Powerful Testimony of Brother Brendan Flynn including a very good look at Calvinism

I’ve written this for my two daughters their husbands and my two sons to explain why I believe
Calvinism is not biblical as they have been asking questions about the teachings of Calvin. I think
the best way to explain why I believe this is to put it in writing with God’s word.

Before I get into this, I’ll say a little about myself. My name is Brendan Flynn, I’m a born-again
believer. I was brought up in a very strict Catholic family where we all went to mass, benediction,
confession, received the sacraments, and everything else that went with being a devout Catholic.
I’m one of twelve kids; (the third youngest) one of my brothers is a priest in Angola and one of
my sisters is a nun in Canada – she was my primary school teacher before she went to Canada
and became a nun. I left home when i was 19 to work in the oil industry as a welder that was
March 1976. I went to Nigg Bay, north-east of Inverness. I stayed in a work camp while I worked
there. It was my first time living away from home (apart from some time I spent in Longriggend
Detention Centre in 1974 for stealing copper off the railway). Since I was on my own up there at
nigg bay, I had a lot of time to think about things and to wonder about where I was going in life.
Most of all, I wondered about my beliefs in God and the Catholic Church. I’ve never doubted the
existence of God and believed all my life that Jesus is God. Millions today are the same and
because of that they consider themselves Christians. When I worked up at Nigg Bay, I used to go
to mass on a Sunday, but the nearest chapel was 15 miles away near Alness. I used to hitch there
but on a couple of occasions I never got a lift and it took me 4 hours to walk back. When I was at
the chapel, I would lift any books about the saints as I wanted to learn about God. When I left
that job later on in the year, I travelled around Europe working at various sites, still living away
from home. Often it was a lonely existence, but since there was no work at home, I had no choice.
Looking back in my life, I believe the Lord separated me from my family and friends to work on
me; I believe he wanted to get my attention. Years went by and while away from home one night,
I was thinking, in spite of trying to be a good Catholic by going to mass every week and doing
what the Roman Catholic Church told me to do and trying to keep the rules of Catholicism, I
came to the realisation that, although I’d tried my best to follow my religion, I was still a lost
sinner. I’d never felt right with God, and all my religious activity was my effort to appease an
angry God. I felt convicted of my sin and felt that I couldn’t live a godly life, no matter how hard I
tried. I understand how religious people throughout the world, of all religions, are making the
same mistake thinking they can somehow please God with their efforts of self-justification. So
that night, I gave up trying to please God with my own righteousness and instead asked God to
save me, and He did. Right away, I felt forgiven and cleansed of my sin, although I was ignorant of
God’s word at the time and I was brain-washed with Catholicism and all the superstition that
went along with it. Psalm 51:17 says “a broken and a contrite heart, these, O God, you will not
despise”. This is what happened that night: I had abandoned my works and instead asked God in
contrition for mercy.

When I eventually came back to my parents’ house, I wanted to share what had happened to me.
I never realised at that time that I was born again as I’d never heard that term before (or any
other biblical terminology). I don’t know what my parents thought as I tried to explain myself,
that something had happened to me and that I wanted to get a bible,(I remember my mother


telling me she didn’t want any bible thumpers in the house) but I wanted someone to explain to
me what had happened so I thought I’d go to my parish priest and that he would explain
everything. I went to the house in Carfin near Motherwell where several priests lived called the
Holy Ghost Fathers. I knocked on the door and told the housekeeper that I’d like to speak to a
priest. She took me in and told me to go into a room. Several minutes later, a missionary priest
called Michael Barrington asked “how can I help you?” I said, “I don’t know how to explain this,
father, but something great has happened to me, and now I feel I have a personal relationship
with God.” He abruptly cut me off and said “no you don’t!” He showed me to the door, he never
asked me anything, and told me to go home. Walking home, I felt very confused and a bit of an
idiot. I remember saying to myself, “why did I say a stupid thing like that?” I’d been so
conditioned to believe everything the priest said without question that I blamed myself for his
reaction. I felt such a fool. I also felt that my parents and family must think I’m a bit nuts with the
things I’ve been saying about the Lord. I remember telling my friends I’d found the Lord, they
thought that was very funny. One of them told me I should go and become a priest. I said “no
chance”. I’ve told several Christians over the years about that encounter with the priest and they
have, with shock, said “what! The priest said that?” Well what would they expect him to say –
“you’ve just been saved”? If he knew the Lord, he wouldn’t be a priest as all of that is an
abomination to the Lord. Anyway, walking home from that priest, I decided I wouldn’t share my
encounter with the Lord with anyone else but instead read my bible that I’d bought and try and
work out what had changed my life and my thinking. I prayed to the Lord to sort out the
confusion that I felt telling him I need all the help I can get Lord. I decided at that time that I was
going to stop smoking and drinking, both of which I had started when I left school at 15.
The more I studied God’s word, the more I wanted to learn, the holy spirit gave me such a desire
to understand the bible, I just read it continually, taking my bible offshore on the oil rigs with me
where I worked at that time (I’m back working there now). I remember my roommate at that
time Gordon, another welder, saying to me “every time I see you, you’re reading the bible. Do
you not think you’ll go off your head? I told him I loved the word of God, I liked Gordon so I
didn’t take that the wrong way, I think he was probably a wee bit concerned about me. The
more I read the bible, the more I came to the conclusion that Catholicism was completely false
and a satanic deception and that my wife (whom I had just married) wasn’t saved and a devout
Catholic, ( my brother who is a priest was home at the time from Angola and he married us in
the chapel). So I prayed to the Lord for Julie that he would save her and I tried to explain to her
that the Roman Catholic Church had deceived us, which was a hard sell to a devout Catholic. I
remember on one occasion she was crying as I told her that the teaching of the Catholic Church
was of the devil. She also asked me what school the kids would go to and I told her that it’s more
important where you go when you die than be concerned about what school the kids will go to.
One night, when I was speaking to her about the word of God, she came under conviction and we
both knelt down at the side of the bed and she asked the Lord to save her. She then got her own
bible and I was amazed at how fast she started to grow in the Lord. From the moment she got
saved, she never went back to the Catholic Church. I remember she had a bust of the Virgin Mary
that she got as a wedding present It sat on the mantelpiece, one night not long after she got
saved she lifted It off and she threw it in the bin saying “no more idols In this house”. And I
thought “rock on Jules!” That was December 1985 and we had just moved into the house we are
still living in today. We’ve since had four children who are saved; my two daughters are now
married. Not long after we left the Catholic Church, we both told our parents we’d left. I went to
my parents’ house and told them and the other members of my family that were there at the


time. I found that very difficult, and it went down like a lead balloon when I came back after
speaking to them Julie told me “you look Ill” I felt terrible and went to my bed. Julie tried to tell
her dad but he told her “don’t come back to this house until you come back to the Catholic
Church”. Both our families have distanced themselves from us – the rumour is that we have
joined a cult.
We then looked around for a church to go to, we tried everywhere: the Church of Scotland in our
village, Elim Pentecostal, charismatic churches, Church of the Nazarene, Baptist churches,
Reformed Presbyterian. I remember one Sunday morning I went to an exclusive Brethren
meeting in my village, I tried the door and it was locked. So I was walking away and this man
stuck his head out and asked, “What do you want?” I walked back and said, “I’d like to come in
and check you out. He looked at me as if I was daft and reluctantly said, “well... ok then, you can
come in, but don’t break bread”. I said, “ok, I’m cool with that”. No one spoke to me during or
after the service, I felt very unwelcome and couldn’t wait to get out the door, I thought this place
is just full of pride and they’re looking down their nose at me. After the service, I went home
and told Julie, “right Jules, score that one off the list”. The people in that fellowship must scratch
their head and say “how come no-one wants to join us”?, or “how come we’re becoming extinct
and It’s only a bunch of old people here now”, or “how come this place is dying and the Lord is
not blessing us?”. Even Christians can be blind to the obvious, and just go through the motions,
Jesus said “you will know my followers by the love they have for one another” just read 1
corinthians ch 13 to see what the Lord thinks about that kind of place, and about loveless
Christians, I’ve met many unsaved people who have shown me more love than some Christians
I’ve met, and If believers don’t love other believers then how can they love the lost,? And, If
they don’t love the lost , then how can they evangelise them,? And If they don’t evangelise how
will people get saved,?
If someone had led me to the Lord, it would have been a lot simpler to just follow them, but
looking back now, I believe the Lord wanted it this way to make me search His word for answers
to not only what had happened to me but for the future to check everything against His word
and to check out future teaching against the bible. As I came to realise in later years, it’s not only
the Roman Catholic Church who are saying things that are wrong and unbiblical, Christian
denominations also do that, not on the same scale as Catholicism, but nevertheless are teaching
things and holding on to the traditions and teachings that have crept in over the years and that
are held on par with God’s word. If someone had led me to the Lord i probably would have just
followed them into the way they interpreted the bible ie, If they were a Calvinist i’d go with that
( and i’ve seen that happening), or if they were charismatic i’d go to a charismatic church and
believe all that teaching, and as i’d now rejected everything from Catholicism i was very careful
with what I accepted as the truth,. When my daughter Louise got baptised someone gave her a
Christian book as a gift and i told her don’t read it, first learn God’s word and give him first place
in your mind, because that books author could be teaching things that are not right with God’s
word and how would you know unless you had God’s word in your mind to compare it to ?. The
Lord had answered my prayers for help by giving me a hunger for his word and that was what
set me free from the lies of the devil and opened my eyes to the RC deception I’d been brought
up in. The word of God trumps all the teaching of men, no matter how famous they are, whether
they are called church fathers, great exegetes, saints, popes, mystics, or reformers. We are all
susceptible to the deceptions of the evil one and have to continually take what we hear to God’s
word, like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who checked out Paul the Apostle to see if he was telling the


truth. The problem today is that some Christians aren’t like the Bereans, they hear something,
they like it, and then it becomes part of their theology without comparing it with scripture. Paul
the Apostle warns about this in 2 Timothy 4:3 “for the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap
up for themselves teachers who will turn away from the truth and turn aside to fables.” This is
more relevant now than ever, you just have to look at the God channel or look at the rubbish now
sold in some so-called Christian bookshops, all under the title ‘Christian’. How does the enemy,
the evil one, get away with all this? The answer is simple, some christians aren’t studying their
bibles. I’ve been told quite a few times by believers “oh well, I’m not a reader” or “I’m too busy to
read” as if it’s not a big deal to the effect it has on their faith. I’ve heard church elders say the
same thing and it grieves me how can a believer grow if he is not a reader, john the apostle in 1st
john2;14 said “you are strong because the word of God abides in you”. In Acts 20:29, Paul the
Apostle warns this church in Ephesus “For I know this, that after my departure, savage wolves
will come in among you not sparing the flock. Also, from among yourselves, men will rise up
speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch and
remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” It
broke Paul’s heart to realise that once he was gone, savage wolves would rip that church apart
with their heresies. Paul warned them continually day and night with tears. Satan was waiting
for Paul to depart because Paul, being strong in God’s word, would have dealt with the false
teachers. Today, we need believers who are willing to make a stand for God’s word to defend the
bible against the half-truths and lies that are working their way into the minds of believers in
the church. We as believers have to be vigilant, comparing what we hear and read with the bible
as there are more strange doctrines now than ever.
When my wife and I left the Catholic Church and started meeting Christians from all different
denominations, we were amazed at all the variations of ways that Christians interpreted God’s
word. We travelled round all the churches we could to see what they believed, read their
literature, and their statement of faith, we often came home with lots of pamphlets and books. At
the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, we were often asked things like, “have you been
baptized in the Holy Spirit?” I’d say, “well, we are saved”. They’d say, “this is something you get
after you’ve been saved”. I’d say “give me your literature on it, show me where you’re coming
from in the bible and I’ll check it out”. Again we’d be asked, “do you speak in tongues? Do you
believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Have you been slain in the Spirit? Has God been speaking
to you?” We’d been offered books by Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, John Wimber, etc. My wife
and I quickly came to the realisation that we had a lot of studying to do to understand what was
true or false in other churches. So we decided to compare Charismatic and Pentecostal teachings
with the word of God, and that is why we and our four kids (now adults) don’t go to a
Pentecostal or Charismatic church, or watch the God channel. I know that any true believers
who are in a charismatic, Pentecostal, reformed or any other church are my brothers or sisters
in the Lord and i love them but i wanted to go to a church that i agreed with doctrinally. For
several years we went to a charismatic church but left that as we grew in Gods word, and
because we did not believe what they taught concerning the holy spirit and some other things
we left, and went to a brethren fellowship (bothwell evangelical).
About 25 years ago, I met a Christian who asked me, “are you reformed?” I said, “well, I’m
saved”. He asked me again, “but are you reformed?” I said, “what exactly do you mean?” He said,
“do you subscribe to the doctrines of the Reformation?” I said, “if they’re biblical, I will”. He said,


“oh! they’re biblical alright”. Again, I said, “well, can you give me anything on your beliefs?” He
enthusiastically gave me lots of small booklets along with a couple of books and I read them. I
must admit, at first the Calvinist literature did seem very convincing. My wife and I looked
through God’s word as we read the books and at one point felt this guy had a good basis for his
theology. But as we had an extensive study of scripture, the word of God seemed to contradict
the literature I was given and the other Calvinist literature I’d now bought. I found myself trying
to reconcile scriptures the Calvinist books were referring to concerning election, predestination,
God’s sovereignty, God’s foreknowledge, the elect, etc. with other scriptures from Gods word
that seemed to contradict what these authors were saying. I’d say it was a long hard struggle to
try and reconcile what God’s word said concerning how a person got saved (the doctrine of
soteriology) and what calvin taught. My wife and I both felt that we had to try and understand
what God’s word says on any matter, and this we felt was most important. We’ve always been
very cautious about what we embrace as truth since we left the Catholic Church. As Catholicism
had deceived us, we didn’t want to be deceived again. I’ve read literature from John Piper,
Loraine Boettner, Pink, R. C. Sproul, John Metcalfe, Jonathan Edwards. I subscribed to and still
get literature from the Tabernacle in London (Calvinist publisher) who have sent me books by
Charles Spurgeon, Martin Lloyd Jones, John MacArthur, etc. In 2000, I went to hear John
MacArthur for a 3-day pastor’s conference at Carrubbers Church on the Royal Mile, Edinburgh.
Over the years, I’ve gained a good understanding of what a Calvinist believes; I’ve been in
conversation with several on what they believe too. I believe if a Christian wants to learn, he
should listen to what people say and believe and examine it and compare it to the word of God.
It’s not only Christians of different denominations, I wanted to learn about, but I wanted to learn
about the cults also. I already know about the Roman Catholic Church (the mother of all cults),
but what about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, I wanted to understand them to help
me in evangelizing them as I have a burden for the unsaved and hope that they too can be set
free from the enemy of our souls just as i had been set free from the cult i was brought up in, i’ve
always felt a concern(since i’ve been saved) when i meet Jehovah’s witnesses , mormons or
anyone else in a false religion, and because i have been in their position with all the
brainwashing i can understand the confusion they have and the endless task they have of trying
to please God by their works. If only Christians spent some time understanding what the
Catholic Church believes, then they would be more effective in reaching lost Catholics. A few
years ago I was driving past the mosque in a village near me and I drove up to the door and
asked them if I could have a Koran, so they gave me one in English I’ve read It now and keep It
for reference, when I worked offshore in Holland I had a roommate who was a muslim so I spoke
to him about the Lord, and things the Koran said. I believe If we as believers prepare our self
then the Lord will give us opportunities to share our faith and evangelise.
Another time when I was working under my car one day I heard someone walk up the drive. I
looked and it was two Mormons who introduced themselves. I told them I was too busy to talk to
them but I said, “leave me your Book of Mormon and come back and see me some time and I’ll
tell you what I think”. Sure enough, a couple of weeks later, on a Friday night, four of them
knocked on my door. I told them I’d read the Book of Mormon and it contradicts the Bible,
especially the last book In the book of mormon the book of Moroni. So I asked, “what do I
believe, you or the Bible?” I then told them what God’s word says concerning salvation, one of
them said that the book of mormon was a more accurate book than the bible, I said well that
statement Is the surest sign your in a cult my friend.


Jesus said, “the Spirit will lead you into all the truth, and my word is the truth”. Right there, Jesus
is telling the believer that the bible is complete and that God has nothing to say outside of
scripture as it’s all the truth. By definition, that means that God has nothing to say outside of
scripture, so when anyone says to me “oh, God told me!”,or “God spoke to me and told me”
(something that is quite common today especially on the so called God channel where they all
talk like that, and so can make up their theology as they go along)I say, “tell it to someone else,
I’m not interested.” Again, that’s why Paul told Timothy, “all scripture is given by the inspiration
of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that
the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Again, Jude tells us, “contend earnestly for the faith that has been delivered once and for all”
(verse 3), God seals his word at the end of the bible by saying “anyone who adds or takes away
from this book God will take his name out of the book of life,” some Christians use this scripture
to teach a person can lose their salvation, but I don’t believe that, because of all the scriptures
that teach we are eternally secure , so this is hyperbole. It’s saying, even if this was the only sin
you committed in your life then it would be enough to damn you. God’s word is using hyperbole
to emphasise the danger in tampering with God’s word, Revelation 22:18-19. God’s word says
that when a person gets saved that he is complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10) and that he has all
things pertaining to godliness. There is nothing else the believer needs to live a godly life except
to learn Gods word and obey it. If only Charismatics and Pentecostals believed this instead of
saying, “I had a dream, a vision, a revelation, God speaking to me, words of knowledge, God gave
me a prophecy” etc. All these claims are an attack on the sufficiency and completeness of God’s
word. read Jeremiah 23:16-40 and you’ll see what the Lord thinks of what is going on in the
Charismatic and Pentecostal movement today concerning, dreams, visions, revelations, words of
knowledge, and God speaking to them. This is all part of the end times apostasy that the Bible
said would take place just prior to the Lord returning to Earth, No, God has given us all the
information we need in His word. What I discovered was that Calvinists, Charismatics and
Pentecostals are very selective with the scriptures they use to back up their teaching and they
ignore other scriptures that would prove their conclusions false. At first, what they teach seems
right and biblical, but under close examination, their teaching leads to confusion and multiple
contradictions of God’s word. So I’ve decided to write this primarily for my own children, but if
this can help other believers better understand the problems with Calvinism, then I hope it can
give them something to think about. After that introduction I’ll now explain why I have rejected
Calvin and Augustine’s teaching. 

Read further on Calvinism:

Calvinist doctrine can be summed up in the acronym TULIP.
T Total depravity, or as some Calvinists define it, an inability to believe.
U Unconditional election, that God chooses some to be saved and reprobates the vast
majority of mankind by default.
L Limited atonement, that the atonement was efficacious, only for the elect, or that, when
Jesus was on the cross, God the Father only put the sins of the saved on Him (otherwise
we would have Universalism, i.e. that all the human race will eventually be saved).
I Irresistible grace, that the Holy Spirit irresistibly draws the elect to regeneration.


P Perseverance of the saints, that if a person is one of the elect, he will keep the faith to the
end, proving his election by living a Godly life.
Total Depravity
Martin Luther said this is the hinge on which the whole Reformation turned and even wrote a
book called ‘The Bondage of the Will’ to try and explain that we don’t even have a will. Luther
believed that every action and choice of man was ultimately part of God’s ‘sovereign plan’ – even
the fall of Satan from heaven and the fall in Genesis. Calvin believed this too and so did
Augustine ( so called saint Augustine) Calvin repeatedly called Gods sovereign plan ‘the mystery
of His will’ or ‘His good pleasure’. Calvin and Augustine had what I would call an exaggerated
definition of sovereignty. They believed that everything that happens is part of God’s sovereign
rule and that nothing happens outside of that, or that would mean he wasn’t sovereign. The
Westminster confession of faith (a Calvinist manifesto) paraphrasing Calvin declares,
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.... Those of
mankind that are predestinated unto life, God... hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory... to
the praise of his glorious grace.... The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will... for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures...
to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
So, “God was pleased” said Calvin, to predestine countless billions to hell for no other reason
than “for the glory of his sovereign power”? And what does, “according to the unsearchable
counsel of his own will” mean? If you want to know what God’s will is on any matter, then surely
we just need to go to His word, and according to His word He desires that none perish, so let’s
see what He says about the unsaved. God’s word states, “’Do I have any pleasure at all that the
wicked should die?’ says the Lord God, ‘and not that he should turn from his ways and live?’”
Ezekiel 18:23. The Lord is asking a rhetorical question. ‘No’ is the answer; the Lord takes no
pleasure in the death of the wicked. In fact, in 1 Timothy 2:4, it says that “God desires all men to
be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.”
Even the Calvinist writer R. C. Sproul admits, “if some people are not elected unto salvation, then
it would seem that God is not all that loving towards them. Further, it seems that it would have
been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.”
What does sovereign mean? Although the word isn’t in the Bible (like the word ‘trinity’), the
Bible does teach that God is sovereign, but what does that mean? That everything is ordained by
God? According to Calvin, Augustine and Calvinists, that’s what it does mean. But this idea
doesn’t come from scripture. I’m looking at John MacArthur’s (a Calvinist) Topical Bible under
the heading ‘sovereign plan of God’, he has listed 10 scriptures that give examples of God’s
sovereignty, none of which could prove that God has ordained or caused every event or chose for
heaven or hell. I’ll quote a couple:
Job 42:2 “I know that you can do everything and that no purpose of yours can be withheld from
you.” Does that sound like God has caused every event? It says He can do everything, not that He
does everything. No one is arguing whether or not God can do anything He desires, but that’s
completely different from causing everything to happen, even sin. It’s obvious God cannot lie


Titus ch1vs2 and he cannot sin 1st John 3:9, so why does this verse say “I know that you can do
everything” a critic of the bible could point to this and say look ! here’s a contradiction, between
Job 42:2 and Titus 1 and 1st John 3:9, Calvinists have used Job42:2 to try and back up their
exaggerated doctrine of sovereignty that God has caused everything to happen and McArthur
has fallen into that trap, because he’s used this scripture under the title Gods sovereignty in his
topical bible, and Calvinists believe God caused every event in his universe to happen even sin,
and this is a verse they use to prove that, no Gods word is presuming that you would know that
when the bible says he can do everything it would mean except sin or cause to sin, but Calvin has
twisted Gods word to make God the author of sin, and so I’m even more amazed when Calvinists
always major on the fact of Gods holiness and often Quote scriptures like Isaiah 6:3 yet put the
blame for the fall of Satan from heaven on Gods sovereignty, the fall in the garden of eden, and
every sin ever commited by the human race, you can read all that in Calvins own words and his
followers writings, Piper, White, Sproul ect;, I give an example of this on page16 from Gordon
Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good, to those who love God, to
those who are called according to His purpose.” We all know Christians who have been divorced;
some like King David have committed adultery and committed all kinds of sins. Anyone reading
this will be aware of many sins they have committed as a believer. As a child of God, we’ve all let
the Lord down, offended Him, grieved Him, quenched the Spirit. Is this all part of God’s
sovereign will? Never. Is It all part of ‘all things working together for the good, to those who love
God’? Obviously not. No, we thwart God’s will for our life by our sinful choices. God wants to
progressively sanctify us, and how sanctified we become (I’m talking about sanctification here
not salvation) depends on the choices we make. That doesn’t mean God hasn’t done His part in
progressive sanctification. No, we have been disobedient to Him. Look at what Paul says to the
Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 “and I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people
but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now
you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For
where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere
men? For when one says “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” Paul
is rebuking them here because they aren’t growing up spiritually. ‘But I thought Romans 8:28
says all things work together for good? So would this be God’s will that they are like that?’
Obviously not. They were being disobedient. God expects us to obey Him. We have a free will
and whether we mature in the faith depends on our choices. According to Calvin, Luther, etc.
their sinful choices and lack of progress were all part of God’s sovereign plan. That doesn’t make
All through God’s word, we have instances of saved people being disobedient to God. Was this all
part of God’s sovereign plan? In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul warns believers not to break bread in an
unworthy manner. In verses 27-32, he says, “he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner
drinks judgement on himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason, many are weak
and sick and many sleep.” So according to this, God had taken believers’ lives before their time
because they wouldn’t deal with sin in their life. So when God’s word says in Romans that ‘all
things work together for the good’, it’s said with the expectation of us obeying Him. That’s why
Jesus said, “be ye perfect as I am perfect”, it’s something we have to aim at and when we fall, get
back up. But it doesn’t mean God has ordained in His sovereignty that we disobey Him. If we are
all acting out God’s sovereign plan as Calvin believed, then why is there the judgement seat of


Christ, Romans 14:10-12 where it says each one will have to give account of himself ( only
believers appear at the judgement seat of Christ, and unbelievers appear at the great white
throne), and again as God’s word teaches in 1st cor;3:12-16 , where Paul is saying that as
believers we will have to give account for our service for the Lord and that anything done with
the wrong motive (wood hay and straw vs:12) will be burnt up, and according to verse 14 we
will be rewarded for service done with the right motive(God gives unmerited salvation but he
rewards service done as believers serve him with the right motive) some Christians don’t
believe that God will reward believers for the way they served him, but they can’t deny that in vs
14 rewards are mentioned, so this can’t be talking about salvation which is a free gift , If you look
up reward in the concordance of your bible you will see the many references to believers being
rewarded, so Calvins idea of sovereignty doesn’t fit with God’s word (that is that he causes
everything to take place). So sovereignty, I believe, means that whatever God chooses to do, He
cannot fail, He cannot make a mistake, and no appeal can be made beyond Him. Every action He
decides on, even in eternity past, will be fulfilled. That’s why in His word, He speaks of certain
events yet to take place as past tense, meaning they’re unstoppable. But all this is completely
different from saying everything that happens is His will. God in His sovereignty has decided to
give man a free will and After we get saved, it still operates. If we were robots, we’d be perfect,
but as believers we still make sinful choices, and if that is God’s sovereign will, then He is the
author of sin. We’ve all heard the saying, ‘what’s for you won’t go by you’, where did that foolish
saying come from? I think it came from this kind of thinking, that it was all part of God’s master
plan. I watched John Piper( a well known Calvinist pastor from Minnesota USA who has put a lot
of his teaching and beliefs on the internet) on youtube, he was talking about God’s sovereignty.
He makes the same mistake as Calvin and Augustine thinking that, unless God makes everything
happen in His universe, then He isn’t sovereign. That is a serious mistake; Piper is following
Calvin in this error. For example, on his talk on the sovereignty of God, to prove how sovereign
God is, he says, “if I go home tonight and get shot dead, so what? It’s God’s will.”that’ Is fatalism,
Can you imagine people listening to that that have had horrible things happen to them? For
example, a woman hearing that who has been raped, or had a son murdered, or someone who
was molested as a child by a paedophile , or someone run over by a drunk driver, saying to them
self, “so that was God’s will? God orchestrated all that?” Go online and read Calvin’s institutes
where he expounds his extreme view of God’s sovereignty. Calvin wrote his institutes only one
year after leaving the Catholic Church where he idolised Augustine, the chief architect and
guardian of Roman Catholic Theology. He mentions Augustine more than 400 times in his
institutes with statements like ‘on the authority of Augustine’, etc. All Calvinism is is repackaged
Augustinianism, the man who formulated most of Catholic Church theology. That is why
Calvinists have very similar beliefs to Catholic theologians. For example, that God is finished
with the Jews and the Church is the ‘Israel of God’ and the amillennialism that Calvinists hold on
to is the same as the Catholic Church’s eschatology (more on that later). Consider the following
from Calvin himself . Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a
confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his
Going back to total depravity, how does a person get saved, according to God’s word?, From the
very start, let me state first of all that I don’t believe a person can get saved without the
conviction of the Holy Spirit, that is, that the natural man left to his own devices can never come
to a saving knowledge of Christ. Jesus states that in John 16:8 when he says, “when He [the Holy
Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin and righteousness and of judgement”. But that


doesn’t mean that everyone who will come under conviction will respond to the Holy Spirit.
Some will, most won’t. The bible talks about people who could have responded in repentance to
the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, but instead hardened their hearts. In John 12:48 Jesus
says, “he who rejects me and does not receive my words has that which judges him, the word
that I have spoken will judge him in the last day “. Again, John 15:22, “if I had not come and
spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin”. Could their
excuse not be, “well I’m totally depraved and unable to respond and it was you that made me
that way, Lord”? Verse 24, “if I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they
would have no sin, but now they have seen and also hated me and my Father”. Jesus is holding
those who reject Him culpable; if you look under ‘will’, ‘willing’ and ‘wilful’ in the concordance of
your bible, you will see repeatedly that people wilfully rejected Him in spite of God’s word being
spoken to them by the Lord himself and by His miracles, and Jesus indicts them for it. This
continual rejection of the truth is why the first martyr in the Church, Stephen, said to the
religious leaders of Israel, “you always resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts
7:51-54). But according to the ‘I’ in ‘TULIP’, the Holy Spirit is irresistible. And if God has made
them totally depraved, what should God expect but rejection of His word? Yet God holds them
guilty and blames them for resisting the Holy Spirit. It’s a presumption of Calvin’s that anyone
who comes under conviction of the Holy Spirit will automatically get saved. We will look into
God’s word and see that this is not so. Another scripture often quoted by Calvinists to support
irresistible grace and election is john 6:39 “This is the will of the father who sent me that of all
he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” , this is a great
scripture for eternal security ( that we can’t lose our salvation) not election, the ones here the
Lord is talking about are the ones who got saved who are all the father has given him, another
verse john 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, and I will
raise him up in the last day” like I mentioned earlier unless a person is convicted by the holy
spirit he can’t get saved but a person can and many do resist the holy spirit. Again, look at
Matthew 23:37, Jesus says to the Jews, “Oh Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers
her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing”. First of all, this proves the deity of Christ
and is a reference to the pre-incarnate Lord wanting to shepherd the Jews in the Old Testament,
but they rejected the Lord and murdered the prophets. Whose fault was that? The Lord is saying
here that He wanted to gather them together, but they were not willing. ‘Willing’ is a word
Calvinists despise, that’s why Luther wrote ‘The Bondage of the Will’, to try and prove that our
will was really God’s will and that we were all in bondage to God’s will all along.
I’m looking at John MacArthur’s study bible; MacArthur is a well known Calvinist and a good
friend of R. C. Sproul and other well-known Calvinists. He mentioned the fact he was a Calvinist
at the start of the pastor’s conference in 2000 in Edinburgh. I’ve chosen his bible commentary
because he is a Calvinist and I quote John Piper as he is also a well-known Calvinist, in case a
Calvinist reads this and thinks, “well he’s quoting Arminians”( a derogatory term Calvinists use
for non Calvinists, named after Jacob Arminius who contested with calvinists). In Hebrews 6:4,
it says, “for it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly
gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the
powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they
crucify again for them self the Son of God and put Him to an open shame”. MacArthur says in his
study bible, “even though the concept of partaking is used in 3:1, 14 and 12:8 of a relationship
which believers have, the context must be the final determining factor. This context in verses 4-6


seems to preclude a reference to true believers. It could be a reference to the participation, as
noted above, in the miraculous ministry of Jesus who was empowered by the Spirit, or in the
convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) which obviously can be resisted without
experiencing salvation (Acts 7:51).” MacArthur, at the bottom of the page, under 6:6 goes on to
say, “the reason is, that they have rejected Him with full knowledge and conscious experience”.
I’ll say ‘amen’ to that, but what MacArthur has just said contradicts the ‘T’ in ‘TULIP’ (total
depravity). It also contradicts the ‘U’ (unconditional election), that the non-elect had no chance
of salvation anyway. It also contradicts the ‘I’ (irresistible grace) that states that the convicting
work of the Holy Spirit is irresistible. Again, MacArthur on Hebrews 3:12, the bible says “beware,
brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.
But exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘today’, lest any of you be hardened through the
deceitfulness of sin. Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart as in rebellion.” This is
talking about unsaved people making sinful choices after they have heard the word of God.
That’s what “today if you will hear his voice [God’s word]” means, it’s a person who disdains the
word of God to hold on to his sinful lifestyle. Why would God’s word tell them “do not harden
your heart” if they were totally depraved and couldn’t do anything but stay in their sin? Anyway,
if they were totally depraved in the first place, then their hearts couldn’t be hardened any more
than they already were, so there would be no point in warning them not to harden their hearts.
MacArthur, commenting on this, says in 3:13, “repeated rejection of the gospel concerning Jesus
results in a progressive hardening of the heart and will result in outright antagonism to the
gospel.” Then at the end of 3:13, he says, “choosing the path of unbelief always leads only to
death”. Well said, John, but Calvinists teach man has no choice in the matter as he’s dead in his
trespasses and sins (more on that later). MacArthur correctly refers to Proverbs 1:23, one I
know very well as it was what the Lord put on my heart to say to my dad and was the last
scripture I said to him before he passed away. What would Calvinists make of this, where the
blame for not responding to God’s word and getting saved is put squarely on the person who
made the wrong choice? Mark this in your bible, it’s a very important scripture that is a warning
to anyone who disdains God’s word:
Turn at my reproof; surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words
known to you. Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and
no one regarded, because you disdained all my counsel, and would have none of my
reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, when
your terror comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when
distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they
will not find me. Because they hated knowledge and did not CHOOSE the fear of the
Lord, they would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they
shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies. For
the turning away of the simple will slay them, and the complacency of fools will destroy
them; but whoever listens to me will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of
The problem with this person is that, instead of yielding to the Holy Spirit in repentance, he (in
verse 29) hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord. There was nothing wrong
with his understanding of the message; he would have none of God’s counsel (His word) and
despised the Lord’s every rebuke. This person, and the millions who do this down through the
ages, can’t say to the Lord at the Great White Throne, “if only you didn’t make me totally


depraved (unable to respond), and if only I was one of the elect, but since I wasn’t one, then I
had no chance since, before the foundation of the world, You decided I was going to hell. So all
that appealing, Lord, was a cruel hoax.” The Lord then gets the blame.
One of the many errors of Calvin was that he thought foreknowledge and predestination were
the same thing and used these words interchangeably in his institutes. He believed, along with
Augustine, that the only way God could tell the future was because He made it happen that way.
So in Romans 8:29, where it says, “whom He foreknew, He predestined” would or could mean,
according to Calvin, “whom He foreknew, He foreknew” or “whom he predestined, he
predestined”. That doesn’t make sense, but according to Calvin, the only way God knew who was
going to be saved was because He made it happen. This is a serious error in Calvin’s reasoning
and is why he tried to shape and fit his theology with the idea that God had to predestine the
elect for heaven and reprobate (a term he uses) for hell, regardless of the numerous times God
says He loves the world (John 3:16) and died for all (more on that later). Well what does Romans
8:29 mean? According to MacArthur in his study bible, he says, “an inviolable rule of grammar
called the Granville Sharp rule equates ‘predestined’ and ‘foreknowledge’.” I think that’s
stretching it a bit. Anyone throughout the ages, who knew nothing of the Granville Sharp rule,
and just reading their bible, would see two different words here. ‘Foreknowledge’ according to
the Oxford Dictionary simply means ‘to know beforehand’ (prescience). And ‘Predestine’ gives
‘to determine beforehand’. So to ‘know’ and to ‘determine’ something is completely different. So
what does Romans 8:29 mean? This is a classic scripture that Calvinists use to support their idea
of unconditional election. But this scripture is about sanctification, not salvation, let’s break it
down. “For whom he foreknew,” – those he knew in advance who would respond (to the
convicting work of the Holy Spirit) and get saved – “he predestined,” – to be conformed to the
image of His Son. The ‘predestined’ part is referring to us being sanctified; it’s talking about
progressive sanctification. There are different aspects of sanctification in God’s word; we have to
look in context. ‘Sanctification’ means ‘ to set apart’ – there are four aspects of this in God’s
word, concerning Gods people, we’ll call it the four P’s.
 Preconversion sanctification – Paul the Apostle realised he had been set apart before he
was born to preach to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15).
 Positional sanctification – When we get saved, we are set apart from the world, no longer
children of wrath, but children of God, from sinner to saints, etc.
 Progressive sanctification – As we live our lives as believers, we are progressively,
through the work of the Holy Spirit in our heart, made more like Christ. The Lord chips
away the bad habits and moulds us to make us more like His Son. We become
progressively holy
 Perfect sanctification – When we go to be with the Lord, we will be completely separated
from sin in heaven.
So what this is saying here in Romans 8:29 is that God determined in eternity past that those
who got saved, he would progressively sanctify. This has got nothing to do with choosing for
heaven, but us being made into the image of His Son (holy). Verse 30 says, “moreover, whom he
predestined [decided to progressively sanctify], these he called [saved]. Whom he called, he also
justified [a legal term,- to declare righteous, that is that the moment we got saved the Lord made


a declaration in heaven before all of heaven that we were no longer under condemnation but
that we belonged to him, read Romans ch8 vs 15-17,( and this Is why I said to the priest I feel I
have a personal relationship with God, before I knew this scripture I knew It in my heart, and
that was the holy spirit that brought that out my mouth, and Satan then attacked me at that time
to try and snuff out my faith,) these he also glorified”. If you are saved, are you glorified? No? And
neither am I. So why is this speaking in the past tense? It’s because it’s so unstoppable that God
speaks as if it’s already happened. This is a great scripture for eternal security, that we can’t lose
our salvation. I’m a firm believer in that; once saved, always saved, (I’ve met many Christians
who believe they can lose their salvation and I feel sorry for them what kind of limbo is that to
be in ? to say well i’m saved but unless I perform and do my best I’ll lose it and Calvinists fall into
that error under the p in tulip the perseverance of the saints, we’ll look at that later). The Lord
talks like this in Psalm 2 when it talks about the Lord coming back at the battle of Armageddon.
In verse 6, it says, “yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion [Mount of Olives]”. This
obviously is yet future, but the Lord is saying ‘consider it done’. Obviously there are things God
has planned for the future, but that doesn’t mean He’s caused everything to happen. So total
depravity is not biblical, and that is why the Lord can say things like, “‘come now and let us
reason together’ says the Lord, ‘though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool; if you are willing and obedient, you shall
eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword, for the
mouth of the Lord has spoken” Isaiah 1:18-19. This is the Lord giving Israel an ultimatum,
obviously that wouldn’t make sense if they were totally depraved and couldn’t make a choice on
the matter. Look at what the Lord’s saying: “if you are willing and obedient”. This, and all the
other scriptures that invite sinners to come to Christ, would be a hoax if God made it impossible
for the non elect (totally depraved) to respond in the first place, It would be like the Lord
breaking a man’s legs and then chastising him for not entering a marathon if he (the unsaved)
couldn’t respond to the Lords invitation, remember too that the Lord told a parable in Matthew
22 about God inviting sinners to repentance/salvation and they turned down Gods /the Lords
invitation let’s look at it starting in verse 2 “ The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who
arranged a marriage for his son and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the
wedding but they were not willing to come. Again he sent out other servants saying tell those
who are invited, see I have prepared my dinner my oxen and fatted cattle are killed and all
things are ready come to the wedding, but they made light of it and went their ways one to his
own farm another to his business and the rest seized his servants treated them spitefully and
killed them but when the king heard about it he was furious and he sent out his armies
destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, the wedding
is ready but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways and as
many as you find, invite to the wedding. So those servants went out into the highways and
gathered together all they found both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
But when the king came into see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding
garment .So he said to him, friend how did you come in here without a wedding garment? And
he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, bind him hand and foot, take him away
and cast him into outer darkness there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, for many are
called, but few are chosen.” I can’t imagine anything being clearer in Gods word than the fact
that these people could have been at this wedding if they accepted the invitation. I believe this
first of all is a reference to the jewish nation who were invited to eternal life (the kingdom of
God) by the prophets whom they killed ,represented by the servants in this parable who were


killed the last being John the Baptist , they (the jewish nation or the vast majority who rejected
the Lord Jesus)have turned down the king of kings invitation to eternal life and instead tried to
make their own way into heaven by keeping the law which is impossible, so they depended on
their religious self righteousness, represented by the man (who didn’t have a wedding garment
on ; Christs righteousness)who was evicted, thrown out tied hand and foot . How would calvin
and his followers deal with this parable?, especially the last verse, verse 14 which says “for many
are called, but few are chosen” a bona fide offer to salvation, and who are the people from the
highways that took their place at the wedding feast?, well that’s the Gentiles who get saved by
believing the gospel ,more on this later when we look at the olive tree in Romans 11. Again
Matthew 11:28, “come to me all you who are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest”, another bona
fide offer of salvation. John 12:32, “and if I am lifted up, I will draw all people to myself”.

Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election – another phrase not found in the Bible – “necessarily follows from total
depravity.” This doctrine is really the heart of Calvinism, as many of its leading apologists testify.
Calvinist writer, Herman Hanko declares, “No man can claim ever to be either Calvinist of
Reformed without a firm and abiding commitment to this precious truth.” Sproul, though a
staunch Calvinist, fears that the term “can be misleading and grossly abused.” While all
Calvinists don’t agree on this doctrine, I am trying to be faithful to the majority view. The Canons
of Dort (a meeting in Dordrecht, Holland where the leading Calvinists of the day thrashed out
their beliefs and summed them up in the acronym TULIP) explained the tenet as “the
unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere
grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human
race... a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ.” Unconditional Election is the
outworking of the Calvinistic view of sovereignty and predestination. Once the latter two are
accepted, this doctrine inexorably follows. Why so few were chosen by the God who “is love” (1
John 4:8) and the rest damned is a major problem which Calvin himself recognised. Yet
throughout his Institutes he offered no satisfactory explanation. Unable to integrate God’s love
into the process of Unconditional Election, Calvin simply struck back sharply at his critics while
pleading Augustine’s authority:
I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of predestination to carp, or cavil, or
snarl, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the
principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one of them
unassailed with blasphemy....
The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of
the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains.... Augustine disguises not that... he was
often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too freely, but, as it was
easy for him to do, he abundantly refutes the charge....
The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others
to eternal death... is greatly cavilled at, especially by those who make prescience its


Calvin in typical fashion ridicules those who he claims “cavil, or snarl” against his views on
predestination. He mocks what he calls “the slanders of the ungodly” as though anyone who
disagrees with him is automatically ungodly. Conspicuous by their absence, however, are sound
biblical reasons either to refute these critics or to substantiate irrefutably his dogmas. While
some soften their stance by calling themselves four-point or three-point Calvinists, the first
word that Calvinism suggests to most people is predestination and if they have a modicum of
theological knowledge, the other four points follow. The Five Points of Calvinism all tie together.
He who accepts one of the points will accept the other points. Unconditional election necessarily
follows from total depravity. If any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied, the Reformed
heritage is completely lost; Hanko states that “if any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied,
the Reformed heritage is completely lost; the truth of unconditional election stands at the
foundation of them all [five points]. This truth is the touchstone of the Reformed faith. It is the
very heart and core of the gospel.” So again the claim is made that Calvinism is the gospel. If that
were true, then only Calvinists could be saved!
The term ‘unconditional election’ was chosen because it conveys the meaning that “salvation is
of the Lord and not of man.” Spurgeon declared, “all true theology is summed in these two short
sentences: Salvation is all of the grace of God. Damnation is all of the will of man.” There is a
confusion, however, between salvation, which could only be effected through the sacrifice of
Christ for our sins, and our acceptance thereof, which the Bible clearly states is a condition: “as
many as received him... become the sons of God” (John 1:12). The Calvinist insists, however, that
salvation cannot be conditioned upon any act or belief on man’s part. Calvinistic Election says to
the unregenerate elect, “don’t worry, your Depravity is no obstacle to salvation,” and to the
unelect, “too bad, you have not been predestined for salvation but to damnation.” R. C. Sproul
writes, “the term election refers specifically to one aspect of divine predestination. God’s
choosing of certain individuals to be saved.” This choosing can only be from God’s side: “By
making election conditional upon something that man does, even if what he does is simply to
repent and believe the gospel, God’s grace is seriously compromised.” Sproul adds, “the
Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to
insure their salvation.” Why does the Calvinist insist that to be saved one cannot even believe the
gospel but that God must first ‘intervene’ sovereignly to ‘regenerate’ the elect without their even
knowing it is happening or without having any faith in Christ or understanding of the gospel?
Because it is claimed that ‘faith’ is a ‘work.’ This declaration is made repeatedly: “to reject
[Calvinistic] election is to reject salvation by grace and promote salvation by works.” Yet if
anything is clear in scripture it is the undisputable fact that faith is not work but its very
antithesis: “By grace ye are saved, through faith;... not of works” (Ephesians 2:8-9); “But to him
that worketh not, but believeth...” (Romans 4:5). Nothing could be clearer than the fact that, by
believing, one is doing no work. In fact, faith and work are contrasted.
Unconditional Election demands the same distorted view of God’s sovereignty that undergirds
all of Calvinism. I have already shown that this perspective is unbiblical, but to the Calvinist it is
the very foundation of his belief: “the all-out emphasis on the almighty sovereignty of Jehovah
God is the truth and beauty of Calvinism.” Another writer adds, “Only the Calvinist... recognises
God’s absolute sovereignty.” On the contrary, all Christians believe that God is absolutely
sovereign; but many do not accept the unbiblical definition of what that means which Calvinists
attempt to force on all of us. Without any serious effort to reconcile the theory to God’s love and
mercy or to man’s inherent sense of what is right, the Calvinist writer Palmer declares with no


apparent sense of contradiction that “God... has foreordained... even sin.” In fact, sin is rebellion
against God, so it could hardly be willed by God. Nevertheless, like Palmer, Gordon H. Clark
insists that
...every event is foreordained because God is omniscient; and no detail... escapes his
foreknowledge and deliberate counsel. Everything is part of his plan. Of everything God
says ‘This it must be....’ Must not they who say that God does not foreordain evil acts
now hang their heads in shame?
God’s omniscience does not require Him to foreordain everything. Here is another form of the
discredited argument that God can only foreknow what He has foreordained. As already pointed
out, if that were the case, far from supporting a belief that God is omniscient, it would limit His
knowledge and diminish His sovereignty. Clark, Palmer and Pink are simply echoing Calvin, who
said that God “foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they
are so to happen....” Calvin goes on to reason that it is therefore “vain to debate about prescience,
while it is clear that all events take place by his [God’s] sovereign appointment.” Following their
leader, many Calvinists argue, “if a single event can happen outside of God’s sovereignty, then He
is not totally sovereign, and we cannot be assured that His plan for the ages will be
accomplished.” This theory, as we have seen, had its roots in Calvin’s Roman Catholicism and
love of Augustine; it cannot be found in scripture. John R. Cross, who made the great New Tribes
Mission video, ‘Delivered from the Power of Darkness’, has said it well:
From the third chapter of Genesis on, the scriptures shout ‘free will’. The whole volume
talks about choices, and the associated consequences. God saw fit to write an entire
book on choices, the Book of Wisdom (Proverbs). Having a free will makes sense of
God’s free love.... Suppose you met someone who... showed real love for you – going out
of his way to do special things for you... telling you they loved you. Then you found out
that they had no choice – they were programmed to ‘be loving’... well, it would be a
terrible disappointment. It would all seem so artificial, so meaningless, so empty. And it
would be. Man was given a choice.... Having this choice defined man as a human being:
to eat or not to eat, to obey or disobey, to love or not to love. Man was not a robot. Man
was able to love by his own free choice [without which love is not love].
In Matthew 18:14, Jesus says, “it is NOT the will of your Father, which is in heaven, that one of
these little ones should perish.” So according to Calvinists, all of these little ones must have been
the elect. Calvinist writer, John White, informs us, “why is one man raised to eternal life and
another left to eternal destruction? It is according to the kind intention of His will.” So it’s God’s
kindness that causes Him to damn so many? The Apostle James points out the hypocrisy of
saying to someone who is “naked, and destitute of daily food... be ye warmed and filled” and then
failing to meet his need (James 2:15-16). The God who inspired James to write those words,
however, according to Calvinism, tells a lost and perishing world, “believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” but neglects to elect the perishing to the salvation He seemingly
offers. Such a God sees those who are worse than physically naked and destitute and, far more
serious that failing to meet their temporal needs, He fails to rescue the perishing from an eternal
hell even though He could in His omnipotence and sovereignty do so. Is this really the God of the
Bible, or a God that Calvin borrowed from Augustine? God told Moses, “[I] will be gracious to
whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exodus 33:19). That
statement is often misunderstood and misused. God does not say that He will be gracious and
merciful to some and not to others. He is simply saying that grace and mercy are by His


cannot be demanded nor is He under any obligation to extend them to anyone. In
2 Corinthians 5:11, Paul states, “knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” A
Calvinist today would tell Paul, “there is no point trying to persuade anyone, Paul, because ‘x’
amount will get into heaven. No matter what way you cut it, slice it, or dice it, it won’t change.”
Again, in Acts 19:8, it says that Paul went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months
reasoning and persuading. One of the people Paul reasoned with later in his missionary

outreach was Felix the Governor. Acts 24:25 says that Paul reasoned about righteousness, self-
control and the judgement to come. Felix was afraid, the Bible says, but never repented. I believe

being afraid meant Paul made him aware of coming judgement, and Felix believed that. But like
most people today, he decided to take his chances. Felix then said to Paul in verse 25, “go away
for now; when I have a convenient time, I will call you.” Commenting on this, MacArthur says,
“the moment of conviction passed and Felix foolishly passed up his opportunity to repent.” I’d
say to John MacArthur, who is a Calvinist, “what difference would it make, John? Because I
thought, if he isn’t one of the elect, he’d no chance of getting saved, so he never missed any
opportunity. In fact, he never had a chance in the first place.” MacArthur then quotes 2
Corinthians 6:2 where Paul “pleads with the Corinthians, not to receive the grace of God in vain.”
Paul quotes Isaiah 49:8, “in an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I
have helped you; behold, now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation.”
MacArthur comments on this by saying, “there is a time in God’s economy when He listens to
sinners and responds to those who are repentant, and it was and is that time (Proverbs 1:23,
Isaiah 55:6, Hebrews 3:7-8, 4:7). However, there will also be an end to that time (Genesis 6:3,
John 9:4), which is why Paul’s exhortation is so passionate.” I agree with MacArthur here, and
the other comments he’s made that I’ve quoted, but I’m afraid he’s not a good Calvinist, because
what he says flies in the face of TULIP. He also quoted Genesis 6:3 where the Bible says, “I will
not always strive with man, says the Lord.” MacArthur, commenting on this, says, “the Holy Spirit
played a most active role in the Old Testament. The Spirit had been striving to call men to
repentance and righteousness through the preaching of Enoch and Noah 120 years until the
flood, during which man was given the opportunity to respond to the warning that God’s Spirit
would not always be patient. When I read MacArthur’s statements here, and the others I’ve read,
I can’t understand how he can be a Calvinist. Calvin would look at Genesis 6:3 and say, “well
obviously they aren’t the elect, so that’s it.” But why would the Lord speak through Noah and the
others in God’s word, if He made it impossible for them to get saved in the first place? Obviously
in Calvin’s mind, and all who follow him, the Lord is not sincere, pleading with the Jews and the
Gentiles all over the Bible, through the patriarchs, the prophets, apostles and Christ Himself; but
having chosen to make the vast majority of humanity among the non-elect. In Joshua 24:15,
Joshua says, “choose this day whom you shall serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve
the Lord.” In Hosea 11:4, it says that “the Lord drew Israel with gentle cords, with bands of love
‘and I [the Lord] was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed
them.’” In the next verse, it says, “but the Assyrians shall be his king, because they refused to
repent.” Obviously to all, except a Calvinist, God gave them an opportunity to repent, and they
turned it down. It is the same with individuals, and the Bible is full of warnings about turning
down (resisting the Holy Spirit) God’s offer. That again is why, in Romans 10:21, Paul quotes
Isaiah 65:2, where the Lord says, “all day long I have stretched my hand out to a disobedient and
contrary people.” The Jews in the Old Testament chose by their own volition to go against the
Lord – and by the way, Israel is called by God ‘my elect’ (Isaiah 45:4). Elected to serve God, and
they refused. Going back to Acts 26:27, Paul says to King Agrippa, “do you believe the prophets?


I know that you believe.” Then Agrippa says to Paul, “you almost persuade me to become a
Christian.” I believe the Holy Spirit gave Paul the discernment to the fact that Agrippa believed
what he was saying from God’s word. And Agrippa had an opportunity, but counted the cost and
never repented. Agrippa, I think, would be like those in John 12:42-43, where it says, “many
believed in Him [Jesus], but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess Him, lest they should
be put out the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men rather than God.” People count the
cost when confronted with the word of God and the gospel and, like Agrippa, put it off. That
again is why Hebrews says, “today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” When people
don’t respond, their heart hardens, not because they were never one of the elect, it’s because
they love their sin or are afraid of what others would think and say about them (most people
today as then are terrified by what others will say about them if they follow Christ, and maybe
that is why in the book of Revelation ch 21 vs 8 the first people mentioned there that are thrown
into hell are COWARDS) or, as the Bible says, “they are lovers of pleasure rather than of God” (2
Timothy 3:4).
Probably the most quoted part of scripture I’ve heard from Calvinists over the years is Romans
9:13, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Calvinists love this scripture and say, “see? God
hated Esau” as if he’s the prototype of all the non-elect. This is a total fallacy. John Piper talks
about this on youtube, but never once mentions that, in Genesis 25:23, the Lord says to Rebekah,
“two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body,” the Edomites
from Esau, and the Israelites from Jacob. Anyone who believes the Bible knows that God has
sovereignly chosen Israel to be the nation on Earth that would bring the Messiah into the world.
Here, we have a people, a nation, descended from Jacob, whom God said He loved, with whom
God made a covenant, whom are called ‘mine elect’ (Isaiah 45:4). Yet very few got saved and
went to heaven. In fact, in John’s gospel, Jesus says to them, “you are of your father, the Devil”
(John 8:44). Paul, in Romans 9:27, quotes Isaiah 10:23 and 28:22 by saying, “though the number
of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant shall be saved,” and again,
when Elijah went to the Lord in 1 Kings 19:14, saying, “I alone are left,” the Lord told him in
verse 18, “I have reserved 7000 in Israel whose knees have not bowed to Baal [7000 saved].” The
Jews represented by Jacob were not elected for salvation (although they thought they were and
called them self Abrahams children) or hell, but were chosen as a nation, made a nation by the
Lord, to be prepared for the Messiah, but they still needed saved. Some did, but most did not get
saved. Now these are the descendants of Jacob that Calvinists keep emphasising God loved, but
hated Esau. In God’s word, the Jews, or individuals, are never elected or predestined for
salvation, but rather for a purpose. The Edomites would become part of the Gentile nations who,
when presented with the Gospel in the Church Age and beyond, would get the opportunity to
believe and get saved. Again, some would, but most wouldn’t. Still in Romans 9:24, Paul says,
“even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Paul puts a question
mark here to signify a rhetorical question. He’s saying, “isn’t that a fact?” Going back to the Lord
saying, “I loved Jacob but hated Esau,” this is hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to
be taken literally, according to the Oxford Dictionary). In the hebrew language, hyperbole was
used to stretch the imagination to the outer limits to get the point across. There are quite a few
places in God’s word where this is used. Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians 13, “though I speak
with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I have become a sounding brass or a
clanging cymbal.” Well, there’s nowhere in the Bible that an angel speaks in a tongue other than
the language of the person he’s speaking to. Paul goes on to say in verse 2, “and though I have
the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and have all faith so that I


could remove mountains,” etc. Well, no one can understand all mysteries or have all knowledge;
only God, who is omniscient, has this attribute. So Paul is using hyperbole to expand our
imagination to the limit to get the point across. We’ve all said to our kids at some time, “I’ve told
you a million times,” that again is hyperbole , or we might say to our kids ,what! You want more
money?, you must think i’m a millionaire, It’s something we all use . So why do Calvinists keep
quoting this as if God hated [despised] as we would understand it?. It’s a desperate attempt to
bolster the argument of election. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says, “if anyone comes to me and does not
hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life, he cannot be
my disciple.” Let me ask you a question, do you hate your parents, your children, your family?
Obviously not, God’s word says, “honour your father and mother.” Would you die for your
children? Most parents would. So what did Jesus mean here? He meant ‘love less in devotion to
Him.’ Do the Calvinists take this literally? And if not, why not? Using the Calvinist reasoning, I
could go up to another believer and say, “do you hate your parents and your children?” He’s
going to say, “no, I love them,” then, in Calvinist mode, I could say, “well, according to Luke 14:26,
you cannot be a disciple of the Lord” and walk away from them. That would be very foolish of
me, and so it is a bit desperate for Calvinists to both take this out of context and make it literal,
just as it would be foolish for someone to say, “do you know you can actually have all knowledge
and understand all mysteries? Because Paul says it is possible in 1 Corinthians 13.” So why do
Calvinists continually say, “look, God hated Esau?” That is like saying “I hate (despise) my
parents, kids and family.” We don’t. This is typical of Calvinists, like I mentioned at the beginning
of this document; they take scripture out of context and interpret it in a way that contradicts the
rest of the bible to try and make it fit with Calvin’s and Augustine’s theories. According to God’s
word, the Esau that Calvinists keep emphasising that God hated would have descendants that
will be in heaven. How about that? Does the Bible teach this? Yes. In the book of Revelation,
chapter 5, the Church is in heaven, a great scripture for a pre-trib rapture, (this is before the
antichrist comes on the scene in chapter 6 and the tribulation begins) and the redeemed are
singing a song. Look at the lyrics of the song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its
seals, for You were slain and have redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every tribe, tongue,
people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God, and we shall reign on the
earth.” Acts 20:28 says, “God purchased the Church with His own blood.” This song mentions
there are redeemed from every tribe, tongue, people and nation (so this is not Israel); the
descendants of Esau are here. Verse 10 says, “You have made us kings and priests unto our God.”
You could only be a king and a priest in the New Testament (Revelation 1:6), so this is people
from the Church Age. You couldn’t be a king and a priest in the Old Testament, Hezekiah tried it
and the Lord struck him with leprosy. And look at the last line of this song, “and we shall reign
on the earth.” When will that take place? Think about this for a minute here are people in heaven
saying that they will reign on the earth? That is that they will leave heaven and come back to
earth and reign with the Lord, when will that happen?, It’s During the Millennial Reign of Christ.
We will be the administrators of His government on Earth, headquartered in Jerusalem, with
Jesus on the throne. There are many prophecies in God’s word concerning this, yet Calvin and
Augustine thought that anyone who believed that Christ would reign on the earth, in a literal
kingdom on the earth, was an idiot. In his Institutes Calvin declares (concerning anyone who
believes that Christ will set up a kingdom on earth) “ Their fiction Is too puerile to need or to
deserve refutation” Inst:111:xxv,5. That’s why they invented amillennialism. In fact, Augustine
invented it, and Calvin followed. Amilleniallists believe there will be no literal kingdom on earth,
instead Christ is reigning from heaven and all the prophecies in the Old Testament about an


edenic earth (for example, the book of Joel) are allegorised to mean something else. Augustine
was the first and main person to do this and Calvin has followed in his mentor’s footsteps. This
is a massive mistake. That is why Calvinists don’t understand Bible prophecy or the book of
Revelation. John Piper, a staunch Calvinist, when asked about the book of Revelation in a Q&A on
Youtube, gave a little laugh, a bit bashful and said, “all I know is we win”. Well, if that’s all he can
say about the book of Revelation, it shows he doesn’t understand it. He goes on to say, “Calvin
wrote a commentary on every book of the Bible except the book of Revelation.” John Piper
should not look to Calvin as his guide but consider what Jesus said, that the Holy Spirit would
lead us into all the truth, and the book of Revelation is part of that. A third of the Bible is
prophecy, how can a Calvinist understand prophecy if he’s told by Augustine (one of the fathers
of Catholicism) and his disciple Calvin that God’s word doesn’t mean what it says and that Christ
won’t reign on the earth and be told that God is finished with the nation of Israel and that the
church is the Israel of God, and so the church will now fulfil God’s covenants (covenant
theology)? Calvin and his followers drink from a polluted stream, and that is Augustine. That is
why Calvin kept referring to Augustine saying, “by the authority of Augustine”, etc. over 400
times in his institutes. Augustine, for example, told the fledgling Catholic church, that God was
finished with the Jews and had no future plans for that nation even though there are many
prophecies in the Old Testament still to be fulfilled by the Jewish nation. For example at the end
of the book of Revelation, John the Apostle is shown by God a city coming down out of heaven to
the new Earth. This city is called ‘the New Jerusalem’ and will last forever as it orbits ‘the New
Earth’ Rev21;9-27 Augustine told the founders and the architects of Catholicism that, since God
is finished with the Jews, then Rome – not Jerusalem – is God’s eternal city. That’s why today
Rome is called the eternal city by the Catholic Church. Yet Augustine is lauded by Calvin and
Calvinists as this great exegete; I don’t even believe Augustine was saved. He not only formulated

the teaching of the Catholic Church, but also persecuted true believers that believed in full-
immersion baptism. In Isaiah 8:20, it says, “to the law and the testimony, if they do not speak

according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Augustine didn’t speak according
to the bible because he didn’t understand the word of God and attacked and allegorised it and
twisted scripture to mean something else, and if he were alive today, he would probably be the
principal of a liberal Bible college, spouting his heresies. In fact, he’d be one of the people I
mentioned earlier in Acts 20:29-31, “a savage wolf, speaking perverse things,” and Calvin made
himself a protégé of this man.
John Walvoord, probably one of the greatest teachers on Bible prophecy, wrote a book that
taught on every prophecy in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, over 1000 prophecies. He
states at the start of the book that “Augustine was the first person to allegorise prophecy and so
lost the meaning of what God had to say about the future.” Yes, Satan used Augustine in a big
way, and over one and a half millennia later, amillennialism is still with us, and all Augustine and
his disciple Calvin’s errors. And that is why Calvinists, not only John Piper, don’t understand the
book of Revelation, the millennial Kingdom on earth, or the rapture that they say was invented
by either Jesuits or, as one told me, invented by J. N. Darby, the founder of the brethren
movement. They are also confused about the fact that God deals with Israel and the church as
two separate entities. If a believer wants to understand Bible prophecy, especially the books of
Daniel and Revelation, then it’s impossible if he believes in replacement theology, that the
church has replaced Israel. So when John Piper was asked about the book of Revelation, he just
gave the answer I expected, that is, “well, all I know is we win.” Satan has demolished Bible
prophecy in one masterstroke with Augustine then Calvin.


Going back to Unconditional Election, do you love the unsaved? Do did Paul. That is why he was
prepared to be beaten, whipped and almost killed. Look at 2 Corinthians 11:23-28, “Are they
ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labours more abundant, in stripes above
measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty
stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was
shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in
perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in
perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil,
in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness”. Paul was so
concerned for souls that he continually risked his life to reach the lost because he loved the
unsaved, and so should we. Yet Paul calls himself the chief of sinners, 1 Timothy 1:15. Now
where did that love come from? The Holy Spirit? And do you think Paul or anyone else would
have greater love for sinners than Jesus, the Lord? Has Paul, the chief of sinners, greater love for
the lost than the Lord? Yet Calvin and Augustine say that God doesn’t want the vast majority of
humanity saved; that’s what the ‘U’ in ‘TULIP’ means. That is, that God in the secret counsel of
His will (as Calvin states) doesn’t really want billions of people to go to heaven and has chosen a
tiny minority in comparison to the population of the Earth and has, by default, sent the rest to
the lake of fire for eternity. Calvin and Luther believed that God has two wills, the will of desire
and the will of decree, so to get round difficult scriptures like I mentioned for example 1tim 2vs4
“God our savior desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” requires
Calvinists to say , well he really desires all men saved but his decree has over ruled that, so God
has a split personality or what we would call, multi personality and That’s why some Calvinists
say things like, “it’s God’s permissive will” – that is an oxymoron (a self-contradictory
statement). What God permits and what he wills are two completely different things. To say that
God loves mankind (John 3:16) but doesn’t want them saved doesn’t make sense. Referring back
to Paul, continually risking his life to reach the lost when all along his efforts couldn’t add one
soul to the Book of Life, poor Paul. If only he’d met Calvin and Augustine before he went through
all his suffering to reach the lost; or even better, if only Paul could have been transported 1500
years into the future to the Synod of Dort in Holland and had TULIP explained to him by Calvin’s
disciples. Such a shame, that God waited 1500 years until Calvinism to enlighten us all. I’ve
looked at Calvin’s institutes online, I couldn’t find the love of God anywhere. Maybe that is why
his contemporaries called him “Master Calvin, a cold, harsh man, and the pope of Geneva.” No,
Calvinism is an attack on God’s character under the pretext of Reformed Theology. It’s not
theology (the study of God), but an attack from the enemy on true theology. A Calvinist I’ve
known for several years told me he had a hard time believing someone was saved if he wasn’t a
Calvinist. Maybe he was a hyper-Calvinist, and extreme form of Calvinism that one Calvinist (one
of John MacArthur’s elders) described to me as ‘out-Calvining John Calvin’.
Let’s look at Ephesians 2:1, a central point in Calvinism. Paul here says, “and you he made alive
who were dead in trespasses and sins”. I’ve stated at the very start of this letter that I believe the
natural man can never come to a saving knowledge of Christ unless the Holy Spirit convicts him
of his sin. But that doesn’t mean he’ll get saved – we can resist the Holy Spirit, as I quoted God’s
word to prove that. Calvinists will often say things like, “well if I go to the mortuary and speak to
dead bodies, nothing is going to happen.” Calvinists presume that someone speaking to a dead
body is a good analogy of how a person can’t respond unless he gets saved, but there is
something wrong with this reasoning. The Calvinist writer James White states in his book, ‘The
Potter’s Freedom, “the fallen sons of Adam are dead in sin, incapable of even the first move


towards God, filled with the effective depravity and alienation from God.” Here, the bible is being
made to say what it does not in fact state. We are just as clearly told that Christians are dead to
sin, Romans 6:2,7,11, etc. Does that mean that they are therefore incapable of the first move
towards sin? Certainly not. Even the Calvinist writer Pink correctly points out the fallacy of using
physical death to explain what it means to be dead in trespasses and sins:
There are some who say, the unregenerated are dead, and that ends the matter – they
cannot have any responsibility.... A Corpse in the cemetery is no suitable analogy of the
natural man. A corpse in the cemetery is incapable of performing evil! A corpse cannot
“despise and reject” Christ (Isaiah 53:3), cannot “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51),
cannot disobey the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8); but a natural man can and does do
these thing!
In Isaiah 1:18-20, we have the Lord appealing to the Israelites under the heading at the start of
this chapter ‘The judgement of Judah’. If you read the chapter, it’s a warning to Judah, that if they
do not respond to his warnings, then judgement will come. The whole chapter is one lament at
how God sees Israel. That is why Paul said in Romans, quoting the Lord, “all day long I have
stretched my hand out to a contrary people, and even if they number the grains of the sand in
the sea, only the remnant shall be saved.” All through the Old Testament, and right into the
Church Age, God is appealing to the spiritually dead, and they can hear him alright. If I go into a
mortuary and speak to the dead, obviously they won’t hear, but if the Lord did it, they would
hear it, because the word of God is supernatural. In verse 19 of this chapter in Isaiah it says, “if
you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land, but if you refuse and rebel, you
shall be devoured by the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Why would God hold
them guilty of not responding if they couldn’t respond? And why would the Lord in Proverbs
1:25 say, “because you disdained all my counsel [God’s word]” if people were unresponsive
corpses and couldn’t hear God’s word in the first place? It’s obvious that, they can still hear
God’s commands, as it says in verse 29, “they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the
Lord.” So they had a choice, like King Agrippa, when Paul said to him, “I know you believe the
prophets”. Here, we have a man who believed the prophets but would not repent. And so it is
today – it’s not because God made it impossible for them to believe, it’s because they refused. So,
as I mentioned earlier, I’d agree with MacArthur who said that Agrippa had an opportunity to
get saved and threw it away. Isaiah 55:11 says, “so shall my word be that goes forth from my
mouth, it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please and it shall prosper in
the things for which I sent it.” Millions throughout history have heard God’s word and, like
Agrippa, been in the valley of decision and put it off, so now all they can expect is what the book
of Hebrews calls, “ A fearful expectation of judgement” and the Jews in the Old Testament were
repeatedly warned of the consequences of disobedience but refused to obey the Lord. Look what
Paul the Apostle has to say about this in Romans 10 under the heading in verse 16 ‘Israel rejects
the prophets’, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed
our report?’ So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Now look what
Paul says in verse 18, he asks a rhetorical question, then he answers it himself,“But I say, have
they not heard? Yes indeed.” Then in verse 19, he asks another rhetorical question, “But I say, did
Israel not know?” yes they knew, so According to Paul, the Israelites had no excuse. They heard,
they understood, and they rejected the truth. What Paul says here is completely contrary to
TULIP and proves that the Jews were fully cognizant of the facts of God’s demands on them and
still rejected the Lord like those I mentioned earlier who were invited to the wedding and turned
down the invitation, there was nothing deficient in the invitation/message sent out That’s why,
as I mentioned, Jesus said to them, “how many times I wanted to gather you like a hen gathers its


chicks under its wings, but you refused me.” I can’t imagine anything being clearer in scripture
than the fact that God gave them every opportunity to submit to his authority and get saved and
they refused. And that’s why the Lord went on to say, “behold, your house is left desolate”, a
reference to the judgement that was coming and that was fulfilled under the emperor Titus
when he sacked Jerusalem in 70AD and slaughtered a million Jews in the process. Remember
what matthew 22vs7 says concerning the king sending out his armies to destroy those who
killed his servants, the roman attack was sent by the Lord and we know that from Gods word in
Ezekiel 36;16-22 it was prophesied also in Ezekiel 39;23.
The Bible also tells us that everyone has a conscience that convicts them. I would agree with
MacArthur who says that the conscience is a warning device, put there by our maker to warn of
danger and that we will be held accountable for our sinful choices, in fact we have two warning
devices, one is called pain and the other is our conscience (con-with, science-knowledge) we sin
with knowledge of Gods moral law written on our heart. MacArthur, at the Pastor’s Conference
in Edinburgh gave a good analogy of a plane crash in South America that actually took place. The
plane was flying at night and a warning device told the pilot, “pull up to higher altitude, pull up,
pull up, pull up”. The last words of the pilot were, “shut up, Gringo”, and he switched it off.
Moments later, he hit the peak of a mountain. The black box recorded all this. The investigation
concluded that the pilot thought the warning system was malfunctioning. Let’s look at God’s
word in John 8:9, it talks about how these unsaved hypocrites who were about to stone an
adulteress were convicted by their conscience. Again, Paul in Romans 13:4 says, “obey the
governing authorities, for they are God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who
practises evil.” Verse 5 goes on to say, “Therefore, you must be subject not only because of wrath,
but also for conscience’s sake.” In 1 Timothy 4:1-2, it’s talking about apostates who have their
conscience seared with a hot iron. In Isaiah 55:6, it says, “seek the Lord while he may be found,
call upon Him while He is near, let the wicked forsake his ways and the unrighteous man his
thoughts.” Again, Deuteronomy 4:29, God speaking to the Jews, “but from there you will seek the
Lord your God and you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and soul.” Matthew 7:7,
“ask and it will be given you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you.”
Revelation 3:20, “behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the
door, I will come in to him and dine with him.” All of these appeals would be an absolute hoax
from God if people could not respond. Romans 1:18-32: says.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what
may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible
God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and
creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their
hearts, to dishonour their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God
for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their
women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with
men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their


error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being
filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who,
knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practise such things are
deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them.
According to this, who’s to blame for these people heading for damnation? Well, according to
Calvin, and all who follow him, it’s ultimately God’s choice. Let me remind you what the
Westminster confession of faith says, as it paraphrases Calvin:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death....
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God... hath chosen in Christ unto
everlasting glory... to the praise of his glorious grace.... The rest of mankind, God was
pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will... for the glory of his
sovereign power over his creatures... to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their
sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
So why is God being critical of these people here in Romans if He has ordained in His sovereign
will (and according to Calvin, is even pleased) that they be this way? And again, why would the
king mentioned in Matthew 22 be raging at the people who never came to the wedding if he’d
made it impossible for them to come to the wedding? Going now to Romans 3:10-18, this again
is a classic scripture Calvinists use to teach total depravity and election. They say, “look at verse
11, ‘there is none who understands, there is none who seek after God, there is none who does
good, no, not one.’” There are lots of places in God’s word that entreat us to seek Him. For
example, Jeremiah 29:13, “you will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your
heart.,” and Jesus himself said, “knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find,”
(Matthew 7:7), and the dozens of other scriptures that say the same thing. John MacArthur, in
his bible commentary in Romans 3:10-11, says this, “man is universally evil, man is unable to
comprehend the truth of God or grasp His standard of righteousness. Sadly, his spiritual
ignorance does not result from a lack of opportunity [What opportunity, John? If he’s totally
depraved and not one of the elect, then he can never have an opportunity.] but is an expression
of his depravity and rebellion.” MacArthur goes on to say, “this verse clearly implies that the
world’s false religions are fallen man’s attempts to escape the true God – not to seek Him. Man’s
natural tendency is to seek his own interests, but his only hope is for God to seek him. It is only
as a result of God’s work in the heart that anyone seeks Him.” I’d agree with MacArthur 100%
again on this. All these verses are describing here in Romans 3:10-18 is the state of the natural
man, and this what I said at the start of this letter, that unless the Holy Spirit comes alongside a
person and convicts him, then he has no chance of getting saved. But like I’ve shown earlier from
God’s word, the vast majority of people who come under conviction refuse to repent (metanoia –
turn away from sin to the Lord for salvation), and this is the accusation that the first martyr in
the church, Stephen, told the Jews: “you always resist the Holy Spirit, just like your fathers before
you.” So what point is the Calvinist trying to make by quoting Romans 3:10-18?
Before Jesus went to the cross, he breathed on the apostles and said, “receive the Holy Spirit”
(John 20:22). The word here for the Holy Spirit is the ‘paraclete’ from the Greek word


‘parakletos’ meaning ‘one who comes alongside. So the Holy Spirit came alongside the apostles
here, then at Pentecost, he came into them and they were sealed until the day of redemption
(Ephesians 1:13). This is the way the Holy Spirit operates in the church age, but in the old
testament under the law he came alongside believers and the apostles were the last of the Old
Testament saints. The apostles then were in a transitional period between the old testament and
the new covenant, The Holy Spirit also came upon Old Testament saints and anointed them and
could leave them. The Hebrews had a word for that: ‘ichabod’ – ‘the Spirit has departed’. For
example, King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite’s wife. When David
was broken and confessed his sin to the Lord, he prayed, “do not take your Holy Spirit from me,
Lord.” We can’t say that prayer in the church age because, since Pentecost, all who get saved are
sealed with the Holy Spirit until they go to be with the Lord (Ephesians 1:13). So I can’t
understand Christians when they pray and say things like “fall afresh on us, Lord” or “come and
fill us” or “anoint us, Lord” or “give us more of Your Spirit, Lord”. As I mentioned earlier, God’s
word said that those who got saved in the Church age are complete in Christ and have all things
pertaining to Godliness, and that is because we are sealed with the Holy Spirit who will never
leave us. Believers who say these things need to look at their lives and deal with sin if they want
to be empowered by the Holy Spirit. So, as MacArthur says, the natural man cannot please God –
we all agree with that. But the Holy Spirit comes alongside people and convicts and enables
them to repent, but most refuse, and as I mentioned earlier (and it’s worth mentioning again),
Calvin, Augustine, and Calvinists today make the presumption that all who are convicted by the
Holy Spirit will get saved. That’s what the ‘I’ in TULIP means, that the Holy Spirit irresistibly
draws all to salvation. And we’ve seen many examples from God’s word of people resisting the
Holy Spirit, and Israel as a nation did that (apart from the tiny minority that got saved).
Today, we have most people in society believing in the absurd theory of evolution. At the Pastor’s
Conference in 2000, MacArthur was asked about evolution and I liked his answer: “if you love
your sin enough, you’ll believe in evolution.” Evolution is not a scientific issue but a moral one, in
fact real science has proved It’s impossible. I wrote something several years ago called Evolution
fact or fiction to show that scientifically Evolution is impossible and a complete pack of lies
designed by Satan to specifically attack the Genesis account of creation, I wrote that because my
children growing up and going to university were bombarded with all the evolution stuff at
biology class and at uni; so I wrote that to show that real science concurs with Gods word. I feel
that as a Christian and a dad that I’m always fire fighting, that no sooner is one fire put out (false
teaching from the enemy and attacks on our faith) that another one starts up, and I’ve no doubt
that It will be that way until we go to be with the Lord. People will grasp at any excuse to justify
their rejection of the God of the Bible because, if you have a creator, you have a law-maker, and if
a law-maker, then a judge. So that’s why people, as Romans 1:18 says, “suppress the truth in
unrighteousness” even though God has revealed Himself in what He has made, revealed His
moral law in their conscience, revealed Himself through His word and the gospel, and convicted
with His Holy Spirit, and still the human race is so hell bent on their sin that they refuse to
repent. God cannot be blamed for that, no matter what Calvin says.
In Hosea 11:4, “I drew them with cords of love,” 12:10, “I have spoken by the prophets and have
multiplied visions, I have given symbols through the witness of the prophets,” 13:6, “when they
had pasture, they were filled but they forgot me.” Could anyone say to the Lord, “you’re not fair,
Lord”? In one masterstroke, Satan has laid all the blame for this fallen world and man’s rejection
of the truth at the feet of our Lord and saviour with the false teaching of Augustine and Calvin


under the banner of ‘the mystery of His sovereign will’ or ‘His unsearchable purposes’ or ‘His
good pleasure’. And anyone who dared to question Calvin on his ideas was completely lambasted
and called profane men, who carp or cavil or snarl or scoff, who are petulant, blasphemers, and
ungodly. (Institutes III : xxi, 4, 5.) Can you imagine if I spoke like this towards Calvinists?. So why
do they overlook the ungodly way Calvin spoke about anyone who disagreed with him? More on
that later. In Acts 20:24-27, Paul states, “I testified to the gospel of the grace of God, therefore I
testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to
declare to you the whole counsel of God.” Paul is referring to Ezekiel 33:8 when he says, “I’m not
guilty of the blood of any man.” Paul is saying, ‘if any of you are lost, don’t blame me, because I
was faithful to declare God’s word to you.’ There is a tremendous responsibility on us as
believers to proclaim the Gospel to a lost world. That verse in Ezekiel says, “when I say to the
wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die’, and you do not speak to warn the wicked of his
ways, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Paul
wouldn’t make a good Calvinist, who would believe God has selected ‘x’ amount that will go to
heaven regardless of anything. I heard one Calvinist teacher saying, “knowing God will have His
sovereign way takes the burden off me to evangelise because God will fulfil His mission to save
the elect.” It’s a pity no one explained this to Paul before he continually risked his life to reach
the lost. And if ‘x’ amount will get saved regardless, what would that belief do to mission work?
And why pray for the lost? Why evangelise? Why even shed a tear for the unsaved if God has
decided in eternity past that He will send them to hell anyway? That is, that His will of decree
would overrule his will of desire, and why did paul say in acts 20;31 “therefore watch and
remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears”when
paul expessed his anguish about the false teachers he knew were waiting for him to depart
before they ripped that church apart with their false teaching. I can just imagine if Calvin and his
mentor Augustine were there in that fellowship when Paul said, that for three years he’d cried at
the prospect of what these false teachers were going to do to that fellowship after he’d departed,
Calvin would tap Paul on the shoulder and say “listen Paul you don’t understand, and your
tears are in vain because God in the mystery of his sovereign will for his good pleasure over his
creatures has decreed in eternity past that these false teachers should arise and that this
fellowships destruction should take place, It’s all been predestined, because nothing happens
outside of his sovereign will, otherwise he’s not sovereign, and my friend Augustine here and
myself have worked this out so let us explain it all to you,”I think the great apostle Paul would
run those two out of town saying you are two of the people I had in mind!.
Romans 9, 10 and 11 is called the parenthesis of Romans. Paul, in Romans, is speaking to the
church, but in Romans chapter 9, he starts talking about the Jews’ past; in chapter 10, their
present; in chapter 11, their future. In 11:17-24, Paul uses an analogy to explain the Jews’
dilemma. He talks about an olive tree and branches that have been broken off the tree. Those
natural olive branches represent the nation of Israel.(the branches but not the tree)
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were
grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the
olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do
not support the root, but the root supports you.
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said.
Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but
fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but


toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut
off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able
to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will
these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
This is another scripture some Christians use to explain how a believer can lose their salvation
they presume that Gods word is talking about true believers when it mentions the wild olive
branches grafted onto the tree here, and Calvinists make the same error in thinking this and get
them self confused, so let’s look at this and why this is important to understand that the wild
olive branches being grafted in are not the church or believers.
Try an experiment: ask a Calvinist what the natural olive branches represent. He’ll give you the
right answer – Israel, the Jews. Then ask him, who is the wild olive tree? And he will say the
church. Then you can say, why is that?( because Calvinists believe in replacement theology or
covenant theology, that is, that the Jews have been rejected by God as His earthly people and
been supplanted by the church because Calvin and Augustine believed that the church is the
‘Israel of God’ meaning that the covenant God made with Abraham has been annulled
concerning the jews and transferred to the church and we have replaced Israel, so God has no
future plans for that people even though there are dozens of prophecies in the Old and New
Testaments still to be fulfilled by the Jewish people) the Calvinist will say, “well the Jews have
been broken off and the church has been grafted on in their place.” Then you can ask the
Calvinist, “look what Paul said, (starting in verse 19) ‘You will say then, “Branches were broken off
that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by
faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare
you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but
toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they
also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For
if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into
their own olive tree?.’ Does this mean that the church can be cut off? From God? How can the
church be cut off from God?” The Calvinist will then go into all kinds of theological gymnastics to
try and get out of this, but in the end will have to put his hands up and admit that he doesn’t
know what it means. John McArthur makes this same mistake of believing the natural branches
are representing true believers, and that the olive tree represents true believers, in his book, The
Second Coming ,in chapter one titled, why Christ must return on page 42 he says “Paul pictured
the people of God as an olive tree. Israel, the natural branches of the domestic tree, failed to
produce fruit so God broke the branches off and grafted in branches from a wild olive tree
representing the elect gentiles”. I would ask John McArthur, how could the elect be cut off from
God? do you believe the elect can lose their salvation? If so then they can’t be the elect, and If
paul Is warning you too can be cut off , then how could we the saved and redeemed be cut off?
From God?. The reason I’m mentioning this olive tree is because what this means completely
contradicts Calvin and his followers. So what does this mean? I think there is only one
interpretation that makes sense and doesn’t contradict other parts of scripture: that is that the
olive tree represents a privileged position with God, and the nation Israel were in the old
testament the only nation in the world in that position in what we might call today favoured
nation status that is, that God chose the nation of Israel to prepare them for the Messiah and
sent the prophets to that people and made covenants with them and gave them the law. They


were set apart by the Lord (sanctified) not saved) for a purpose but Israel rejected the prophets
and killed their Messiah and refused to repent. So God has blinded that nation as a punishment
and scattered them among the nations. They have (temporarily lost their favoured nation status
but will get It back one day according to prophesy and Paul quotes just two of these prophesies)
The wild branches grafted on in their place can’t represent believers(The elect as McArthur
says) because you would have the scenario of believers being cut off from the olive tree: ie God’s
people – impossible. No, there’s only one thing the wild olive branches can represent, and that is
the Gentile nations. Paul is saying here, “you, the Gentiles, are now in a privileged position to
hear and believe the gospel, and if you don’t respond, you also will be cut off.” It’s not that the
Jews and the Gentiles couldn’t respond, i.e. unelected, but rather that they were on the olive tree
in a privileged position but didn’t get saved. I also believe that when the rapture takes place,
there will be millions, maybe billions, of Gentiles who will be blinded like the Jews today. In 2
Thessalonians 2, Paul the apostle is talking about the events preceding the day of the Lord. He
warns of the Man of Sin coming and then says that when the restrainer is taken out of the way,(I
believe the church) then the lawless one, the anti-Christ, will be revealed. This is a great
scripture for a pre-tribulation rapture. Then in verses 9-12, Paul says,
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power,
signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish,
because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this
reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all
may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The strong delusion that God will send to those who didn’t believe the gospel is the same
blindness that Paul says has come to the Jews. Now it will be the Gentiles’ turn to be blinded. So
the Gentiles that get saved after the rapture, I believe, will be people who have never heard the
gospel. But this teaching from Paul in Romans 11 proves that the Gentiles today, since Pentecost,
are in a privileged position to hear and respond to the message of salvation. That contradicts
Calvin’s idea that God has selected a tiny amount of people out of humanity for salvation and has
chosen to damn the rest. And if God is finished with Israel, as Calvinists believe, why does Paul
say in verse 26, “and so all Israel will be saved” (something yet future, obviously)? A Calvinist
would have to admit that Israel here is a reference to the church, but you could ask him, “if it’s
saying ‘all Israel will be saved’, how can it be the church if the church is already saved? That
doesn’t make sense.” Paul then, in verses 26-27, quotes two prophecies from Isaiah: “the
deliverer will come out of Zion and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my
covenant with them when I take away my sins.” Unless I’ve missed something, this is yet future,
because Israel, the jews, are still blinded, rejecting the Lord. So if God is finished with the Jews
according to Calvin, what does this mean? Here’s another one out of the many prophecies still to
be fulfilled by the Jews, from Zechariah 12:10:
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of
grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will
mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a
firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at
Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family by
itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the
family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the


house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and
their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their
wives by themselves.
This is the national repentance Paul was talking about in Romans 11 that was prophesied in
Zechariah and many other places in God’s word. Has this happened to the Jewish people? Any
believer looking at the jewish nation today would say no, obviously. So it’s yet future. But

according to Calvin and Augustine, God is finished with the Jews, and Luther was very anti-
Semitic, something he brought over from his catholic background. So they would either have to

allegorise all these prophecies about the Jews to mean something else (and Augustine did that
constantly with God’s prophetic word – that’s how he came up with the idea that Rome was now
the eternal city and not Jerusalem), or just ignore them.
When the rapture takes place, God will revert back to dealing with the Jews, that’s why the
144,000 great evangelists in the book of Revelation are all Jews. Yes, all of them. I believe the

rapture takes place in Revelation 4:1 and the church is in heaven in chapters 4 and 5. The anti-
Christ comes onto the scene in 6:2(Revelation 3:10 says “I will spare you from the hour of trial

that comes upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the face of the earth” a promise
from the Lord for the church to escape the tribulation) and so there is no mention of the church
from the end of chapter 5 until chapter 19. We are married to the Lamb while the tribulation
takes place on Earth and God is again dealing primarily with the Jewish nation. The book of
Revelation must be gobbledegook to a Calvinist as he interprets God’s word through the lens of
Calvin. Also When I consider the fact that Calvin, Augustine and their followers today believe
that the church is the Israel of God and that the church is fulfilling the covenant God made with
the Jewish nation because Calvinists believe the church has inherited the promises God made to
Abraham concerning that people the Jews , It proves to me that Calvin and Augustine didn’t
understand that God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham and the Jews, let’s look at
the covenant God made with that nations head Abraham. In the book of Genesis ch 15 it tells us
that God made a blood covenant with Abraham, God told Abraham in vs 9 “bring me a 3 year old
heifer, a 3 year old female goat a 3 year old ram a turtledove and a young pigeon” v10 then he
brought all these to him and cut them in two down the middle and placed each piece opposite
the other, but he did not cut the birds in two. In vs 12 the Lord puts Abraham to sleep and comes
between the dead animals carcases in the form of a smoking oven and a burning torch that
passed between those pieces (this is a theophany or Christophany; an appearance of the Lord in
the old testament, this is the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus coming to the earth and taking the form of
a smoking oven and burning torch to pass between these dead animals there are several
theophanies in the old testament another is in the book of Daniel ch3;23-25 when Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abed-Nego were thrown into the fiery furnace and King Nebuchadnezzar looks in
and says, did we not throw 3 in? I see 4 and the fourth is like the Son of God) (most bibles
translate that as a son of the gods, but the bible I use the NKJ says THE son of God) . Why did the
Lord put Abraham to sleep?, because in a blood covenant both parties were supposed to walk up
and down between the dead animals, this is extremely important for us to understand, the Lord
put him to sleep and made the covenant with himself to signify that the covenants fulfilment
depended on him alone, his integrity and faithfulness not the national performance of Israel, and
the only way a blood covenant can be broken/annulled is if both parties die, and this is the
eternal Lord making the covenant, the Lord made the covenant with himself moving between


the carcases, Abraham was v12 says put into a deep sleep by the Lord, so it cannot be broken
and that is why Paul in Romans 11;29 referring to the jews says that in spite of their failure the
Lord would one day restore them, and Paul quotes the prophesy of Isaiah 59;20-21 and Isaiah
27;9 “ For this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins” then goes onto say in Rom
11;29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable, (Gods calling of the Jews then is just as
the bible says irrevocable, some bibles say without repentance). This has been made crystal
clear to us from scripture, God knew every failure the Jews would make before he made the
covenant with Abraham and made it in spite of their failure. Again in the book of Hebrews it
mentions in ch6:13 that God swore by himself, I’ll quote McArthurs bible commentary Heb 6:13
Swore by himself:- . As recorded in Gen 22:15-19, God promised unilaterally to fulfil the
Abrahamic covenant, and God knew that as believers we would sin after we got saved and he
still saved us, so why did Calvin and Augustine believe that God is finished with the Jews, and
that now we the church were fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant?, That is a serious mistake that
has caused untold confusion with his devotees. The book of Hosea is for example all about
Hosea’s faithfulness to his wife Gomer , Hosea is a type of the Lord, faithfull and Gomer is a type
of the nation Israel a harlot, she was a harlot to everyone and at the end of her life as an old
woman she ends up in the slave market, she is worth nothing an old prostitute they can’t give
her away yet in spite of what she’s done Hosea takes her back i’ll quote McArthurs bible
commentary here Hosea 3;1 Having been previously separated Hosea was commanded (by the
Lord) to pursue his estranged wife Gomer thereby illustrating Gods unquenchable love for
faithless Israel, 3;2 he bought her from a slave auction, Hosea purchased Gomer for 15 shekels of
silver and 1and a half homers of barley ,together the total may have equaled 30 pieces of silver.
Barley was the offering of one accused of adultery (num 5;15). Isn’t this a beautiful picture of
Gods love for the Jewish people? in spite of what they have done he buys them back with silver
(meaning redemption) and the Lord purchased us when we were worth nothing, Absolutely
nothing (so there should be no room for pride in any believers heart) This story of Hosea and
Gomer brought tears to my eyes when I first read the book of Hosea and understood this
allegory, and when I see how loving the Lord is to us, the Jews, and the whole world, how
forgiving and unconditional his love is. One day this prophesy will be fulfilled and the Lord will
take back Gomer (Israel) back and there are many prophesies about the day he opens the eyes of
the nation Israel, and for me Zech 12;10 Is the most moving passage in all of scripture when It
says that the whole nation will mourn and be broken hearted when they realise what they have
done to Jesus, read what It says in Zech,12;10 “Then they will look on me they have pierced, they
will mourn as for an only son and grieve(deep sorrow) as for a firstborn “ this Is when the Lord
Jesus opens the jews eyes, when he buys back Gomer the prostitute, when the jews realise that
they rejected and despised the one who died for them and asked for Barabbas to be spared
Instead. So Calvin and Augustine have made a monumental mistake by not understanding all
this, and believing God was finished with the Jews, I think Catholicism and its long history of
anti-semitism can be attributed in part to Augustines belief that God has thrown them on the
scrap heap of history.
Limited Atonement
According to Calvin, when Jesus was on the cross, God the Father only put the sins of the
redeemed on him, so his atonement (covering our sins with his blood) was limited only to the
elect. That sounds logical, until we read verses in God’s word that won’t be heard from a
Calvinist pulpit, or they will be changed to mean something else. For example, ‘the whole world’


becomes ‘the elect’, etc. In Romans 5:18, it says, “therefore as through

becomes ‘the elect’, etc. In Romans 5:18, it says, “therefore as through one man’s offence
judgement came to all men [through Adam] resulting in condemnation, even so through one
man’s righteous act [the cross] the free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life.” This,
I believe, can only mean that the provision for all has been made. Let’s look at Romans 3:22,
“even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe”. God’s
word makes a distinction between ‘to all’ and ‘on all’ who believe which would mean that the
provision has been made for all but is only efficacious for those who get saved. That’s why it says
in Titus 2:11, “for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men”. Again, in 1
Timothy 2:4, it says, “that God our saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth”. Some Calvinists change ‘all men’ to ‘all God’s elect’. But if we turn the
page to 1 Timothy 4:10, look at what it says, “for to this end we both labour and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the Living God who is the saviour of all men, especially of those who
believe”. Is it just me, or can you see here the distinction again between ‘all men’ and ‘especially
those who believe’? This seems to say that a provision has been made for all and that Christ
atoned for the world, but only when a person gets saved is eternal life put to their account. Look
at Hebrews 2:9, “but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering
of death crowned with glory and honour and that he by the grace of God might taste death for
everyone”. So again the provision has been made. Look at 1 John 2:2, “and he himself is the
propitiation [sacrifice] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” Could it
be clearer? Not only for ours (the saved), but also for the whole world. Look this time at 2 Peter
2:1, under the heading ‘danger of false teachers’, “but there were also false prophets among the
people, even as there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive
heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bringing themselves swift destruction.”
This verse is saying they are denying the Lord and bringing on themselves destruction. But look
at what it says: ‘the Lord who bought them’. When did the Lord do that? In Isaiah 53:6,it says
“and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Again, in Hebrews 10:29, it says,
Of how much sorer punishments... shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under
foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified; an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Here again we have a clear statement that the blood of Christ was not shed for the elect alone. It
was shed even for those who despise it and tread under foot the Son of God. The same truth is
presented by Peter that even those who go to destruction have been bought by Christ, obviously
at the price of His blood shed for the sin of all. Here the Calvinist must either admit that the one
who was once saved lost his salvation through turning against Christ – or that the one who “was
sanctified” by Christ’s blood and those who deny “the Lord that bought them” are not among the
elect, yet, obviously, His blood was shed for them. Let’s now look at the book of revelation, one
of my favourite books in God’s word, this is a book that Calvinists want to completely avoid as
they don’t understand it, and no wonder if Augustines method of interpretation is applied ie;
allogarization and mysticism then they have absolutely no chance of comprehending what God
is telling us through this fantastic prophetic revelation most of which is still future. I also think
they have nothing to say about this book because calvin had nothing to say about it , and since
they look to him to explain the meaning of the bible for them then they are lost when he is not
explaining everything for them . When I worked in Inverness 15 years ago I knew a Calvinist up
there who told me one time, “It’s a brave man that would teach on the book of revelation” I said
why? Didn’t Jesus say the spirit will lead us into all the truth and my word is the truth?, the book


of revelation is part of Gods word and like any other book in Gods word we have the holy spirit
to illuminate it for us if we study it, so don’t be put off by anyone but look to the Lord and ask his
guidance and he will open up the meaning for us, do you believe that? That the Lord wants us to
understand revelation the same way he wants us to understand any of the 66 books of the
bible?. In ch1 vs3 of this book it says: “ blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words
of this prophesy”, so every believer should endeavour to understand what this book is saying.
In ch3 vs 5 there is a promise “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments and I will
not block his name out from the book of life” what does this mean?, again some Christians esp;
charismatics I’ve met believe this teaches a believer can lose their salvation, I don’t believe that,
so what would a Calvinist make of this, that a person can have their name in the book of life and
then have it removed? how come? And we’ve seen in rev;22vs19 the same warning about people
having their name taken out the book of life. A Calvinist would again either have to believe this
person could lose their salvation, or somehow this person wasn’t saved but their name was in
there as it had to be there if the Lord promised not to or threatened to take it out, confusing?
Well it is if you believe in calvins, elect theory or limited atonement theory, no wonder calvin
avoided this book as Piper said. These scriptures again disprove, election and limited
atonement and would be a massive obstacle to calvin and Augustine, but what do they mean?, I
think if we look at all of Gods word and what it says then we can come to an understanding of
these admittedly difficult scriptures. I believe that when a person is born their name is in the
book of life, so if a baby dies then he or she will go straight to heaven, King David knew this,
remember I mentioned that he prayed for the Lord not to take away the holy spirit?,( a prayer
we can’t say in the church age) but David also said something very interesting concerning the
baby that was born from his sinful affair with Bathsheba, we know that the baby dies and in
repentance David prayed to the Lord look what he said in 2 samuel 12vs 23; “But now he is
dead why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to
me”. When will David go to him? When he goes to heaven. So David knew that the dead baby
was in heaven. I believe when a person is born their name is in the book of life, and when they
reach a certain age and know they are sinning their name is taken out the book of life, that age
will be different for different individuals and a mentally handicapped person would never reach
that age, and when they are born again their name goes back into the book of life. So one birth,
two deaths, two births one death. In Marks gospel ch 10 vs 13-14 It says: then they brought
young children to him (Jesus) that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who
brought them. But when Jesus saw It , he was greatly displeased and said to them, “let the little
children come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such Is the kingdom of God”. I’d agree with
McArthurs comments in his study bible :- most If not all of these children would have been too
young to exercise personal faith. Jesus words imply that God graciously extends salvation to
those too young or too mentally impaired to exercise faith. McArthurs comments on Matthew
19;14 are the same only more extensive. Again Jesus in Matthew 21;15+16 answers the
Pharisees by saying “Have you never read? Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants you
have perfected praise” babes? Praising God? how did they come to know God?, well like I said
their name would be in the book of life but as they grew up they would have to believe the
gospel to be born again, but if they died as infants like King Davids son they would go to be with
the Lord so obviously they must have been atoned for or they couldn’t get into heaven, this
would also disprove the L in tulip, that is that only a fraction of humanity were atoned for(the
catholic church invented limbo, the place of the un-baptised dead babies to try and make this fit
but they like calvin were confused by Gods word) The Jews understood this and that is why they


had a Barmitzvah where the father took the boy into the temple at a certain age 13 and said
Lord I’m no longer responsible for this child. I can’t see how Calvinists can get round the clear
meaning of these scriptures. But what Calvin and Augustine have done is that they have
formulated a belief and, like a straight-jacket, put that on their followers who have to try and
make the word of God fit no matter how many times they have to change the plain meaning of
scripture. I’m going to make an analogy: imagine the gearbox in my car breaks down, so I send
away for another gearbox, and a completely different gearbox for a different car arrives at my
house, and instead of sending it back, I decide I’ll just try and make this one fit in the car. As I’m
trying to fit it in the car, I’m grinding bits off, welding bits on, and using a sledgehammer to try
and hammer it into place. What I should have done is send it back and get the proper one. How
long would it take me to come to the realisation I was causing myself a lot of grief and expending
a lot of energy for nothing? This is why, as I mentioned earlier, Calvinism leads its followers into
multiple contradictions of God’s word. You just have to go on Youtube and listen to any of them. I
have a book in my hand by John MacArthur called ‘Hard to Believe’. I bought this several years
ago. I agree with many things MacArthur says in this book, but even though he’s an intelligent
man, when he expounds his Calvinist beliefs, he starts contradicting himself. For example, in
chapter 2 ‘The Hard Truth’, page 20, he’s talking about the unsaved rejecting the gospel. He says,
“in fact, as a Calvinist friend once said, sometimes we don’t present the gospel well enough for
the non-elect to reject it.” What does that mean? That would be like me saying, “my friend didn’t
like the meal I gave him, maybe I didn’t present it well enough for him to reject it.”
In chapter 5, titled ‘Highway to Heaven’, MacArthur explains that we have a choice to make.
Reading this, it sounds very uncalvinistic:
Inevitably we face a final choice that determines the ultimate consequence – how we
will spend eternity: whether we will follow the world through the wide, inviting gate
that leads to destruction and eternal punishment, or follow Jesus through the narrow
gate that leads to eternal joy in heaven.
God confronts sinners with this ultimate choice. They are responsible for choosing, yet
so hopelessly mired in sin that no one ever chooses rightly without divine enablement.
Even so, God pleads with sinners to choose Christ over unbelief; reconciliation with
God, not enmity with Him; repentance rather than sin; and life instead of death.
Through Moses, God confronted the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 30:15-16: “See, I
have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to
love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His
statutes, and His judgements, that you may live and multiply.” God gave Israel the
ultimate choice – life or death, good or evil – and called for a decision.
Joshua, who followed Moses in leading the Israelites as they entered the promised land,
said in Joshua 24:15, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for
yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served
that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you
dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” God asked, “Will it be the
false gods, or will it be Me?”
In Jeremiah 21:8, the prophet heard God say, “Behold, I set before you the way of life
and the way of death.” Elijah on Mount Carmel called for a decision in 1 Kings 18:21:
“And Elijah came to all the people, and said, ‘How long will you falter between two
opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.’”


We make this choice at the crossroads of Christ: choose life or choose death. That’s
what Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14, in His famous and often-misunderstood Sermon
on the Mount: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate
and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
We looked briefly at this provocative and vivid invitation earlier on, but it’s an essential
truth worth digging deeper into. This eternity-defining crossroads, this choice of one
way or the other, is the climax Jesus was driving toward throughout this great sermon
of indictment against the self-righteous legalism and works of salvation system of the
Pharisees; a calling of His people to true faith and salvation. The imagery in the Lord’s
analogy is simple. There are two gates, leading to two roads, ending in two
destinations, populated by two different crowds. Here the Lord focused on the
inevitable decision you, I, and the rest of the world have before us.
If I went to a Calvinists’ convention and spoke like this, I’d be shot down in flames and told I
sound like an ‘Arminian’ and told “choice doesn’t come into it”. Calvinism drives us into an
irrational dead end. It is both useless and senseless for God to plead with the elect. He has
already predestined them to salvation and will effect it sovereignly before any faith is exercised
on their part. Nor does it make any better sense for God to present the gospel to and plead with
the non-elect who cannot believe it until they have been sovereignly regenerated – but that
won’t happen because they are damned by God’s eternal decree. Yet He continues to plead and
blame them for not repenting even while He withholds from them the essential grace which He
gives only to the elect! Such is the unbiblical and unreasonable misrepresentation of God by
Perseverance of the Saints
Many professing Christians (including many Five-Point Calvinists who believe in Perseverance of
the Saints) are troubled with doubts concerning their salvation. Doubts even assail leading
Calvinists. Zane C. Hodges points out that “The result of this theology is disastrous. Since,
according to Puritan belief, the genuineness of a man’s faith can only be determined by the life
that follows it, assurance of salvation becomes impossible at the moment of conversion.” And,
one might add, at any time thereafter as well, for reasons we will show. Piper and his staff write,
“...we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the
subsequent obedience which comes from faith.” No wonder, then, as R. T. Kendall has
commented, that “nearly all of the Puritan ‘divines’ went through great doubt and despair on
their deathbeds as they realized their lives did not give perfect evidence that they were elect.”
Arminius, on the other hand, contrary to the false label attached to him by his enemies, had
perfect assurance and said that the believer can “depart out of this life... to appear before the
throne of grace, without any anxious fear...”
Why such uncertainty among Calvinists? Why such doubts? And in what can the Calvinist find
assurance? Oddly enough, certainty of salvation and confidence of one’s eternal destiny is not to
be found in the fifth point of Calvinism where one would expect it – nor can it be found in the
other four points. While many Calvinists would deny it, uncertainty as to one’s ultimate
salvation is, in fact, built into the very fabric of their system. Philip F. Congdon, in his book
‘Soteriological Implications of Five-Point Calvinism’, writes:


Absolute assurance of salvation is impossible in Classical Calvinism.... Understand why:
Since works are an inevitable outcome of ‘true’ salvation, one can only know he or she
is saved by the presence of good works. But since no one if perfect... any assurance is at
best imperfect as well. Therefore, you may think you believed in Jesus Christ, may think
you had saving faith, but be sadly mistaken... and because unsaved, by totally blind to
the fact you are unsaved...! R. C. Sproul... in an article entitled ‘Assurance of Salvation,’
writes: ‘There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that
they are....’
“When our assurance of salvation is based at all on our works, we can never have
absolute assurance...! But does Scripture discourage giving objective assurance of
salvation? Hardly! On the contrary, the Lord Jesus (John 5:24), Paul (Romans 8:38-39),
and John (1 John 5:11-13) have no qualms about offering absolute, objective assurance
of salvation. Furthermore, works are never included as a requirement for assurance.”
When I got saved that night, I knew I was right with God and I now had what the bible calls
‘God’s peace’. I was adopted into God’s family and became His child. Romans 8:16 says, “the
Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then
heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.” So the bible tells us that the Holy Spirit bears witness
with our spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit lets us know we are right with God. So I knew God
was my father before I even read that in the Bible.

Other teachings from Calvin
In his institutes, Calvin falls into deep error, relying again on Augustine. He writes,
It is wisely observed by Augustine, that in the very head of the Church we have a bright
mirror of free election, lest it should give any trouble to us the members – viz. That he
[Christ] did not become the Son of God by living righteously, but was freely presented
with this great honour, that he might afterwards make others partakers of his gifts.
Should anyone here ask, why others are not what he was, or why... we are all corrupt
while he is purity, he would not only betray his madness, but his effrontery also. But if
they are bent on depriving God of the free right of electing [to salvation] and
reprobating [predestining to damnation], let them at the same time take away what has
been given to Christ. (Institutes III:xxii,1.)
Calvin seems to be denying the eternal Sonship of Christ and His eternal equality and oneness
with the Father! He says that Christ became the Son of God, being “freely presented with this
great honour....” When might that have been? Christ’s alleged ‘election’ to this honour apart from
‘living righteously’ (i.e., without any merit) is then used by Calvin as an example to prove his
point about the election of humans apart from their worth or works. The comparison borders on
blasphemy. Christ is the I AM from all eternity, one with the Father; and because of who He is it
was He alone who could redeem us. After all, throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh, the God of
Israel and great I AM, repeatedly says, “I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no Saviour”
(Isaiah 43:11 and many others). Jesus declares, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). I would
like to ask Calvin, “what was Christ before He was presented with this great honour? An angel?”


One of the sad features of Calvin’s Institutes is the demeaning language he continually employs
(much like Luther) to vilify all who disagree with him: “Hence it is, that in the present day so
many dogs tear this doctrine [predestination] with envenomed teeth... assail it with their bark....
Since come feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against
heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us...
this doctrine, which perverse men undeservedly assail because it is sometimes wickedly
abused.... The profane make such a bluster with their foolish puerilities,” and so forth, page after
page. Beneath Calvin’s own bluster there is often little substance to his arguments, which in the
end can be supported only by abusing Scripture. His obvious misunderstanding of opposing
views, and the weak and unbiblical reasons Calvin adduces for rejecting foreknowledge as the
basis of predestination, are reinforced with much ridicule:
We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say that it is
absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former.... Others, who are neither versed in
Scripture, not entitled any weight, assail sound doctrine with a petulance and
improbity which is impossible to tolerate... they ought at least to be restrained by
feelings of awe from talking so confidently of this sublime mystery.
That foreknowledge is the reason for predestination, as Scripture declares, does not make the
latter subordinate to the former. Both are among the many infinite qualities and abilities unique
to God alone, none of which is either independent of or subordinate to any other. As I have
repeatedly noted, all of God’s qualities are exercised in perfect harmony with each other. Thus
Calvin’s argument entirely misses the point. And here, again, he pleads ‘mystery’ when all else
fails him. God’s word says, “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.”
(James 3:17) and, “He that says he abides in him [Christ] ought himself also so to walk, even as
he [Christ] walked.” (1 John 2:6). I wonder why so many of today’s Christian leaders who call
themselves Calvinists are so quick to laud a man who was so far removed from the biblical
exemplar reflected above.
John Calvin believed and practiced a number of things which many of those who call themselves
Calvinists today would consider seriously wrong, if not heresy. For example, Calvin was a
staunch believer in the efficacy of infant baptism to effect forgiveness of sins and to bring the
infant into the Kingdom. Worse yet, in spite of his quarrel with the papacy and the Roman
system, he taught that being baptized as a baby (or as an adult) by a Roman Catholic priest
(which happened to be Calvin as an infant and me) was efficacious for eternity. The priest could
even have been a rank unbeliever and great sinner. Had he not maintained this Romish false
doctrine, Calvin himself would have had to submit to rebaptism, and that was repugnant to him.
He derided the Anabaptists for opposing infant baptism. Their valid, biblical reason – that an
infant has no understanding of the gospel and has not believed in Christ – was scorned by Calvin
and his wrath and that of the other Reformers came upon them. These true evangelicals were
martyred by both Catholics and Protestants for being baptised by immersion after they were
saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Rather than any natural brilliance, Calvin’s arguments reflect a bias toward the sacramentalism
he learned as a Roman Catholic from Augustine, which he elaborated upon and thereafter was
compelled to defend. His logic often betrays a spiritual immaturity. Incredibly, Calvin argued:


Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised,
because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters.... Against these
absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were
initiated... into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore,
that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered
[but only so long as they were clergy].
Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were
despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or
sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name they invoked was not
their own but God’s.... But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise
of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion
with Christ. (Institutes IV:xv,16-17)
These astonishing statements reflect a sacramentalism which maintains that the physical act of
baptism has spiritual power and imparts regeneration. To be baptised by Roman Catholic priests
who were not even Christians but held to and promoted a false gospel, was perfectly acceptable
to Calvin because they used the name of God when they administered it! Even to be baptised by
despisers of Christ and God would bring the “promise of forgiveness of sin”! Why would merely
pronouncing the name of God and Christ by unbelievers minister spiritual power? Because they
were “part of the ministerial office”.(clericalism)
Thus, for all his legitimate complaints against the papacy, and in spite of being recognised as one
of the main figures in the Protestant Reformation, nevertheless Calvin honoured Rome’s corrupt
and unsaved priests as God’s ministers! And at the same time he condemned those who came
out of that Antichrist system through faith in Christ for being subsequently baptised as believers
according to God’s holy word.
In this, Calvin betrays his unbiblical view of clerical dominance over the laity. So high was his
regard for a clergy class, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, that he taught that only the
clergy could baptise or administer the Lord’s supper. He justified that unbiblical belief in this
It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take
upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the
Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any man or
woman whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. (IV:xv,20.)
Thus Calvin also accepted Rome’s claim that her bishops were the successors of the twelve
Apostles and from them her priests received divine authority. And he was a leader of the
Reformation? Contrary to what Calvin taught about an exclusive ‘ministerial office’, our Lord
Jesus Christ clearly commanded the original disciples to make disciples and to teach every
disciple they won to Him through the gospel to “observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).
Obviously, “all things” meant that each new disciple made by the original disciples was likewise
to make disciples, baptise them and teach them also to do likewise. Every true Christian today is
a disciple of a disciple of a disciple all the way back to the original disciples – each one having
taught the new disciples that they, too, must observe all things Christ commanded the original
twelve. Were the twelve commanded to baptise and to minister the Lord’s Supper? Then so is


every other disciple. All true Christians always have been and still are today the only successors
of the Apostles!, that Is why Gods word states that we (EVERY TRUE BELIEVER) are ALL kings
and priests unto God, every one of us, we are all Gods klairos-clergy Revelation 1:6 and again in
1 peter 2:5 and 2:9 It states that we are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices , and a
royal priesthood,. Satan has attacked this ministry for us from the Lord with his setting up of a
separate caste (the clergy) to rob us of our role in Christ, It came from Satan via Catholicism,
Augustine and Calvin, and Into Christianity. How many billions of people all down through the
centuries have been given a false hope by the catholic church and (protestant churches thanks to
Calvin) by getting sprinkled with water as a baby and so made to believe they are now
Christians and on their way to heaven, I was one of them.
Here we have proof enough that all believers in Christ are qualified to do whatever the original
disciples did, including ministering baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s own words
effectively destroy the fiction of a special clergy class lording it over the laity. One would think
that this ‘greatest of exegetes’ could see that fact clearly from the Great Commission, but he
didn’t. Indeed, this elementary error was the basis of the popish power Calvin wielded in
oppressing the citizens of Geneva. Worse yet, how could the priests and bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church, who were not even saved but believed and taught a false salvation through
works and ritual, qualify as the successors of the Apostles? And how could Calvinist ministers
who disagreed so markedly with Rome on the gospel nevertheless be co-successors, sharing
with Roman Catholic clergy this exclusive right to baptise and administer the Eucharist? Calvin’s
‘brilliant exegesis’ led him not only into grave error but into contradictions so blatant that one
wonders how today’s Calvinists can overlook or tolerate them.
Furthermore, Calvin also taught that there was no difference between the baptism practised by
John the Baptist and the baptism Christ commanded His disciples to perform: “I grant that John’s
was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ... the ministry of John was
the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles.” That is so clearly wrong
that I won’t take time to refute it. John’s baptism “unto repentance” (Matthew 3:11) had nothing
to do with the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, as is the
case with the baptism Christ told His disciples to practise. The fact that Paul considered John’s
baptism different and inappropriate for believers in Christ (Acts 19:1-6) is explained away by
Calvin with the fantastic idea that these who said they knew nothing but the baptism of John
hadn’t really received John’s baptism – and this in spite of the fact that in response to Paul’s
question “Unto what then were you baptised?” they replied, “Unto John’s baptism.”
Again, Calvin said, “God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly
perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us
therefore embrace it in faith.” This is a remarkable statement. According to Calvin, the gospel is
no certain way to bring people to Christ – but baptism is. In baptism one receives a promise of
remission of sins which, if thereafter believed, gives certain entrance into the kingdom of God!
Furthermore, Calvin taught that the children of believers, even though not baptised, are
automatically among the elect:
Children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them in
water are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven.... Hence it follows, that the
children of believers are not baptised in order that though formerly aliens from the
Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are


received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they
previously belonged to the body of Christ. (Emphasis added)
It seems that Calvinists are willing to tolerate a great deal of error taught by John Calvin and still
consider him to be one of the greatest exegetes in history. From a careful study of what Calvin
taught in his Institutes, however, we (bible believing Christians) have a far different opinion. It is
a mystery how, in spite of so much false teaching and his un-Christian behaviour at Geneva, he
can be held in such high regard by evangelicals today. That Calvin was wrong on so many other
points ought to ease the pain of having to admit that perhaps he was also wrong with TULIP. Yet
the high regard in which Calvin is held seems to create an impassable barrier preventing this
simple admission of error on his part. Another example of Calvinists’ willingness to accept
contradiction in their belief system was displayed by John Piper on YouTube: I watched a Q&A
session on YouTube put there by John Piper, the famous Calvinist pastor. I listened to about 20
questions and answers, I realised how confused that man is. For example, he was asked, “do you
believe in a young Earth or an old one?” because there’s a lot of controversy today about
evolution, science and the bible. Evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but
according to God’s word, it is only about 6,000 years old. He replied (with a little chuckle), “oh, I
believe in both, old Earth, young Earth,” To make this fit, he said, “I do believe in a literal Adam
and Eve in a literal garden of Eden, but before Adam... oh...well.... there could have been 4 trillion
years [4 million million years].” I don’t have to go into this to show how absurd his ideas are, that
God created animals, plants, the universe, our sun, and waited 4 trillion years, then created man
on Earth. Since death came through the curse, and the curse came through Adam and Eve’s sin,
there could have been no death before the curse. So I presume, according to Mr Piper, that
animals lived for 4 trillion years. In Luke’s gospel, it gives Jesus’ genealogy, unbroken from
Adam’s son, Seth, to Noah’s son Shem, right down to Joseph. 75 generations, approximately
4,000 years from Adam to Jesus, and Adam was created on the sixth day of the creation week.
God’s word, speaking about those days, says, “there was morning, then there was evening”. So
for the life of me, I can’t see why so many Christians get confused and sound like old-earth
evolutionists. Piper is obviously very confused about this and many other things, but I think the
reason he can accept blatant contradictions in his reasoning is because Calvinism has fostered
There are a few things in God’s word that the Lord said he hates. Whenever the Lord says that,
he hates something we should investigate what he means, as it must be very important. For
example,In the book of Revelation 2:6, the Lord says he hates “the deeds of the Nicolaitans”.
Then again in verse 15, he says he hates “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.” This is two words in
the Greek put together – nico, ‘to conquer’, laos or laitans, where we get the word ‘laity’ from,
‘the people’. This is a person who dominates the laity and lords over them, This is clericalism,
whether it’s pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, minister, reverend, vicar (from vicarius ‘in place of
Christ). All of this has come from Catholicism, and Calvin was a bridge that brought this from his
Catholic upbringing into Christianity and It has been that way since Calvin set It up in the
protestant churches ie; church of Scotland, Anglican, church of England, Episcopalian ect; Again,
in Revelation 2:14, the Lord says he hates “the doctrine of Balaam”. 2 Peter 2:15 says, “Balaam
loved the wages of unrighteousness”, that is, he preached for hire paid by Balak. It’s clear from
God’s word that the clergy in the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches is unbiblical and
God hates it, and the fact that they want paid for their services can only be justified by much
twisting of scripture, (I’m all for paying to support missionaries out in Africa ect where there Is


no employment In the bush ) and you will notice In Gods word that first of all the Lord says he
hates the deeds then later on the doctrine, that Is that the practice started of as something they
did and got away with so they then turned It into a doctrine as time went by. In God’s word, any
time Paul writes to a church, it’s always to elders and deacons, and that’s it. No one man is
supposed to be in charge of a church. A plurality of Godly elders and deacons is the only model
left to us by God. Someone might say, “oh, what about a pastor?” Well the bible doesn’t say what
a pastor is. Pastor is mentioned once in Eph 4;11, and never mentioned again, the word Isn’t
even mentioned in the concordance of my bible, so what Is a pastor?. I would agree with
William McDonald’s Bible Commentary – that a pastor is a church-planter who would plant a
church, then elders would be appointed, then he would move on to plant another church and not
that he would be a permanent fixture in a church. Paul and any of the other Apostles never once
wrote to a pastor in a church, it was always to elders – plural. Pastor is never mentioned once in
the leadership of the local church So doesn’t that tell us something? What I can see from
scripture is that the ‘brethren’ model of elders and deacons is the only way church should be
organised, according to scripture, unless anyone can show me otherwise. I was brought up
under clericalism but as a Christian now looking at Gods word I can see It Is of the devil, and
that Is why I took my wife and 4 kids to a brethren church, It was because that Is the only
biblical model for a church and doctrinally I agreed with them. John Nelson Darby started the
brethren movement in obedience to Gods word for the way a church should be structured, that
man was used by God to revive the Lords model for the church as revealed In scripture.
What is the driving force behind Calvinism that makes Calvinists today determined to hold onto
Calvin and Augustine’s teachings? I think it’s pride. One Calvinist pastor who turned away from
Calvinism, when reflecting on his years as a Calvinist, wrote, “one of the things that first
attracted me to Calvinism was the fact that so many of its adherents seemed to be more
intelligent than ordinary Christians and especially gave that impression when they talked about
election. I enjoyed the company of ‘the elect’ and there was an exhilarating sense of camaraderie
in knowing that outsiders simply didn’t understand the truth discovered by Augustine and
passed on to Calvin.” Oh, we understand Calvin and Augustine very well, and that’s why many
believers today completely reject that belief system, even though we are maligned for doing so
and called ‘Arminians’.
When it finally dawned on me that Catholicism was a pack of lies, I had to swallow my pride and
admit I’d been conned for 29 years. It was especially difficult in front of my Catholic friends
whom I’d been to school with, grew up with, went to chapel with, not to mention my family. So I
hope that a Calvinist reading this without looking at the bible through the lens of Calvinism will
have the courage and humility to admit that God’s goodness has been maligned by Calvin and
that to be a Calvinist, one has to ignore the continual contradictions of God’s word that arise
because of TULIP. My hope is that Calvinists can be set free from the disastrous teachings of
Calvin and Augustine who have portrayed our beloved Saviour as cold and indifferent to the
plight of billions of souls he has destined for hell. I’ll finish this by summing up the Lord’s desire
for the unsaved, that far from damning them for His good pleasure, He pleads to all sinners:
“’Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?’ says the Lord God, ‘and not that he
should turn from his ways and live?’” Ezekiel 18:23
May the Lord bless you as you seek to honour him and his word.

Brendan Flynn


  1. Is there any religious group you don't have an issue with?

    This reads like a bitter old man who wasted his life, and others, with this nonsense.

    Maybe that's what God wanted?

    1. I look forward to forwarding your comment to Brother Brendan since he wrote this, not I. I however deserve a response to your pathetic comment since I posted Brother Brendan's comment on my Blog because it is so powerful and true. Here's what I say to you Anonymous: God's word compels us to call out false teaching. Here's what scripture tells us: Ezekiel 2
      King James Version
      2 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.

      2 And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

      3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

      4 For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God.

      5 And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them.

      6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.

      7 And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear: for they are most rebellious.

      Isaiah 6:9
      King James Version
      9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

      Jeremiah 7:27
      King James Version
      27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
      7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

      2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

      3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

      4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

      5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

      6 And Moses and Aaron did as the Lord commanded them, so did they.

      13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

      I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

      2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

      3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

      4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    2. Thanks for forwarding my comment on to your brother, really appreciate that

      Could you please post a copy of his 'Evolution: Fact or Fiction'?

      It would be interesting to see the fruits of the hard work and endeavour that Brendan, no doubt, put into meticulously researching this and seeing his evidence of how Satan introduced this 'evil' to the world

      I believe this could be a game changer and would like to share it with my peers. Or it could just be the ramblings of a raving madman, or lunatic, if you will

      Either way I'll make up my own mind as soon as you spread the good word

    3. I asked him to forward me a copy. Thank you

    4. When I receive it I will post a link here.

    5. https://the-third-heaven-traveler.com/2023/02/04/evolution-fact-or-fiction-by-brother-brendan-flynn/


Post a Comment

Featured Blogs

Who are you Amir Tsarfati? - My Brother in Christ or A Ravenous Wolf in 'Sheep's Clothing

CHRISLAM CONFIRMED: Led By Pope Francis, Leaders Of The World’s Religions

Rebuking Dr. Eugene Kim BBC INTERNATIONAL