeses, and JMA Grace have all but been exhausted, I shall resort to Prasch-like vitriol.

    I hope y’all are laughing…that was a joke.

    Peace

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    You seem to be saying exactly what John MacArthur believes, but just in a slightly more “biblical” way?

    Carolyn
    I don’t wish to play semantics, but if what one says is biblical, is that not the point?

    But that’s the whole point Leon, what John MacArthur says is not the gospel. It sounds like the gospel, it’s sweet and sugary and drips with honey, but below lies the biggest lie of all and that is TULIP and the twisted Calvinist version of Predestination which I assume you believe you were Elect by God a before you were ‘saved’? You are quoting John MacArthur as if you are his alter ego, and John MacArthur believes John Calvin the murder is his alter ego – see 2 min 54 sec in first video: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2011/09/09/calvinism-what-would-these-pastors-have-done-if-they-were-there/

    Please read this on Lordship Salvation and how Calvinism again twists the gospel: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2011/09/19/lordship-salvation-putting-the-cart-before-the-horse/

  • Leon Petersen

    Thomas Lessing (Watch and Pray / Waak en Bid) wrote:

    Like all Calvinists or “Calvinistic believers” (as you coined it), you too seem to misunderstand James 2:20. If “faith without works is dead” meant that no one can claim to be saved if he does not give evidence of his faith through good works, then the thief next to Jesus on the cross was never saved.

    Oh come ON Thomas.
    This a gross misrepresentation of what I have said. Besides, God is not “formularized”. He knows the hearts of Men. This is disingenuous at best.
    I could reply and say “..well, he perservered to the end..” which would make a certain hollow point, but in essence, would also be slightly disingenuous.

    I repeat for clarity ” works and fruit” are outward signs, and marks of a genuine believer, not a PREREQUISITE for salvation.

    One might argue that the “fruit” of the thief on the cross was his testimony to the other thief,..
    “… Dost not thou fear God…..?” etc
    But once again, this is poor argument.
    More correct to say that Jesus knows the hearts of men.
    Did not Jesus say of the multitude that followed Him…
    “….you’re here, because your bellies are full…” ( signs and wonders, carnal “faith” )
    I take liberty with the text, but you know it well.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> No worries. Until the time comes when boolean logic, scriptural exegeses, and JMA Grace have all but been exhausted, I shall resort to Prasch-like vitriol.

    No please don’t revert to Prasch-like vitriol, I’ve had enough of him to last a life time.

    You see dear Leon, as much as I love you, hence I have this blog, and strive to preach the gospel truth to those who want to hear it, the fact still stands, TULIP is wrong.
    Now you say you are not an ordinary Calvinist, which leaves us hanging in mid air. So let’s find out how much of a TULIPer you really are.

    The fact that you follow JMA word for word and he believes in TULIP as if his life depended on it, it would make me think you do to :)

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    But that’s the whole point Leon, what John MacArthur says is not the gospel. It sounds like the gospel, it’s sweet and sugary and drips with honey, but below lies the biggest lie of all and that is TULIP and the twisted Calvinist version of Predestination which I assume you believe you were Elect by God a before you were ‘saved’?

    Hi Deborah,
    I have already stated that this is not the Gospel. It is a teaching for believers.
    Also, whatever Calvinist precepts have good, solid, biblical grounds, these I hold dear. I am not a Calvinist.
    I had not heard of Calvinism when I got saved. Calvinist “Gospel” did not win my soul for Christ. It was the conviction of the Holy Spirit that I was a sinner who needed forgiveness for my sins to be reconciled to God. The writings of Paul teach us about the Greatness of Almighty God.
    With respect, I submit that it is actually Anti-Calvinists who hold the view that somehow, in the continuum of space and time, it is too much to ask of Almighty God the Father to indeed know all things, including the choices which we have not yet already made.

    This is NOT the same as the view of God we are told NOT to have, that “God does what He wants, anyway..”, to put it into a nutshell.
    That is not my view of God’s sovereignty, although many Anti-Calvinists would insist that it must be so.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen wrote:

    I repeat for clarity ” works and fruit” are outward signs, and marks of a genuine believer, not a PREREQUISITE for salvation.

    Are you now singing a different tune?

    First you say John MacArthur says it BEST and then you disagree with him. This is MacArthur’s BEST as you’ve admitted. MacArthur, like Paul Washer and the rest, believe that good works are the EVIDENCE of true salvation. So what you must do according to MacArthur, is just to observe very closely the good works and fruit of any person and then conclude that he is saved. Or are you going to ask him to tell you how he got saved? This is where the tyre hits the gravel. Calvinists can’t tell you how they got saved. Not even MacArthur can tell you. The closest I ever got to draw a testimony from a Calvinist was when he told me the following weird story.

    The bible never says that God’s people were ever bound for hell, it says they were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The conviction of sin is usually misinterpreted by God’s people to be the conviction that they are hell bound, the gospel explains to them that they are not, because of what Christ did FOR them. Conviction of sin is the belief in the reality of sin in light of God’s holiness and perfection. Many of God’s children believe this to mean that they are going to hell. They are not. That is why they need to hear the good news of their salvation, so that they can believe it, rejoice in it, and profit from it. The gospel doesn’t make their salvation true, their salvation IS TRUE and the gospel proclaims it to the Lord’s people who receive it by faith and profit from that understanding.

    Whenever you exclude faith as a prerequisite for salvation, you have no other option but to look to your performance/track record as the evidence for your election. That’s why I quoted to you Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 1:12 to prove that it is faith and faith alone in Christ Jesus that gives the assurance/evidence of salvation and not your performance/track record.

    One might argue that the “fruit” of the thief on the cross was his testimony to the other thief,..

    You are playing games. You know just as well as I that this “fruit” and good works is not what Calvinists refer to when they speak about the evidence of their election.

    Yes, of course Jesus knows the hearts of men but they still need to believe in Him in order to be saved. How were you saved? Did God first regenerate you because you are an elect and then grant you faith as a gift (after your monergistic regeneration?). And now you know that you are saved because you are such a good person doing good works and bearing much fruit, and persevering to the very end?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> I have already stated that this is not the Gospel. It is a teaching for believers.

    You kidding? It’s NOT the gospel, but it’s a good enough to preach to believers? Leon, leon, leon. Where is my rolled up newspaper…you deserve to be smacked over the head for that one. And it’s beeeen a loooooonnnng time since I’ve smacked anyone over the head with my newspaper. LOL.

    >> Also, whatever Calvinist precepts have good, solid, biblical grounds, these I hold dear. I am not a Calvinist.

    But these things can too be found in the bible Leon, you don’t need to find a Calvinst preacher to hear them, and then be slowly but surely led astray towards their false teaching. They are a CULT. Why would anyone want to wallow in the sesspool of a cult just to find good solid teaching, WHICH IS ALREADY FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

    >> I had not heard of Calvinism when I got saved. Calvinist “Gospel” did not win my soul for Christ. It was the conviction of the Holy Spirit that I was a sinner who needed forgiveness for my sins to be reconciled to God. The writings of Paul teach us about the Greatness of Almighty God.

    So what you are saying is that you are saved! Amen! But you very confused as you for some unknown reason think that Calvinism or Calvinist hold some kind of truth, which they do not.

    >> With respect, I submit that it is actually Anti-Calvinists who hold the view that somehow, in the continuum of space and time, it is too much to ask of Almighty God the Father to indeed know all things, including the choices which we have not yet already made.

    Did you read this article: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/06/23/what-it-really-means-to-be-elected-chosen-and-predestinated-the-biblical-truth/

  • Leon Petersen

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    John MacArthur says it best, so I hope you don’t mind me quoting him: :-)
    ” I do not like the term “lordship salvation.” It was coined by those who want to eliminate the idea of submission to Christ from the call to saving faith, and it implies that Jesus’ lordship is a false addition to the gospel. As we shall see, however, “lordship salvation” is simply biblical and historic evangelical soteriology. I am using the term here (and have done so through the years) only for the sake of argument.” ( That’s John Mac )

    Thomas
    This is what I quoted from JohnMac.
    This the “JohnMac says it best” quote.

    You are playing games. You know just as well as I that this “fruit” and good works is not what Calvinists refer to when they speak about the evidence of their election.

    Firstly Thomas, this is what I said in totality:

    One might argue that the “fruit” of the thief on the cross was his testimony to the other thief,.. “… Dost not thou fear God…..?” etc But once again, this is poor argument.

    Not playing games at all. I am comparing what I might have said in rebuttal, to what you have used as argument, as being equally without real merit, though it may be technically applicable.

    You know just as well as I that this “fruit” and good works is not what Calvinists refer to when they speak about the evidence of their election.

    I am not a Calvinist.

    Thomas Lessing (Watch and Pray / Waak en Bid) wrote:

    How were you saved? Did God first regenerate you because you are an elect and then grant you faith as a gift (after your monergistic regeneration?). And now you know that you are saved because you are such a good person doing good works and bearing much fruit, and persevering to the very end?

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    I had not heard of Calvinism when I got saved. Calvinist “Gospel” did not win my soul for Christ. It was the conviction of the Holy Spirit that I was a sinner who needed forgiveness for my sins to be reconciled to God. The writings of Paul teach us about the Greatness of Almighty God.
    With respect, I submit that it is actually Anti-Calvinists who hold the view that somehow, in the continuum of space and time, it is too much to ask of Almighty God the Father to indeed know all things, including the choices which we have not yet already made.

    Wow..feel a bit bruised after that beating
    :-)

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    Hi Deborah:

    From the article:
    >>” But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2Thes 2:13

    >>That scripture above destroys the whole concept of Calvinism and pre-selection.They think they were chosen millions of years ago out of some unknown, spiritually random process that only God knows. ”

    >>”He foreknew who would believe in him, and because of a person’s saving faith, once a person is “in Christ” as mentioned before, he becomes predestinated at that moment to be conformed to the image of his son. ”

    AGREED

    I'll be back later.
    Much of which I have written myself is in here.
    I have also stated that I am not a Calvinist.
    Is it the JohnMac association which gets the knee-jerk reaction?
    The teaching which I have made references from, is in accordance with what I have THUSFAR seen from JohnMac. I follow Jesus, not JohnMac, no matter how much respect I have for him as an expositor of the Word.

    Later
    Peace
    Just asking.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    ” But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2Thes 2:13

    That scripture above destroys the whole concept of Calvinism and pre-selection.They think they were chosen millions of years ago out of some unknown, spiritually random process that only God knows

    This most certainly is NOT what I believe ( as is here purported that Calvinists do )
    Nor have I seen this in JohnMac’s teaching (thusfar). But I am no authority on his writings.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    To All,

    I will embark on a study of JohnMac’s “Why I am a Calvinist” articles.
    ( 8 articles in all )
    The link is here:
    http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/10194

    Peace
    I am not a Calvinist

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dear Leon

    >> Is it the JohnMac association which gets the knee-jerk reaction?

    Yes, how can you associate with a false teacher? This is the problem.

    I think you need to do more research on who and what John MacArthur preaches. He is not this wide smiley ‘christian’ man that preaches the truth. He is a liar who preaches a false gospel and leads people to hell.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> Nor have I seen this in JohnMac’s teaching (thusfar). But I am no authority on his writings.

    Me thinks you need to study what it is exactly that JMA believes as with most Calvinist preacheres. JMA is a ‘two gospel’ man, to one set of people he preaches a softer version of Calvinism so as not to offend, but instead to capture their minds. To another set of people (Calvinists already in the know) he preaches pure Calvinism, that being of hate and unadulterated TULUP -what Calvinism is really all about.

    Do yourself a BIG favour Leon and find our who you are following and quoting. ok? I ask this from the bottom of my heart.

    With much love!

  • Leon Petersen wrote:

    Wow..feel a bit bruised after that beating

    If you thought my rebuttal was a beating, then you should read this to know what a real beating looks like:

    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8)

    Calvinism is another Gospel that proclaims another Jesus through another spirit. There is nothing good in what MacArthur preaches. His BEST is worse than worse because their is nothing good in lies. (John 8:44)

  • Leon Petersen wrote:

    To All,

    I will embark on a study of JohnMac’s “Why I am a Calvinist” articles.
    ( 8 articles in all )
    The link is here:
    http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/10194

    Peace
    I am not a Calvinist

    You are not going to learn anything about Calvinism from the link you posted.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    To All,

    I will embark on a study of JohnMac’s “Why I am a Calvinist” articles.
    ( 8 articles in all )
    The link is here:
    http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/10194

    GTY is set up to DECEIVE Leon, you are on the path of deception. As Thomas said, you are going to learn nothing about Calvinism and JMA if you read that. Unless of course if you read it from an ‘Elective Perspective‘ ;) In other words when you read JMA’s stuff read it like you are a true blood Calvinist, Elect before time memorial – THEN you will UNDERSTAND what he is REALLY saying. A false teacher does his best to captivate his follower with sweet talk, and leaves out words like WE ARE ELECT CHOSEN BEFORE TIME and JESUS ONLY DIED FOR US AND NOT THE WHOLE WORLD and WE HATE REPROBATES and so on and so forth.

  • Redeemed

    Leon, why do you insist on going to broken cisterns? Please understand the exhortations here are made out of love and concern for you and out of love for the truth.

    Are you afraid of looking into another point of view that just might topple MacArthur off the pedestal you have placed him upon? This is not about personalities, it is about the truth.

    Please open your mind and take an honest look at another perspective and ask the Lord to reveal and confirm to you the truth.

    Read other exegeses of TULIP and ponder it. There is nothing to fear and everything to gain.

  • Redeemed

    Leon, you state that you are not a Calvinist, but you don’t seem to realize the depth of deception of what MacArthur teaches. MacArthur is a Calvinist, just a more congenial one, the better to ensnare.

    You are flirting with false teaching and the more you spend time with it, the greater chance of falling for it hook, line and sinker.

    The Word of God tells us to feed our minds on the truth and to stay away and in fact run from false teaching, not interact with it. I have seen more than one solid Christian get confused and be influenced by MacArthur as a gateway to other Calvinist teachers. We are to FLEE from evil because it is an ENEMY of God and His truth. In fact, Calvinism INSULTS our Lord and sullies His holy character and perverts His sovereignty. It is wicked.

    Leon, we are to EXPOSE the works of darkness and that is exactly what this site is trying to do which is true love for both God and man.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    GTY is set up to DECEIVE Leon, you are on the path of deception. As Thomas said, you are going to learn nothing about Calvinism and JMA if you read that. Unless of course if you read it from an ‘Elective Perspective‘ ;) In other words when you read JMA’s stuff read it like you are a true blood Calvinist, Elect before time memorial – THEN you will UNDERSTAND what he is REALLY saying. A false teacher does his best to captivate his follower with sweet talk, and leaves out words like WE ARE ELECT CHOSEN BEFORE TIME and JESUS ONLY DIED FOR US AND NOT THE WHOLE WORLD and WE HATE REPROBATES and so on and so forth.

    With respect, Deborah

    I have made use of GTY resources over the years and yet to come across heresies or apostasies.
    On the contrary, I have found that JohnMac is an excellent expository teacher, and defender of the Faith.
    That having been said, the subject of his “calvinism” has not yet come up, as the resources on GTY site are extensive, and up to now there has been no need for me to explore this topic w.r.t to him.

    BTW, according to Calvinism, the “reprobate” are not known to anyone except God, and the term “hate”, as used w.r.t Esau, is not Hate as we know it.

    Similarly, those who do not embrace precepts are not reprobate. At least not by JohnMac (or myself). Those who do so, do so at their own peril, I have to agree.

    Peace
    I am not a Calvinist

  • Carolyn

    Leon…FYI: I’d like to take credit for this this question, and the preceding comment but I can’t. That was Thomas.
    “You seem to be saying exactly what John MacArthur believes, but just in a slightly more “biblical” way?”

    Just reading over the comments this morning. I was only away for one day and you have all been very busy. Some good humour…that’s always appreciated to keep us from erecting barriers to communication. We are after all sensitive and fragile human beings. I forget sometimes how words can wound when spoken in a condescending manner. Please forgive any of my own less than loving words, Leon.

    But pay careful attention to the rolled up newspaper that Debs is swinging about. It truly has some clout. LOL

  • Leon seems to be saying “I am a non-Calvinistic adherent to the doctrines of grace espoused and proclaimed by John MacArthur.”

  • Sharon

    Well Leon, you may not be a Calvinist at this moment. But you will be after you keep listening to MacArthur. I see what his teaching has done to my best friend and I know the false gospel he teaches will entrap you too. Some times satan is subtle sometimes he is in your face. You better be careful what you let into your soul via your eyes & ears. What did Jesus say about wolves?

    Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    Jesus didn’t say this just to fill out the paragraphs in Matthew. He did it because of the truth. satan uses many “preachers.” Why not, because satan knows the truth of God better than these wolves do. MacArthur smiles all the time…that give me the creeps. He cannot tell you when he was saved. You have been warned….Deb knows what she is talking about. You would do well to listen, even to the parts you may not like. In my never to be humble opinion I agree with 99% of what she says.

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    To All,

    I will embark on a study of JohnMac’s “Why I am a Calvinist” articles.
    ( 8 articles in all )
    The link is here:
    http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/10194

    Peace
    I am not a Calvinist

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    >> I have made use of GTY resources over the years and yet to come across heresies or apostasies.

    Well, you have put JMA up on a pedestal, so you wont be looking for false teaching now will you Leon?

    Like for instance, under the this article you have been blinded by JMA’s borderline blasphemous notion that Jesus blood is just liquid and has no power, that Jesus’ precious blood stands for death instead of life. It’s things like this Leon that make me wonder why you chose a man (JMA) as your teacher over the Holy Spirit!

  • Carolyn

    Sharon: “In my never to be humble opinion I agree with 99% of what she says.” LOL

    Leon…”I am not a Calvinist”. Yes, but John MacArthur is. Denials are futile if you are supporting him because he is Calvinist through and through. Believe those who have done the research.

    It’s like saying I’m not a Freemason, but I believe in their essential dogmas and unitarian spirit.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Leon

    >> I have made use of GTY resources over the years and yet to come across heresies or apostasies.

    Well, you have put JMA up on a pedestal, so you wont be looking for false teaching now will you Leon?

    Like for instance, under the this article you have been blinded by JMA’s borderline blasphemous notion that Jesus blood is just liquid and has no power, that Jesus’ precious blood stands for death instead of life. It’s things like this Leon that make me wonder why you chose a man (JMA) as your teacher over the Holy Spirit!

    Hi Deborah,
    I am still doing a study of Calvinism, but feel compelled to respond to this:
    As I have stated before, my view on the Blood of Jesus is one which I held PRIOR to knowing what JohnMac’s position was.
    I happen to agree with him. This is a fact.
    I would compare it to my view on the “pleading of the Blood” which many Pentecostals do in a manner which reduces it to some kind of magic potion ( which BTW, I am convinced many of them do quite sincerely ).( The Lord is our Judge in all these matters.)Which is a position I held before I read your article in which you espoused the same view as I.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    There is this thing called middle ground in doctrine. Charismatics have is way over board and turn Jesus’s blood into some kinda of magic ritual. Calvinist do the reverse and go way over board to the other end of the spectrum and declare Jesus blood to be dead, just liquid. The fact of the matter Leon is there is a MIDDLE GROUND called the Gospel. Jesus’ blood is precious, as it washes away our sins. It spiritually washes us as white as snow that we can stand before God and be presented to God spotless, not a spec of sin. Jesus’s blood is wonderful and it if was not for his blood Leon, Jesus would not be able to present you before God. That is the fact the the matter.

  • Redeemed

    Okay Leon, you go right ahead and continue to drink from polluted waters. You are unwilling to heed the exhortations given here. Our conscience is clear here – we have tried our best to help you, but you persist in skirting the real issue.

    You, my friend, are confused and content in your confusion because you fail to call a spade a spade. You say you are not a Calvinist but you fail to call it what it is – false doctrine. Instead of turning away from it, you allow yourself to be drawn to it and wallow in it.

    We are to love the truth and hate the false. You are being double-minded. The Bible says that a double-minded person is unstable in all their ways. You, Leon and unstable and unstable people stumble and fall.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Leon

    There is this thing called middle ground in doctrine. Charismatics have is way over board and turn Jesus’s blood into some kinda of magic ritual. Calvinist do the reverse and go way over board to the other end of the spectrum and declare Jesus blood to be dead, just liquid. The fact of the matter Leon is there is a MIDDLE GROUND called the Gospel.

    Hi Deborah

    With respect, Middle Ground is not a valid or sound argument. It is either True and Scriptural, or not.

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    It spiritually washes us as white as snow that we can stand before God and be presented to God spotless, not a spec of sin. Jesus’s blood is wonderful and it if was not for his blood Leon, Jesus would not be able to present you before God. That is the fact the the matter.

    In an earlier argument, I challenged you to extend the literal nature of the blood to this statement.
    And yes, I agree completely with the above.

    I haven’t up to this point asked, but will now.
    Where is the (literal) precious blood of Jesus right now?
    Why is something earthly and physical required for the “more Perfect Heavenly Tabernacle”?

    1. Christ’s body was corruptible
    Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    2. We are not redeemed by corruptible things
    1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
    1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    The entire 1st chapter of Peter’s letter describes so beautifully the difference between the temporal, and eternal.

    Peace

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Leon

    There is this thing called middle ground in doctrine. Charismatics have is way over board and turn Jesus’s blood into some kinda of magic ritual. Calvinist do the reverse and go way over board to the other end of the spectrum and declare Jesus blood to be dead, just liquid. The fact of the matter Leon is there is a MIDDLE GROUND called the Gospel.

    Hi Deborah

    With respect, Middle Ground is not a valid or sound argument. It is either True and Scriptural, or not.

    You kidding right?

    The middle ground in this case is BIBLICAL DOCTRINE and that is what you left off from the above quote where I stated that, “Jesus’ blood is precious, as it washes away our sins. It spiritually washes us as white as snow that we can stand before God and be presented to God spotless, not a spec of sin. Jesus’s blood is wonderful and it if was not for his blood Leon, Jesus would not be able to present you before God. That is the fact the the matter”

    Why did you leave that part off the quote? because that is the gospel I was speaking about!

    If you deny the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as something that is true and Biblical then I am sorry Leon but there is a serious problem with you.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Leon

    JMA denies the blood of Jesus and says that Jesus’ blood is just Liquid, has now power and means death. You say you argree with JMA before you even read JMA’s opinion on the matter. You sent me a comment (which I have not published becuause you asked me not too) telling me I am wrong that you do not deny the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, but YET dear Leon, what you BELIEVE about Jesus blood says something completely different. You say your are not a Calvinist but yet all your fav preachers are Calvinists and you put Calvinists on pedestals. You can’t be believed right now as you have contradicted yourself over and over.

    You appear yo be a very confused Christian, and I pray with all my heart that you sort yourself out, the sooner the better.

  • Leon Petersen

    Redeemed wrote:

    Okay Leon, you go right ahead and continue to drink from polluted waters. You are unwilling to heed the exhortations given here. Our conscience is clear here – we have tried our best to help you, but you persist in skirting the real issue.

    You, my friend, are confused and content in your confusion because you fail to call a spade a spade. You say you are not a Calvinist but you fail to call it what it is – false doctrine. Instead of turning away from it, you allow yourself to be drawn to it and wallow in it.

    We are to love the truth and hate the false. You are being double-minded. The Bible says that a double-minded person is unstable in all their ways. You, Leon and unstable and unstable people stumble and fall.

    Redeemed
    Failing to call a certain Doctrine “False”, does not one double-minded make.
    How do I condemn a doctrine which I have not studied? ( Act 17:11)
    The resources on this site which I have read, are quite frankly, fraught with syllogistical errors of the highest order.
    How am I unstable in all my ways Redeemed?
    You say I am double-minded…if by that you mean I am neither Calvinist or Anti-Calvinist, then yes, I am double-minded. I am quite sure, tho that this is not what is meant by 2Pe 3:16

    I follow not John MacArthur, nor Calvin, nor Deborah, nor Redeemed. I follow Jesus, Moses and the Prophets, Paul and the Apostles.

    Instead of turning away from it, you allow yourself to be drawn to it and wallow in it.

    I am uncertain of your meaning here.
    I’m supposed to condemn JohnMac as a Calvinist and a heretic without reading his material?
    Does not compute.

    Peace

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    >> The resources on this site which I have read, are quite frankly, fraught with syllogistical errors of the highest order.

    ROTFL

    But the Calvinist websites are just super eh? Leon?

    Now I know what you are all about.

    >> Does not compute.

    Why is the Holy Spirit not computing for you? Leon?

    >> Failing to call a certain Doctrine “False”, does not one double-minded make.
    How do I condemn a doctrine which I have not studied? ( Act 17:11)

    You have called DTW false, of the highest order. But JMA and Calvinsim is not false according to you, that you have frequented for YEARS. You said: “I’m supposed to condemn JohnMac as a Calvinist and a heretic without reading his material?” Errr no Leon, you have read his stuff, you call him a GREAT expositor and you hold him in high esteem. There you go and contradict yourself again.

    You LEON, are BUSTED.

    I request that you please go to GTY and stay there, thank you, Mr ‘undercover’ Calvinist you.

  • Leon Petersen

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    “I’m supposed to condemn JohnMac as a Calvinist and a heretic without reading his material?” Errr no Leon, you have read his stuff, you call him a GREAT expositor and you hold him in high esteem. There you go and contradict yourself again.

    Deborah
    I don’t expect you to publish this, and I don’t mind.
    To any rational, sane thinking person, the above means that I have not read the Calvinist material on JohnMac’s site and studied it. I have said with great clarity that I have yet to come across any material on his site which is heretical. I have not read the great volume of works available on his site, in it’s totality.
    This also, I have made clear.
    I have made it abundantly clear that I am embarking upon a study of JohnMac’s writings on the topic in detail, and believe me, I will do as complete a study as is possible.

    The article which I am referring to which is “fraught with syllogistical error”, is the article by Stephen M. McCalip above.
    Once again, anyone following this thread would quite plainly see that I was referring to resources on Calvinism, the flagship of which is your lead article on this page.

    A simple example is the following:

    “As I have mentioned before on video and in articles, the fact that all sinners, including the elect, were condemned to hell at one point, shows that the “elect” Calvinists were not predestined to heaven, for they themselves were condemned to hell just like anybody else. Jesus spoke of this same word “condemned” and said in John 3:18 that if you are not a believer, you are “condemned” to hell: “he that believeth not is condemned already.”

    He goes on to say in commentary:
    “You cannot be predestined to heaven and be condemned to hell at the same time, Yet that is precisely what people are forced to believe and trying to make you believe. Those two points are irreconcilable. They show the impossibility of being predestined to heaven before or when you were born. I have yet to be proven wrong on this understanding, yet I am open to listening to any who would challenge this belief. ”

    The erroneous argument is obvious to anyone with good logic or versed in syllogism. But for the sake of clarity, I will expound:

    The context of what is said in John 3:18 is present tense, truism. “It IS so”
    “Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:”
    Check the tense, or sense in what is said what follows:
    “but he that believeth not is condemned already, ”
    Strongs G2235 for “already”
    This makes a stronger case for Calvinism than Arminianism: ( even for someone like me, who is not yet convinced of Calvinist Pre-destination.

    “Believeth not” is present tense or truism.
    “already condemned” is NOT.
    Any Calvinist apologist ( which I am Not ) worth his salt would say that the “pre-destined” WOULD believe, therefore NOT fall into the category of “already condemned”, or “believeth-Not”.

    Stephen M. McCalip does not have decent logic.
    Q.E.D

    Just to balance things out, I have looked briefly at “Calvinist’s Corner”, and I cannot say much better about the logic employed there, either.
    I have a MUCH better Anti-Calvinist article (than your lead article )which I have downloaded and will study in detail. The result of which I will share with you, if you’re interested.

    A MUCH better method of exegesis, is to have Scripture prove Scripture, which I have employed in one of my posts, and has been patently IGNORED by you.

    Apparently, labelling someone, albeit INCORRECTLY and DISINGENUOUSLY, is more important to you than dividing the truth.

    Is this so?

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    You say you argree with JMA before you even read JMA’s opinion on the matter.

    This is, in fact, what I said below:

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Hi Deborah,
    I am still doing a study of Calvinism, but feel compelled to respond to this:
    As I have stated before, my view on the Blood of Jesus is one which I held PRIOR to knowing what JohnMac’s position was.
    I happen to agree with him. This is a fact.

    You accuse me thus:

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    You have called DTW false, of the highest order.

    This is, in fact, what I have said:

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Failing to call a certain Doctrine “False”, does not one double-minded make.
    How do I condemn a doctrine which I have not studied? ( Act 17:11)
    The resources on this site which I have read, are quite frankly, fraught with syllogistical errors of the highest order.

    The resources referred to, are the ones on Calvinism, (such as the lead article ).
    ( Which is why I need to study the subject )
    This was the thrust of the response to Redeemed.

    Sharon seems to think I should “believe those who have done the research”.
    Is this the Berean approach?
    Whose research?

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    But the Calvinist websites are just super eh? Leon?

    1.Deborah, really. You were a far bigger fan than I of JohnMac’s. I have never purchased any of his material.
    2. JohnMac was Arminianist before he embraced, or migrated toward Calvinist doctrine
    3. To say Calvinist Corner website is poor is being kind
    4. I re-iterate: I am only now delving into JohnMac’s Calvinist doctrine for my own edification about the topic ( and the man )

    Now that I’m through defending myself, perhaps I can focus on more productive pursuits.

    And now I take my leave, as graciously as I did arrive, I hope.

    Peace and Love

  • Sharon

    Geee Whizzzz Deb-ster, I wish I knew big words like syllogistical! Guess I’ll just have to keep being a dumb ol’ American that loves Jesus Christ more than anyone or anything. Shoot! I’d rather be all that then to use dem thar big werds. :o)….of the highest order of course. LOLOLOLOLOLO

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    >> The resources on this site which I have read, are quite frankly, fraught with syllogistical errors of the highest order.

    ROTFL

    But the Calvinist websites are just super eh? Leon?

    Now I know what you are all about.

    >> Does not compute.

    Why is the Holy Spirit not computing for you? Leon?

    >> Failing to call a certain Doctrine “False”, does not one double-minded make.
    How do I condemn a doctrine which I have not studied? ( Act 17:11)

    You have called DTW false, of the highest order. But JMA and Calvinsim is not false according to you, that you have frequented for YEARS. You said: “I’m supposed to condemn JohnMac as a Calvinist and a heretic without reading his material?” Errr no Leon, you have read his stuff, you call him a GREAT expositor and you hold him in high esteem. There you go and contradict yourself again.

    You LEON, are BUSTED.

    I request that you please go to GTY and stay there, thank you, Mr ‘undercover’ Calvinist you.

  • Leon,

    If you cannot see and understand the flaw, heresy, deception, danger, fault, error, defect, and absolute horror in a statement like this: “God does not love everyone and His Son did not die for everyone because it gives Him more glory” then I need to ask, “Do you really know and love the God of the Bible?” Failing to hear the hiss of the satanic serpent in such a statement does not only make one double minded; it makes you twice as much a child of hell, OK, now that I’ve said it, let me tell you who said it – JOHN MACARTHUR. So please go ahead and study his rubbish but don’t hail him as a great expositor.

    Leon wrote:

    The erroneous argument is obvious to anyone with good logic or versed in syllogism. But for the sake of clarity, I will expound:

    The context of what is said in John 3:18 is present tense, truism. “It IS so”
    “Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:”
    Check the tense, or sense in what is said what follows:
    “but he that believeth not is condemned already, ”
    Strongs G2235 for “already”
    This makes a stronger case for Calvinism than Arminianism: ( even for someone like me, who is not yet convinced of Calvinist Pre-destination.

    “Believeth not” is present tense or truism.
    “already condemned” is NOT.
    Any Calvinist apologist ( which I am Not ) worth his salt would say that the “pre-destined” WOULD believe, therefore NOT fall into the category of “already condemned”, or “believeth-Not”.

    Stephen M. McCalip does not have decent logic.
    Q.E.D

    It is very dangerous to assume “that the ‘pre-destined’ WOULD believe, therefore NOT fall into the category of ‘already condemned’, or ‘believeth-Not'”. It is not ONLY WHAT you believe that saves you. Many people believe but believe all the wrong things. It is WHAT and HOW you believe that saves. Jesus said: “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38) Calvinists do not believe what the Scriptures say and twist many Scriptures to their own destruction.

    McCalip did a very good job in writing this article because it pinpoints exactly what Calvinism is all about. They assert that they had already been God’s children, sheep and followers billions of years ago and only need to be made aware of it by God’s monergistic gift of faith to them AFTER their regeneration. Why do they need to be regenerated when they’d never been lost? The New Age and Emergent Church fraternity say something very similar but just in a universalist setup; “Jesus has always been mystically present in all people despite the fact that they don’t know it. They only need to be made aware of it through a metanoic experience (a higher mindset) by way of practices such as meditation, centering prayer, contemplative prayer and the likes.” So, like the Calvinists, they too believe they were never lost.

    Jesus said that He had come to seek and to save the lost. That means that He can only find those who know and acknowledge that they are lost (on their way to hell). Only the lost need a Saviour (Matthew 9:12). Calvinists cannot be saved because they refuse to admit that they were ever lost. Oh yes, they do say that they were lost sheep, but what do they mean by that?

    “The bible never says that God’s people were ever bound for hell, it says they were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The conviction of sin is usually misinterpreted by God’s people to be the conviction that they are hell bound, the gospel explains to them that they are not, because of what Christ did FOR them.

    Conviction of sin is the belief in the reality of sin in light of God’s holiness and perfection. Many of God’s children believe this to mean that they are going to hell. They are not. That is why they need to hear the good news of their salvation, so that they can believe it, rejoice in it, and profit from it. The gospel doesn’t make their salvation true, their salvation IS TRUE and the gospel proclaims it to the Lord’s people who receive it by faith and profit from that understanding.”

    If this doesn’t convince you that Calvinism is one of the most dangerous heresies around, nothing will.

    By the by, this is NOT an Arminian website.

  • Leon Petersen

    Thomas,
    Many thanks for your measured and gracious response.

    The fact that I am of the opinion that McCalip’s logic is erroneous, does in no way sway me more in favour of Calvinist doctrine. It simply says I cannot be convinced by his argument. Perhaps he holds a good position, but merely defends it poorly.
    The same can be said of The Cavinist Corner website. Actually, Calvinist Corner is TERRIBLE in it’s arguments. Infinitely worse than McCalip’s. ( Cheers all round )!! LOL

    “The bible never says that God’s people were ever bound for hell, it says they were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The conviction of sin is usually misinterpreted by God’s people to be the conviction that they are hell bound, the gospel explains to them that they are not, because of what Christ did FOR them.

    Instinctively, I lean AWAY from this teaching, but I am Making a study of this.

    Conviction of sin is the belief in the reality of sin in light of God’s holiness and perfection. Many of God’s children believe this to mean that they are going to hell. They are not. That is why they need to hear the good news of their salvation, so that they can believe it, rejoice in it, and profit from it. The gospel doesn’t make their salvation true, their salvation IS TRUE and the gospel proclaims it to the Lord’s people who receive it by faith and profit from that understanding.”

    I tend to lean TOWARDS this thinking, but the way it is stated here is not good. It is dangerous to say of anyone that their Faith and Salvation are assured because they are “God’s Children”. ( whether it be true or not, or whether the writer believes it to be true or not ).
    This is a nuance in the overall understanding of God’s Plan, which, IF indeed true as stated, is for believers and missionaries and Pastors and Preachers, to encourage them to be obedient to the call to preach the Gospel to all.
    It is infinitely more dangerous to make statements on the Nature of God, or His Plan, without it having been explicitly stated.
    That it as far as I would go at the moment in criticism of Calvinist doctrine.
    Call me a hair-splitter, but that is my position at the moment, until I have a deeper and more complete understanding of the doctrine.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    To Thomas

    I must apologise for not responding to your complete post, but that is merely because I cannot give commentary on what I do not know, or what I have not studied myself.
    Also, time constrains us all.

    I do however, give serious thought and comtemplation to your arguments presented here, with EQUAL weight as I would give to any sound argument, not ANY LESS than that I would give to, for example, JohnMac. ( wink )
    This I mean sincerely.
    I do not just blindly follow any man’s teaching, though some may think so.

    So, I have not ignored the arguments not responded to, in your posts.

    Thought I’d just clear that up.

    Peace!

  • Redeemed

    Leon, think of it this way. You have to study a false doctrine in order to determine whether it is false or true. If you studied God’s Word and rightly divide it, you would have clarity and IMMEDIATELY recognize false doctrine without having to do an indepth study of it.

    Someone tells you that the water coming from a certain well has been tested and it has e.coli in it and tells you it will make you sick to drink it. I would hope that you would heed their warning and not drink it. This analogy applies to the teachings of Calvinism. Others before you have tested those teachings and compared them to the Word of God and have determined them dangerous to your spiritual health.
    They are warning you not to ingest these teachings as they are designed by Satan to confuse and entrap.

    There are plenty of people who have been entrapped and come out after their eyes have been opened to the truth. Sadly, there are others who have been ensnared and blinded and choose to remain there and won’t listen to the truth.

    So Leon, what is your choice? If you choose to go ahead and “educate” yourself on Calvinism by immersing yourself in MacArthur’s teachings that are cleverly mixed with truth and error or will you heed the warnings and not run the risk of being deceived?

    Leon, you are at a crossroads in your spiritual life whether you realize it or not. Which road will you take?

  • Truthful Conversation

    Debs, you need to reprimand your friend Sharon, because saying ‘gee whizz’ is a connotation of Jesus, thus blasphemy. And she also said ‘shoot’, which is the connotation of ‘sh*t’. Not nice language for a Christian. : )

  • Truthful Conversation

    You and Thomas should have picked that up, you are normally so quick to tell people off.

  • Truthful Conversation

    No we are not bent on telling people off. We are bent on telling people that Calvinism is a false gospel and that everyone who follows and believes a murderer should repent and believe the true Gospel. Like God we have no desire that anyone should perish and end up in hell.

  • Leon Petersen

    Redeemed wrote:

    Leon, think of it this way. You have to study a false doctrine in order to determine whether it is false or true. If you studied God’s Word and rightly divide it, you would have clarity and IMMEDIATELY recognize false doctrine without having to do an indepth study of it.

    Redeemed:
    Being Christian does not mean dispensing with logic. Your logic above is flawed. How IMMEDIATE(ly) does the recognition of false doctrine occur?
    If yourself and Thomas ( and others here ) have a sufficient and extensive knowledge of the Word of God to reach this conclusion, then kudos to you. I make no such claim at this point and need further study.

    Redeemed wrote:

    Others before you have tested those teachings and compared them to the Word of God and have determined them dangerous to your spiritual health.

    Who are these “others”. Are they Apostles?
    Why were they not “deceived” or “infected” by “drinking from pulluted waters?
    Or could it be that the Scripture is indeed true?
    Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect.

    Redeemed wrote:

    Leon, you are at a crossroads in your spiritual life whether you realize it or not. Which road will you take?

    1. Calvinist Doctrine is a teaching. It is NOT the Gospel.
    2. If it is False, it will not bear scrutiny under the Scriptures.( this has been “proven” by your own admission )
    3. Holding certain “Calvinist” precepts which are supported by Scripture, does not one a Calvinist make.

    Redeemed wrote:

    So Leon, what is your choice? If you choose to go ahead and “educate” yourself on Calvinism by immersing yourself in MacArthur’s teachings that are cleverly mixed with truth and error or will you heed the warnings and not run the risk of being deceived?

    Redeemed,
    Have you done the research yourself on MacArthur’s teachings?
    If not….which man have you “followed” to condemn him to heresy..?

    To answer your question: I’ll take the risk.
    1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

    Peace

  • Sharon

    No reprimand is needed from Deborah to me. The younger women in Christ are not to reprimand the older.1st Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 1st Timothy 5:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

    I have never heard that saying Gee Whizz meant something bad about Jesus. Saying shoot as well. When my kids were much younger sometimes they would hear me say shoot they would playfully holler “BANG” and then laugh. In America we speak a lot of slang and that depends on what area of the USA one live at.

    I do not use profanity… But you have been offended at my slang words, so I do apologize to you without reprimand.

    Peace to you, His peace

    Truthful Conversation wrote:

    Debs, you need to reprimand your friend Sharon, because saying ‘gee whizz’ is a connotation of Jesus, thus blasphemy. And she also said ‘shoot’, which is the connotation of ‘sh*t’. Not nice language for a Christian. : )

  • Dan

    I would like to present the following for your careful consideration. It’s a study that I’m only starting with and I’m using the materials of Harry Ironside, John N Darby and Frank B Hole. It deals with the issue of “election” – but not in the sense that Calvinism proclaims, rather “elect unto obedience” you have to choose if you want to obey or not. (1 Peter 1:2) “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.”
    This article is taken from Scripture Truth Vol. 15, 1923, page 106 written by Frank B Hole titled: “The Election of Grace”. Main texts Romans 8; 9 and 10.

    http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/hole/Art/election_of_grace.html

    [Edited by DTW: Please read: What it Really Means to be “Elected, Chosen, and Predestinated” – The Biblical Truth ]

      “You are “elect” “THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit” and the application of Jesus’ blood on your soul. That does not happen before you get saved. That does not happen eons ago when you supposedly were the elect. This scripture says you become elect through these things, and this contradicts the Calvinists’ main teaching who say you were elect before those things. You were not. Not one whit according to Peter:

      Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2″

  • Redeemed

    Dan, what I gleaned from Hole’s comments was a mish mash of human reasoning double talk that managed to find some redeeming qualities in Calvinism. There are no redeeming qualties in Calvinism. Be very careful that you don’t blur the lines between truth and error.

    If I misinterpreted what was said, I am open to correction. Dr. Ironside makes the distinction clear and yet is charitable about it. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are wrong. There needs to be balance – it is not called middle ground, it is balance between two extremes.

    For myself, I would not even entertain the musings of anyone who even gave Calvinism an iota of validity because they truly do not understand how serious and far reaching and damaging an error it is.

    Kudos to you for searching for the truth – the Lord honors that. Blessings

  • Sharon

    Article: Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday

    Jesus Christ was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday.

    It is sad how the symphony of Scripture is often confused by error and tradition.

    John 19:31 makes it clear that Our Lord’s crucifixion occurred on “preparation” day, i.e. preparation of the Passover meal. In other words, as most Jews were killing their lamb without blemish, God’s lamb, Jesus Christ, was also being slaughtered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

    “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” John 1:29

    Wednesday was 13 Nissan, ‘Preparation Day’ for Passover which is 14 Nissan. For Jews, all days start at sundown.

    John 19:14-16 says: Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour (mid-day). He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

    (It was a bitter sweet day indeed. Few understood it at the time. Few understand it today.)

    Confusion about the day of the week is easily explained. Mark 15:42 says it was “preparation day, the day before the Sabbath”. Folks assume he is referring to the Saturday Sabbath. Not so.

    There were 3 Sabbaths in a row that week, two “high” Sabbaths and one regular weekly Sabbath (Saturday).

    Passover is a “High Sabbath” (14 Nissan)

    1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a “High Sabbath” (15 Nissan)

    Saturday’s are Sabbaths. (16 Nissan that week.)

    (See Leviticus 23:1-7)

    Jesus foretold that He would be in the “heart of the earth for three days and three nights” and He was! Matthew 12:40

    Friday at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at dawn (36 hours) is NOT three days and three nights. It’s silly to try and make it so.

    Jesus’ body died at 3:00 p.m. Wednesday – on 13 Nissan. He raised His body back to life sometime after dusk on Saturday – on 17 Nissan. On 14, 15 and 16 Nissan His body was dead, buried in a tomb – three days and three nights. Mark 15:42-47 Luke 24:1-12

    This should put the issue to bed, so to speak. Isn’t it obvious? Jesus Christ is our Passover lamb. Jesus predicted it. The whole Bible speaks of it. On a previous Passover Jesus promised the unbelievers a sign. His death and resurrection was what He promised them as a sign.
    John 2:18-22

    Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac on the same hill was a ‘type’ to signify Christ’s crucifixion. Genesis 22:1-22

    Way back in the Garden of Eden, God promised that Satan’s head would be bruised, but not before Satan would bruise His heel. Genesis 3:15 This also was also a foreshadow of the crucifixion, the price God decreed would be paid for Adam’s sin.

    (One can recover from a bruise on one’s heel. Satan will never recover from the head bruise to be inflicted one day. He will be in the Lake of Fire forever! Halleluiah! Revelation 20:7-10)

    The ‘Passover lamb’ was the most obvious type of Christ. You can quickly read the story in Exodus 12. The firstborn all died. Jesus Christ, being God, was also God’s firstborn.

    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:15-20

    Oh my, the riches of the Word of God!

    How can one read it and not see it flawless synchronization, every page pointing to Jesus Christ?

    HAPPY RESURECTION DAY TO EVERYBODY AWAITING OUR LORD’S CORRONATION!

    Matthew 12:40

    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    Matthew 12:40: It has been traditionally taught that Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday, the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2,
    Luke 24:1 and John 20:1). However, here Jesus prophesied being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That would mean the crucifixion took place at least on a Thursday or possibly on a Wednesday, depending on when you believe Jesus was resurrected. John 20:1 shows that Mary Magdalene found that Jesus was already resurrected while it was still dark. That means Jesus actually rose from the dead some time during the night prior to sunrise.

    If Jesus’ statement in this verse is interpreted as meaning three complete nights, Saturday night could not be included and would thus push the crucifixion and burial back to Wednesday. At any rate, Friday could not have been the day Jesus was crucified.

    The reason the crucifixion was traditionally set on Friday was because of a misunderstanding of verses like Luke 23:54 that speak of the Sabbath as being the day after the crucifixion. However, as can be clearly seen in John 19:31, the Sabbath spoken of was a high (or special) Sabbath, specifically the feast of the Passover. These special feasts were called Sabbaths also, regardless of the day of the week on which they fell (compare Mark 15:42 with John 19:14).

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Hi Val,

    I have read through some of the stuff on your site:
    On the subject of the Crucifixion and Resurrection:
    You submit that the “3 days and 3 nights” referred to in Mat12:40 is literally 72 hrs.
    How then do you reconcile Jesus being raised “ON the 3rd Day”?
    Luk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
    Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
    Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
    Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
    The phrase “3 days and 3 nights” is an idiomatic expression meaning ANY part of 3 days.
    Even the Jewish enemies of The Way understood Jesus’s claims, and sent guards to secure the tomb until the third day:
    Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
    Mat 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
    Mat 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the THIRD day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

    With regard to the Resurrection, and it’s Day, refer to the text:
    Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the FIRST day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

    As this is someone else’s blog, I will not do a complete exegesis, (nor am I qualified), but these are the basics.
    [Edited: removed link as it is a Calvinist website and Calvinists are false teachers]
    This is a good place to start to learn Scripture.
    Jesus does not contradict himself. Scripture does not contradict itself.
    I suspect this is but the tip of the iceberg of errors on your site. Please consider taking it down.

  • Sharon

    Many, many years ago, here in the US, you could most always tell where a Pastor went to Bible College just by his actions in the pulpit. My momma would say she could do just that. These young preacher boys would emulate the founder/Pastor of the Bible College. The boys would walk a certain way, say certain things and even adjust their clothing the say way.

    I said all that to say this: I’ve noticed that even on this topic there is “Hero Worship” Paul confronted this problem in his day.

    Act_19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
    1Co_1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
    1Co_3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
    1Co_3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
    1Co_3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
    1Co_3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
    1Co_4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

    Some say, I am of Calvin, others of MacArthur and yet others of Sproul. Where do we find, I AM of Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God? When I was much younger I had my “favorite preachers/teachers. My youth prevented me from seeing that my favorites were very human too. I have learned that this life we have been given to a life that God wants dedicated to him. Our Pastor and Rabbi, Jesus Christ is who we are supposed to emulate. Jesus is the one who is our “Hero”. Here in the US and probably in every where else we call “Sports Figures” “Hero”. They are not heroes. What they do is not selfless or sacrificial. What our Hero has done makes Him the only Hero we need. Our Hero died for us. Our Hero conquered death, hell and the grave for us. Our Hero gave us His Word. Our Hero gave us a part of him to live within us forever. Our Hero knows us better than we know ourselves. Our Hero desires us to fellowship with him imperfect as we are. Our Hero forgives our sin, puts them as far as the East is from the West. Our Hero says “Come Unto Me” and I do.

    Some of what I have said is a little off topic, so let me reign this back on topic. I am sick to death of hearing Calvin said this, Calvin said that, MacArthur does, says, desires this.

    WE are responsible for what we let into our heart, mind and soul. I/we do not need that which Paul said in 1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    Ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and He will.

    John16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    Ephesians4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

  • Leon Petersen

    Sharon wrote:

    If Jesus’ statement in this verse is interpreted as meaning three complete nights, Saturday night could not be included and would thus push the crucifixion and burial back to Wednesday. At any rate, Friday could not have been the day Jesus was crucified.

    Hi Sharon,
    In multiple instances, Jesus stated that He would be raised “ON the third day”.
    Paul also makes reference to this. Even the Jews secured the tomb with guards “Until the third day”. Does this mean that Jesus, Paul, and the Sanhedrin could not count? In one instance, Paul even states that He was raised ON the third day “in accordance with the Scriptures”.
    Mark 8:31 says, “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
    Yet, 1 Cor. 15:4 says, “and that He was buried, and that He was raised ON the third day according to the Scriptures.”

    You will see, that when Mark “relates” the story in 8:31 above, He says “AFTER three days”.
    Jesus, when telling His disciples directly:
    Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead THE THIRD DAY:
    Luk 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and THE THIRD DAY rise again.
    So. does He contradict Himself when He says:

    Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    Do you really think He would get the “ONLY SIGN to an adulterous generation” wrong?

    Your post does not address this point.

    Furthermore, there is yet another example in Scripture where the phrase “3 days and 3 nights” is used to denote ANY PART of the former.
    Refer to Est 4:16
    and then Est 5:1
    The phrase is the same.

    As to when the crucifixion occurred…yes, it is possible ( and probably more likely) that it occurred on Thursday (13 Nisan) as you state.
    The First Day of the week would then be 16 Nisan. Still (ON) the third day.
    This would satisfy all the Scriptures without contradiction.

    Peace

  • Sharon

    Hey Leon.
    I personally believe that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday to have 3 full 24 hour days and nights. I also know they counted the different times of the day different from us. I read on an Arab Christian web site one time that agreed Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday. I wish I could remember what that site was…..but then the older I get the more I just wish I could remember most anything! :o)

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Sharon wrote:

    If Jesus’ statement in this verse is interpreted as meaning three complete nights, Saturday night could not be included and would thus push the crucifixion and burial back to Wednesday. At any rate, Friday could not have been the day Jesus was crucified.

    Hi Sharon,
    In multiple instances, Jesus stated that He would be raised “ON the third day”.
    Paul also makes reference to this. Even the Jews secured the tomb with guards “Until the third day”. Does this mean that Jesus, Paul, and the Sanhedrin could not count? In one instance, Paul even states that He was raised ON the third day “in accordance with the Scriptures”.
    Mark 8:31 says, “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
    Yet, 1 Cor. 15:4 says, “and that He was buried, and that He was raised ON the third day according to the Scriptures.”

    You will see, that when Mark “relates” the story in 8:31 above, He says “AFTER three days”.
    Jesus, when telling His disciples directly:
    Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead THE THIRD DAY:
    Luk 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and THE THIRD DAY rise again.
    So. does He contradict Himself when He says:

    Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    Do you really think He would get the “ONLY SIGN to an adulterous generation” wrong?

    Your post does not address this point.

    Furthermore, there is yet another example in Scripture where the phrase “3 days and 3 nights” is used to denote ANY PART of the former.
    Refer to Est 4:16
    and then Est 5:1
    The phrase is the same.

    As to when the crucifixion occurred…yes, it is possible ( and probably more likely) that it occurred on Thursday (13 Nisan) as you state.
    The First Day of the week would then be 16 Nisan. Still (ON) the third day.
    This would satisfy all the Scriptures without contradiction.

    Peace

  • Leon Petersen

    Sharon wrote:

    Hey Leon.
    I personally believe that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday to have 3 full 24 hour days and nights. I also know they counted the different times of the day different from us. I read on an Arab Christian web site one time that agreed Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday. I wish I could remember what that site was…..but then the older I get the more I just wish I could remember most anything! :o)

    Hey Sharon

    I hear you. However, the Scriptural references to Jesus’ being raised “on the third day”, is not addressed in this manner.
    This is one of those many passages where people try to discredit the Bible, and claim that the Bible contradicts itself.
    If Jesus was “in the belly of the whale” for three full 24hr periods, you can see the impossibility of Him being raised “on the third day”.
    Both of these claims / prophecies were made by Jesus.

    Peace

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sam

    You said:

    The very first interpretation of Romans 8:1 has a misunderstanding of the tense of the sentence.
    Romans 8 New (NKJV)

    8 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

    This talks to those that are “already in Christ Jesus” and cannot be used to argue as the writer tries to do. It is just not honoring the bible and the grammar of the English language. It was originally written in koine (common Greek) and this is translated correctly, unless some Greek scholar would tell me otherwise.

    The article says:

    “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…” Romans 8:1

    As I have mentioned before on video and in articles, the fact that all sinners, including the elect, were condemned to hell at one point, shows that the “elect” Calvinists were not predestined to heaven, for they themselves were condemned to hell just like anybody else. Jesus spoke of this same word “condemned” and said in John 3:18 that if you are not a believer, you are “condemned” to hell: “he that believeth not is condemned already.”

    You cannot be predestined to heaven and be condemned to hell at the same time, Yet that is precisely what people are forced to believe and trying to make you believe. Those two points are irreconcilable. They show the impossibility of being predestined to heaven before or when you were born. I have yet to be proven wrong on this understanding, yet I am open to listening to any who would challenge this belief.

    Condemnation to hell and being God’s elect are not both simultaneously possible. How can one be condemned to hell and picked for heaven at the same time? You might as well say someone is a child of Satan and a child of God at the same time. My friends, consider what I say, and the Lord Jesus give you understanding.

    You misunderstand what the writer is saying. This is the problem with Calvinists, they don’t understand.

  • Sam Dean

    [deleted by DTW - Dear John Andrews or whatever your name is, it's pitiful that you have to resort to another name after I banned you from this blog. Unfortunately your IP address matches that of John Andrews. Either you two are using the same pc, or you and Dean are the same person. I think the latter is true - another South African from Ireland using the same IP? I think not. We were right, you are a Calvinist (under disguise on this blog) and we banned you for good reason as you attacked Thomas in the most terrible manner and now me in this post that I just deleted. You have a terrible spirit guiding you; one of deceit and malice, we will call it the John Calvin spirit - please seek deliverance from your pride of Election]

  • Sam Dean

    [deleted]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>