Do I Have to Call Myself a Calvinist?

 

The title of the video explains what it is about. It tries to answer the question: “Do I have to call myself a Calvinist?” The short answer to that question is, No! Calvinism is a heresy by whatever name it is called, and in whichever way it is disguised. It is possible to call it by lots of different names, and to disguise it in lots of different ways—and Calvinists do; but it still remains heretical and false just the same.

There is a well-known Shakespearian proverb that says, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Calvinism, by whatever name it is called, or however it is disguised, still stinks of heresy. It is the invention of Satan, and a formula for damnation rather than salvation. Anybody who values the salvation of his own soul wants to avoid it like a plague, and move on to greater and better things—to a more genuine Bible centered Christianity.

Apologetics With Alisa Childers

 

An interesting video by Alisa Childers, in which she comments on 1 Peter 3:15, about being ready always to give an answer to those who ask for a reason of the “hope” that is in us:

1 Peter 3:

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

After quoting that scripture, she lists the following five questions as examples of the kinds of questions that a skeptic might ask, and proposes answers to them:

1. “Have the New Testament documents been corrupted?”

2. “Is there any evidence that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened?”

3. “Has science disproved God?”

4. “Does the Bible condone slavery?”

5. “Is there any evidence outside the Bible that Jesus actually existed?”

They are all good answers to the questions asked of course; but I have two broader questions that I would like to ask relative to that. My first question is, Are those the kinds of questions that Peter was referring to, by questions regarding the “hope that is in us?” The context suggests otherwise. The key to correctly understanding what Peter had in mind is the word “hope”. The question that needs to be answered here is, What is the “hope” that is in us; and how do we explain and justify that “hope” in such a way that it will be persuasive and meaningful to those who may inquire concerning that “hope”? The “hope” that is in us, is the hope of gaining salvation, redemption, and eternal life through the sacrificial death, Atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Giving dry answers to skeptics and the unbelieving, such as she is proposing, is not quite what Peter had in mind. What he was referring to was giving persuasive and Spirit filled answers to genuine seekers after truth (by the power of the Holy Ghost); not giving clever answers to skeptics who are not genuinely interested in, or seeking after divine truth. A good example of that from scripture would be the story of Paul’s explanation of his faith to King Agrippa, which very nearly converted him to the gospel (Acts 26).

My second question is, Are the answers she is proposing to the 5 questions (including the books and other resources she has recommended) sufficient to generate faith in anyone? The Bible seems to suggest otherwise. It teaches that faith comes by “hearing the word of God:”

Romans 10:

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

• • •

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

And other scriptures explain how “hearing the word of God” generates faith:

Luke 24:

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high [to preach the gospel].

Acts 1:

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

1 Thessalonians 1:

5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Acts 6:

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

So the conclusion seems to be that it is preaching the word of God by the power of the Holy Ghost (by those sent directly from God) that produces faith, rather than the kind of “apologetics” exercise she is proposing. There is nothing wrong with that either; but it would be a mistake to assume that by itself, it would be sufficient to generate faith in anyone. If the object of the exercise is to generate faith, and by that means to facilitate the salvation of genuine inquirers, there seems to be something lacking in that particular approach. It is evident that that is not quite what Peter had in mind by being “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh” a reason for the “hope” that is in us. There is more to it than that, which she seems to have overlooked.

Does God Hear the Prayers of an Unbeliever?

 

The title of the video contains an element of self-contradiction. If someone is an “unbeliever” (AKA atheist), why would he want to “pray” to God anyway? He would have no incentive to. He would have to relinquish his “unbelief,” his “atheism,” to want to pray to God—in which case he could no longer be classed as an “unbeliever”. He would either have to be a “believer,” or at least allow for the possibility of God’s existence to want to, and be able to pray to him.

Listening to the video, however, seems to suggest that by an “unbeliever,” he means anybody who is not a Christian! A Jew, a Muslim, or anyone of any other religious tradition who worships God according to the custom of his own religion, is still classed as an “unbeliever,” according to him. At 05:36 minutes into the video he anticipates the obvious contradiction to his argument that is posed by the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, and tries to avert it in these words:

“There are a very few occasions, most notably, Cornelius in the New Testament, that people will bring up, and say, look, he was not a believer, and he prayed, and God sent Peter, and preached the gospel, and he was saved. But when the angel comes to Cornelius, it says, your prayers have ascended as a memorial to God. Very unusual phrase, it doesn’t say God has answered your prayers. And how did He answer the prayer? If He did, whatever degree we can say He did, He sent Peter to preach the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The reference is to the following passage of scripture:

Acts 10:

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

There are several issues with that statement. The first concerns his understanding of “memorial before God”. His suggestion that it is a “very unusual phrase, it doesn’t say God has answered your prayers,” is absurd, illogical, and unbiblical. “Memorial” in that context means that God had remembered, or taken notice of his prayers and charitable deeds. They had come to God’s attention, and consequently God was now answering them by sending him the angel, with the message that he needed to hear. The following are some alternative translations of that scripture:

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

But when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? and he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up into remembrance before God.

New Matthew Bible (NMB)

When he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? He said to him, Your prayers and your alms have come up into remembrance before God.

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

Staring at the angel and feeling afraid, Cornelius said, “What do you want, sir?” The angel said to him, “God has heard your prayers and has seen your gifts to the poor. He remembers you and all you have done.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Cornelius was surprised and stared at the angel. Then he asked, “What is this all about?” The angel answered, “God has heard your prayers and knows about your gifts to the poor.

Good News Translation (GNT)

He stared at the angel in fear and said, “What is it, sir?” The angel answered, “God is pleased with your prayers and works of charity, and is ready to answer you.

The Passion Translation (TPT)

Startled, he was overcome with fear by the sight of the angel. He asked, “What do you want, Lord?” The angel said, “All of your prayers and your generosity to the poor have ascended before God as an eternal offering.

New Testament for Everyone (NTE)

He looked hard at him, terrified. “What is it, Sir?” he said. “Your prayers and your alms have come to God’s notice,” said the angel.

The second problem with that proposition is that it completely overlooks Peter’s own interpretation of Cornelius’ experience, which is as follows:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

If they are “accepted with him,” that means that their prayers are also heard. That is the only logical reading of the text. It can have no other meaning. The idea of God “remembering” others as an act of kindness and mercy, and in answer to prayers, is found in many places in the Bible. Here are some:

Genesis 19:

29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

The reference is to Abraham’s previous prayer to God, to spare Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:22–32). God “remembering” Abraham doesn’t mean that God had forgotten about Abraham, and now by some stroke of good luck had remembered him again. It is a metaphor, implying that God was cognizant of his faithfulness and prayers, and took action on his behalf as and when required. The remaining examples are clear, no explanations are necessary:

Genesis 30:

22 And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.

Exodus 2:

24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Numbers 10:

9 And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.

Judges 16:

28 And Samson called unto the Lord, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.

Nehemiah 13:

14 Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof.

Nehemiah 13:

31 … Remember me, O my God, for good.

Cornelius’ prayers coming as a “memorial” before God has the same meaning as God’s “remembering” in the above examples. There is nothing strange or “unusual” about that in biblical terms, as he suggests. The third problem with that statement is that it completely overlooks other passages of scripture that confirm the above, such as the following:

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew [or Christian] first, and also of the Gentile [or pagan];

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew [or Christian] first, and also to the Gentile [or pagan]:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Jonah 3:

6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

God heard the prayers of Cornelius; he heard the prayers of the pagan people of Nineveh; and according to the words of Peter in Acts 10, and of Paul in Romans 2, he will likewise hear and answer the sincere prayers of every other human being on earth who “fearth God,” and “worketh righteousness” out of a good conscience, and prays to God in accordance with the custom of his own religious tradition: be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, or whatever. That is what the Bible teaches. I pity the students who are trying to learn theology from these guys.

Calvinism and the “Sovereignty of God”

 

Calvinists like to keep harping on about the “sovereignty of God,” as if they were the only ones who believed in the “sovereignty of God,” and nobody else did! The truth is that they are the ones who actually deny the sovereignty of God.

The real question is not whether God is “sovereign” or not. Nobody denies that he is. He couldn’t be called “God” if he wasn’t. The idea of “sovereignty” is inbuilt in the concept of “God” by definition. Arguing in favor of the “sovereignty of God” is a tautology. You wouldn’t need to, unless you had a hidden agenda.

The real question is not whether God is “sovereign” or not, but whether he is sovereign enough to be able to grant mankind complete libertarian freewill, and still remain fully sovereign at the same time. The Bible says Yes, Calvinism says No! Therefore it is Calvinism that in reality denies the sovereignty of God. Calvinists know this, so they try to get round it by constantly harping on about the “sovereignty” of God, as if they were the only ones who believed in the sovereignty of God, and nobody else ever did!

Calvinism is built on the complete predestination and predetermination of all future events, including all the supposedly “freewill” choices and decisions of man—which reduces mankind into mere robots, and turns God into a puppet-master pulling all the strings behind the scene—and thus at the same time making God responsible for all the wickedness and evil in the world. That is the only way that God can be “sovereign” according to Calvinism—which is heretical and false, and not biblical.

The Bible has a much broader, complete, meaningful, and comprehensive definition of the “sovereignty” of God. According to the Bible, God is powerful enough; omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent enough; to be able to grant mankind complete libertarian freewill, and still remain 100% sovereign at the same time—but not so according to Calvinism! The God of Calvinism is so weak, so feeble, incompetent, and incapable, that the only way that he could be “sovereign” would be by depriving mankind of every ounce of freewill, and becoming a puppet-master pulling all the strings behind the scene.

So the conclusion is that it is Calvinism which denies, limits, and circumscribes the sovereignty of God more than anything else.