The Sovereignty of God: Part IV

Due to varying perceptions of the Calvinistic mis-defining of “sovereignty,” several theological systems developed. First is Covenant theology–which teaches that God has determined in an unchanging way, unalterable way in continuity through both the Old and New Testaments; the Mosaic laws still apply, ie. the Sabbath; the Church is spiritual Israel and all promises to Old Testament Israel are being /will be fulfilled through the New Testament Church. In direct contrast to Covenant theology, Dispensational theology teaches God has determined to keep His promise to a particular racial and national people–the Jews. Of the two, Dispensationalism is certainly the one favored by Scripture. While some hyper-dispensationalists have taken the theology too far, “Dispensationalism” is mostly in line with the plain, literal teaching of Scripture. 1. Covenant theology on the other hand takes the sovereignty definition of Calvin and applies it to the Scriptures in ways which make the theology synthetic. The Jews are cast aside and replaced by the Church–something never taught in Scripture and definitely a cause of antisemitism in Reformed circles. 2.

The chief problem with the disproportionate attention given to the Calvinistic definition of God’s sovereignty is the theological concepts imposed upon Scripture. We would all do well to let the Bible speak for itself and not to snap the Scriptures to a man-made grid. Because of the Reformed emphasis on Calvinistic sovereignty, the concept has become one of idolatry. Examine this quote by A. W. Pink.

“The doctrine of God’s sovereignty …is the centre of gravity in the system of Christian truth – the sun around which all lesser orbs are grouped. It is the golden milestone to which every highway of knowledge leads and from which they all radiate. It is the cord upon which all other doctrines are strung like so many pearls, holding them in place and giving them unity. It is the plumbline by which every creed needs to be measured, the balance in which every human dogma must be weighed. It is designed as the sheet-anchor for our souls amid the storms of life. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces gratitude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords comfort for the present and a sense of security respecting the unknown future. It is, and it does all, and much more than we have just said….”

Any Spirit-filled believer should be able to see the uncalled for attention and value placed on this man-made definition of sovereignty. Reformed theologians have given a Bible doctrine a man-made definition and elevated that ill-defined point of doctrine above all others.

This uncalled for elevation has brought about several erroneous philosophies. Here are just a few:

Determinism - God has predetermined all things to be from eternity past, including the eternal destiny of souls to either Heaven or Hell.

religionism, authoritarianism, absolutism, perfectionism, universalism, covenant theology, legalism,

Fatalism – what will happen is predestined and nothing can change it. (The logical conclusion of Calvinism.)

and finally, Sacramentalism - the sacraments of baptism and communion can incur grace and are mystic experiences of a higher spiritual nature. 3.

So at the end of all this discussion on the right and wrong definitions of God’s sovereignty, how can we use the term “God’s sovereignty?” The term is legitimate if referring to the control of God over the universe, Christ’s lordship, and the perfect will of God. We cannot use the term to refer to men or man-made definitions of God’s character.

As it is almost impossible to use the term “sovereignty” without implying some degree of Calvinism, we must be careful how we use the term and be clear our listeners understand the correct meaning. This term is one only to be used in reference to God; it is reserved exclusively for Him and must therefore be treated with caution and not flippantly used.

I hope this “mini-series” of posts has been informative and helpful.

kw

1. Many conservative Bible scholars debate the concept of the pre-tribulation rapture, due to its later arrival in the 1800′s.

2. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers violently persecuted and reviled the Jews–blaming them personally for the death of Jesus Christ. As a result of Martin Luther’s vicious polemics against the Jews, Adolf Hitler used Luther’s writings as a manual to implement his Holocaust. Luther, Martin. “Table Talk

3. The word sacrament means “sacred act that incurs grace.” We know from the Bible that baptism and communion are strictly memorial, pictorial acts of obedience and do not incur grace or involve any mystic experience. This error is descendant directly from the Roman Catholic Church by the combining of pagan mysticism with Catholic dogma ie. Constantinople.  Cruz and Gerberding, “Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History, 300-1492. pg. 104.”

The Sovereignty of God: Part III

We have defined the term “sovereignty” from Scripture, but it is extremely mis-defined and misused. Why? Where has this  misuse originated from? Well, as a surprise to me and perhaps you–John Calvin. I did not expect to run into Calvin while preparing this word study, but he is the root of the problem–as I found in my research. While it makes sense to me to find Calvin at the root of the problem, I was still surprised.

The English word “sovereignty” was itself popularized by none other than the French-born, Genevan reformer John Calvin. His writings and sermons defined it, promoted it and placed it at the center of Reformed theology. Calvin defined “sovereignty” as the Scriptures do, yet he took the definition several steps further. He believed and taught that in addition to knowing all things and being over all things, God predetermined from eternity past all things to be as He willed–which means God preordained everything to be and there is no way man can change or “frustrate” God’s sovereign decree. Not stopping there, Calvin also taught that in eternity past, God predestined souls to either Hell or Heaven as reprobate or elect. 3. I hope you can see the error and terrible blasphemy in the additions Calvin made to Scripture.

The Protestant Reformation obviously encouraged the writings of reformers and Calvin’s definition of Sovereignty along with them. Calvin is almost single-handedly responsible for the entrance of “sovereignty” into Christian theology. Protestant theology began by addressing the questions “What is God doing? And how does that relate to man?”  All of Protestant theology still hinges upon the foundation Calvin laid; it begins with the sovereignty of God–thereby becoming a theology based on a distorted definition of man given to a legitimate truth taught in Scripture.

(Please understand that I am not attacking the sovereignty of God. I am saying only that the Biblical definition and man’s definition are not always the same.)

Perhaps you are skeptical and can’t believe that this distorted definition could become the chief cornerstone of Reformed theology. Listen to the words of Bible Scholars.

A. W. Pink – “…sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology.”

J. M. Boice – “…sovereignty is the doctrine that gives means and substance to all other doctrines.”

Paul Enns – “…it is foundational to the entire system of Calvinism.”

F. H. Klooster – “…it is the hallmark of authentic Calvinism.”

L. Berk – “Reformed theology stresses sovereignty as God has sovereignly declared from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass.”

Surely you can see the disproportionate emphasis Reformed theology places on sovereignty. The concerning part is the fact that Reformed theology is based upon a mis-defined term.

 

 

1. “The Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Calvin’s sermons, letters and commentaries.

2. Augustine of Hippo also made progress in promoting sovereignty in his work “The City of God.”

3. Many Calvinists will argue that God does not predestine people to Hell, only to Heaven. He simply leaves the non-elect alone. This is just a word game; the result is still the same. According to Calvin, unless a person is predestined as one of the elect, they have no hope of salvation and are doomed before birth to their fate in Hell.

Not So Clear After All

Read this entire article before continuing on to my remarks.

March 5, 2010

Let’s Get Clear On This
Kevin T. Bauder

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist. . . Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer? . . . I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.

What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.

More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

________________________________

Comments From Ken Willis

This article was brought to my attention by a classmate who like it and endorsed on facebook; about one week later, a dear ministry friend sent me a link to the same article expressing his heart-brokenness over it. The stark contrast in opinions left me no choice but to closely examine it for myself.

First of all, I would like to preface this response / review with the fact that I have serious concerns with Bauder’s article and seriously question those feel the same way. I will admit that he does make some valid points–which I will address.

“These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.”
I believe Bauder has made a fatal flaw in saying that generally Fundamentalists view Christians in only two divisions. There are many labels that we as Fundamentalists have to wade through in the true Christian church. I’m afraid this statement was serving his purposes, but not actuality’s.

_____________________________
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Many of these names listed should cause immediate red flags and concerns; Piper, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, Sproul, and even MacArthur–these men are known for having mostly doctrinally sound content, yet they associate and walk with apostates and liberals. Some of these very men are Charismatic or liberal in theology.

The “Together For The Gospel Coalition”, or TG4 is a perfect example of compromise under the banner of rallying around the Gospel. The Gospel is used as an excuse to join hands with those who are Charismatic, liberal and those who willingly associate and work with apostates.

I seriously am concerned over the assertion–a very bold and presumptuous claim–that Conservative Evangelicals actually defend the Gospel. The Gospel is more than Christ dying on the Cross; it is the life of holiness and separation one lives as a result of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. The Gospel is not simply Christ’s sacrifice, but is the lifestyle that follows a true convert.

_____________________________
Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

They should agree to denounce them, mark them and separate from them as Scripture teaches. This indecisiveness is part of the problem.

_______________________________
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

I must admit that this point is one that Bauder is correct on. Fundamentalists need to get off the KJV debate and focus on the depth of Scripture and doctrinal issues. I am a profound lover of the KJV, but to preach that it is the only acceptable version is neither correct or wise. It is a safe, trusted, proven version, yet we must remember that it is God’s Word preserved. To assert that the KJV is the only version God can use is lie–not to mention an abominable logical fallacy. However, I will agree that we as Fundamentalists need preachers who dig deeper and expound the great doctrines of Scripture. If we knew our doctrines better, we would solve many of our problems with shallowness.

_________________________________
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

The Conservative Evangelicals may have promoted the core of the Gospel–Christ’s death on the Cross for salvation. They leave off the application(s) of the Gospel. Calvinists in particular, preach the Gospel in part, but fail to make Scriptural application to the listener. If Conservative Evangelicals went all the way with the Gospel, I would have no quarrel, yet the fact remains that they do not and have not.

_______________

They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

Hopefully so. Piper is a neo-evangelical, charismatic, neo-Calvinistic leader with drastic effectiveness on his listeners. He is one who preaches the half-Gospel as I have described above. His Calvinistic doctrines are extra-Biblical and are descendant from Calvin–who got them from Augustine, who in turn got them from the Roman Catholic Church–and therefore should be preached against and silenced as much as possible.

_______________________
Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

This is unfortunately true, but perhaps not in the way Bauder meant it. Fundamentalists do lack men and is increasing in the lack of men who will defend the whole Gospel. We need more men who will preach the message of salvation and in correlation, preach the holiness and separation that follows the conversion of a sinner’s heart.

_____________________
Many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

This is another point that I agree with. KJV onlyism is a fallacy and a lie; arrogance and egotism is wrong; doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship is a problem; manipulative Revivalism is a false hope. We need to turn to God in humble prayer and seek for Him to pour out His power and Spirit upon our congregations and not try to create this false power and emotion ourselves. We cannot manipulate revival; true revival is of God and can only be prepared for and prayed for.

________________________
They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

I am astonished that Bauder could actually come to such a conclusion.

___________________
To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

The value of what they do? These men are promoting a half-Gospel that teaches people to not be concerned with separation and true holiness and basically live as their conscience directs. “They are elect of God and free from the law.” They equate holiness with legalism and the result is all around us. Just take a look at reformed congregations. The dress is often lax, the standards are often loose and the lifestyle is not that distinct from the world. Sovereign Grace has worked on the music–encouraging believers to worship as the world does. Their music is so close to the world’s party music, it is quite difficult to even distinguish between the two.

We do not agree in the areas of holiness and separation, therefore we cannot cooperate with these men; we can only rebuke them in love and fight their flawed methodology with Scripture.

______________________________
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

If the Conservative Evangelicals have furthered the cause of Christ, it has been in spite of their separation standards and their half-gospel message; NOT because of it.

The Fundamentalists have stood hard and long; and receive bombastic criticism from the Conservative Evangelicals for doing so.

_____________________________________
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

They have not even preached the whole Gospel, therefore they are not allies and therefore are not friends of those who do. They preach a partial gospel, which is in effect, another gospel.

_____________________________
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

This statement blows my mind. (I prefer not to rant, but I am not perfect.) If we preach against those who are not preaching the true Gospel, we are certainly not preaching against friends of the Gospel.

_________________
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

I have no personal hard feelings of malice or ill-will for these men, but as one who tries to preach the WHOLE Gospel, I am not grateful for these men, for they are doing far more harm than good.

Closing Remarks:

I conclude the essay by summarizing the fact that Bauder does make some legitimate points, but his overall assertions are flawed, wrong, and skewed. I think he is in the wrong camp personally. If he has such a twisted view of Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals, he ought to simply join them openly.

We need to purge out these Evangelical – presences in our camp. We must preach the whole Gospel and defend it from the partial gospel.

May God grant us strong, bold men who will resist the seduction of the partial gospel and preach the whole-counsel of God. Amen.

My Experience With Calvinism

I would like to preface this article with two main statements: First, I desire to speak humbly and as a young man who is seeking the truth; secondly, I would like to say that I am in no way attempting to cause unnecessary strife or attack people who hold to Reformed theology, I am simply stating historical facts and my own personal experience.

John Calvin

My Initial Discontentment

I have wrote many times on this subject, over the last year or two; I truly was seriously distressed as a young college freshman. I saw a Fundamentalist church–in the broad sense–that was often shallow in the pulpit and in practical living. Discouraged by the lack of depth, I began to wonder if there was something deeper. It was during the climax of my discontentment with shallow doctrine and preaching that I found the Free Presbyterian Church. I had never had any experience with or true knowledge of the Presbyterian denomination, but was overwhelmingly taken by the Free Church’s deep preaching, deep doctrine and reverent worship. I began attending a local Free Presbyterian Church and fell in love with everything about it. Soon after beginning to attend there, I was introduced and immersed in the system of theology known as Calvinism.

The Appeal Of Reformed Theology

Even after coming out of Calvinism, I still vividly remember the intellectual and irresistible appeal of Calvinism. After all, Calvinism clearly and logically could explain the often ignored issues of election, and absolute sovereignty of God. I had not heard these things preached or discussed in such clarity and detail; I felt as if I had truly come to understand many hard things of Scripture I had never understood before.

On top of the intellectual appeal, I am also a great fan of history; it is only natural that I would love the association of Reformed theology with the Protestant Reformation. I became infatuated with Luther, Calvin, Geneva, Worms, reformation! I began to idolize these historic reformers.

Calvinism’s Effect On My Life

After genuinely believing I had been divinely introduced to a higher level of Biblical understanding, I began to struggle with feeling spiritually and intellectually superior to those who did not hold to Reformed theology. I began to interpret all of Scripture and life in general through the grid defined by the TULIP–the acronym for the five key points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

I found extreme difficulty in witnessing to the lost, primarily because I was taught that man’s salvation is predetermined before he is even born, and if someone is reprobated by God, there is no hope for salvation even amid the most fervent prayer and witness. On the other hand, if a man has been chosen as one of the elect, my failure to witness will not keep him from being called unto repentance. While Calvinists will argue that their system does not promote a lax  in their witness and prayer lives, the inevitable result is a failure to witness and pray to and for the lost. I remember going on a tract distribution in downtown Greenville; the people just stood around and waited for “one of the elect” to simply walk up and take a tract–which was one that simply presented the Gospel with the hope that an “elect” reader would be drawn by God’s irresistible Grace unto salvation. What’s my point? It is my firm opinion that the Calvinist system discourages one from witnessing with the same fervor one might if they believe that people are not eternally damned to Hell before birth. This entire concept of predestination has been proven to be heretical–both by Scripture and by close examination of Church History. (More on this later.)

Doubts and Struggles

Even while embracing Calvinism, promoting it and preaching it, there were many things that truly bothered  and vexed me on the deepest levels. Mainly, the issue of irreconcilable words of Scripture that conflicted with the doctrines of Calvinism. While Calvinism told me to believe that men are predestined to Heaven or Hell in eternity past and that Christ’s death was only for the elect, and not the whole world–verses kept coming up that bothered me. For example, I would read things in Scripture like “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.” Or ones like “Who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” How could God desire to save all but not send Christ to die for all?

I continued to doubt and struggle within my soul…until I turned to History.

Turning To History

I had taken a class on John Calvin at a Reformed Seminary here in town about one year ago; it was there that I had my first in depth education on John Calvin and his theology and life. I mention this fact because while in that class, the issue was addressed that some had accused John Calvin of brutality and murder of many people in Geneva, Switzerland. The professor brushed off those accusations and even said that Calvin had tried to save those lives and was simply unable to keep the mobs from killing those people.

When I read the history of Calvin and those killed in Geneva, I found that the truth was a far cry from what I had heard in that seminary classroom. It is documented (as I have shown in previous posts) that Calvin made sure that those who opposed him were either abused, exiled or killed. He burned people, beheaded children and had many people killed by encouraging the populace to do so. The seminary lecture had been a failed attempt to cover up for the murder of many at the hands of one whom historians call the “Pope of Geneva.”

I read more and more and became increasingly disturbed and mortified to know that I had  promoted the writings of one who was a fatalistic murder of those who disagreed with him.

What truly disturbed me was the fact that John Calvin’s hero was Augustine–the founding father of the Roman Catholic Church; Augustine believed one’s salvation lied not in Christ, but in his or her infant baptism. Augustine held on dearly to his infant baptism–as would John Calvin–and Augustine also made sure he received the “Last Rights” at his death. Augustine was clearly not a saved man; he was Calvin’s hero and model–and Calvin followed in Augustine’s footprints with great mimicry. Like Calvin, Augustine believed in using force to deal with those who disagreed with his teachings.

Even more disturbing was that I discovered that neither Augustine or Calvin ever truly converted from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine. While Calvin may have desired to purify the RCC, he formed his theology out of the cardinal doctrines he learned while in the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrines of predestination, infant baptism and allegorical interpretation of Scripture are neither protestant nor Biblical; they are doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church which Augustine taught and Calvin elaborated upon. Calvinists use the verse that speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau while they were still in the womb as evidence for divine election and reprobation. However, Genesis 25:23 says

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

We see from this verse that such a reference speaks not of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, but of two nations and the dominance of Israel over the other–because of God’s covenant with Abraham.

I am humbly telling what history records and Scripture confirms.

Determined to Preach Truth

Based upon the truth of Scripture and the record of history–religious and secular–Calvinism is not the gospel; it never was and never will be. It is a perversion of the gospel and according to Jude, should be opposed and exposed as such.

I regret with all my heart that I was so ignorant of the truth about this blasphemous, bloody cult.

I am sorry  if I have offended you, but Scripture and History hold Calvinism as such as I have described it; to excuse Calvinism or to embrace it is to go against Scripture and the record of History–both things I am not prepared to do.

It is my desperate hope and plea that people would go search the Scriptures and even history and see the truth about this horrible misrepresentation of Almighty God.

I am not interested in causing division or strife, but I cannot in good conscience, remain silent to proclaim what I have been most solemnly convinced of by God’s Word and history.

The Cussing Pastor? WHAT?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Posted by Douglas LeBlanc

MD_Pulpit1.jpgThe New York Times Magazine has wandered into the testosterone-heavy world of Pastor Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church and emerged with a feature story that mostly does justice to both Driscoll and his critics. The coverage is by Molly Worthen, who has also written a previous New York Times Magazine story on classical Christian education and a feature about L’Abri Fellowship for Christianity Today. She is no stranger to the subcultures of evangelical Protestantism.

I have only a few criticisms of Worthen’s report, most of them involving overstatements of Driscoll’s importance and — in one case — an overly simple description of most evangelicals’ theology:

Mark Driscoll is American evangelicalism’s bête noire. … Conservatives call Driscoll “the cussing pastor” and wish that he’d trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements.

… With his taste for vintage baseball caps and omnipresence on Facebook and iTunes, Driscoll, who is 38, is on the cutting edge of American pop culture.

… Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer’s free decision to accept God’s grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.

I think it’s safe to say that modern evangelicalism is Driscoll’s bête noire, especially judging by his remarks in this report. Considering evangelicals’ many concerns about politics and culture wars, however, it’s difficult to imagine evangelicals choosing Driscoll as their bête noire — or wasting time on hoping that he will “trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements.”

If one can be on the cutting edge of pop culture through baseball caps, Facebook and iTunes, that cutting edge sounds more like a 16-lane highway, gridlocked in both directions by packed SUVs.

Further, it’s hard to think that even Joel Osteen (much less most evangelicals) reduces Jesus to one’s personal friend. Even the overused “personal Lord and Savior” says more than that. These sorts of generalizations add to the sense, expressed here before by Mollie, that too much mass-media coverage of evangelicals reads like a “typical anthropological study of a bizarre species.”

That said, I admire Worthen’s moments of elegant writing and insight. These paragraphs were my favorites:

Calvinism is a theology predicated on paradox: God has predestined every human being’s actions, yet we are still to blame for our sins; we are totally depraved, yet held to the impossible standard of divine law. These teachings do not jibe with Enlightenment ideas about human capacity, yet they have appealed to a wide range of modern intellectuals, especially those who stressed the dangers of human hubris in the wake of World War I.

… Mars Hill counts four of the city’s top tattoo artists among its members (and many of their clientele — that afternoon, [Damon] Conklin was expecting a fellow church member who wanted a portrait of Christ enthroned across his back). While other churches left people like Conklin feeling alienated, Mars Hill has made them its missionaries. “Some people say, ‘You’re pretty cool and you’re a Christian, so I guess I can’t hate all of them anymore,’” he says. “I understand where they’re coming from.”

… Critics on the left and right alike predict that this delicate balance of opposites cannot last. Some are skeptical of a church so bent on staying perpetually “hip”: members have only recently begun to marry and have children, but surely those children will grow up, grow too cool for their cool church and rebel. Others say that Driscoll’s ego and taste for controversy will be Mars Hill’s Achilles’ heel. Lately he has made a concerted effort to tone down his language, and he insists that he has delegated much authority, but the heart of his message has not changed. Driscoll is still the one who gazes down upon Mars Hill’s seven congregations most Sundays, his sermons broadcast from the main campus to jumbo-size projection screens around the city. At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view.

Photo of Mark Driscoll is from the Press Room section of Mars Hill’s website.T

My Remarks:
This is a secular journalist’s view of Mark Driscoll.

I have known of him for some time; he is obviously far more well known on the West coast. I am in complete shock at the number of people here in town–proclaimed conservative, fundamentalists–who had heard of him and liked him. Now I will grant that often he is preaching the truth and is orthodox in many ways, but his portrayal of Jesus Christ as a hip, mod, macho guy ready to “smack down” people is just irreverent and uncalled for. Often, Driscoll will preach in a t-shirt that literally shows a picture of Jesus Christ, dressed like a Hippi from the 60′s, acting as a DJ at a disco party. HELLO! Do I need amazing rhetoric or theological research to know that this is wrong? Why do I bring this up? Because Driscoll is yet another piece of the puzzle of the New Calvinism which is rampantly sweeping the “young, restless” Fundamentalists in America. He is also an active player in the Together For The Gospel conference. Check out that conference for some more information on the New Calvinism. There is also another book that is great for reference. It is called, “Young, Restless, Reformed.” While written from a pro-Neo-Calvinism perspective, it sheds tremendous light on this new group of revolutionary church leaders.

Christ had a great vision for his Church, and a cussing pastor who makes Jesus into a hip macho DJ is NOT that vision.

Why I Have Renounced Calvinism: Documents that Prove Calvin’s Error

This document is the cream of the crop–as far as my research goes–in proving through history and the Scriptures that Calvin was not the great Reformer I once believed he was; he was “The Pope of Geneva.”

I realize the potential uproar this post will cause amongst my dearest friends, yet I am broken that I ever claimed this man’s teachings or stigma. I am profoundly sorry and have confessed my sin to God and have literally burned all books I have that contain his heresies. I believe God allowed me to experience this first hand to be better equipped to warn God’s people about it and fight against it.

May God allow you to see the real truth as have I today. Amen.

False Doctrines of the “Pope” of Geneva
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance

One must first study the man, John Calvin, in order to understand the theology that has come to be called Calvinism. Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Picardy at Noyon, France, to devout Roman Catholic parents as Jean Chauvin and died at Geneva, May 27, 1564, at age 54. The family name, spelled in many ways, was Cauvin, latinized according to the custom of the age as Calvinus. For some unknown reason John is commonly called Maître Jean C. His mother, Jeanne Le Franc, born in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cambrai, is mentioned as “beautiful and devout.” She took her little son to various shrines and brought him up a good Catholic. John was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. On the father’s side, his ancestors were seafaring men. His grandfather settled at Pont l’Evêque near Paris and had two sons who became locksmiths. The third, Gerard, became procurator at Noyon and had four sons and two daughters. John Calvin’s father, Gerard, an attorney, had purchased the freedom of the City of Noyon where he practiced civil and canon law. Gerard’s four sons were made clerics and held benefices at a tender age. John was given one when a boy of twelve. He became Curé of Saint-Martin de Marteville in the Vermandois in 1527 and of Pont l’Eveque in 1529. Three of the boys attended the local Collège des Capettes, and there John proved himself an apt scholar.

Calvin’s formal education was complete in 1527 when he was eighteen. According to the Catholics, he drifted from his Roman Catholic faith to become a humanist and a reformer. The “sudden conversion” to a spiritual life in 1529 could possibly be interpreted as his becoming saved, but throughout his life he counted on his Roman Catholic infant baptism as the basis of his regeneration.

John Calvin studied the voluminous writings of Saint Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo (354-430 AD), much more so than those of Martin Luther, his contemporary. Calvin is continually praising Augustine’s work with numerous references and quotations. Augustine was greatly influenced by the Gnostics, an early Christian sect, whose doctrine was heretical. Gnostics believed that mankind was wholly evil, and some sects even renounced marriage and procreation. They also believed in two gods, one evil and one good. Their teachings are believed to have influenced Saint Augustine in the development of his theology of the “total depravity” of mankind and his concept of God. For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of “total depravity” and the claim that they were the “elect.” Augustine could not advance in his Manichaeism religion because of his sinful lifestyle. He had a reputation as a “womanizer” and a fornicator.

Manichaeism – Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Manichaeism – Catholic Encyclopedia

Manichaeism – MSN Encarta Encyclopedia

Augustine then turned to skepticism and was attracted to the philosophy of Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic and Christian teachings. Augustine’s prolific writings were more strongly biased by his previously-obtained theology than on his detailed study of the Christian Scriptures. He used Christian Scripture out of context when words or phrases could be adapted to match his theology. Augustine’s teachings were in turn passed on to John Calvin through his extensive study of Augustine’s writings, the most popular being his book, Confessions. It is very easy to follow the trail of John Calvin’s theology from the pagan religion of Mani in Babylonia to Saint Augustine and into his own writings in France and Geneva that distort the Word of God. Calvin’s false doctrine came directly from Augustine.

Calvin’s Book Supercedes the Bible

Calvin’s famous letter to King Francis I was dated August 23, 1535. It served as a prologue to his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which was written in March 1536, not in French but in Latin. Calvin’s apology for lecturing the king was displayed as placards posted all over the realm denouncing the Protestants as rebels. King Francis I did not read these pages, but if he had done so he would have discovered in them a plea not for toleration, which Calvin utterly scorned, but for doing away with Catholicism in favor of the new gospel. “There could be only one true Church; therefore, kings ought to make an utter end of popery,” said the young theologian. The second edition of Calvin’s Institutes was written in 1539; the first French translation in 1541; the final in Latin, as revised by its author, in 1559; but that in common use, dated 1560, has additions by his disciples.

We know little of Calvin’s previous activities, but because of a war between King Charles V and King Francis I, he settled his family affairs and reached Bale by way of Geneva in July, 1536. He persuaded two of his brothers and two sisters to accept the Reformed views he had adopted and took them with him. At Geneva the Swiss preacher, Fare, then looking for help with his propaganda, besought Calvin with such vehemence to stay and teach his theologies that, as Calvin himself relates, he was terrified into submission. As a student, reclusive and new to public responsibilities, he may well have hesitated before plunging into the troubled waters of Geneva, then at their stormiest period.

Calvin had not introduced the legislative articles of Geneva; however, it was mainly by his influence that in January, 1537, the articles were approved which insisted on communion four times a year, set spies on delinquents, established a moral censorship, and punished the unruly with excommunication. There was to be a children’s catechism, which he drew up. The articles caused a dispute, and the city became divided into “jurants” who swore an oath to the articles and “nonjurors” who would not accept them. Questions had arisen with Berne concerning the points of major dispute, but Calvin made the claim in Lausanne for the freedom of Geneva. Discourse ensued in Geneva, where the opposition became more obstinate. In 1538 the council exiled Farel, Calvin, and the blind evangelist, Couraud from Geneva.

Calvin complained of his poverty and ill health, but these did not prevent him from marrying Idelette de Bure, the widow of an Anabaptist whom he had converted. Nothing more is known of this lady except that she bore him a son who died almost at birth in 1542, and that her own death took place in 1549.

Calvin’s Reign of Terror

After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized “pastors, doctors, elders and deacons,” but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a “holy doctrine which no man might speak against.” Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet’s book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet’s death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec — moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin’s theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.

John Calvin – Wikipedia Encyclopedia

John Calvin – Catholic Encyclopedia

John Calvin – MSN Encarta Encyclopedia

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva, because that is what his theology teaches.

Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, was born in Villanova in 1511. He was credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood from the right chamber of the heart through the lungs and back to the left chamber of the heart. He was Calvin’s longtime friend in their earlier resistance against the Roman Catholic Church. Servetus, while living in Vienne (historic city in southeastern France), angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin’s writings, Institutes, with critical comments in the margins. Servetus was arrested by the Roman Catholic Authorities on April 4 but escaped on April 7, 1553. He traveled to Geneva where he attended Calvin’s Sunday preaching service on August 13. Calvin promptly had Servetus arrested and charged with heresy for his disagreement with Calvin’s theology. The thirty-eight official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus was correct in challenging Calvin’s false teaching about infant baptism for salvation, but he was heretical in his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus pleaded to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method. Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned but not executed. Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. John Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower. Servetus was screaming as he was literally baked alive from the feet upward and suffered the heat of the flames for 30 minutes before finally succumbing to one of the most painful and brutal death methods possible. Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which Calvin had strapped to the chest of Servetus. The flames from the burning book rose against Servetus’ face as he screamed in agony.

John Calvin celebrated and bragged of his killing of Servetus. Many theological and state leaders criticized Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus, but it fell on deaf ears as Calvin advised others to do the same. Calvin wrote much in following years in a continual attempt to justify his burning of Servetus. Some people claim Calvin favored beheading, but this does not fit charges of heresy for which the punishment, as written by Calvin earlier, was to be burning at the stake. Calvin had made a vow years earlier that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he were ever captured, and Calvin held true to his pledge. Truly John Calvin is burning in Hell for his heresy, blasphemy of God and murder of many.

Another victim of Calvin’s fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be incarcerated twice at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. John Calvin’s actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemned these blatant mass murders.

Puritanism.

The citizens of Geneva hated John Calvin as he clearly stated. In 1554 Calvin wrote “Dogs bark at me on all sides. Everywhere I am saluted with the name of ‘heretic,’ and all the calumnies that can possibly be invented are heaped upon me; in a word, the enemies among my own flock attack me with greater bitterness than my declared enemies among the papists.” Calvin, quoted in Schaff, History, volume 8, page 496. The history of John Calvin’s reign of terror in Geneva is undisputed. Calvin himself kept historical records that have survived to this day.

John Calvin had no love, compassion, patience or tolerance for those who did not believe his Institutes. Criticism of Calvin’s Institutes was considered heresy for which the sentence was death by burning at the stake. To his dying day Calvin preached and taught from his works. By no means an aged man, he was worn out in these frequent controversies. On April 25, 1564, he made his will, leaving 225 French crowns, of which he bequeathed ten to his college, ten to the poor, and the remainder to his nephews and nieces. His last letter was addressed to Farel. He was buried without pomp in a spot which is not now ascertainable. In the year 1900 a monument of expiation was erected to Servetus in the Place Champel. Geneva has long since ceased to be the center of Calvinism.

John Calvin’s murder of people who held different doctrinal views, his failure to acknowledge or repent from his sins, his incomplete gospel, his placing of his own writings above the Bible, his distortion of God and the Scriptures, and his dependence upon infant baptism places into question his salvation. In all of his writings is not found a clear declaration of his salvation by faith in the birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Calvin was a cruel, murderous tyrant who considered himself to be the pope of Geneva. The Bible never advocates harming an individual due to his unbelief or lack of understanding. Jesus taught to “turn the other cheek” instead. None of the Apostles taught action against unbelievers but instead taught the believer to seek them out and present the gospel in love.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

John Calvin showed no signs of being a regenerate man. He became more murderous and cruel during his rule in Geneva. He showed no inclination to be conformed to the image of Christ as described in Scripture for those who have been saved. Notice that Romans 8:29 below says we are “predestined to be conformed to His Son” and does not say we are predestined to be saved as taught by Calvin.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to] [be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

One should not have to study the works of John Calvin but should study his life first in order to arrive at the conclusion that he was an ungodly man who could only produce a distorted doctrine that opposes the true teachings of Scripture. Calvin’s actions were directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

Matthew 10:14 “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.”

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

1 John 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Calvin’s Margin Notes Supercede Scriptural Text

Calvin’s theology could not be ascertained by the typical student of the Bible without the external study of Calvin’s Institutes. Therefore, Calvin wrote commentary notes in the margin of the Bible to be used as the interpretation of the Scripture. A present-day review of these marginal notes shows they present doctrine that is not supported by the text. This commentary Bible with marginal notes came to be known as the Geneva Bible. Theodore de Beza (1519-1605) was the Protestant Reformer who succeeded John Calvin. Beza published the Geneva Bible in English between 1560 and 1611. William Whittingham, who was married to John Calvin’s sister, is believed to have assisted by translating most of the New Testament. He has been accused of having a theological bias and making other random changes in the translation. The source manuscripts for the work appear to have been the Textus Receptus and other Byzantine Greek manuscripts. The most disturbing feature of the Geneva Bible was the extensive commentary notes placed in the margins written by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza and Anthony Gilby. The marginal notes give an allegorical or philosophical explanation of Scripture rather than a literal explanation of the text. The Roman Catholic Church was enraged by the notes, because they deemed the act of confession of sin to men, the Catholic Bishops, as unjustified by Holy Scripture. Calvin can be congratulated for at least getting that doctrine correct.

The Geneva Bible and the doctrines of John Calvin spread across Europe as church leaders used the marginal notes as the basis for their lectures and preaching. King James I (1566-1625) was opposed to Calvinistic Presbyterianism and some claim he was infuriated by the Geneva Bible, because the marginal notes allowed disobedience to the King. This claim can be largely dismissed, because Calvin ruled as “King” of Geneva and allowed absolutely no disobedience. In the famous Hampton Court Conference, Dr. John Reynolds (a Puritan) requested that King James authorize the printing of a new Bible without the marginal notes. King James agreed. He authorized work to begin on the new Bible in 1604 with a team of fifty-four theologians and scholars, and it was printed in 1611. The Bible was to be a new translation from the Greek. The King James Version of the Bible was prepared from the Textus Receptus as well as many of the other 5,000 Greek manuscripts. It is known as the 1611 Authorized King James Version and held by many as the only “Inspired Word of God.”

The Dutch Church convened the Synod of Dordrecht in 1610 to resolve the dispute between Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius) and the Reformed Church (followers of John Calvin) concerning the correct interpretation of the Bible. In the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Jacob Arminius began to teach doctrines contrary to the Reformed faith. The Remonstrants drew up five statements of doctrine in which they set forth their own views. The Calvinists answered the Five Points of the Arminians with their own, which have come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism. The approval of the Calvinist position was sealed by a packed prejudiced Synod before it began, and the Calvinists relished the victory by murdering many of their opponents as they fled for their lives. This appeared to be a great victory for Calvinism at the time, but it has since been shown to have been the high point in their theological domination. Calvinism has continued to decline over the centuries, because John Calvin’s technique of terror is no longer allowed for the spread of his theology.

Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles raised a finger against those who disagreed with them, but Calvinists continued to use the sword, beheading axe and burning at the stake as methods to eliminate any opposition well after the passing of John Calvin. Charles I succeeded King James in England. The Calvinists gained control of the English Parliament and waged a civil war against the king. They abolished episcopacy, ejected two thousand royalist ministers, summoned the Westminister Assembly, executed Archbishop Laud, and eventually executed the King himself in 1649.

Calvin’s Sovereignty Doctrine Distorts the Attributes of God

Calvinists are proud to proclaim, “The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.” This doctrine allowed John Calvin to misinterpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God’s other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became irrelevant so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin’s extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism.

John Calvin falsely taught that God “elects” some people from eternity past to be saved while damning all of the others to an eternal Hell with no hope of being saved. This false doctrine is directly opposite to the Bible which teaches that God is “not willing that any should perish.” If salvation were entirely dependent on the sovereign God as taught by John Calvin then certainly none would perish, but salvation is dependent upon the free will of people to believe the true gospel by faith.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Certainly God is sovereign. However, John Calvin used sovereignty as an excuse to formulate doctrines which violated God’s other attributes. Calvin’s doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement predestine much of humanity to eternal torment in violation of God’s attributes of love, justice, mercy and grace. Doctrines which are correctly interpreted from Scripture will not violate any of God’s attributes.

Certainly God is sovereign according to the definition of sovereign in a dictionary. God is Number One — the Most High, but God does not control every event and action of mankind as if people were puppets, as claimed by John Calvin. The Scripture verses below clearly show that the unbelief of the Children of Israel in the wilderness “limited the Holy One of Israel.” According to the false doctrine of John Calvin, God cannot be limited. Scripture says He can be limited. God could not secure the entry of the Children of Israel into the promised land as He desired because they would not move forward. So God left them in the wilderness for 40 years because of their unbelief, arrogance and rebellion.

Psalms 78:37 For their heart was not steadfast with Him,  Nor were they faithful in His covenant.  38  But He, [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity,  And did not destroy [them].  Yes, many a time He turned His anger away,  And did not stir up all His wrath;  39  For He remembered that they [were] [but] flesh,  A breath that passes away and does not come again.  40  How often they provoked Him in the wilderness,  [And] grieved Him in the desert!  41  Yes, again and again they tempted God,  And limited the Holy One of Israel.

Calvinism has been called “the archenemy of soul-winning” and rightly so. John Calvin’s false doctrine declares that some people are predestined by God from eternity past to spend eternity with Him by His sovereign grace while others are predestined to eternal torment. This doctrine causes one to question the need for presenting the gospel. If Calvinism were true, why bother? Those who have been predestined to salvation will be regenerated by God’s unfailing sovereign will, and the others cannot be saved no matter how effectively the gospel is presented, because they are not the elect.

But soul winning is not the major tragedy of Calvinism. Failure to present the gospel of Christ is the real problem. One can easily notice that Calvinists discuss and present Calvinism with the notion that they are presenting the gospel. They quote the writings of Calvin and his followers and quote those Bible verses they feel are most supportive of Calvinism. The Bible is not taught directly and without bias. This is the reason John Calvin and his early followers prepared the Geneva Bible, which contained Calvin’s teachings written in the margins. Teaching was done from the marginal notes in lieu of the Scriptural text. We will see in our study of Limited Atonement that Calvinism presents a false gospel.

The god worshipped by Calvinists has different attributes from those of the Almighty Eternal God who “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4). The god of Calvinism is a false god who decides which people will spend eternity in hell by withholding faith from them. The god of Calvinism taunts the unbeliever with the verse “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9) all the while knowing that he (the god of Calvinism) has withheld the faith to do so. Calvinism presents a false gospel that neither offers eternal life nor allows salvation by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

As an example, Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) believe in a god and believe in a Jesus they say rose from the grave. However, Mormons are not born-again members of the Body of Christ. They are destined to spend eternity in hell. Calvinists will also spend eternity in hell. Calvinists believe in a false god and false Jesus with make-believe attributes much different from the true God and His Son, Jesus Christ, who took upon Himself the sins of the whole world.

Calvin’s Predestination Doctrine Distorts the Character of God

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination teaches that God in eternity past established the course of all future events from the molestation of a child to a rocket trip to the moon. Calvin taught that God has decided in eternity past those persons who would spend eternity with Him and those who would endure eternal torment. This doctrine was not derived from the Bible but from the philosophical concepts called the “immutability of God” (unchangeable) and the “impassability of God” (unaffectable).

The pagan philosopher, Aristotle, born in 384 BC, wrote a book he called, Metaphics. His reasoning concluded that “God can’t feel and can’t change.” This God must be unaffected by anything and unalterable. He is unchanging, for change to would be a weakness and change thus render Him less than the ultimate God. Aristotle’s God cannot love, cannot suffer and cannot be influenced. Saint Augustine incorporated this philosophy from Plato, Plotinus and Aristotle into his writings which were transferred to John Calvin. Thus Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was born.

We know from Scripture that God does change His mind. God does suffer. God is influenced by prayer. God can be sorrowful and God does love. God changes His intended purpose as He chooses in response to the actions of man. Calvin’s doctrine of predestination strips God of His character and is proven to be false by Scriptures that show God changing His mind in response to mankind’s prayer or repentance.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: `Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done [what] [was] good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, `Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The God of the Bible is certainly not the immutable, impassable God of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

All great Christian fathers from the Apostles to Martin Luther taught that the sovereign God placed free will in mankind to choose either good or evil. This free will is present and obvious in Scripture before the fall of Adam and thereafter. Calvin incorporated the heresies of Augustine into his doctrines. Was the Apostle Paul such a poor teacher that his followers didn’t understand his teachings? Certainly not. All of the writings of Church leaders that came after Paul and before Augustine taught that mankind had a free will to either choose the gospel or reject it. The truth was presented in a beautiful expression of free will and the supportive work of the Holy Spirit by John Chrysostom (347-407 AD).

“God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; He does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing.” (Homilies on Genesis, 19.1)

“All is in God’s power, but so that our free will is not lost. . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first chose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help. . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews Homily, 12)

John Calvin and his followers teach that God makes everything happen because of His sovereignty. This doctrine makes God the author of sin, which is blasphemy. God allows Satan and man to do things but does not make them do so. This is clearly presented in Scripture. God kept the Dispensation of Grace a mystery because Satan, his evil demons and people under his control (rulers of this age), would not have killed Jesus had they known about the Dispensation of Grace. In Jesus’ death we become victorious over sin. We can now come into the Throne of Grace and live forever with God. The Dispensation of Grace was kept a mystery hidden by God in order to give us a way of salvation.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Scripture Proves John Calvin Taught False Doctrines

John Calvin falsely taught that God draws only those to Himself whom He elects to be saved. Calvin taught that those chosen could not resist the call. According to John Calvin a person is elected by God, saved by God’s grace and given faith to believe as the final step. Calvin taught that this series of actions by Jesus Christ and God cannot be resisted by the elected person. On the other hand, Calvin taught that most people were not drawn by Jesus. Calvin taught that those not drawn by Jesus could not believe and could not be saved no matter what they did. Calvinists must twist Scripture, ignore the clear message given, and literally butcher the text in order to keep John Calvin’s chain of false doctrines from total collapse. Jesus clearly and directly spoke doctrines that refute these false doctrines of John Calvin.

John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all [peoples] to Myself.”

1 Timothy 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus does draw all people to Himself. Jesus said He will draw all people unto Himself if He were to be lifted up and crucified. God desires all mankind to be saved, but most people resist being drawn. John Calvin’s doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” is clearly shown to be incorrect by Jesus’ clear declaration.

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith based upon the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all mankind by His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead provides salvation to all who believe. All who receive the Lord Jesus Christ through faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become the children of God.

Calvinism encompasses many of the features which are characteristic of a Christian cult. Calvinists hold John Calvin in such high esteem that his writings and teachings are studied and quoted in preference to Scripture. His teachings are used by Calvinists to interpret Scripture rather than the sound doctrine of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. John Calvin defined important doctrinal Bible words differently than the orthodox and historic Christian interpretation. These erroneous definitions are needed to give logical support to Calvin’s blasphemous doctrines. This technique is typical of cults such as Mormons, who hold Joseph Smith in high esteem and base their doctrines on his writings. Calvinists are so indoctrinated with these false definitions that they cannot understand the opposition to their doctrines. Naturally Calvinists believe the false doctrines of John Calvin, because they believe the false definitions of major doctrinal words. The human brain is easily tricked when one does not search diligently for the truth. Calvinists have typically taught from the marginal notes in the Calvinist’s Geneva Bible in preference to the Scriptural text. King James ordered the King James Version translation of the English Bible to be printed in order to rid the church of Calvin’s marginal notes. John Calvin’s doctrines are an incomplete and inaccurate gospel which is not in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. This study of Calvinism will easily prove the doctrines of John Calvin to be unorthodox and contrary to the historic Christian Church.

History of the New Testament Scriptures.

Just as John Calvin “stole” Geneva to set up his personal kingdom with himself as “Pope,” modern Calvinists are stealing churches. Old Baptist churches in the United States are a prime target. A Calvinist will apply for an empty pastorship while keeping his belief in Calvinistic doctrine a secret. Upon being offered the position by unsuspecting church members he begins to bring in other undercover Calvinists who are promoted to ruling positions as deacons and elders. The undercover Calvinists quickly reach a majority in the ruling body of the church. The church appears to be prosperous and growing, because the undercover Calvinists recruit only other Calvinists as new members. The new members are all a part of the scheme. These wolves in sheep’s clothing make a power play after gaining a majority control. They force out the older non-Calvinist church members one at a time with rudeness, intimidation and insults. Slick scheme! The Calvinists have just stolen church property that could be worth $5 to $10 million or more. Calvinists rarely build a new church on their own. They may be proud of their success in stealing the church, but in reality they have only secured a ticket to the Lake of Fire.

Romans 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Five Points of Calvinism which form the acrostic T-U-L-I-P will be shown here to distort and blaspheme the true attributes of God, the true nature of man and the Holy Scriptures.

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

Pastors Who Preach Calvinism Have Responded

Many pastors have written directly from their church website with insulting, hate mail after reading the truths presented here. These pastors are obviously not born-again, Spirit-filled Christians. They are fake Christians. Calvinistic preachers are our modern-day Pharisees who put Jesus on the cross. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, preaching “another gospel” that the Apostle Paul warned us about. They are in the ministry for power, control and money. Their letters have revealed their corrupt hearts to the Holy Spirit.

Canons of Dort – Wikipedia.com

“The Canons of Dort, or Canons of Dordrecht, formally titled The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, is the judgment of the National Synod held in the Dutch city of Dordrecht in 1618 / 19. At the time, Dordrecht was often referred to in English as Dort.

Today, the Canons of Dort form one of the confessional standards of many of the Reformed churches around the world, including the Netherlands, Australia, and North America. Their continued use as a standard still forms an unbridgable problem preventing close cooperation between the followers of Arminius, the Remonstrants, and Dutch Reformed Churches.

These canons are in actuality a judicial decision on the doctrinal points in dispute from the Arminian controversy of that day. Following the death of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), his followers set forth a Remonstrance (published in 1610) in five articles formulating their points of departure from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession. The Canons are the judgment of the Synod against this Remonstrance. Regardless, Arminian theology later received official acceptance by the State and has since continued in various forms within Protestantism.

The Canons were not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of Reformed doctrine, but only an exposition on the five points of doctrine in dispute. These Canons set forth what is often referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism.”

The Decision of the Synod of Dort ruled in favor of the doctrines of Calvinism, because the Calvinist has “fixed” the outcome beforehand. After the decision was rendered, the Calvinists proceeded to murder the supporters of Arminius in true fashion to the mass murderer they followed, John Calvin. The un-Christlike actions of the Calvinists prove that at Dort they truly lost any hope of ever being representative of Christianity.

God sees your heart and hears your prayer. You will have eternal life with God when by faith you believe on Jesus Christ for salvation. No works! No doing! No one else! No judge! God judges the heart. You can trust Him.

Click here to say, “Yes, I want to pray to God.”

Click here to say, “I just prayed to confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.”

If you need help in understanding, select “A Bible Summary” and study it carefully.

You can contact the author by clicking the mailbox above.

Copyright © 2005 – 2009 by Kent R. Rieske and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is granted to copy this information in whole and without revision providing that full credit is given to the author. This information may not be copied in part and the information may not be included in any material that is offered for sale. You are encouraged to place a link to this article on your website page.