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.

Holy, Holy, Holy!

 

Another interesting podcast from Ligonier in the “Ultimately” series. I am only interested in commenting on what he says at the end of the podcast. Starting at 05:18 minutes he says the following:

“The Bible doesn’t say that God is mercy, mercy, mercy; or love, love, love; or justice, justice, justice; or wrath, wrath, wrath. But that He is holy, holy, holy. This is a dimension of God that consumes His very essence. When it is manifest to Isaiah, we read that at the sound of the voices of the seraphim, the doorpost, the thresholds of the  temple itself shook, and began to tremble [Isaiah 6:2-4 (also Rev. 4:8)]. Do you hear that? Inanimate, lifeless, unintelligible parts of creation in the presence of the manifestation of the  holiness of God had the good sense to be moved. How can we, made in His image, be indifferent or apathetic to His majesty? God alone is holy.”

Nothing wrong with those comments of course; but it would have been even more meaningful if he had included the following scriptures with it:

Leviticus 11:

45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Leviticus 19:

2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.

Leviticus 20:

26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

Deuteronomy 7:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 14:

2 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Deuteronomy 28:

9 The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways.

1 Peter 1:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Revelation 20:

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Arguably, a more important consideration from our perspective is not only that God is holy, but that he wants us to be holy like him. Focusing on the holiness of God, while overlooking his desire for us to be holy like him, misses the point quite a bit.

And likewise the scriptures inform us that his angels, his habitation, his name, his sabbaths and convocations, his priesthoods and their garments, his covenants and obligations, his scriptures, his word and commandments, his prophets, his temples and sacrificial offerings, his anointing oils and ointments, the formula for incense, the hill of Zion and the city built on it etc. are also holy.

Ultimately no one can be “saved,” or expect to dwell in the presence of God in heaven, unless he is holy as he is holy, and righteous as he is righteous; and that is not achieved by “imputation”. It is achieved by living a holy and consecrated life. It is achieved by “keeping the commandments of the Lord thy God” and “walking in his ways” (Duet. 28:9); and by being “holy in all manner of conversation” (1 Peter 1:15). “Conversation” in that context, in the English of the KJV, means “conduct,” “behavior”. It means how you live your life in the world. That is how it is translated in more modern translations. It means to “purify himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:3). “Imputed righteousness” is another Calvinistic heresy. There isn’t any such thing. One must become righteous to be saved, not just “declared” to be such. And it is achieved by repenting of one’s sins, keeping the commandments of God, and living a holy and consecrated life thereafter.

Islam More Redeeming Than Calvinism!

 

I found the above sermon by John MacArthur in which, starting at 3 minutes into the video, he relates the following anecdote (emphasis added):

“One of my favorite events as I look back over my life happened a few years ago, and I’ve… I’ve… I’ve told this story a few times because it’s a highlight of my life. It just… it’s been a useful experience the Lord gave me. I was flying from Los Angeles to El Paso, Texas, and I was going to El Paso because I had been invited to come to a men’s conference at the civics center in El Paso sponsored by Calvary Chapels and to speak for a day there. I sat down on Southwest Airlines and in the middle seat, the dreaded middle seat, and there I was in the middle seat on Southwest progressing toward El Paso.

“We were in the air about a half an hour. I had become very aware that the man by the window was a Muslim from the Middle East. He was dressed that way and distinguished himself in that way by his presence… by his demeanor in every way. About a half an hour in, he looked over at me. I had my New Testament out. I was writing a few notes. And he said, ‘Excuse me, sir, may I ask you a question?’ I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘Is that a Bible?’ And I said, ‘It is a Bible.’ ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘sir, can I ask you then another question?’ And I said, ‘Of course.’ And this was his question, ‘Can you tell me, sir, the difference between a Catholic, a Protestant, and a Baptist?’ That was his question. So I… I knew the answer, so I told him the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and I put the Baptists where they belong in the Protestant category sort of.

“And… and so this was perfect, and I said to him, ‘Sir, may I ask you a question?’ And he said, ‘Of course, of course.’ I said, and I knew the answer, I said, ‘Do Muslims sin?’ He said, ‘Oh, we have many, many sins.’ I said, ‘Well, do you do them all the time… all the time?’ And then he got very honest. He said, ‘In fact, I am flying to El Paso to do some sins.’ I said, ‘Really?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘I’m a new immigrant. I have just immigrated into the U.S. I came to the El Paso immigration center. I met a girl there, and we have arranged to meet this weekend to do some sins.’ Wow, that’s pretty honest stuff. I said, ‘May I ask you another question.’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘How does Allah feel about your sins?’ ‘The God al-Ilah?’ He said, ‘Uh, it’s very bad. I could go to hell forever.’ ‘Really? Why don’t you stop doing those sins?’ ‘I can’t stop.’ I said, ‘Do you have any hope that in spite of your sins, you might escape hell?’ And I’ll never forget what he said. He said, ‘I pray Allah will forgive me.’ And I said, ‘Well, why would he do that?’ He said, ‘I don’t know. I just pray he will.’”

I have two issues with that story: The first is that the Muslim guy was either an extremely ignorant one, or he is being misrepresented by John MacArthur. Every Muslim who knows anything about his own religion, knows that repentance is an essential and integral part of the theology of Islam. It teaches that God is kind, merciful, compassionate, and forgiving; and that if a sinner genuinely repents of his sins (meaning to stop committing them), he will be forgiven. It has no concept of the need for the sacrificial death of a redeemer etc., as in Christianity; but it is still very much focused on forgiveness of sins by a kind, loving, merciful, compassionate God, on condition of genuine repentance (meaning abandonment of the sin, not committing it again). The second issue I have with that story is that John MacArthur is offering him the hope of forgiveness, salvation, and “reconciliation” without repentance, which is 100% heretical and false, unchristian, and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. It is the recipe for damnation rather than salvation. He then continues:

“And I said, ‘Well, let me tell you something. I know God personally, and I can promise you, He won’t.’”

Wrong! Of course He will—on condition of genuine repentance. That is what the Bible teaches:

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.

To “fear God” and “work righteousness” includes repentance. It is impossible to comply with that requirement without repenting of one’s past sins in the first place. So it looks like John MacArthur doesn’t know much about God at all, otherwise he would have also known what his true doctrine should be. He continues:

“He looked at me like I was crazy. ‘You know God personally and you’re in the middle seat on Southwest? You’ve got to be kidding me.’ I said, ‘I know Him personally, and He cannot overlook your sin, the true God.’”

Only if he doesn’t repent. If he genuinely repents, and “works righteousness,” like it says in Acts 10:35, he will be forgiven. That is what biblical Christianity teaches—and oddly enough, so does Islam. So it looks like he is badly deluding himself. He does not “know” God at all. He continues:

“But I said, ‘I have some good news for you. There’s forgiveness available. There is reconciliation available with God.’”

Only on condition of repentance, which in his heretical, Calvinistic theology is almost non-existent. He continues:

“And I went on to present the gospel to him, followed it up with a letter, sent him some material, never heard from him.”

He was very wise! He stood a better chance of salvation by remaining a Muslim, and attempting genuine repentance according to the theology of his own religion; than by accepting his heretical theology of “reconciliation” without repentance, that John MacArthur with his Calvinistic theology is trying to impose on him. He then continues:

“That’s what I do. That’s what all of us as believers do. We tell people God will forgive their sins, don’t we? Isn’t that what we do? Sometimes I actually say that, sitting next to somebody on a plane when they say, ‘What do you do?’ And I say, ‘I tell people God will forgive all their sins, are you interested?’ It’s like cutting to the chase, right?”

Wrong! There is no “reconciliation” without genuine repentance. That is written all over the Bible. Teaching people “reconciliation” without repentance is a recipe for damnation, not salvation. Skipping a few lines he continues:

“Turn in your Bibles to 2 Corinthians, chapter 5, and I want to talk about this responsibility that we as believers have to proclaim the message of forgiveness, the word of reconciliation. And that’s the word we’re going to look at as we consider this text, 2 Corinthians, chapter 5, verses 18 to 21. I’m reading from the NAS. It’s pretty similar to whatever one you happen to be looking at, and I want you to follow it closely, starting in verse 18. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

The Apostle Paul was notorious for saying things that are “hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Basing your theology on a few isolated and misconstrued passages of Paul, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible that teach something different, is not going to result in a sound biblical theology. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible than the need for repentance to obtain forgiveness and reconciliation with God:

Matthew 4:

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 12:

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Mark 6:

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 5:

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 13:

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Luke 15:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 24:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 17:

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 20:

20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Romans 2:

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Revelation 2:

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; …

Revelation 3:

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

And to “repent” means to stop sinning—as the people Nineveh did (Jonah 3:5–10; Matt. 12:41). Jesus came not to call the righteous but sinners to “repentance” (Luke 5:32); and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that “repenteth,” than over ninety and nine just [righteous] persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:7). “Repentance” is the prelude to the remission of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). There is no forgiveness without genuine repentance; and repentance entails doing works meet for repentance (Rom. 2:4; also Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). To “repent” doesn’t just mean to “change your mind,” as the heresy of Calvinism teaches; and it is not something that just “happens” to people willy-nilly just because they have “believed”—whether they like it or not—which is another heretical teaching of Calvinism. The choice is always theirs whether to keep the commandments of God and be saved, or continue in sin and transgression and be damned. “Believing” doesn’t prevent one from doing either. “Devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19); and “believers” who sin receive a greater punishment than “unbelievers” who commit the same sin (Luke 12:47-48). He then continues:

“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Five times in the verses that I read, you see the word reconcile in some form. The message of the gospel is the message of reconciliation. The alienated sinner can be reconciled to God. Reconciliation with God is possible. That’s what we proclaim. That’s what we pray. That’s what we teach. That’s what we live for. And that perhaps is what some even die for. It is the unparalleled message of reconciliation with God.”

Only on condition of repentance. There is no “reconciliation” without genuine, whole-hearted, sincere repentance. That is what the Bible teaches—and oddly enough, that is also what Islam teaches. His heretical Calvinistic theology is leading him far astray. He continues:

“That’s the message that I gave the Muslim on the plane that day. You can be reconciled to God. And then I explained to him how that has been made possible through the work of Christ.”

The Muslim guy was wise! He stands a far better chance of salvation by heeding his own Islamic doctrine of genuine repentance, than the abominable Calvinistic heresy that John MacArthur is trying to impose on him.