We have examined and answered so far:
- Not everyone who is not Calvinist is Armenian
- There is a difference between Baptist and Armenian
- The TULIP theology actually contradicts Scripture
- Total Depravity actually teaches Total Inability
- Total Inability is the key teaching of Calvinism – if Total Inability is removed, the entire Calvinism doctrine falls apart immediately.
- Calvinism really is Augustinianism
- There’s not a whole lot of difference between Calvinism and some Roman Catholic doctrines
- The historic understanding of Salvation as expressed by the Early Church “Fathers” does not match Calvinism’s undertsanding
- A person reading the Bible literally through for years without having been taught Calvinism would not arrive at an understanding of TULIP theology, thus raising grave doubts as to any claims of it being “Biblical”.
- Total Inability is based upon Biblical half truths.
- There are few Calvinist proof texts, and they are cited against the majority of Bible verses that prove otherwise, or consist of verses taken out of context and forced to appear as if they support Calvinism
- The Bible clearly teaches “whosoever will…” many times.
- The Calvinist ignores Biblical texts in favor of his dogma, thus Calvinism actually champions tradition and logic above the Bible
- The supposed logical arguments of the Calvinist are flawed right from the beginning
- The Calvinist accepts the verses that state “Whosoever will not” as supporting damnation for anyone who rejects Christ, but refuses to accept the verses that state “Whosoever will” as supporting salvation for anyone who accepts Christ
- Calvinism does not give you any assurance you’re one of the elect
- Calvinism cannot be learned purely from reading the Bible – it has to be taught.
- Most who believe in Calvinism misunderstood what predestination was, and grasped onto Calvinism once they heard it.
- The Bible describes the Gospel as simple, but Calvinism is extremely complicated – and therefore cannot be the Gospel
- Unconditional Election cannot be found in the Bible
- The Bible uses conditional language to describe the decision to be saved, which refutes Unconditional Election
- The Bible also continually uses “Whoever…” “whosoever…” and “if any…” when discussing whether someone gets saved or not.
- The “Church” does not replace Israel
- God is not “Through with the Jew”
- Calvinism dates back to the 15th Century, and borrows heavily from Roman Catholic Doctrine created by Augustine
- Calvinists teach “Christ died only for the elect.”
- The Bible teaches that the “Elect” is Israel.
- If Calvinism is correct, then only the Jews are saved
- We are predestined according to FOREKNOWLEDGE. God knew in advance who would accept Salvation, and the office of Salvation was appointed to all who would turn and trust in Jesus Christ.
- Christ died for ALL, as the Scriptures repeatedly instruct.
- Salvation depends on whom accepts the Gospel and calls upon Jesus Christ, not on who is predestined.
After haunting a bunch of Calvinist websites for research, I encountered something very disturbing.
I don’t label Calvinists as heretics – it’s a little rude to call fellow Christians heretics. I do call their erroneous doctrine as Apostasy. Apostasy, as I’ve said elsewhere on the blog, is a combination of apo, against, and histemi, to stand. Together, it means ” to stand away from”, or more literally, to walk away from the path.
However, a lot of Calvinists like to list a dictionary of heresies. One of them is Pelagianism. Several also list Semi-Pelagianism. Now, I’m going from Matt Slick’s CARM website, but I think from his poorly worded definition, he’s labeling anyone who believes you must repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour as a Semi-Pelagianist heretic.
It’s not like Matt Slick to word anything poorly, so that you can’t understand what he’s getting at. I think Slick was reluctant to put his privately held beliefs on the CARM website. If it weren’t for Slick’s Calvinism, I would greatly enjoy and recommend his work. Notice I put his video up to Jehovah’s Witnesses!
I’ll come out and say it – there is a prideful and arrogant spirit among many Calvinists. I don’t see it in Slick, and he seems to be a very humble Christian. Good job, Matt! I could most certainly learn from him in that respects. I’m most definitely not as humble as I should be. I invite Mr. Slick to make himself more clear on this – and I’d be more than happy to publish his response and a retraction if I’m wrong!
But I’ve written elsewhere about one of John Macarthur’s associate pastor’s boorish website, where he too labels anyone who believes anyone who believes in the Biblical Gospel as a Semi-Pelagianist.
Here’s my point really, that I’ve been prevaricating against giving. Some Calvinists (I’m not going to say many) have a “If you’re not Calvinist, you’re not a Christian” belief. I understand it. It makes sense, from their misguided point of view. If Calvinism is Biblical doctrine, and it concerns Soteriology mainly (the doctrine of salvation), then if you’re not a Calvinist, you’re probably not one of the elect. And you’re not saved.
It makes sense, but it’s elitist, proud, and wrong. At the beginning of Dave Hunt’s “What Love is This?” video, he gives a series of quotes in which makes the claim that Calvinism is both Biblical Christianity and the Gospel as preached by the Lord Jesus Christ.
So, if you’re preaching anything other than 5 point Calvinism, you’re not preaching the Gospel according to those authors, and you’re not a Christian. These are not official doctrinal stands or positions, but I can most definitely quote some Calvinists on this.
There’s a web page I printed as a PDF, in which a man gives a complete breakdown along with analysis of a Facebook conversation where one person made statements like this over and over again, because Dave Hunt DARED to disagree with James White. Disagree!!! Just because Dave Hunt dared to disagree with White, the person damned Hunt to Hell, called him a heretic and an apostate. I may yet post this page, depending on how much flak this series generates.
So, here’s what it boils down to – there’s an awful lot of aggression and sometimes hostility that some Calvinists have towards anyone who believes in the Gospel, as described in the Bible.
This is hostility towards people who read the plain sense reading of the Bible, and could not ind Calvinism in it. I guess this is why Calvin himself dragged hundreds of Christians (many of them Baptists) to prison, tortured them, and many times had them killed. This, by the way, is not the fruits of a Christian. Christians are the persecuted, not the persectors.
So, let me see if I can restate the position of these people, and again I invite them to make themselves clear. I’ve already given a LOT of verses that read IN CONTEXT oppose Calvinism. So, you’re saying anyone who believes these things is an apostate and a heretic – for believing the Bible?
I understand there are a great number of denominations of Christians that have erroneous beliefs, all from reading the Bible. However, this comes from not reading EVERYTHING the Bible has to say on those doctrines. When you compare scripture versus Scripture, and read the Bible with the understanding of “Take it literally unless the text tells you otherwise”, you come up with the inescapable conclusion that the Bible means what it says. And John 3:16 literally means, “the world” and not “The elect”.
So you’re calling anyone who believes the Bible and not some man made system a heretic and an apostate? What does that say about Calvinism?
It says a lot that the system is named after a man. Think about that.
Here’s what it boils down to: If the Baptist position is correct, and I’m saying it is, then when you oppose it, you’re opposing the Bible and therefore God. Think about that a little.
Remember, I was not born a Baptist – I became a Christian, I started listening to John Macarthur, and was on the way to becoming a Calvinist when I hit the uncomfortable position that – the Bible just does not support that understanding. That settled it for me. I abandoned it before fully embracing it. If I can’t find it clearly stated in the Bible, then it’s not Biblical and I reject it.
That’s the point. Calvinism cannot be found CLEARLY STATED from a plain sense, “It says what it means” reading of the Bible, when the entire passage is read in context.
Calvin chose certain doctrines from Augustine, and assembled it into a codified, systemized theology. Augustine based his readings of the Bible on the writings of Origen, who advocated an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Augustine also advocated an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. So too did Calvin.
If on the other hand, you read the Bible and take it literally – you end up realizing – “Well, there’s a couple of passages that kind of support Calvinism, but MOST of the verses on Salvation directly refute it. So I gotta reject it.”
That’s my position. And if you call me a Semi-Pelagianist heretic, then you have to call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, Peter and Paul the very same tihng!
And since they’re quoting the Lord Jesus Christ… I’d be very cautious about doing that.