Calvinism: The Greatest God-Sent Delusion of all Time

Calvinism: The Greatest God-sent Delusion of all Time

There is a way that seems right but the end thereof are the ways of death – TULIP

I am deeply and sincerely convinced that Calvinism, also known as Reformed Theology, entrenched in the acronym T U L I P, is the best top-ranked and most dangerous deceptions God Himself has sent to judge those who believe in its vile doctrines. Paul announces God’s judgment on all those who dare to misrepresent his Gospel of salvation in 2 Thessalonians 2 verses 8 to 12.

And then the lawless one (the antichrist) will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming.

The coming [of the lawless one, the antichrist] is through the activity and working of Satan and will be attended by great power and with all sorts of [pretended] miracles and signs and delusive marvels-[all of them] lying wonders-

And by unlimited seduction to evil and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing (going to perdition because they did not welcome the Truth but refused to love it that they might be saved.

Therefore God sends upon them a misleading influence, a working of error and a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, In order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe in [who refused to adhere to, trust in, and rely on] the Truth, but [instead] took pleasure in unrighteousness. (AMP)

Don’t be misled by the reference to false signs and wonders and think that, because Calvinists are cessationists, the indictment cannot be applied to Reformed Theology. The main reason for their severe condemnation is not because they indulge in false or pretended signs and wonders.

The reason why they are severely judged is that they trample underfoot the truth in regard to the way of salvation. As a matter of fact, they have completely ruled out faith in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross as a precondition and the only requirement for salvation.

The Calvinists’ requirement for salvation is election followed by faith. Election determines whether you are going to believe or not believe, and you will of necessity believe or not believe because you are void of any choice to either believe or not to believe. Indeed, as an elect, you WILL believe, and as a non-elect, you WILL NOT believe, because you have no choice (free-will) in the matter of salvation.

Calvinists are the most adamant, obstinate, unyielding, obdurate, stubborn and unteachable bunch of sinners on the planet. You may probably ask, “why?” Well, because God, who is unyielding in his sovereignty, has completely and utterly given them over, boots and all, to the strongest delusion imaginable.

The delusion is so intensely strong that very few Calvinists are being, and have been, delivered from its abhorrent clutches. If there ever was a doctrine that tickles the ears of those who firmly believe they are saved because they are the so-called elect, it is the Doctrines of Grace.

Bear in mind that the term “Doctrines of Grace” is a very shrewd replacement for the word “Calvinism” to divert the attention from the serial killer, John Calvin’s, abominable deadly persecution and killing sprees in Geneva. There is nothing that sounds so sweet and yet so diabolically deceptive than the mantra “I am one of the few chosen elect who was chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world.” (Notice how John MacArthur articulates this beautifully deceptive mantra later in this article when he tells his right-hand man, Phil Johnson, “[I] NEVER REBELLED AND ALWAYS BELIEVED.” What MacArthur forgets is that the Doctrine of Election unto salvation (TULIP) IS in essence rebellion against God).

It is God’s good pleasure that Calvinists believe what is false

Why did God give them over to this exceptionally strong delusion? To begin with, He sent them the strong delusion so that they may believe what is false. It’s as simple as that. Let me repeat that: The reason why God sent them a strong delusion is that he wants them to believe what is false? He actually wants them to believe what is false.

You may again ask, “why?” The main reason for their God-sent delusion is because they shun, trample under foot, despise, spurn and deride God’s Gospel which is forever entrenched in His words, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

In short, they have rejected the only and true way of being saved because they take pleasure in unrighteousness. Anyone who dares to tamper with God’s universal love in salvation (Titus 2:11), is not playing with fire to warm oneself by, but with the fires of hell itself. Paul reinforces this when he says,

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

What do some of the best top rank deceivers in the Reformed Camp say about John 3:16?

John MacArthur doesn’t seem to know what to believe about John 3:16. At first, he admits that God loves everyone, and then that He does not love all people in the same way. How can there be two or more ways for God to express his love for lost sinners when there is only one supreme way He chose to express it – i.e. by giving his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice to the entire world? Unless, of course, God did not send his Son in behalf of the entire world but only the so-called elect.  In MacArthur’s view, God’s love is split in two ways – a temporal love expressed in his gracious gifts of rain, air and sunshine and an eternal love, expressed in salvation. He wrote:

I am troubled by the tendency of some – often young people, newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine – who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.

John MacArthur is mistaken when he says young people who are infatuated with Reformed doctrine, insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. There are many older Calvinists who believe the same lie. (Read here and here).

John MacArthur firmly asserts that man is completely unable to repent and believe the Gospel of his own accord, and must, therefore, be regenerated first by a sovereign act of God and only then, subsequent to his monergistic regeneration be given the gift of faith. Those “who never repent and believe” are, in MacArthur’s view, the reprobate who don’t have, and never will have the ability to repent and believe, because God has chosen them unto damnation before the foundation of the world.

And so, for him to rebuke the young people who declare that God cannot possibly love the reprobate, is nothing else than downright hypocrisy. What kind of love is it when God sends those whom He has not chosen unto salvation to hell because it supposedly glorifies and pleases Him? MacArthur continues to say.

The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect.

Those who hold this view, often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world. Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found in the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, “God loves whom He chooses.

He does not love everybody.” He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world…”) “refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from ‘the world of the ungodly.'” Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love.

We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners.Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? It is evident, that they are showered, even on unrepentant sinners. (Emphasis added).

MacArthur’s eulogy to God being compassionate, kind, generous and good, even to the most stubborn sinners, whom He did not elect unto salvation because it pleases Him to send them to hell, sounds more like a quote from the Quran than from the Bible. The Quran also refers to Allah as the most beneficent, merciful and compassionate, whilst he passionately hates the infidels (non-Muslims, nonelect) and sends them to hell.

MacArthur uses words that are completely incompatible with Calvinism. In fact, they are non-existent in Calvinism. The terminology “unrepentant sinners,” for instance, cannot be applied to either the elect or the non-elect.

The elect has no need to repent because they are regenerated without them having to perceive, become aware of or understand the moment when they are/were saved. In fact, it just happens to them when God monergistically intervenes and sovereignly makes them alive (regenerates them) without faith because they have always been God’s believing sheep. (Note MacArthur’s testimony further down in the article).

Likewise, the words “unrepentant sinners” are meaningless in regard to the non-elect. How can they possibly be described as unrepentant sinners when they are completely unable to repent because God refuses to draw them to his Son (John 6:44)?

At any rate, the concept of stubbornness is equally taboo in Calvinism, simply because free-will, the ability to choose between two opposites, is equally taboo in Calvinism. It is impossible to be stubborn without a free-will. Stubbornness is anchored in the ability to choose either for or against the thing offered to you.

If God has pre-ordained and predestined everything that comes to pass, then He must have decreed the reprobate’s stubbornness as well. This leads to the bizarre situation where God first decrees, predestines, or foreordains the reprobate sinners’ stubbornness, then He passionately loves them despite their stubbornness, as Macarthur says, and ultimately holds them responsible for their stubbornness and sends them to hell.

And this, my dear friends, is how the god of the Calvinists showers his love on the reprobate, or as MacArthur calls them, stubborn sinners. MacArthur continues to say.

At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God’s love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2 verse 4).

Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past. But from that, it does not follow that God’s attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred.

Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.

Pink, was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally.

Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7 verses 6 to 7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4 verse 8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same. 

Nothing but God’s own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That, has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love. (Source) (Emphasis added).

Nothing but God’s own sovereign will govern his love and all Calvinists have the sovereign willpower to make this so-called truism a decree? Wow!

God pleads with the reprobate to repent and believe the Gospel while He has ordained and predestined them to an eternal punishment in hell before the foundation of the world? Really?

He offers the reprobate his mercy whilst He mercilessly decided to send them to hell before the foundation of the world? Really? This is the kind of schizophrenic God reformed theologians (Calvinists) just adore to present to the world.

The god of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is NOT, I repeat, Not the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but a false God. In fact, he is nothing but an idol.

It is not God’s own sovereign good pleasure that compels Him to love sinners. He loves sinners because He is the ESSENCE OF LOVE and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33 verse 11), and wants everyone to be saved (2 Peter 3 verse 9).

If, as John MacArthur says, God’s own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners, and only the elect benefit from his saving love because the reprobate has no chance in hell of ever being saved, it follows that only the elect are sinners. Jesus said, that He had come to seek and to save lost sinners.

If all of mankind are/were lost sinners it logically follows that He had come to save all of mankind because all are sinners. Will all of mankind eventually be saved? Perish the thought. The Calvinist view that if Jesus came to save all of mankind because all are lost, He would have been a dismal failure because not all are being saved.

Therefore, the only option open for Him to be a success is to have Him love and die only for the elect and to save them all without distinction. I have yet to find a Calvinist who has the chutzpah to explain to me Isaiah 49:4 in the light of their assumption that Jesus would have been a failure if He had come to save all of mankind. This is what Isaiah 49:4 says,

Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. (Isa 49:4)

If God had already decided, before the foundation of the world not to send his Son to suffer and die for the non-elect, then the non-elect, are not lost, sinners. Only those, for whom He had come to save are sinners, and that could of a necessity only be the elect because they are the only ones being saved, according to Calvinism.

I would like to suggest that Calvinists gather for a worldwide conference and call it “LOVE OR HATRED OR LOVE AND HATRED?”They can’t decide whether God loves or hates sinners or whether he schizophrenically and simultaneously loves and hates sinners. And perhaps they should rehash and change John 3:16 to read as follows.

For God so loved and hated the world (please bear in mind that “world” in John 3:16 refers to the world of the elect and not the non-elect), that he gave his only begotten Son (to the world of the elect), so that the world of the elect who are granted the gift of faith after they had been monergtistically regenerated, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world of the elect; but that the world of the elect through him might be saved.

Listen to what this godly sheep has to say about God’s love/hate relationship with sinners (the elect). If there is anything uplifting to learn from this video, it is to beware of little orange books written by Calvinists. In his little orange book, he says God hates David Platt, an elect beloved of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqTWLut6lcg

To understand the true meaning of Psalm 5:5, please read the article “Psalm 5 verse 5: ‘God Hates Sinners.'” Click on the “I love u/hate u” banner.

Hate-1

What the false prophet, David Platt, seems to misunderstand is that “hatred” is the complete opposite of “love.” If so, the opposite of John 3:16 would read as follows,

For God so hated the world, that he did NOT give his only begotten Son, so that everyone should perish.

In case you’ve missed Platt’s reason for God having to pour his righteous wrath on his Son on the cross, let me repeat what he says more or less 6 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.

“Does God hate sinners? Look at Isaiah 53 verses 4 through six. All of these things – pierced, crushed, punishment, wounds, all of these things are evidence of the wrath of God upon sinners. Look at the cross. Absolutely, God hates sin and sinners. Does God love sinners? Look at the cross because the Lord’s will for sin was to crush his Son for the salvation of his people.

No Platt, it is NOT what Isaiah 53:4-6 tells us. It does NOT tell us “all of these things – pierced, crushed, punishment, wounds are evidence of the wrath of God upon sinners. ” It tells us that God loves lost sinners so much and does not want them to perish, the result being that He poured his wrath out on his incarnated only begotten Son so that whosoever believes on Him may not have to bear the brunt of His wrath for all eternity in hell. Paul reiterates this truth in Romans 8.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned “sin” in the flesh: (Romans 8:3).

God focused his wrath on man’s sin and not man himself. God’s wrath will only be poured out on the man himself when he, after having remained unrepentant all his life and refused to respond in obedience to the Gospel call, will be cast into the Lake of Fire subsequent to the White Throne Judgment of God. (Read Psalm 73 with special reference to verses 17 to 19). Sinners who refuse to accept and receive God’s gift of forgiveness on the basis that He has already punished their sin in his Son’s flesh on the cross will have to face God’s wrath and consequences in hell.

Paul Washer
The false prophet, Paul Washer

Like Paul Washer, David Platt seems to be one of the more gentlemanly types of Calvinists to grace our world. He doesn’t openly say: “God hates the non-elect and loves the elect.” He ever so gently points to the cross to prove that Christ died only for his people. Who is God’s people?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that he is referring to the elect. Note carefully how he barely noticeably differentiates between God’s attitude to the non-elect and His attitude to his people (the elect).

When Platt says “God hates sin and sinners,” he evidently refers to the non-elect because they are not God’s people and therefore the only culprits whom God hates in tandem with their sins. Then suddenly, Platt’s face lights up when he says, immediately after his assertion that God hates sin and sinners, that God absolutely loves sinners.

How are we supposed to reconcile the paradox that God hates sinners and also loves sinners? It’s rather easy when you differentiate between non-elect sinners and elect sinners. In the latter instance, God hates their sin but loves the sinner and, guess what, in the non-elect’s case he hates both the sinner and their sins.

It is imperative that we learn to listen very carefully to Calvinists and their preaching. They are past masters at saying things that are 99,9% correct and to slip in a 0.1% little lie to deceive their listeners. Would you drink a glass of water polluted with 0.1% of a lethal poison?

MacArthur is not so subtle and gentlemanly as David Platt. He openly says that God only loves the elect with a saving love. Listen very carefully and you will hear a demon (lying spirit) speaking through John MacArthur.

Depending on what you are, an elect or non-elect, God is glorified at any rate. If you are not elected, God is glorified because he does not love you with a saving love and if you are an elect He is equally glorified because He loves you with a saving love.

This is what the Bible calls “holding the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18). A God who sovereignly chose the elect unto salvation and the reprobate unto damnation before the foundation of the world, and yet allegedly still lovingly pleads with the reprobate to respond to the call of the Gospel because He sincerely and indiscriminately loves them, is the epitome of unrighteousness.

It is not only a gross misrepresentation of God but pure blasphemy. It’s like saying,: “I dearly and sincerely love you, but not enough to want you to be in heaven with me. My love for you, expressed in raindrops falling on your head, and the sun shining into your boudoir every morning, is sufficient to prove to you that I really, truly and sincerely love you. But I cannot possibly love you, in the same way, I love my blue-eyed predestined and elected favourites. Therefore I have given you two diametrically opposite renditions of John 3:16 – one for the elect and one for the non-elect.”

The one for the elect goes like this:

For God so loved the world (OF THE ELECT), that he gave his only begotten Son (TO THE WORLD OF THE ELECT), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world (THE WORLD OF THE ELECT) to condemn the world (OF THE ELECT); but that the world (WORLD OF THE ELECT) through him might be saved.

The one for the non-elect goes like this:

For God so loved the world (OF THE NON ELECT) that He gave them the sun to shine on their brow and the rain to fall on their head. He also gave the world (OF THE NON ELECT) his Son to plead with them because “His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God.”

Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked reprobate, but tenderly calls them to turn from their evil ways and live. Yet in his sincere and tender love for the world (OF THE WICKED REPROBATE) He decided before the foundation of the world to send them to hell.

According to Calvinists God says in effect: Since they are so very special to me, I have added to my raindrop-and-sun-shine kind of love for them, an infinitely greater love, a love that saves. This love is infinitely greater than my love in John 3:16 which is merely an offer to love the reprobate on condition that they believe in my Son.

Nevertheless, my offer to love them, on condition they repent and believe the Gospel, can never become a reality because I have decided to withhold my gift of saving faith from them so that I may send them to hell and be glorified so much the better.

Once again, this is nothing else than holding God’s universal love for all mankind in blatant unrighteousness, a sin worthy of the indictment in 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 8 to 12.

The ultimate Calvinistic paradox (hidden in classical RCC Mystagogy)

How do you reconcile the paradox of a loving God who wants all people to be saved, because He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but sovereignly chose not to save the majority of people because it is his good pleasure to send them to hell? You don’t, because it is a mystery hidden in the secret counsel of God.

By the by, this infamous and mysterious paradox is one of the shameless seeds of unrighteousness that has come from the Roman Catholic Church, and very quickly found a niche in Reformed Theology in the writings of John Calvin.

The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 says,

“Those of mankind who are predestined unto Life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable Purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ to everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.”

Calvinists often use the phrases “the secret counsel of his will” and “God’s sovereignty” to cover up their unrighteous misrepresentation of God and his love. When the High Priest, asked Jesus about his teachings (doctrines), He told Him that He never said anything in secret.

“Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.” (John 18:20).

If Jesus’s mission to the earth was to seek and to save lost sinners, as He Himself once said, then surely his mission of salvation could never have been done partly in secrecy. Not a single dot and iota of his mission to seek and to save lost sinners would have been cloaked in “the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will.”

Besides the fact that the phrase “the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will” never once appear in Scripture, Calvinists attribute occult practices to God because the occult is usually practised in a shroud of secrecy, obscurity and unclearness. Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

Those, therefore, whom God passes by, he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to death, are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction, what will they be able to mutter against this defence? Of this, no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.

Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, He arranges that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others.

It is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge. Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply. When other vessels are made unto dishonour, it must be imputed not to injustice, but to judgment.

One of the greatest mysteries (mystagogies) in Calvinism is that they claim to know and understand the hidden and secret counsels of God. Surely, if salvation the most vital of God’s counsels and decrees, is shrouded in secrecy, how do Calvinists know what God’s secret counsels are?

They state with emphatic assurance that God passes by whom He reprobates and that for no other cause but because He is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines to his children.

They also state with unhesitant assurance that man has no right to question God’s eternal providence to doom some before their birth to perpetual destruction because this is hidden in the secret counsel and will of God. How dare they declare word for word what God has decided before the foundation of the world when it is hidden in his secret counsel?

What they mean, is that God has decided to choose some to eternal bliss and others to eternal damnation but nobody knows why. It’s a secret and will never be revealed to man until eternity knocks on the door. And yet Calvinists have the audacity to declare the so-called secret counsel of God word for word.

RC Sporul
The false prophet, RC Sproul

Calvinists take refuge in the silly metaphor of two parallel train tracks that never come together but seem to merge in the distance to illustrate that the truth in regard to elective salvation will only be revealed in eternity.

According to this, the vilest of the vile doctrines devised and instituted by a serial killer, God, in the secret counsel and the good pleasure of his will, made the following horrific decision, “I wish to glorify myself to the uttermost and have, therefore, arranged that some babies should be doomed to hell, even from before they are conceived in their mothers’ womb.”

No wonder, Calvinists believe that God decreed babies to be raped. Listen carefully to James White’s hideous explanation, when asked whether God decrees the rape of little babies.

Apparently, it’s OK, to rape little babies, because God, has ordained some of them to everlasting destruction.

So, if God deems it necessary to predestine some babies to eternal destruction, so that He may be glorified, then a child rapist who rapes and kills babies for his good pleasure, is merely helping God to get the reprobate babies into hell much quicker, and hence to get the glory God wants for Himself, even much sooner.

And in case you may think you are listening to a sci-fi story, listen to RC Sproul’s definition of God’s sovereignty.

False Teachers and Their Allegiance to Satan
False Teachers and Their Common Allegiance to Satan

———————

Did you hear what Anton LaVey said? “I believe that hatred is necessary in a controlled way as much is love is necessary.” Here again we have the duality (the YinYang concept) in God’s character, as David Platt described it. Both love and hatred for sinners are compatible with God.

This is how the Westminster Confession of Faith sounds like when you bring God’s decree of the rape and killing of little babies into the equation.

“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably, ordain whatsoever comes to pass, (including the rape and killing of little babies).”

And in case you do not believe it, you are summarily branded an atheist, because if you don’t believe God ordained everything that comes to pass (including the rape and killing of little babies), you are accusing God of not being sovereign, and if He’s not sovereign, He is not God, and if He’s not God, then you don’t believe in God.

Therefore, you are an atheist. So please, realize and understand, that there is only one way to be converted from atheism to Calvinism and that is to believe in God’s sovereign decree that He ordained babies to be raped.

James White
James White – False Teacher

There is a vast difference between God causing a child to be raped because He allegedly has a greater purpose in view and Him overturning the heinous sin to glorify Himself. I have heard of babies being raped and slaughtered in front of their mothers who refused to deny and disown Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

It would be rank blasphemy to say that God caused or predestined the babies to be raped and killed so that He may be glorified. How then is He glorified in situations like these? He is glorified in the mothers who steadfastly remain faithful to Him no matter what the circumstances and because they know and believe that their murdered babies will be in heaven with them one day.

The Calvinistic view that God causes babies to be raped and killed because his purpose is to be glorified, is akin to the ancient Canaanite pagans who sacrificed their children through a fire in honour of their god, Molech. (Leviticus 20:2).

The obvious reason why Calvinists cannot see that what they believe to be God’s sovereignty and his so-called hidden purposes is demonic, is because God deliberately blinded their eyes to the truth so that they may believe the lie and be judged accordingly.

You may have heard James White saying “there is no reason for despair” when suffering has meaning and a purpose. “All suffering has a purpose,” he said. What does He mean?

To understand what he said, we need to take his Calvinistic doctrines of grace into account. To illustrate we need to make a distinction between Mother Elect and Mother Non-elect whose babies are automatically Baby Elect and Baby Non-elect respectively.

When Baby Non-elect is raped and killed, is it meaningless and purposeless or meaningful and purposeful? Well, it cannot be dubbed meaningless and purposeless because God had already predestined Baby Non-elect to be cast into hell even before the foundation of the world so that He may be glorified. His purpose, Mr White, is and has always been to send Baby Non-elect to hell. Therefore, it cannot be meaningless and purposeless.

Similarly, Baby Elect of Mother Elect was predestined to go to heaven before the foundation of the world. So, whether Baby Elect is raped and killed as an infant or grows up and is later raped and killed, the purpose remains the same. Therefore, again, God’s decree is not meaningless and purposeless.

Voila! Mr White is correct in saying “there is no reason for despair,” at least in the eye of the Calvinist, because the non-elect’s ultimate destination in hell is no reason for concern or despair.

How do you identify a Calvinist?

You don’t need to identify them. They love to identify themselves in their so-called testimonies.

John MacArthur says:

“God didn’t draw straws; He didn’t look down the corridor of time, to see who would choose Him before He decided. Rather, by His sovereign will, He chose who would be in the Body of Christ. The construction of the Greek verb for “chose” indicates, God chose us for Himself. That means God acted totally independent of any outside influence.

He made His choice totally apart from human will and purely on the basis of His sovereignty.

Jesus said to His disciples, “You did not choose, Me, but I chose, you.” (John 15:16). [Thomas says: Come on, John, don’t you know He also chose Judas Iscariot to be one of his disciples and he was a devil?]

And in the same Gospel, John wrote, “But as many as received Him, to them, He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

And Paul said, “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thessalonians. 2 verse 13).

How do you identify a Calvinist? You only need to look at their beloved verses from Scripture, and their skill to avoid certain key passages in Scripture, and voila, you have successfully identified a Calvinist. MacArthur mentions two of their pet verses – John 15: 16 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

The irony is that Jesus also chose Judas Iscariot to follow Him as one of his disciples. His choice could not have been unto salvation, and if not unto salvation, then it must have been unto service. The employer chooses whom he wants to appoint in his business. The employee has no choice in the process of appointments.

A closer reading of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, proves that Paul is not dealing with salvation in the normal sense of the word, (the redemption from sin, judgment and hell), but with “salvation through sanctification.”

Indeed, the context tells us that the salvation in this instance, (which is accomplished through sanctification), is the ultimate redemption at the Rapture, (the discarding of the saints’ earthly bodies to receive their new bodies like unto that of Jesus Christ).

Salvation in this context, is a redemption, by means of the Rapture, from the wrath of God, which is coming upon the entire world during the tribulation. Paul refers to this, as a salvation to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25). And so, Calvinists, regardless of the warning in 2 Peter 3:16, twist Scripture to their own destruction. R.C. Sproul, comments:

“The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation)….” (Chosen By God, pages 206 and 207)

James White, states:

“He gave His only begotten Son, and here’s the purpose why He gave: The Son is given by the Father so that every believing one, notice not everyone, it’s every believing one, there is a limitation here, there is a particularity here, the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those, in regard to those who believe. That’s why the Son is given.”  (From “Does John 3:16 debunk Calvinism?”)

Whereas the apostle John states that whosoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life, White says that it was the faith of the believing ones (the elect) that prompted God to send his Son. If the Son was given for no other reason than for those who believed, then the incentive to send His Son was not his love for lost sinners but the faith of the believing ones. John 3:16 according to White’s interpretation must then read as follows.

For God so loved the believing ones (elect) in the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, so that the believing ones should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is the kind of garbage you will have to believe if you are a Calvinist. Since when do those who are already believing ones need to be saved? “OK, you precious believing ones. You are already saved but I still need to die on a cursed cross to save you,” is what Calvinists are forcing Jesus to say. I don’t know whether James failed to see this but his “believing ones” grossly contradicts the doctrines of grace “Total Depravity.” How on earth can anyone who is totally depraved and totally dead in sins and transgressions exercise faith in order to be a believing one? James White, like all our Calvinist friends and foes, are wresting Scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Consequently, it can be said that it was the faith of the believing ones that motivated God’s sovereign choice to send his Son into the world. What kind of sovereignty is this that could be manipulated by the faith of the believing ones (the elect), even to the point that their faith inspired God to send his Son to the world – not in behalf of the entire world but the world of the elect only? The two scenarios may be summed up as follows.

  1. God looked at the world and saw that all its inhabitants were hopelessly lost in sin, and out of pure undeserving love decided to send his Son Jesus Christ into the world, so that whosoever without distinction puts their trust in Him for their salvation, may receive eternal life.
  2. God looked at the world and saw that all its inhabitants were hopelessly lost in sin, but noticed a few believing ones (the sheep, whom He had elected and predestined before the foundation of the world), and out of pure undeserving love for them only decided to send his Son into the world so that the believing ones (the elect) may know and understand that they had already been saved from before the foundation of the world.

To ensure that his Son’s mission to the earth was not in vain, and that there would indeed be believing ones on the earth whom He could save, He decided to impart the gift of faith to a select few, by first regenerating them without them having to exercise faith of their own accord, and then, subsequent to their monergistic regeneration, grant them the gift of faith (Ephesians 2 verses 8 to 9).

Voila! “the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those, in regard to those who believe, that’s why the Son was given” and not because He loved the world.

How do Calvinists testify to their faith?

The best and only way to discern whether a person is saved or not is to ask him or her of the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15). In an interview Phil Johnson had with John MacArthur, John explained his conversion as follows:

PHIL: “So you’re saying, are you saying it would be difficult for you to put your finger on when your conversion took place?”

JOHN: “Yeah. I’ve never been able to do that. And it doesn’t bother me. I think I’m one of those kids. I was one of those kids that NEVER REBELLED AND ALWAYS BELIEVED. And so, when God did His saving work in my heart, IT WAS NOT DISCERNIBLE TO ME.

I went away to high school and for all I knew, I loved Christ, I was part of the ministry of the church. I went away to college and I wanted to serve the Lord and honor the Lord. I was certainly immature.

But at some point along the line, I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart, but I think it may have been to some degree imperceptible to me, because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time, I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe.

And I guess that’s, in some ways that’s a grace act on God’s part. So that all that wonderful training found some level of fertile soil in my heart and none of it was wasted.” (Emphasis added).

Now, doesn’t this sound so much like the publican who, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, crying out to God in agony, God be merciful to me a sinner?

Not really! Fancy that, with a single sweep of the brush, John MacArthur obliterates the first letter “T” in the acronym TULIP. When he was a kid, he tells us, “Total Depravity” had NO part in the fibre of his pristine garment of self-righteousness.

In fact, he tells us in his own pristine self-righteous words that he never was so totally depraved as he likes to tell others how totally depraved they are.

Calvinists just love to remind other wretched sinners how depraved they are, even to the extent that it renders them completely powerless, incapable, and impotent to believe the Gospel, while they (like our learned and respected friend, John MacArthur) glory in their own pitiful self-righteous abilities to believe and never to rebel or revolt against God and his Gospel. This is Pharisaic hypocrisy at its very best.

In some ways, John MacArthur’s testimony is the same as that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Charles Spurgeon
The false prophet, Charles Spurgeon

CHARLES: I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free will; I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace!

Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude, that God has never let me act as they have done! [Thomas says: The Roman Catholics also believe that Mary was miraculously preserved from sin. Read hear].

I have thought, if God had left me alone and had not touched me by His Grace, what a great sinner I would have been!

[Thomas says: What do you, my dearest reader, say is the difference between Spurgeon and the greatest missionary who ever lived – Paul of Tarsus? The difference is that Paul was a humble man who admitted that he was the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), while Spurgeon boasted that he was not such a great sinner as Paul because God withheld him from sinning so greatly.]

CHARLES: I would have run to the utmost lengths of sin, and dived into the very depths of evil! Nor would I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me; I feel that I would have been a very king of sinners [or chief of sinners like Paul] if God had let me alone. [Parenthesis added).

I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. [Thomas says: Paul’s reason for his salvation was because he knew and acknowledged that he was a rogue of a sinner who also knew in whom he believed – 2 Timothy 1:12].  I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine Grace. (Parenthesis added).

If I am at this moment with Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His Glory.

I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty Grace has saved me from going down into the pit of Hell!

And in many ways, both John MacArthur’s and Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s testimonies are the very same as the Pharisee’s testimony in Luke 18:11,

“PHARISEE: I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortionists, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”

John MacArthur states in “Understanding Election,”,

JOHN: “I’m a Christian today, because before the foundation of the world from all eternity past, God chose to set His love on John MacArthur and to give him the faith, to believe at the moment that God wanted him to believe. He chose us.”

He also emphatically declares,

JOHN: “You and I are saved and know the Lord Jesus Christ because God chose us before the world ever began.”

All these testimonies, including those of John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon and James White, are outright denials of Jesus Christ’s words in John 16 verses 7 to 11,

JESUS: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin!! because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.”

Show me a single reference to the elect in these words. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would convince the elect that they had been selected unto salvation before the foundation of the world and that God has chosen to shower his saving love on them only.

The Holy Spirit’s conviction is not limited to the so-called world of the elect. He has come to convict the entire world that it is lost and on its way to hell because they believe not on Jesus Christ. Contrary to what Jesus said, John MacArthur claims that he was one of those whiz kids who never rebelled, and always believed.

If John MacArthur, as he claims, always believed, it follows that he had no need of the Holy Spirit to convict him of unbelief. Who should we believe – Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, who cannot lie, and said that the Comforter would convict the entire world (including John MacArthur) of unbelief or John MacArthur who says that he was one of those whiz kids who never rebelled and always believed?

Any court of law will reject the testimony of a witness when it detects the slightest inconsistency. We don’t have to examine MacArthur’s testimony very deeply to see that inconsistencies abound. First he says that he “was one of those kids who never rebelled and always believed” and then that “God chose to set His love on John MacArthur and to give him the faith to believe at the moment that God wanted him to believe.”

However, this paradox may be one of the enigmas hidden in the secret counsel of God which we are unable to understand right now and will have to wait until we reach eternity before we will understand it. Could it be that it is one of those things we now see through a glass darkly but in heaven spotlessly clearly? (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Bear in mind that salvation is such an important doctrine in the Bible that God chose not to disclose all of its wonderful characteristics to mortals.  That’s why it’s so difficult to understand why John MacArthur has always believed but was only given the gift to believe after his monergistic regeneration. Don’t try to understand it. Just go with the flow, as the modern-day alchemists would say.

John MacArthur is lying unless there are two kinds of faith – one that cannot save (the faith of an always believing kid) and one that saves (the one God gives when it pleases Him to grant it).

Never once in its entirety does the Bible say God draws only the elect to Jesus Christ (John 6:44). All sinners are drawn (John 12:32), but only those who respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that they have sinned (in other words, do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Scriptures say – John 7:38), and realize, and acknowledge that their sins have caused them to become weary and heavy-laden and are lost, will come to Jesus for their salvation (Matthew 11:28; Romans 10:13; Matthew 9:12).

That’s precisely why Jesus said, “They, that are whole, need not a physician; but they, that are sick..” (Luke 5:31).

To assert that you have always believed is to deny that you are sick and in dire need of a physician. John 6:44, one of the Calvinists pet verses to prove that God only draws the elect to Jesus, must be read in tandem with John 12:32.

It simply means that God alone was able to devise the means by which lost sinners are drawn to his Son – i.e. his cross.

Not even the Father, could have drawn lost sinners to his Son without his cross because there was only one way to placate (propitiate) (1 John 2 verse 2) the enmity between mankind and Himself effectively, i.e. through the cross of Jesus Christ.

Tragically, however, Calvinists refuse to see it this way. They obstinately, ignore John 12:32 and thereby reinforce the vast deception God sent them so that they may believe what is false.

Once again, I must reiterate what I had said earlier: You become a very good candidate for a God sent delusion, when you tamper with God’s Gospel, and I can assure you that Reformed Theology (Calvinism in whatever form – 5 points, 4 points, or whatever), is not God’s Gospel. It is another Gospel and cannot save anyone on this planet.

John Piper
The false prophet, John Piper

John Piper is even more adept at his devious re-interpretation of John 3:16. In a video on his site, “Desiring God,” entitled, “God so loved the world,” he endeavours to prove that there is an even greater love than God’s love in John 3:16.

It is vital to see, from the beginning, that Piper, like all his compatriots in the Calvinistic fold, makes a huge difference between the love expressed in John 3:16, and his love for the elect.

And how does he go about proving this Calvinistic double-minded love of God? Let’s turn our ears to John Piper, explaining God’s greater love.

John 3:16 is so beautifully easy to understand, so clear-cut in its simplicity that even a child can understand it. Multitudes of Sunday school kids have come to know Christ and his love, through a child-like understanding of John 3:16.

Nonetheless, Piper, a staunch Calvinist and a promulgator of the doctrines of grace (TULIP), complicates God’s love and in humbleness – rarely seen among mortals – explains the complexity of God’s love in the following way,

“Help me with the wider context and the fullness of your revelation to know what you mean by loving us in this verse.”

Why should we ask God what He means by loving us in John 3:16, when He Himself said that we ought to ask the little children who have learned to sanctify God in their hearts and how to testify of the hope that is in them with meekness and fear? (1 Peter 3:15).

They know what the love of God in John 3:16 means because they have experienced his love through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

They have learned the true meaning of the love of God that is indelibly etched forevermore in the torn body of his Son on the cross. What more do you need to understand his love in John 3:16?

What other kinds of love surpasses God’s love as expressed in the final, ultimate, and most magnanimous, and infinitely immeasurable love in the torn body of his Son on the cross? Ah! But of course, John Piper has discovered a love that is far greater than God’s love in John 3:16, as we shall learn from his illustrious preaching later on.

Piper continues to define John 3:16 as the “free offer of the Gospel,” and says that he loves the free offer of the Gospel because there are no limits to this offer. It was offered to every single human being who had ever lived, are alive today and shall be living in the future.

“So, what’s so controversial about that?” he asks. “Nothing! Unless you try to make this expression of the love of God cancel out another expression of the love of God- which is what many people do with this verse.

This is a great sadness and robs the church of one of her great treasures,” Piper affirms.

What Piper actually means is that the love of God in John 3:16 is not a saving love. It is merely a love offered to all mankind. It is not a love that overcomes, conquers and makes those to whom this love is offered his own.

It could be said that it is merely a shadow love because God’s genuine love is reserved only for the elect which is the greater love. If this is not a deliberate degradation of the cross of Jesus Christ which announces and demonstrates the greatest love ever to be experienced by man, I don’t know what is.

Piper is blaspheming the cross and the love of God to its utmost extremity and if he’s not careful to repent he will spend an eternity in hell.

The alleged diversity in God’s love may be likened to a huge cake cut into slices of equal size but of unequal importance and purpose.

One slice is given to the elect which they must eat because it is irresistibly sumptuous and compellingly forced down the elects’ throats, whilst the slice next to it is offered to the reprobate, but they may not eat it, because the offer is irresistibly and irrevocably concomitant with the sovereign decree He made before the foundation of the world, and that is to send them to hell.

How else will He get the glory, honour, and pleasure He claims for Himself, as John MacArthur has said so succinctly. John Piper describes one of the other most important loves of God, as follows.

If this does not fill your heart with holy anger, then you ought to ask yourself whether you truly love Jesus Christ and his doctrine of salvation.

A love, WAAAY beyond the offer of John 3:16? A love, that is magnificently greater than John 3:16? Really? If, the offer in John 3:16 is a genuine offer, and If, the cross of Christ ratifies the offer through faith alone, nothing else can go WAAAY beyond its offer, because Christ crucified is the ultimate offering.

That is why Paul wrote “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2 verse 2) and, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16), which he obviously based on the offer extended to everyone in John 3:16.

Caveman
He overcomes the elects’ rebellion. He overcomes their resistance. He conquers them and makes them his own.

However, Piper sanctimoniously asserts that there is an infinitely greater love than John 3:16, a love that does not need to be offered to his chosen ones because He overcomes their rebellion and resistance; He conquers them and makes them his own, without them having to put their faith in Him for their salvation.

Could it be that God didn’t know how to overcome Adam and Eve’s rebellion and resistance, and how to conquer them and ever so gently bend their wills to comply with his will, and only learned to do so throughout the centuries that followed? Or, could it be that He only learned to overcome the rebellion and resistance of his elect when John Calvin unearthed the deep mysteries of election and predestination?

Piper appeals to three passages in Scripture to verify his statement that God’s love for his own is magnificently greater than the love in John 3:16.

The fact is that God, in the very next verse (verse 16) of Deuteronomy 10, commanded the Israelite to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts and to cease their stiffneckedness (rebellion, obstinacy, hardheartedness, and pigheadedness). Don’t you think it was rather odd for God to command them to stop their rebellion and their resistance if He unilaterally could overcome and conquer their rebellion and resistance?

Did God unilaterally conquer the moon worshiper, Abram, whom He later called Abraham? Or was it Abraham’s faith that was accounted to him for righteousness? (Galatians 3:6).

King Solomon, must have agonized, to the point of death and cried out many times: “Oh God, when are you going to overcome and conquer my rebellion, my resistance, and my abominable idolatry? I cannot tolerate the idolatry my many wives and concubines have duped me into following their gods, any longer. Please, overcome and conquer me.”

I can only imagine what Piper’s fiancé would have thought when he proposed to marry her and said: “This is not an offer you can refuse.

I demand and I claim you for myself, regardless of what you think or may say. I am unilaterally taking you for myself to be my wife.” John Piper believes that God sovereignly preordained the sins of every single human being. He predestined and ordained the sins of Herod, Judas and the Jewish rabble who shouted: “Crucify Him, crucify Him.”

But, unlike Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, King David and King Solomon, to name but a few, whom He overcame with his regenerative love, He decided not to overrule and overcome the sins of Herod and Judas Iscariot because they were not of the elect.

If God’s covenant love, election love, particular love, regenerative love, and monergistic love is majestically and magnificently far greater than God’s love in John 3:16, where He gave, offered, his only begotten Son to the entire human race, so that whosoever believes in Him shall receive eternal life, and if this covenant love is expressed in its most pristine way in the election of the nation of Israel, then we ought to ask some serious questions.

  1. Why will the children of the Kingdom (the majority of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob whose resistance and rebellion God had overcome and conquered and made them his own) be cast into hell? (Matthew 8:12).
  2. If the majority of the Jewish nation has rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah, and as a consequence, their eyes have been blinded to the Truth so that they may not see, (Romans 11:10), why is the entire nation of Israel still called God’s elect? (Romans 11:28).

If God’s love for the people of Israel was his highest form of love – a love magnificently far greater than his love in John 3:16 – why is the majority of his people going to be cast into hell? Is it because He failed to overcome and conquer their hideous rebellion, idolatry, waywardness, and sinfulness? I don’t think so because the Bible clearly states that it was their unbelief that prevented them from entering God’s rest.

“And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. (Hebrews 3 verses 18 – 19).

This is precisely what John 3 verses 16 to 18 tells us. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” There is absolutely no difference between God’s alleged greater love for his people (the Jews) and his love in John 3:16.

His love in both cases is exactly the same, and the way to benefit eternally from this love is simply to believe in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  For that reason, Piper’s effort to prove that God’s love for the elect is magnificently far greater than his love, expressed in the crucifixion of his Son, in John 3:16, is not only wrong but blasphemous to the extreme. God shows no partiality in his love for all people.

These are classic examples of the believing ones, to whom James White refers, for whom Christ came to the world because “the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those in regard to those who believe. That’s why the Son is given.”

Think of it, Spurgeon’s faith in God’s Sovereign Grace was so overwhelming that he believed it was God’s restraining power – a power He did not wield, to restrain Adam and Eve from sinning – that kept him free from acting in the horrendous sinful way the worst characters in the street were guilty of. How do you think Jesus would have compared Spurgeon to the woman of whom He once said:

“Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” (Luke 7:47).

Could it be, that Jesus restrained Spurgeon from sinning like the scum on the streets (and this woman) because He wanted him to love Him less?

Perhaps Spurgeon’s heart should have burst forth in tears of gratitude, for rather not having been restrained from sinning, and sinned much, much more than the woman so that his love for Christ could abound in greater depths. In fact, Jesus did him a great disservice when He restrained Spurgeon from sinning like the scoundrels in the street and the woman in Luke 7:47.

Listen carefully to James White’s testimony of how he was saved in an interview conducted by  Romel Ghossain of Christian Media Productions.

The Bible never says that we should ask people when they became a Christian. Most people, among them the John MacArthurs, will tell you they’ve always been a Christian or they’ve always been a believer. This is a sure sign that they have never been saved because no-one has always been a Christian or a believer.

At any rate, the devils also have always been believers and they tremble (James 2:19). The only difference between those who say they have always believed and the demons is that they don’t tremble like the demons. They seem to have more chutzpah than the demons. The hope of which we are told, we should testify to when asked (1 Peter 3:15), has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

The Hope in you is Christ crucified and Him risen from the dead – not Christianity. Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al, are all Christians but are they saved? Similarly, Calvinists are all Christians but are they saved? James White begins by saying,

“Well, the Lord was gracious to me at a very young age. I was raised in a Christian family and it is a privilege to have that kind of upbringing. My first memories are of sermons, church services, Bible teaching. One of the first things I remember was my little child Bible, a precious possession. So at a very young age I remember RECOGNIZING the need of a Saviour.”

STOP! Stop right here. This is completely incompatible with what Calvinism teaches. Firstly, no one can recognize that he needs a Saviour without the conviction of the Holy Spirit – of sin, righteousness and judgment,  “Of sin, because they believe not on me,” Jesus said. How does the Holy Spirit convict lost sinners? Paul says, through the preaching of the Word and man’s response in faith to what he has heard. And yet, James White wrote in his book “The Potter’s Freedom, page  101,

“The Reformed assertion is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel, nor respond in faith and repentance toward Christ, without God first freeing him from sin and giving him spiritual life (regeneration).”

Yet he boldly states that as a child he recognized (understood) that he needed a Saviour. Did he, at that moment when he recognized that he needed a Saviour, respond to the Gospel he heard and in faith received Jesus Christ as his Saviour? No, of course not, because his recognizing (understanding) that he needed a Saviour became a reality for him, only AFTER, he had been monergistically regenerated.

He was first regenerated by a sovereign act of God and only then, did he realize he needed a Saviour.

Don’t be mistaken by their forceful defence of their view of God’s righteousness. According to them, God is sovereignly righteous when He randomly chooses whomsoever He wills to save and whomsoever He wills to damn.

They call this righteousness but it is, in fact, UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, and it is this unrighteousness, clothed in the guise of righteousness which they revel in, in the most superlative fashion. It’s as Paul said, they refuse to adhere to, trust in, and rely on the Truth, but instead took pleasure in unrighteousness. What does their brand of unrighteousness look like?

The very first thing they toss at you whenever you vent your anger against their preference for unrighteousness is the following.

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Ephesians 1:11).

In accordance with this decision, he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but , by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart, those who have not been chosen.

And in this, especially, is disclosed to us his act, unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just, of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words. (Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision (Canons of Dortrecht).

What kind of righteousness is this? First, they say that God sovereignly does not soften the hearts of the reprobate and does not incline them to believe as He does the elect, and then that the wicked, the impure and the unstable distort the doctrine of election and predestination to their own ruin.

In other words, the reprobate wicked are themselves to blame for God’s sovereign choice not to soften their hearts and to incline them to believe the Gospel because they have rejected God’s sovereign choice not to soften their hearts and incline them to believe the Gospel. Is this what they call righteousness and justice?

They are the ones who distort God’s righteousness and, in effect, take pleasure in gross unrighteousness. Could there be any other deception as dangerous and destructive as this? May God have mercy on their pitiful souls.

The Bible warns:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

 Are you prepared to follow these men and their abominable teaching? 

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4

Please share:

Tom (Discerning the World)

Tom Lessing is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

242
Please leave a Reply

avatar
 
nodhihatnopeunhappygigglelaughupup2overt2clapyayyahoohi5friendstrucewaitthinkpopiknowcheckreadbettersorrysobfaintohnoscratchunsuredazedthank
 
 
 
35 Comment authors
MalcolmAngelaJustin FultonJamesJohn Recent comment authors
Jamie
Guest
Jamie

Hi there,
This is not specifically to do with this post of yours, although it is in agreement with your stand on calvinism.
Your website is very informative and covers much of the same areas as we have had to deal with here in Melbourne, Australia. Some of our local fundamentalist churches (that is, those that believe the Bible to be the truth without any added doctrinal differences) are being attacked by calvinist takeovers. One local Baptist church has been set on by a clone of John MacArthur’s church; the “clone” has an almost identical doctrinal statement to MacArthur’s church. The calvinist church now more or less controls the pastor of the fundamentalist church and many of the members are now so “calvinised” that you can’t get any sensible word in without them having to quote their calvinist heroes of the faith, especially MacArthur. They have also been bombarded with materials from Todd Friel (who says that if you prayed the sinners’ prayer you are not saved and going to hell) and Gary Thomas (who wrote a book called Sacred Marriage that is more like tantric yoga than Christian). My son used to attend but now attends our small home church (in our house) and is seemingly labelled a non-Christian because he doesn’t attend his “proper” church any more. We left our church also (another fundamentalist Baptist church) because of the emphasis upon calvinist doctrine being pushed.
This is what prompted us to research just what it was about calvinism that made it so aggressive and arrogant, and ended up publishing our thoughts on our website. (Our website is not as professional looking as yours, and is probably more haphazard in its layout, but we do try to share our belief that calvinism is a cult that worships a God other than the one of the Bible.) We know we don’t know all the truth and that testing all things must be a priority at all times. We do not hold to any doctrinal stand such as calvinism, arminianism, or any other “ism” and believe that all our doctrine must come from the Bible without any “extra knowledge” such as calvinists add from the teachings of Calvin. For this stand we have been largely isolated from the local Christian community that we used to belong to; it appears that we are seen as backsliders or similar because we do not adhere to any denominational teachings unless taught in the Bible. We are not “off the planet” with our beliefs and are prepared to support what we believe from the Bible using context, consistency and looking at the original language (Hebrew and Greek) to assist with meaning.
We see one of the biggest problems of calvinism is their way of taking an isolated verse and building a complete doctrine upon it, even when it lacks consistency with the rest of the Bible. For instance, they teach that John 3:3 proves that we must be born again (they prefer the term regenerated) before we can believe, yet conveniently ignore all passages that clearly state belief as a prerequisite to salvation. They say that John 3:3 should read, “Except a man be born again, he cannot believe in or have faith in (instead of “see”) the kingdom of God.” sometimes quoting an author named Robert Morey as their “expert”. Also, MacArthur quotes the Granville Sharp rule in his footnotes to Romans 8:29 in his study Bible, claiming that it proves that foreknowledge is foreordained. If you check out the Granville Sharp rule, you’ll find that MacArthur actually appears to be telling lies here. He says that this rule proves that both predetermined counsel and foreknowledge mean the same thing. And yet when we shared this with a Christian friend who has now gone calvinist, he says that MacArthur is a great teacher world-wide and that he must be seeing the rule from the correct point of view. (That assumes that I am not seeing the rule from the correct point of view!) When I asked for an explanation, he could give none and hasn’t communicated with me since.
I know I have gabbled on a bit in this comment but I just wanted to encourage you to continue to stand up for the truth, testing all things. If you check our website (“Sermons and Messages” page, then “Calvinist heretics & heresies”) you’ll be able to form your own opinion on whether I’m genuine or not. If my comment is unacceptable, then please let me know and I will back off; I do not wish to be a nuisance to anyone (except those who teach false doctrines such as calvinism, of course).

Jamie
Guest
Jamie

Hi there,
I think I put the incorrect url for our website before, so I’m sending a quickie with the updated url. http://www.hopperscrossingchristianchurch.com

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Hi Jamie hi

Thank you for your comment, I understand.

Bill Gordon
Guest
Bill Gordon

Discovered this website by accident. Got a couple of comments/Scriptures to share. Eph. 1:3-6 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” God chose and predestined His elect before the foundation of the world. God is God, the creator of the universe and as God is sovereign over everything, including salvation.
2 Cor. 4:4 – Satan is the ‘god’ of this fallen world and has blinded the eyes of unbelievers to the truths of God’s Word.

Jamie
Guest
Jamie

Bill Gordon

I do not question the election of God at all. It’s the method of the election that is disputed, not the election itself! The calvinists have to teach that the election is unconditional, while Biblical scholars teach that the election is conditional upon the sinners’ acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour. And, the predestining of the elect is likewise either unconditional (calvinists’ view) or conditional (Biblical view).

Neither is it questioned that the election is from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8), nor is it questioned that God should predestine us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. Everything the calvinists teach has enough truth in it to look right, but even rat bait is almost 100% pure wholesome food – it’s the very small percentage of poison that kills the rat, not the wholesome food!

The truths stated above are scriptural, no doubt about that, yet the calvinist implication is that the free-will of man would undermine the sovereignty of God. The typical calvinist interpretation is that the above verses somehow “prove” that God’s sovereignty has to deny the free-will of man.

Firstly, this calvinist argument must assume the non-existence of God’s perfect knowledge of the future (that is, foreknowledge), or that God’s foreknowledge is not defined as His perfect knowledge of the future. 1 Peter 1:2a clearly defines foreknowledge as the process by which God chooses His children. (“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”) So, while Calvin states that discussion of God’s foreknowledge is futile because He already knows it all, having foreordained all things, most calvinists today take the MacArthur line that foreknowledge is actually the establishing of a special love relationship between God and His elect. Of course, that would mean that God logically could only have a foreknowledge of His elect, as such a definition of foreknowledge could not be applied to the non-elect. This is ludicrous logic indeed!

The problem that calvinists have is that in order to make such teaching a doctrinal truth, they have to disprove the normal and proper usage of the word “foreknowledge” which is the Greek word prognosis, a medical term used by Hippocrates 400 years before Luke, himself a physician, used it in his writings.

The calvinists also teach that if we make a decision to receive Christ as Saviour, then we are having the last say on the matter, thus removing God’s sovereignty. However, not one person can call upon the name of the Lord, and then demand that God honour His promises to save us to the uttermost. Even when we repent, we have no right to demand that God honour His promises. Of course, we know that God is faithful and will honour His promises, but ultimately the final word is always with sovereign God who has the authority to accept or reject as He wills. If we call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, God then exercises His final say on the matter by accepting us as His children. Because of His foreknowledge (His perfect knowledge of the future), God knows from before the foundation of the world who will accept His offer of salvation, and therefore chooses them. They then become the list of the elect from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8). The only way the calvinist can oppose this is to deny God His proper use of His perfect knowledge of the future, that is, His foreknowledge.

If calvinists desire to quote verses that supposedly support their teachings, then why don’t they put some time into demonstrating the logic as to why they allegedly support such teachings. Note A. W. Tozer’s response to the question of the free-will of man.
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
(Knowledge of the Holy A W Tozer Page 76)

Waldensian
Guest
Waldensian

The fact that this article’s author cannot tell the difference between Amyraldians like Spurgeon who departed from Baptist orthodoxy spanning back over 1000 years prior to Rome’s foundation (I note as a Waldensian we never preached libertarianism), including the ardent predestinarian Wycliff who died around 1384, does not give much confidence in the author’s honesty, exegetical abilities (for the same arguments they make are Rome’s; do lecture me how you have come out of Mystery Babylon when her gospel you believe) or thorough examination of church history. Waldensians with others were BURNED by Rome because we refused her libertarian gospel. Aut insanit homo ist, aut versus facit.

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Dear Waldensian

I am so happy you are Waldensian, we on the other hand are Christian. nod

Must be fantastic having a family tree you can trace back so far. Sounds to me like you are more interested in where you came from than where you are going.

I can see why you got so hot under the collar: WALDENSIAN VIEWS ON CALVINISM

The 1655 confession contains these articles:

25. That that Church is the company of the faithful, who having been elected before the foundation of the world, and called with an holy calling, come to unite themselves to follow the Word of God, believing whatsoever He teaches them, and living in His fear.

By the way, next time try quote biblical scripture to back up your comment of being the author being ‘dishonest’ etc., instead of; (Horace) Aut insanit homo ist, aut versus facit. “The fellow is either mad or he is composing verses.”

We here speakth English. up

Waldensian
Guest
Waldensian

When I typed that reply, I was not hot under the collar. The fact that you, Deborah, have slighted us when we were horribly massacred by Rome that year when we updated our 1120 creed for the second time, does make me radically offended. The Piedmont Valleys literally became pools of blood because we refused to accept Romish sacramental Marian idolatry and libertarian soteriology. You accuse me of dishonesty yet did not address on this article that an Amyraldian differs radically from a Calvinist in their hypothetical universalist atonement view of the atonement, which is that God atoned at the cross for only the elect but all the world, if only they would believe, as well as that you have misrepresented Calvinists (which I am not) by only referring to New Calvinists is the zenith of bias, cognitive dissonance and dishonesty (where was it in the rules regulating the comment section that Latin phrases cannot be quoted); are you willing to admit you have misrepresented Calvinists by pointing to the New Calvinists like MacAurthur who allows pagan ceremonies at his church, Piper who is a millionaire several times over and also has an uncritical fellowship with Rick Warren, Tim Keller who denies creation et al? Do you know that the New Calvinists do not believe in separation from apostasy like classical Calvinists a la Whitefield. Trapp, Henry and others did? Have you even studied that their view of the scriptural law of worship seen in the ninety-ninth Psalm, Habacuc’s third chapter and John 4.24 is predicated on enjoying God rather than doing all to His glory? Even problematic David Hunt acknowledge we not only predated the Protestants but also Rome in tracing back to the Matthew 16.18 promise of Christ, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Behold the beam in your eye before you behold the mote in mine. The Lord bless you for reviling me in such a base, antichristian manner.

You, Deborah, in a truly sophistic fashion used the word “Christian” in a sense to insinuate as if I am not, which is rather proud if not bordering on antichrist. I affirm I Corinthians chapter fifteen, which in the opening four verses reads, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…”, the basic profession of any true disciple. The word only appears in Acts 28.26 and I Peter 4.16, meaning a disciple, or as Strong notes it, “a follower of Christ”. If studying my Bible thirty chapters a day as well as having discipled a now-former heroin addict in addition to being the vessel to leading at least two others to the knowledge of the grace in Christ (who sadly would not follow in discipleship) does not constitute a Christian, kindly inform me what is.

You have maligned me and yourself did not reference a scripture because I honestly believe you do not want to hear anything but your popish soteriology, the same as Augustus Toplady notes in “Arminianism: The Road to Rome” as the Jesuits; he documented a Jesuit’s letter in the archbishop Laud’s effects which admitted they had planted “that sovereign drug Arminianism”. Unless you are willing to admit you believe the same as those hounds of the Counter-Reformation, I strenuously doubt you will care about the scriptures listed below.

Isaiah 26.10 “Let favour be shewed to the wicked, [yet] will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD.”
Ezekiel 16.6 “And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live.”
John 6.60-71 “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?  [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.” 
Acts 14.35-38 “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying,] I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”
Apocalypse 1.4-6 “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
While we do not receive supralapsarianism which is a mooncalf Lutheran idea, the fact that the Apocalypse clearly indicates only the reprobate left in their sins is a most interesting study I referenced in my article “Do Carnal Christians Exist?” that should be on primitivebaptist.net will take the mark; the elect will not having a “white stone”, per 2.17.
Apocalypse 19.20-21 “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”
Genesis also is an interesting text. The sixth chapter opens, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw [that] the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD”. 
Genesis 8.21″And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.”
Here are three final texts in closing for your consideration, Jonah 2.8-10, Psalm 3.8 as well as Jude 24 to 25. With these, as well as a link to Toplady’s piece, I say may you find the truth.

Jonah 2.8-10 “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation [is] of the LORD. And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry [land].”
Psalm 3.8 “Salvation [belongeth] unto the LORD: thy blessing [is] upon thy people. Selah.”
Jude 24-25 “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
III John 11 “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.”

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Dear Waldensian

I’m just going to ignore your pompous ramblings, you came here to look for trouble in a very unchristian like manner and insulted the author Tom Lessing, citing the lack of the “author’s honesty, exegetical abilities” and aligning him with Rome, Mystery Babylon, implying he is in no way like you, a true Waldensian a genuine Christian! Might I quote you; “which is rather proud if not bordering on antichrist.”

When I said you must quote scripture to back up your first nasty comment I didn’t mean you must flip through your bible, twirl a pen in the air and drop on a verse – repeat process 10 times.

Please tell me this, do you believe this statement to be true:

    “That that Church is the company of the faithful, who having been elected before the foundation of the world, and called with an holy calling, come to unite themselves to follow the Word of God, believing whatsoever He teaches them, and living in His fear.”

PS, we do not follow Arminianism, the age old Calvinist lie that if it’s not Calvinism it MUST CERTAINLY be Arminianism. We do not follow Jacobus Arminius or John Wesley or any other, but Jesus Christ alone.

Do you follow the serial murderer John Calvin and his teachings?

You said “If studying my Bible thirty chapters a day as well as having discipled a now-former heroin addict in addition to being the vessel to leading at least two others to the knowledge of the grace in Christ (who sadly would not follow in discipleship) does not constitute a Christian, kindly inform me what is.”

All your hard work. Shoeee, you must be so proud.

    Matthew 7:21-23 “21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

You forget your own doctrine. It was God who has Elected them before the foundation of the world, you just happened to run into a pre-Elected heroine addict.

Arius
Guest
Arius

[DELETED by DTW – note: your video has a lot of truth, but it also has a lot of false teaching regarding the name of Jesus Christ, the Trinity and keeping the Sabbath, hence I am not posting your video.]

Magdeline
Guest
Magdeline

Greetings…to like minded and heart minded Christ followers.
First off I’d like to thank DTW for providing truth and resources to learn truth, ty Tom and Debra. And ty for allowing me to comment. I read through all on the subject of Calvinism.
For many years I could not pin down what exactly was off about Christianity. Now I don’t even call myself a Christian anymore. I am simply a Christ follower and if I’m not abiding in him and the law of Christ p, then I must be something else.
I am not a scholar or anything theologian, I have not a degree. I am just your average jo who seeks the truth. I study at home mostly.
I recently had visitors to my home a few times and I was aware they were Baptist. That was the church I was raised in, of southern fundamentalist persuasion to be exact so it’s not surprising how I was already alerted to the possibility of having a heated debate over doctrine. Well, needless to say, it was about the same as what I’ve read here.
Mind you this man and his wife are guests in my home but that wasn’t holding him back. This man was a former recruiter for my daughters high school ROTC program and this is how I came to have them over. He criticized and critiqued everything he saw in my space books etc. but that’s really not the point, it was his adamant and arrogant mindset that I witnessed first hand with an actual Calvinist that I hadn’t before that left me shaken and awake.
Clearly I was of the non elect in this man’s viewpoint and it is this incident which was the driver for me as I sought out to explore and research more of this reformed theology doctrine.
As I said, in my spirit and for many years, I knew this was some form of false teachings but I was not at all aware of its name and roots and there is where the subtly of this movement is glaringly obvious … not one person I suspect is a Calvinist ever say’s that this is what they are including this man I had over as a guest.
It was I who divulged I was not a Calvinist that caused eyes wide open looking right back at me, shocked that I even knew the term. From here he attempted to convert me for nearly 2 hours.
I was drained and exhausted when they left.
If God intended a child to understand the gospel then why all this theological nonsense? It’s pure heresy in my opinion and the one verse I always hold close to my vest and use if attacked is John 3:16.
I’m sorry, but I just cannot believe a God that would offer up his only begotten son as a sacrificial lamb whose perfect blood was shed for all, and for the whole world, would damn some and save others. It cannot be the God and Christ who loves me and whom I love.
John Calvin was a heretic and serial killer. How sad his doctrine made him this way.
This false gospel is not the gospel of love and redemption !
Thank you again !

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Hi Magdeline hi

Thank you for your comment and Amen to John 3:16.

My latest *shocking* discovery which has led to me receiving an email from a Calvinist who complained I was not telling the truth, is that the Word of Faith doctrine too believe in the doctrine of Election. This is why it’s so easy to fall from Word of Faith/Latter Rain into Calvinism because the base doctrine of ‘being Elect’ (not necessarily as rigid as TULIP) but just “thinking one is Elect” is present in Word of Faith – The one is Charismatic, the other is not, but the belief that one is Elect is present in both.

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Email from: Unknown
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2018 21:47
To: DTW
Subject: Sadly ridiculous

The article comparing Calvinists to Word of faith people is ridiculous.

Calvinism does not skew God’s character. It is biblical and glorifies God in highlighting His awesome sovereignty.

True Calvinism does not deny man’s free will but has a big enough mind to embrace the glorious mystery birthed in the infinite mind of God that He is sovereign and we are free. e.g. Pilate’s actions.

Even though Calvinism is biblical, many reject it simply because they don’t like it. Maybe I should reject the concept of hell because I don’t like!

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Email reply from: Deborah
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2018 12:33
To: Unknown
Subject: RE: Sadly ridiculous

Why don’t you post in public for all to see. Don’t worry I will do it for you seeing that you can’t follow instructions.

Actually Word of Faith doctrine embraces Calvinism. Go do your research.

John
Guest
John

Hi Tom and Deborah: you are absolutely correct on the Word-of-Faith and Calvinism connection. I have recently come to see this myself. I have a friend who is caught up in Word of Faith false teaching. He believes that since his life isn’t going the way he wants, he must not have enough “faith.” The connection became clear in recent comments he made. He has come to the conclusion that since things aren’t going his way, he must be predestined for hell (his words!). He then quoted Romans 9:13 (“Jacob I loved…Esau I hated”) and stated that some are predestined for a terrible life and eternal damnation, and that he must be one of them. These doctrines are straight from the pit of hell itself! Thank you for your work exposing them. Please remember my friend in your prayers that he will be open to the truth, and that God will give me wisdom in speaking with him.

Your friend in Christ,

John

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Dear John hi

Thank you for your comment, you have put a smile on my face today – knowing we have Christian friends out there.

You comment though is very sad. I will pray for your friend.

The doctrine of Election is actually a doctrine that permeates ALL false ‘Christian’ doctrines. The Roman Catholic church is the mother church, THE ELECT, if you do not belong to Mystery Babylon you are a reprobate. All streams of false Christian doctrine run into the MOTHER CHURCH – The Elect.

So Calvinism (St Augustine and John Calvin believed in Election), Word of Faith, Latter Rain (they are Elect as well), SDA (they are the Elect as well) etc, etc, etc.

And Election and Replacement Theology go hand in hand. The Elect have to replace the Jews. SDA believe they are Jews, Hebrew Roots Movement make the Christian go back to the LAW under the disguise of going back to Jewish ways to replace the true Jews of Israel, as they now take their place. Calvinism teaches amillenialism which is Replacement theology. Ah, I can go on and on, but I must eat dinner…it’s getting cold smile

James
Guest
James

Hello may I save this article to my hard drive?

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Hi James hi

You can do that, you can even print it, and you can share it – Please keep Tom Lessing’s name on the article as author plus a url to http://www.discerningtheworld.com.

Justin Fulton
Guest
Justin Fulton

Thank you for this thorough explanation as to the errors. This is, in a lot of ways, very similar to the Islamic ideology of fatalism. There are things that this article doesn’t examine which are more basic (why is the devil then evil? and Is God then responsible for evil?). Logic that the Reformed seem to want to ignore. I keep asking myself what about this filth appeals to people that they’re willing to cling so desperately to it? My only answer could be is their egos and their career positions. What is the one thing Calvinists have in common outside of TULIP and harsh criticisms of other denominations? A book they’d like to sell you. Who else did that? Oh yeah, Mormons… Stay warned, stay informed. Always consider the other side of the coin and carefully examine everything you hold to willing to change and listen based up evidence presented. Thanks again for your work here.

Deborah (Discerning the World)
Admin

Dear Justin

I had another encounter with a Calvinist this week, what a disaster and very sad I must say. The crux of the matter is this, with their doctrine they get to play god. They can decided who is saved and who isn’t. If you don’t believe in the Calvinist version of Election then you are not Elect and God has not chosen you. They say that because His grace is irresistible to all those God Elected before the foundations of time, if you are approached by a Calvinist and reject their doctrine of TULIP, it’s a clear sign for them from heaven that you are a reprobate doomed for hell.

And whatever you do, don’t tell a Calvinist you are sorry about anything, they don’t believe you, and will even tell you to your face that they don’t believe you repented, because according to their doctrine you can’t believe or repent unless God has Monergistically regenerated you and given you the gift of faith to believe – in TULIP.

Calvinism is the worst form of pride I have ever come across in my life.

Tom did a short article here on is God then responsible for evil? https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/10/18/gods-will-according-calvinism/

You too will notice there are no comments.

James
Guest
James

May I save this article to my hard drive?

James
Guest
James

Thank you!

Angela
Guest
Angela

Do any of you think that a pastor who has been deceived by Calvinism and says they are no longer under that deception should recover from it while still in the pulpit?

Angela
Guest
Angela

Well, it’s the calling it heresy part that seems to be a stumbling block. There actually seems to be quite a bit of “riding the fence”. Like, statements about “there’s a lot they get right” and keeping the books written by MacArthur, Piper, Dever, Chandler, etc.