Author Archives: Dan C.

How to Argue Against the Wicked Heresy of Calvinism

Posted by Dan C. on

Here are 7 principles for arguing against the heresy of Calvinism courtesy of Randy Siever. You can view Randy’s video here, in which he explains these essential principles.

1. Make sure you have misrepresented his (the Calvinist’s) position so badly that even he wouldn’t recognize it as what he actually believes.

2. Have a handful of proof texts you can use against their arguments.

3. Never ‘exegete’ passages of scripture in order to draw out what the human writer and Holy Spirit actually wrote.

4. You always want to share a part of the truth as if it is the whole truth and pretend that Calvinists don’t believe the part of the truth you stated.

5. Find areas where most Calvinists would disagree with Calvin and insist that they must believe everything Calvin had to say if they are really Calvinists.

6. Never quote a Calvinist in the context in which his comments actually occurred.

7. When all else fails, resort to name calling.

I encourage you to watch Randy’s video, available here.

Useful Links for Open Minds

Posted by Dan C. on

The following links represent the history of John Calvin & Calvinism. They are being posted due to my having received some comments lately from a few folks who really hate all things Calvin, mostly due to never having been exposed to honest and objective scholarship relating to reformed theology. I have published a couple of those comments but left others in moderation due to their vitriol and complete lack of intelligent thought (John Calvin was NOT the tyrant of Geneva, nor did he murder Michael Servetus).

I pray for the authors of those comments, that their minds and hearts would be open to actually considering John Calvin, his times & history, and the actual origins of reformed thought and theology.

Some or all of them might also be useful for those with open minds. Share them as much as you would like.

As a final note, know that I personally believe concerning the doctrines of sovereign grace was formed well before I engaged in serious study of Calvinism. In fact, it was reading the text of scripture that persuaded me that fallen men cannot and will not make a move toward Christ and the Cross unless God firstly divinely intervene in a person’s life and heart.

Enjoy!

Articles:

Why I Became a Calvinist

Cake or Death: How I became a Calvinist

Calvinism and Arminianism

False Views on John Calvin

John Calvin The man behind the name – Calvin College

John Calvin Leads Geneva Reform

John Calvin

John Calvin’s Geneva

The Geneva of John Calvin

The Origins of Calvinism

Theologian for the Ages: John Calvin

Was Geneva A Theocracy?

Who Was John Calvin and Why Was He Important?

 

Seminary level Audio Course Lessons are here. (I’ve listened to them all.)

YouTube course on Luther and Calvin is here. (I have not seen yet There are 35 videos.)

The Power of Idolatry

Posted by Dan C. on

I have long been puzzled by the demonstrated vitriol of many who rave and rant against John Calvin and Calvinism. These folks don’t just disagree with what is probably better defined as sovereign grace doctrine, they absolutely HATE it, blaming everything the hate about it at the fate of John Calvin, as if he invented the idea of sovereign grace and personally originated the much despised TULIP acronym, an idea proven completely false by any honest historian. I won’t get into the ‘poisonous flower’ (according to non-Calvinists) here; that’s a story unto itself. It’s the abject hatred to which I refer.

By now, I’ve managed to gather a rather large amount of the above mentioned vitriol, but I won’t get into the sordid details. Like I intimated, my question is “WHY such hatred?” In all of the documents I have assembled thus far, I haven’t found what I think might be the core issue, although I probably just haven’t found what is undoubtedly out there – somewhere.

You see, I’ve come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that the reason for all the hatred and vitriol against Calvinism is what I call the ‘assumption of libertarian free will’ that has become so ingrained in so much of today’s Protestant evangelicalism, that considering the opposite (the fallen human will cannot, nor will not ever choose Christ).

For the sake of argument, assume for a moment that my conclusion is correct. Now we must face the question of “WHY won’t so many even consider the possibility that the human will of fallen man might be incapable of choosing Christ?” After all, scripture seems very clear about such things. Take Romans 3:9-11, Romans 8:5-8, or 1 Corinthians 2:14 just for starters. If you want to go deeper into it just do an internet search on ‘the nature of fallen man’. I cannot fathom why anyone could read any of those passages and not wonder if the belief in complete natural free will is really true!

Back to my WHY question. “WHY won’t so many even consider the possibility that the human will of fallen man might be incapable of choosing Christ?” The simple answer is that they just don’t want to. But again, “WHY not?” Here’s where I make some people really mad. I think it’s a simple case of ‘idolatry’. You see, we hate it when that which we ‘worship’ is attacked or shown to be wrong or false. False idols don’t go down easy. We humans are a stubborn lot. And when one does come crashing down, we tend to find another, at least until God opens our eyes to our idolatry.

The ‘free will’ idol might just be the toughest and most firmly entrenched false God of American Christendom. To consider something is to examine every side and use the information obtained from reputable sources and only then come to conclusions. It’s a call to rational thinking, nothing more. My prayers are also to that end. I used to be ‘Ed’ a long time ago, but at some point I began serious study of the Bible and the history of John Calvin and Calvinism.

But like I said, false idols go down hard!

Before the Throne of God Above

Posted by Dan C. on

gracewriterrandy's avatarTruth Unchanging

Before the throne of God above I have a strong, a perfect plea;
A great High Priest, whose name is Love, who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on his hands, my name is written on his heart;
I know that while in heaven he stands no tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair and tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look, and see him there who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died, my sinful soul is counted free;
For God the Just is satisfied to look on him and pardon me,
Behold him there! the risen Lamb, my perfect, spotless righteousness;
The great unchangeable “I AM,” the King of glory and of grace!
One with himself, I cannot die, my soul is purchased by his blood;
My life is hid with Christ…

View original post 11 more words

The Importance of Biblical Language in Evangelism

Posted by Dan C. on

This one’s for my friend Ed, who seems to have missed the point of the earlier post about ‘accepting’ Jesus. When presented with a gift, the recipient will either accept it or reject. The point made by the source of the Gotquestions.com article seems to be that using the language of ‘accepting’ Jesus is the best way to “communicate the truth more effectively to someone with limited biblical understanding”. I disagree. The message of the gospel has to do with the problem of sin and the need to ‘repent and believe the gospel’ that Jesus died for our sins. As the original article stated, the language of ‘accepting Jesus’ is not found in scripture.

We need not worry about the ‘biblical understanding’ level or those to whom we present the gospel. Before anyone can understand the message of the gospel, God must open the heart to hear and respond, just as he did with Lydia in Acts, Chapter 16. When God opens a human heart to hear the gospel, salvation follows. On the other hand, a person can have tremendous biblical knowledge, and know the contents of the Bible from end to end, but completely misunderstand the gospel message, if God has not opened his heart to hear!

I remember hearing once a conversation about salvation between two ladies that was about ‘knowing’ you are actually saved. One of the ladies wanted to be sure she knew she was saved. What followed was extremely that went something like this:

Lady #1: “How can I know I am saved?”

Lady #2: “You accepted Jesus into your heart, didn’t you?

Lady #1: “Yes.”

Lady #2: “Well then, you’re saved.”

Lady #1: “Wow, I didn’t know it was that easy to save yourself!”

I’ll never forgot that lady’s exclamation. ‘Accepting Jesus’ language had her believing she had literally ‘saved herself’ by ‘accepting Jesus’, which is a logical, but dangerous conclusion and one that insults God. When there is a chain of events and the final act in the change (accepting Jesus) causes the ultimate result, it’s natural to make the conclusion even though earlier acts in the chain of events (Christ’s death for sin) were necessary for the end result.

So that’s how I see it. There is absolutely no way that using non-biblical language when presenting Christ. Whether it’s ‘accept Jesus’, ‘give your life to Jesus’, or any variation thereof, we need not fear using the Bible’s language for the Bible’s topic of salvation.

Why is “accepting Christ” mentioned in evangelism when it is not in the Bible?

Posted by Dan C. on

From Gotquestions.com

Question: “Why is ‘accepting Christ’ mentioned in evangelism when it is not in the Bible?”

Answer: Ever since the New Testament era, Christians have found the need to coin new terms to simplify or explain various doctrines. We reference the Trinity and the protoevangelium, although neither term occurs in the Bible. While “accepting Christ” is not a phrase found in the Bible, it does have a biblical basis, just as Trinity does.

Jesus and His followers often called salvation and the subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit a “gift.” For instance, Jesus told the woman at the well, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (John 4:10). Paul said, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

 
By definition, a gift is not forced—but it must be accepted. A gift can be refused. John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful” (John 3:32-33). The word accept here is a translation of the same Greek word translated “take” in Revelation 22:17: “Whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” “Take,” “accept,” “receive”—this is what we are to do with the free gift of God. Salvation is offered, but we must accept the offer in order to receive the gift. Since we do this by exercising faith in Christ, the phrase “accept Christ” is simply shorthand for saying “place faith in Christ and receive His salvation.”

The goal of using terms like “accept Christ” is to communicate the truth more effectively to someone with limited biblical understanding. As long as a term is theologically correct and aids understanding, it need not be part of the biblical vocabulary. If, during evangelism, a certain term causes misunderstanding, then it’s good to jettison the confusing term and patiently explain the truth from Scripture. While the phrase “accept Christ” does not appear in the Bible, the concept of receiving a gift does, and the phrase seems to works well in most evangelistic contexts.

Recommended Resource: How To Book on Personal Evangelism by Larry Moyer

I’m afraid I must disagree with the last paragraph. How is ‘more effective’ to communicate Biblical truth by not using the Biblical terms? The Bible commands us to ‘repent and believe’, not merely ‘accept a gift’. In fact, it’s much easier to explain ‘repent and believe’ than supernatural ‘gift giving’, although it is correct to speak of salvation as a gift. In my opinion, the ‘accepting the gift’ approach outlined above fails to describe the true nature of the seriousness of sin! It places the sin issue on the back burner when it is the MAIN issue that needs to be addressed. As such, I think it does a great disservice to those we would want to lead to Christ in that it diminishes the very ‘gift’ of salvation! There is nothing wrong with speaking of salvation as a gift, however we must ‘keep the main thing, the MAIN THING’.

Any thoughts?

Who is God’s Candidate?

Posted by Dan C. on

There are two sermons by Dr. John MacArthur that probably should be mandatory listening for all of us. There are two parts:

Part 1: https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-489/who-is-gods-candidate-part-1

Part 2: https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-490/who-is-gods-candidate-part-2

They might not be what you expect :).

On a personal level, I’m frankly tired and disgusted by so many things I see and read  and hear concerning the current election cycle. God doesn’t have a ‘political party’. God is for God and his own divine purposes. It might be that either candidate, when elected, represent God’s judgment against our sinful nation. Think about it.

Beware of False Fire

Posted by Dan C. on

The ‘Toronto Blessing’ (now called ‘Catch the Fire Toronto’) began in January 1994 and its fallout has been continuously poisoning the church for a dozen years now, even having invaded once solid evangelical organizations. The Toronto Blessing had roots in the earlier Latter Rain movement and was denounced by the Assemblies of God in 1949. Nevertheless, it still gets very favorable press in Charismatic circles and publications, most notably Charisma Magazine.

At the same time, those with sound biblical discernment skills can easily see it for what it is – heretical poison. Recently, Chris Rosebrough devoted a Pirate Christian Radio segment to the movement, using a teaching by Alan Morrison from 1994. You can listen to it here, or you can watch the YouTube here. The presentation discusses the roots of the movement, it’s main personalities, and its purposes.

This post summaries  the purposes of Toronto Blessing, both Satan’s and God’s, as presented in Alan Morrison’s presentation:

Satan’s Purposes:

1. Destroy the authority of scripture.

· Making it subordinate to personal revelation(s).

· Making it subordinate to human personal/subjective experience(s).

· Twisting it (scripture) to justify unbiblical ideas. (Psalm 23-he makes me lie down) Decide what you want to believe and find a ‘proof’ text.

2. Stop Christians using their minds. Like the New Age movement.

  • Through the suppression of  discernment
  • By eradicating the centrality of doctrine in the Christian life. (Relationship with Jesus is more important than doctrine.)

3. Destroy the work of Biblical evangelism.

  • By stopping the mouths of preachers of God’s word.
  • By removing the heart from out of the gospel (Christ died for our sins).

4. Intimidate Christians into surrendering to Satan.

  • Death to those who resist the ‘new’ move of the Spirit. (Benny Hinn, William Branham, Paul Crouch)

5. Seduce Christians into believing there is some ‘higher’ form of salvation that they should seek. Faith is not enough – there’s MORE!.

6. Make believers confuse pietism (experience of divine presence, etc.) with true spirituality.

7. To bring an occult initiation into the heart of the church. Initiation into all the forces of the New Age.

8. Prepare Christians for the coming great deception (Benjamin Crème and The New Age)

God’s Purposes:

1. Drive his true people to run to him alone for comfort and salvation – to become serious students of the Word.

2. Sift the churches – separating the true church from false churches, denominations and movements.

I highly recommend watching the YouTube, which is rather long, to get a real appreciation for the seriousness of the poison that has invaded the church. Chris Rosebrough’s audio doesn’t really do the presentation justice.

I also pray that current Charismatics would either listen to or watch the presentation. It very well could be a giant wake up call for those deceived into thinking Toronto was a genuine move of the Holy Spirit when it was not.

Together 2016

Posted by Dan C. on

Well, the 16 July  ‘celebration’ at the DC mall is over. I went looking for articles and only found their Facebook page where there were 200 or so comments which were saying how,good it was. I posted a comment asking if anyone actually mentioned Christ crucified for our sins or ifmit was just a ‘feel good’ event. I asked if the Pope showed up and if anyone knew that the RCC preached a false gospel that adds works to faith alone for salvation and that Paul taught us to ‘cast out the bond woman. We’ll see what happens.