The Calvinist Shredder – Jeremiah 1:5

Tom (Discerning the World)

Discerning the World is an internet Discernment ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa that was founded in 2008. Tom Lessing originally founded the website "Waak en Bid/Watch and Pray". Tom Lessing joined Discerning the World in May 2013 and all his articles were moved across to DTW.

8 Responses

  1. Johan says:

    Dear Tom,
    I give you a copy of some explanation on infant baptism by Peter Ditzel……truly confusing, if he continues in the Calvinistic way, regarding’election’….
    Please comment on this to bring clarity… See below from his ‘blog’

    Acts 2:39

    A Scripture often cited to support baptizing infants is Acts 2:39. I concentrate fully on this verse in “Acts 2:39 and Infant Baptism,” but let’s take a quick look here. This followed Peter’s evangelistic sermon after God gave the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself” (Acts 2:38-39). By telling the people to be baptized and saying that “the promise is to you, and to your children,” this may certainly sound like it is supporting infant baptism. In reality, it is evidence against it.

    I believe that Peter in Acts 2:39 has God’s promise to Abraham, his seed, and the nations—spoken as “those who are far off”—in mind. This is further supported by the fact that the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham was circumcision, which, remember, was a type of regeneration. What had just happened to these people in Acts 2:39? Verse 37 tells us that after listening to Peter’s sermon, “they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?'” Cut to the heart? What does that remind you of? Yes. While they were listening to Peter’s sermon, the Lord had circumcised them in their heart. They were born again. And Peter’s response, in verses 38 and 39, is that they should be baptized because the promise is to them, and to their “children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.”

    The Abrahamic covenant, with its promise and circumcision, looked to this event as the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise. By saying “the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself,” was Peter saying anything special to the people who heard him? Was he saying there was something in the promise that made them special above everyone else? What about their children? Was Peter saying that the children of these people were in a different relationship to God than anyone else? No! Why? Because, besides them and their children, “the promise is to…all who are far off….” The promise is to everyone! No one is excluded from that promise! Except, Peter tagged a big and very important qualification to the very end. The promise is to everyone, “even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” The promise is to you, whom the Lord our God will call, the promise is to those of your children whom the Lord our God will call, and to everyone else, whom the Lord our God will call. In other words, the promise is to all of the elect!

    The promise of the new birth is only to the elect of the three groups of people mentioned. Peter told those who asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” to be baptized because that question, coming after hearing his sermon about the death and resurrection of Jesus, was evidence of their spiritual circumcision, their regeneration, that God had given them faith to trust in Jesus. Thus, it was evidence that they were elect. This verse says nothing about the children of the hearers having any more of a chance of being elect than anyone else. Peter did not tell his hearers that their children should be baptized before professing belief. In fact, Peter no more says that these people’s children should be baptized before professing belief than he says everyone in the world should be baptized before professing belief. All three groups are treated equally. When they show through their profession that the promise is indeed to them, because they are among those whom God is calling, then they are to be baptized as a symbol of the regeneration they have already received.’

    His website link: http://www.wordofhisgrace.org

    Thank you kindly
    Johan

  2. Dear Johan,

    Peter Ditzel asserts:

    The promise of the new birth is only to the elect of the three groups of people mentioned. Peter told those who asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” to be baptized because that question, coming after hearing his sermon about the death and resurrection of Jesus, was evidence of their spiritual circumcision, their regeneration, that God had given them faith to trust in Jesus. Thus, it was evidence that they were elect.

    It is rather silly to assert that the question “What shall we do” after hearing the Gospel is the evidence that a person has already been regenerated and is, therefore, an elect. It proves why Calvinists rule out faith as a necessity to be saved and say that faith is a gift only the elect receive subsequent to their monegistic regeneration.

    Peter could not have referred to water baptism when he said “repent and be baptized” because he believed that faith alone saves repentant sinners and not a rite such as water baptism. He knew perfectly well that John the Baptist’s baptism was merely a precursor (for the Jews in particular) of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11). So what did Peter mean when he said “Repent and be baptized?”

    The word for “repent” is “metanoia” and means “to change your mind for the better.” The Jews initially rejected Jesus as their Messiah but now – after his death and resurrection which proved that He is indeed their Messiah – they were exhorted to change their mind and to put their trust in Him. However, repentance is just the prerequisite (not salvation itself) which is needed to be baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ Jesus. This is what John the Baptist referred to when he said “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” So, Peter said in effect, “Repent of your sin of unbelief and rejection of your Messiah, Jesus Christ” and let His Holy Spirit baptize you into Him.” Paul refers to this baptism in Romans 6 when he says: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4).

    Calvinists are scared to death of the phrase “What must we do” because it supposedly disparages God’s sovereignty. And that’s exactly why they have to re-interpret the question “What must we do” as the evidence of an already received regeneration – without having to put your trust in Jesus. Surely the question was asked to find out what they had to do in order to be saved and not to prove that they had already been saved. That’s ludicrous, to say the least.

    Calvinism is another Gospel that cannot save.

  3. Johan says:

    Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Dear Johan,

    Peter Ditzel asserts:

    The promise of the new birth is only to the elect of the three groups of people mentioned. Peter told those who asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” to be baptized because that question, coming after hearing his sermon about the death and resurrection of Jesus, was evidence of their spiritual circumcision, their regeneration, that God had given them faith to trust in Jesus. Thus, it was evidence that they were elect.

    It is rather silly to assert that the question “What shall we do” after hearing the Gospel is the evidence that a person has already been regenerated and is, therefore, an elect. It proves why Calvinists rule out faith as a necessity to be saved and say that faith is a gift only the elect receive subsequent to their monegistic regeneration.

    Peter could not have referred to water baptism when he said “repent and be baptized” because he believed that faith alone saves repentant sinners and not a rite such as water baptism. He knew perfectly well that John the Baptist’s baptism was merely a precursor (for the Jews in particular) of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11). So what did Peter mean when he said “Repent and be baptized?”

    The word for “repent” is “metanoia” and means “to change your mind for the better.” The Jews initially rejected Jesus as their Messiah but now – after his death and resurrection which proved that He is indeed their Messiah – they were exhorted to change their mind and to put their trust in Him. However, repentance is just the prerequisite (not salvation itself) which is needed to be baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ Jesus. This is what John the Baptist referred to when he said “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” So, Peter said in effect, “Repent of your sin of unbelief and rejection of your Messiah, Jesus Christ” and let His Holy Spirit baptize you into Him.” Paul refers to this baptism in Romans 6 when he says: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4).

    Calvinists are scared to death of the phrase “What must we do” because it supposedly disparages God’s sovereignty. And that’s exactly why they have to re-interpret the question “What must we do” as the evidence of an already received regeneration – without having to put your trust in Jesus. Surely the question was asked to find out what they had to do in order to be saved and not to prove that they had already been saved. That’s ludicrous, to say the least.

    Calvinism is another Gospel that cannot save.

  4. towner says:

    Those who are discussing about Calvinism, “predestination” or “God’s elect” might want to visit :

    http://www.prayerfaithGodswill.com

    It explains the meaning of “predestination” simply and accurately, according to context.

    “God’s elect” is not a literal term; it does not mean God decides who shall go to heaven. Instead, words like “chosen by God” is a humble way of writing during biblical times. Back then Christians don’t say that they chose God because that would seem to place them above God. Out of humility, the apostles said that God chose them. Today, we don’t speak or write this way anymore, hence we tend to read them literally and feel puzzled.

  5. Chris head says:

    So calvinism is to be lumped into the same lump of leaven that the prosperity gospel is in? Tha is what I am reading.
    So what of John Piper and others like himself. Charles spurgeon. Why give them anymore credit than Benny Hinn?

  6. Brady says:

    @Towner. Can you you provide evidence for this assertion?

    Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
    Romans 8:8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. (If you are in the flesh and do not have a new heart/new spirit how can you do what is pleasing to God? For instance, choosing Him?)

    So unless God does something (IE Gives you a new heart) you simply can’t choose God.

    John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

    There are a ton more verses but see the consistency here?

    Please deal with these texts. Because if you say you are born with the choice to choose God and He doesn’t have to draw you near/ change your heart first, then we have a huge contradiction. When God does change your heart it results in you coming to Jesus and you will not turn away.

    John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

    So John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Dr. James R. White are all very consistent with the text.

  7. Dear Brady

    There is no consistency. Please read all our articles on Calvinsim that explain all the choice verses Calvinists love to use and abuse to substantiate their false doctrine of election which trashes the doctrine of salvation.

    You said “When God does change your heart it results in you coming to Jesus and you will not turn away.”

    You put the cart before the horse. When you make a decision to chose Jesus Christ, God then changes your heart and you will not turn away.

      Hebrews 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

    He does not save you first, then you chose Him. This is the most ludicrous, stupid notion on the planet – it ties up perfectly with the doctrine of Islam. Allah too chooses you before the foundation of the world to be saved. Just as with Islam the so it is with Calvinism; you will never know if you are really ‘Elect’ until you get to the judgement seat and find out if you have a big invisible ‘E’ for ELECT stamped on your forehead or a big invisible ‘F’ for FAIL because actually you were not chosen after all, but by deary me, you thought you were because “John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Dr. James R. White are all very consistent with the text” on proving the doctrine of TULIP

    Many false doctrines have been written by men in suits with squeaky clean smiles, leading millions of people astray.

  8. Indeed, and of course, sinners need to be given a new heart (a new or redeemed life) in order to be saved. However, it has always been and will always be impossible to please God without faith. Without faith in God’s revealed will in his Word and in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, it is impossible to be saved. (Hebrews 11:6; Romans 10:17). None of the verses you quoted prove that only the elect must first be regenerated (given) a new heart before they can choose God and that He sovereignly chose not to give the non-elect new hearts because it pleases Him to send them to hell. (Ezekiel 33:11).

    John 6:44 is one of the Calvinists most prized and favorite passages because it allegedly puts to rest all the arguments against election and predestination. Nevertheless, I have never heard a single Calvinist quoting John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto.” Now, unless you interpret “all” as a reference only to the elect, you cannot possibly exclude a single person from God’s drawing in John 12:32. Are you prepared to do that? If so, you must be prepared to bear the consequences (judgments) God for your willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his Word. Moreover, Peter said without any ambiguity that “whosoever calls on the Name of the Lord, shall be saved.” (Acts 2:21). Once again, if you are prepared to change the meaning of the word “whosoever” to “the elect” you must be prepared to bear the brunt of God’s righteous judgments.

    John 6:37 does not mean that God sovereignly chooses whomsoever He wills and then gives them to his Son. He only gives those who believe in Him in the same way a father gives his daughter as the bride to her newlywed husband (the bridegroom). Read the two preceding verses to get the full picture.