Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

The New Birth and Conversion—What Comes First? - by Conrad Mbewe

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------

The author is going to discuss a portion of the Reformed/Calvinist Ordo Salutis [order of salvation], which asserts that one must be born again before one can be saved. We covered this recently, but because of some unique claims we shall dive in again. 

So that the reader understands, the Ordo places "regeneration" before faith [conversion]: 


But there is no Scripture that tells us this, despite the author's various appeals to the Bible. In fact, when read in context, his proof texts demonstrate the exact opposite.

A quick survey of the Bible yielded a number of Scriptures that seem to presume salvation without the supposed prerequisite regeneration:

Ro. 6:7 ...because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

We see here that the unregenerate man is put to death in the new birth, which means he is forgiven (freed from sin). He does not experience rebirth in order to be saved.

1Jn. 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here we discover that eternal life is equated with salvation. It is clear the new birth is the beginning of eternal life, which of course must presume a concurrent salvation. That is, saved is born again, and born again is saved. They are the same thing.

But more to the point, what difference does it make? If we are born again then saved, or saved then born again, what does it matter? Why is it important? 
---------------------- 

Monday, September 8, 2025

Why You Can't Dodge Theological Questions - By Jake Meador

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

The author cannot conceive of Christians who don't elevate doctrine to the position he does. For him it's the raison d'être, but some Christians are just not wired that way. He thinks that's a critical issue, but isn't really able to articulate why.

There's also a little cognitive dissonance going on. He discovered to his surprise that charismatics aren't the evil heretics he thought they were. His experience contravened everything he thought he knew about them. Desperate to retain some vestige of separation, he invokes a statement made by the pastor of the church he visited, magnifies it, enhances it, and makes the result into a strawman.

We don't want to be too harsh on the author. He's just experienced something that calls into question what he thought he knew. We went through something similar in our faith journey from cessationist to charismatic.

Lastly, this is not a Bible teaching. The author does not even mention the Bible or quote any verse.
---------------------

Friday, September 5, 2025

The Divine Blueprint: Exploring the Five Points of Calvinism - By Anthony

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

This author does his best to explain the unexplainable, the Calvinistic TULIP. Calvinists love to explain Calvinism. It's what they do. They rarely explain the Bible except when there's Calvinism to be found. This of course means that Calvinists never explain the Bible, they only want to explain Calvinism. 

This is what the author does. He quotes Calvin, Calvinistic theologians, and a Calvinistic statement of faith. There are seven of these instances. But in the course of his explanation the author is only able to quote a single Bible passage and two or three verse snippets. That's it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------------------

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Why Pray in a Calvinist World? Prayer & Providence in Calvin’s Institutes - By Mason Craig

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------

After reading this article multiple times, we were unable to ascertain if the author answered the question contained in the title. 

But he will spend a lot of time discussing "providence," using the term nearly 40 times, and never does he define it. So we will step in. "Providence" is idea that God is working out His will via the regular features of creation and plain old ordinary processes of life, as distinguished from a "supernatural" signs and wonders sort of thing. 

The distinction is artificial, however, since both are God working out His purposes. For Calvinists the distinction is necessary since they do not believe God works supernaturally in Christians anymore. Thus providence was invented to differentiate the working out of God's purpose sans miracles.

The author also uses the word "means" more than a dozen times, also without defining it. "Means" simply is the avenues God might use to implement His will.

Further, his presentation is very nearly a tautology. "God uses means to accomplish His plans" essentially means, "God does stuff, and He uses stuff to do stuff."

And, when he finally does give us hints about his terminology, we find that they are basic ideas stated with complexity.

Lastly, the author rarely uses Scripture to document his assertions, but profusely quotes Calvin.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.
-----------------------

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

This is the second appearance of this author in our blog. His previous article did not fare well under analysis, so we have hope that he will acquit himself better today.

Unlike the previous article, today the author barely quotes Scripture, which means most all of his assertions are undocumented. We want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. However, the author has no intention of teaching the Bible, he's teaching Calvinism. 

In particular, "irresistible grace." That is the topic of the article, yet the author cannot bring himself to quote a single verse that contains the concept. If the Bible teaches it, we want to know where.

Oh, but he can quote a Statement of Faith as well as a couple of theologians. And a hymn. Just not the Bible.
-------------------------

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Easing Comer’s Fears on Penal Substitution - by Derek Rishmawy

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

The author wants us to accept the Reformist/Calvinist view of Jesus' sacrificial death, but doesn't give us a single biblical reason to do so. In fact, thought he provides a long quote from Calvin, he only manages to quote a single tangential Bible verse.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Jesus' death was sacrificial, not substitutionary, for He spilled His blood to wash us clean:
He. 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.
1Jn. 1:7 ...and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 
Why? The OT sacrifices were typological, representative of the greater work of Christ. So in substance there are direct parallels between a sacrificed lamb and the sacrificed Lamb of God:
  • The animal wasn't punished. Jesus wasn't punished.
  • The animal didn't substitute. Jesus didn't substitute.
  • No one was wrathful toward the animal. No one was wrathful toward Jesus.
  • There was no need to punish the sacrificed animal, the blood was enough. There was no need to punish Jesus, His blood is enough.
We discuss PSA in more detail here.

Why is this important? Because when Jesus offered Himself He totally pleased the Father. His spilled blood washed away our sins. He was not forsaken, punished, or abandoned by the Father. 

We must not dishonor God by misrepresenting Him.
------------------

Thursday, August 14, 2025

The Orthodox Christian view of sin - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

Mr. Ratliff will tell us that either you believe in Original Sin or you believe in no sin at all. But there's more than two alternatives. 
-------

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Covenant Theology for Kids: A Beginner’s Guide - Meredith Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

We have noticed that covenant theology is a topic coming up more frequently in recent times. The same sorts of people who advocate for Calvinism are also on-board for this brand of theology. We critiqued one explanation here, and another here and found both to be lacking.

We should note that we have not sought out explanations of covenant theology or made any deep dives into it. We simply comment when given an opportunity. So we really don't have an axe to grind.

Today's article recites standard Christian doctrine, but claims it as covenant theology. It appears, therefore, that covenant theology simply rebrands biblical concepts with new titles and then represents itself as unique.

One of the links the author provides leads us to an article that mentions an alternative understanding, dispensationalism. We don't know why we should prefer one over the other, or if there are more alternatives than these two. On the whole, the issue seems like an intellectual exercise with no practical benefit. Covenant theology doesn't change any obligation or privilege we have as Christians, and as such is of little benefit.

Lastly, in her title the author proports to offer us "a beginners guide" to teach covenant theology to kids. As such we would expect to find a basic explanation of the origin of, and reasons specific to covenant theology, how it better explains Scripture, and what particular benefit there is in knowing it.

She does none of this. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Saccharine Lyrics: A Response to Kendall Lankford - by Nathan Wright ("How Deep the Father's Love for Us")

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

We did a thorough examination of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" here. The lyric in question is 

How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away

Reformed doctrine teaches that the Son was imputed with our sins, the Father punished the Son in our place, and that punishment satisfied the Father's wrath. This is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the supposed reason the Father turned His face away, that He was unable to look upon the totality of sin imputed to Jesus.

None of this is found in the Bible. We consider it to be a false and pernicious doctrine. Jesus was not imputed with our sin. Rather, He carried and lifted our sin to the cross like He was taking out the garbage. The Father did not punish Jesus. Rather, Jesus died and spilled His blood to wash us clean. The blood was enough. Nothing more was needed, especially not the punishment of Jesus. 

We discuss this in detail here and here.

But more to the point. Mr. Wright will go on and on about Mr. Lankford's word choices, writing style, and lack of understanding. Since this is a technique frequently used by political Leftists, we are disappointed that a supposed Christian would descend to such tactics. However, since the bar is now set low, we shall at times also engage him on his terms and similarly deal with his logical shortcomings.

Happily, Mr. Wright will eventually get to the doctrinal issues, only to gloss over them. His defense is basically just a restatement of what he believes. 

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------

Monday, August 11, 2025

Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

We have commented on some of the author's other articles, and without exception we have also found them to be obtuse and uninformative. 

There are times when the author is completely inscrutable. He uses terminology he doesn't explain, refers to the theology of others but doesn't explain, and quite simply, doesn't actually explain anything. Nothing. 

Plus, he quotes but a single Scripture, one that doesn't explain his presentation. On that basis we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

He does provide a quote from the Canons of DordtSo that the reader understands, Centuries ago, Reformed/Calvinistic theologians gathered together in something called the Synod of Dordt to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. The Canons of Dordt were the defenses of Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine and the refutations of Arminius. In addition, Arminius was declared a heretic.
--------------------------

Thursday, August 7, 2025

“The Error of Teaching That Original Sin Condemns the Entire Human Race” — The Rejection of Errors, Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1) - by KIM RIDDLEBARGER

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

Dear reader, you'll need some background information in order to understand the author's article.

The Synod of Dort was a tribunal of sorts assembled in the early 1600s by Calvinists/Reformists to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. His followers were called Arminians. 

The Synod issued condemnation of Arminius' view (known as the Canons), thus affirming the doctrines of Calvin, including Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (TULIP).

The below article explores the issue of "original sin" from the Calvinist perspective, which ties in with "total depravity."
-------------------------------

Friday, August 1, 2025

God’s Absolute Sovereignty - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------

Dr. MacArthur is a Calvinist. Calvinism is a theological system promulgated by John Calvin in the 1500s, a collection of odd doctrines that have gained wide acceptance and are fiercely defended by its adherents. Calvinism is roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:
  • Total depravity - people do not have the ability to participate in the salvation process in any way.
  • Unconditional election - those who God chose to be saved are the elect.
  • Limited atonement - Jesus died only for the elect.
  • Irresistible grace - the elect cannot resist salvation.
  • Perseverance of the saints - the elect cannot lose or forfeit their salvation.
Notice that none of these doctrines have anything to do with Christian living, generosity, worship, growing in faith, or living a holy life. They simply aren't relevant. But they are endlessly explained by the likes of Dr. MacArthur, which is really the purpose of his article. He's not explaining Christianity or even God's sovereignty, he's explaining Calvinism.

He wrestles with the conflicts created by his Calvinistic doctrine. Recognizing that he backs himself into theological corners, Dr. MacArthur declares that the reasons are unknowable and simply moves on. Now, we should say that we are not suggesting that everything about God is explainable, but rather that Calvinism makes it harder.

The main issue here, however, is the idea of God's sovereignty. We think Dr. MacArthur misuses the term. Sovereignty is simply the power or authority to rule. But to Calvinists like Dr. MacArthur sovereignty means absolute control. That is, because God is sovereign He is required to control everything. We think, however, that God gets to define His own sovereignty, that He isn't required to exercise His power simply because He possesses it, and that free will does not limit God's power or majesty in any way.

This means that the word must be misdefined to fit Calvinistic doctrine. The Bible doesn't really use the word in the manner Dr. MacArthur does. In the OT it is Yahweh Adonai [God the Lord; for example, in Ge. 15:2 where the NIV translates it "Sovereign Lord"]. The NT, also in the NIV, has several instances of "Sovereign Lord," but here we find single word, kurios [Lord or Master; for example, Matt 4:10] or despotés [ruler, for example, Luke 2:29]. "Sovereign" isn't in the Greek.

Lastly, we are thankful he quotes a good amount of Scripture, something surprisingly rare among some of these so-called Bible teachers. All of the verses are the standard ones Calvinists appeal to. 
-------------------------

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Answering the Opposition- Responses to the Most Frequently Raised Discernment Objections - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

Ms. Lesley, like many "discernment" types, is extremely sensitive when it comes to criticism [even mild] leveled at her. She happily blasts away at supposed false teachers, but when it comes to being on the receiving end, well, she gets pretty defensive.

We first note that Ms. Lesley never defines "discernment." She never shows us from the Bible where it describes what she is doing. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a discernment ministry beyond the four walls of the church she attends, and it's probably not her.

Second, Ms. Lesley commits several obvious doctrinal errors. Yet she considers herself a teacher. This is troubling.

Third, she will refer to the supposed false teacher as "twisted sister." This semi-disrespectful moniker means that she is describing a Christian person who has some things wrong. False teachers, however, are probably not Christians, and also lead publicly lascivious lifestyles.

Lastly, she quotes the Bible only when convenient. There are several instances (we have noted them as "Strikes") where she botches the contents of these unquoted Scriptures.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.
-----------------------

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Ongoing Prophecy - by Rev. Angus Stewart

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------

We thought we had heard every argument in favor of cessationism, but this author offers a couple of truly odd twists. And he makes some glaringly false assertions.

A continuing complaint we have with these so-called Bible teachers is they are so averse to quoting the Bible. The author writes a little more 1500 words, but only 56 of them are actual quotes from the Bible.
-----------------------

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

15 Ways to Discern False Teaching - by Kevin DeYoung

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

We have examined several of the author's previous articles, and have found them to be less than persuasive. In today's article he sort of supplies us with a framework for discerning false teaching, but really it's more like how to recognize teaching you disagree with. 

Sadly, as is typical for him, he quotes no Scripture here. At all. 

We shall explain what the author neglects, using Scripture to do so. Discernment is a spiritual gift, a supernatural empowerment:

1Co. 12:10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues...

Discernment requires the Holy Spirit: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Discernment can be honed into maturity:

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Discernment happens in the gathering of the saints for their edification and evaluation: 

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Discernment bears spiritual fruit: 

Ph. 1:9-10 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ... 

Ultimately, discernment is fundamentally recognizing the Holy Spirit: 

1Jn. 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
 
The author never mentions the Holy Spirit. And, he doesn't seem to be aware of the biblical case for discernment, or perhaps, it doesn't matter to him.
-----------------------

Friday, July 18, 2025

The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Jesus died for YOU?) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here.

Ms. Lesley grapples with a problem created by her Calvinistic doctrine. She believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that Ms. Lesley thinks she cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because she doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist then it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around. When confronted with Bible verses that contradict their doctrines, Calvinists must invent explanations. However, we choose to read the Bible for its plain meaning:
Ro. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 

(Plain meaning: He didn't die just for the elect, He died for the ungodly. )

2Co. 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all...

(Plain meaning: Jesus died for all, not just the elect.)

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

(Plain meaning: He took away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect.) 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

(Plain meaning: His one act of righteousness brings life for all men, not just for the elect.) 

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(Plain meaning: God's intent is to have mercy on all men.) 

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

(Plain meaning: He is given as a ransom for all men, not just for the elect.) 

1Ti. 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
(Plain meaning: He is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.)
---------------------------

Thursday, July 17, 2025

Crushed For Our Iniquities - by Justin Huffman

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

The author explains the Calvinist/Reformed belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. We reject this repulsive and pernicious doctrine. We will explain below.
-----------------

Friday, July 11, 2025

What Is TULIP? - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

We have previously commented on this author's articles here and here. We are not surprised, therefore, that he does not quote Scripture today, because he didn't before. Well, in fairness, we must concede he quote a snippet of a verse, but it does not document any of the points he makes.

Over 1600 words, nine of which are Scripture. Really, how can a "Bible" teacher teach the Bible without quoting it? It continually mystifies us.

The biggest problem Calvinists have is their need to create complicated explanations in order to harmonize Scripture with their doctrines. Invariably this means to take verses out of context and insert themselves into them. 

This is what happens when doctrines are used to interpret Scripture.

But ultimately, our issue is the irrelevance of these doctrines. TULIP does not change any aspect of Christian living. These doctrines do not change any privilege or obligation we have. None of them speak to generosity, worship, obedience, holiness, or fellowship. A lost person still needs repentance and salvation, regardless of the truth of Calvinism.

As such, these doctrines are diversions, intellectual exercises that have no practical purpose. Aside from their repugnance, these doctrines are irrelevant.
-------------------------

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

What is "born again?" - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
----------------

Wednesday, July 2, 2025

Why did you use the word "Imputed?" An analysis of imputed righteousness

Introduction 

I asked a friend to explain his use of the word "imputed," and he sent me this detailed analysis (source unknown.) Therefore, because my friend is a careful and analytical thinker, I resolved to provide him a systematic, detailed (and I hope biblical) analysis. It's somewhat long post, so I hope the reader will persevere to the end. 

My initial, perhaps visceral response was a wholesale rejection of the doctrine of imputation, because it is rooted in Calvinism/Reformed theology. This blog has analyzed various Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines quite frequently, and to our surprise we have found the biblical basis for them to be astonishingly weak.

Let's first provide the dictionary definition of imputation:

impute - verb
1. To ascribe (a misdeed or an error, for example) to:
2. To regard as belonging to or resulting from another:

This means imputation is a quality or attribute affixed or assigned to something that doesn't actually belong to it. So this doctrine teaches that Christ's righteousness is assigned to believers, and our sin is assigned to Christ (double imputation). 

We are therefore "imputed" with Christ's righteousness, which is often expressed something like, "when the Father looks at you He sees Jesus." Thus Christians are only regarded as righteous because they are not actually righteous themselves. God essentially pretends we are righteous. It seems we are barely even saved because we're still sinners. We have only been "imputed" with righteousness.

Background

The biblical basis of imputation originates here:

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (KJV)

The Hebrew word for "counted" is chashab, to think, account. That is, something was added to Abraham that God took into account. God thought of Abraham differently. 

I could find no translation of this verse that used the word "imputed," even though this is the source of the doctrine.

The same word, chashab, is used in these verses:

Ps. 44:22 Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

Ps. 88:4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength.

Ps. 144:3 LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

Is. 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

I quoted some of the other uses of the Hebrew word in order to broaden the sense of how the word is used in various contexts. Notice that none of these verse make sense if the word "imputed" is substituted. Our preliminary conclusion is that imputation rests on a shaky foundation. 

In the NT Paul quoted Genesis 15:6:

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (KJV)

I used the KJV because it is the only commonly used translation that uses the word "imputed." 

Chapter four of Paul's letter is where he explained how righteousness is obtained. As it happens, Romans 4 is also the focus of the below explanation of imputation my friend sent me. So that is where my focus will be.

I will insert my rejoinders in bold within the text of the explanation.
----------------