An excerpt From John Gill’s “The Cause of God and Truth.”

10 02 2010

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I thought that I’d post a short section of the public domain book by John Gill “The cause of God and truth.” This particular section is about the assumption that many make about 2nd Peter 2:1.

Give it a read…

Section 54—2 Peter 2:1.

This passage of scripture is often produced as a proof both of the saints’ final and total apostasy, and of universal redemption; or that, besides those that are saved, Christ died also for them that perish. Dr. Whitby mentions the several answers which different men give to these words: one says, Christ bought these persons only to be slaves; another, that he died to rescue them from temporal, but not eternal punishments; a third, that he died for them because he gave a sufficient price for them; a fourth, that they denied that Lord whom they professed to have bought them; and a fifth, that they denied him, who, in the judgment of other men, had bought them. Upon which he observes, that they are so extravagant, that it is as easy to confute as to recite them.

1. I do not think myself concerned to defend any of these senses of the text mentioned, judging neither of them to be the meaning of the words, and so have nothing to do with the reasonings made use of in the confutation of them; though, perhaps, the two latter are not so extravagant as represented. However, in order to give the genuine sense of this text, let it be observed,

2. That Christ is not here at all spoken of; nor is there one syllable of his dying for any persons, in any sense whatever. The word despo>thv, Lord, does not design Christ but God the Father of Christ. The only places besides this where this word is used, when applied to a divine person, are Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Jude 1:4, Revelation 6:10, in all which places God the Father is plainly intended, and in most of them manifestly distinguished from Christ; nor is there anything in this text or context which obliges us to understand it of the Son of God; nor should this be thought any diminution of the glory of Christ, since the word despo>thv is properly expressive only of that power which masters have over their servants; whereas the word ku>riov, which is used whenever Christ is called Lord, signifies that dominion and authority which princes have over their subjects. Besides, Christ is called King of kings, and Lord of lords, and the only Potentate; yea, God over all, blessed for ever.


3. When these persons are said to be bought, the meaning is, not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for, as is before observed, Christ is not intended. Besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense of it; (see Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; Eph.1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 14:3-4), whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind. Add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ, are never left to deny him, so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ’s purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for naught. But, 4. The word buying regards temporal deliverance, and particularly the redemption of the people of Israel out of Egypt; who are therefore called the people the Lord had purchased. The phrase is borrowed from Deuteronomy 32:6; Do ye thus requite the Lord,

O foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? Hath he not made thee and established thee?

Nor is this the only place the apostle Peter refers to in this chapter; (see vv. 12, 13, compared with Deuteronomy 32:5). Now the persons the apostle writes to, were Jews, the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithyna, a people who, in all ages, valued, themselves upon, and boasted mightily of their being the bought, purchased people of the Lord; wherefore Peter makes use of this phrase much in the same manner as Moses had done before him, to aggravate the ingratitude and impiety of these false teachers among the Jews; that they should deny, if not in words, at least in works, that mighty Jehovah, who had of old redeemed their fathers out of Egypt, with a stretched out arm, and, in successive ages, had distinguished them with peculiar favors; being ungodly men, turning the grace, the doctrine of the grace of God, into lasciviousness


5. Nothing can be concluded from this passage in favor of Christ’s dying for them that perish; since neither Christ, nor the death of Christ, nor redemption by his blood, are here once mentioned, nor in the least intended. Nor can these words be thought to be a proof and instance of the final and total apostasy of real saints, since there is not anything said of these false teachers, which gives any reason to believe that they were true believers in Christ, or ever had the grace of the Spirit wrought in their souls.

, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 

Yes! yes! I’m a Universalist!…there; I said it….are you happy?

3 01 2010

No…not me…well..not exactly…I AM a Universalist, but probably not in the way you think….I AM one, however, in the way that Jeff McCormack uses the term in the following excellent 4 part blog post…as he says:

I AM A UNIVERSALIST! There you go, I said it, go run and spread the news of my heretical views….or, stick around and let me explain.

I had another slight run in with a handful of people who would fall into a universalist understanding of salvation last week, and so it sparked the idea of laying down some of my thoughts here (since they never listen long enough to consider what is being said). Let me first make a brief, and probably too wide of a brush definition of what is the normal understanding of universalism.

Universalism is at the basic root, the belief that since God will not be thwarted by Satan, and Satan will win nothing, that God has a plan to take it all back. God desires that all mankind be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He therefore sent His Son Jesus to lay down his life and provide a blood covering for all, and since Jesus’ blood is effective, all will be saved.

So, how am I a universalist? I believe God wishes all to be saved, and sent his Son to die for all. The key difference lies in the understanding of the Greek word lying behind the English translation “all.” Sadly, I will not get deeper into this till part two…so don’t go spreading rumors about me yet.

You can read his post here; don’t forget to read all 4 posts!

Really Bad arguments against Calvinism…kids…don’t use these.

27 07 2009

Recently I saw a really badly made video denouncing the Doctrines of Grace.
What was most pathetic was not the video but the comments by the owner of the channel…Apparently this person named Jacob has never had to actually argue a point in real time where he actually had to defend his position with well thought out arguments.

I’ve repeatedly offered to give him space to do so here at my blog; He would get 500 words uninterrupted to make his case in support of Arminianism, then I’d take 500 words to make my case in support of the Doctrines of Grace. Then we could ask a question or two of each other; thereby promoting a healthy exchange of ideas.

He declined in favor of using (inventing?) the following “Really bad arguments that Arminians shouldn’t use”

It’s pretty scary that people would rather listen to the theology of a murdering heretic like John Calvin than learn God’s holy word. According to John Calvin, we are either born saved or doomed to hell. Why even evangelize at all? Why witness? We need more videos exposing how demonic Calvinism is. It’s a huge stumbling block.

And this one:

Arminius came closer to the truth than John Calvin, that’s why I’m more against Calvinism. If you want to follow a man who burned people because they disagreed with his false interpretation of the scriptures, you go right ahead. How is he any different than the Catholic Church? I’ll continue following Jesus.

“…if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” – Matthew 15:14

And this one combines  a straw man with an Ad Hominem

If Calvinism is true, all preaching is in vain. If God indeed predestines some for heaven and some for hell, all preaching is in vain. How do Calvinists witness? “Jesus MIGHT have died for you, but I KNOW HE DIED FOR ME BECAUSE I’M SPECIAL…so, good luck with that. I hope you are chosen too.” There is so much wrong with Calvinism it’s not even funny. Calvinism is the most arrogant cult I’ve ever heard of.

Another straw man

Are you telling me people had no idea what the gospel or salvation was until John Calvin came along and interpreted the gospel for everyone? I stand by the authority of God’s word, not by any man. Whenever you have a human telling you what the bible means, there’s a good chance you are in a cult.

This is a good one; don’t exegete when you can just proof text it!

You want proof Jesus Christ died for EVERYONE?

2 Peter 2:1 “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that BOUGHT them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

He died for all, but not everyone will be saved. His plan of salvation damages a lot of people’s egos.

Another straw man

Again, to be a true Calvinist, you would have to believe that God is the author of every evil. Rape, murder, child molestation, drug usage, stealing, etc. It’s a cop out. We have no free will? Salvation is a two way street. The parable of the sower shows how we HAVE free will. Salvation is offered to all, but people go to hell by their own volition.

This one I couldn’t get what it was actually getting at

The Bible never advocates harming an individual due to his unbelief or lack of understanding. Jesus taught to “turn the other cheek” instead. None of the Apostles taught action against unbelievers but instead taught the believer to seek them out and present the gospel in love.

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

John Calvin showed no signs of being a regenerate man. He became more murderous and cruel during his rule in Geneva.

And of course proving that it’s not necessary to crack a history book before opening your mouth.

Are you denying the fact that John Calvin approved the burning of Michael Servetus? John Calvin was a lying heretic to the core, just like his father the Devil.

And the ever popular red herring mixed with the Ad Hominem

He showed no inclination to be conformed to the image of Christ as described in Scripture for those who have been saved. Notice that Romans 8:29 below says we are “predestined to be conformed to His Son” and does not say we are predestined to be saved as taught by Calvin.

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

And this nugget of sound scholarship

How does “predestined to be conformed to the image of the son” mean predestined to salvation in any way? Calvinists murder scripture. Where in the bible does it say “Jesus Christ died for the elect only?” It doesn’t. It’s clear he died for all…even the unsaved. Even the false prophets, like in the scripture passage I gave you below. “Denying even the Lord that BOUGHT them.” Anyone in hell is there because of their own choice to reject the gospel, not God’s.

And a thoroughly unbiblical understanding of “proginosko” combined with Ad Hominem

Foreknew…Yes, God foreknew who would be saved in the end. He’s God. Does that mean he CHOSE who would be saved? How are you 100% sure he chose YOU? What makes you more special than any other sinner? All that passage is saying is that once a person becomes a Christian, that person is then on a path to salvation and God is the author and finisher of that salvation. It’s interesting that all Calvinists believe they are the “chosen” few. LOL. How convenient for them.

This one was my favorite…it starts with a belly laugh and just goes to a proof text…no exegesis, no context…nothing.


2nd 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.”

“For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16

Sounds to me like his desire is to have everyone saved….How can people get saved if they’ve never heard the gospel?

And then we’re back to poor or nonexistent scholarship

Election means a person has been chosen for a special service. Predestination means God has predetermined that those who become Christians will have certain attributes, such as being “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Neither of these terms (election and predestination) have anything to do with salvation.

And here is a doozy

Why did Jesus give the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20? If God already knows who he is going to save,how lazy this view is? I’m not “screaming.” I’m typing. why should we bother having this discussion? I’ll just assume I’m one of the chosen and leave it at that. See

It leads here:

1 John 2:1 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and NOT FOR OUR’S ONLY, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

The bible destroys Calvinism once again.


And then after all of this; he claims to have proven these doctrines false…what gall. (And to be safe…he throws another personal attack in)

You cling to John Calvin’s doctrines which I’ve proven to be false. On top of his false interpretation of the scriptures, he was a murderer. This is who you want to model your life after? Go burn some people at the stake then…That’s what your leader would want you to do.

All the while taking that imaginary “high ground” that Arminians love to take.

You must not get it. I follow neither Arminius nor John Calvin.

And then he ends with this:

You’ve ignored every bible passage I’ve given. Calvinism is not only false doctrine, but it’s creepy. Don’t you have some heretics to burn at the stake?

If you’re a glutton for punishment you can see the whole exchange here at the video on You tube.

From Kyle at the Pulpit Pimps combox…God has horrible timing…

6 07 2009

This was a comment that Kyle left in a combox over at Pulpit Pimps. I thought that he summed up the “God wants all men to be saved!” rhetoric and put it in perspective nicely.

Here are Kyle’s words:

If God wanted ALL to be saved he sent Christ at a very bad time in history. What kind of Sovereign God would send Christ to earth 2000 years ago when we only had camels, horses, and not too sea worthy ships?

Talk about bad timing. – Yikes!

So here is poor Paul and the rest of the apostles running around a small piece of real estate why 90% of the world is dying and going to hell.

Sheesh! what kind of God is this?

But it gets worse. We have Christ saying things like,

” Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day”

Man this bites! You mean people can only come to Christ if they are “first” drawn by the father? That’s not fair. What about all the people who have never heard the gospel. They sure got ripped off.

Or how about this one,

“All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

God likes to reveal himself to whom he pleases.

I don’t like this one bit.

And then Christ goes ahead and thanks God by saying,

” I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight”.

Talk about unfair.

How could Jesus thank God for withholding the truth to some?

Oh! The nerve he has to say this,

“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.”

Oh that one really irks me! First Jesus is thanking God for hiding the truth to some and then has the nerve to say he only prays for the ones God has given him. – The nerve!

Or how about this prophecy from Isaiah,

“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them”

I swear if I find out who Isaiah was talking about in regards to who is blinding and deadening these people hearts why I’m going to……………

Oh the heck with it. I’m going to reconvert to Arminianism. At least I get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Nicely said Kyle.

Read and obey!…

30 03 2009

I came across the “Bart Simpson Chalkboard Generator” and I couldn’t resist….


Arminian logical fallacies…can we put these to bed?

24 03 2009

If you’ve spent any time at all interacting with fellow Christians, you’ve no doubt heard these logical fallacies…they are repeated ad nauseam.
They are never proven; just assumed. Considering that the false doctrine of Arminianism is the standard position of almost all Christians these days, that’s not surprising.

The following is a short article from Rev. Roger Smalling, D.Min that I found at:

So read these statements and ask yourself if you have been guilty of repeating them; and then ask yourself just how biblical are they?

1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.

Or ‘God would not command us to do what we cannot do.’ God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.

  • This premise is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, I’ll write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man’s sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to men to prove they are able to perform them.
  • This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command.

2. If our will is bound, then we are not responsible for our actions.

Or, “If not free, then not responsible.” This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. This is irrational because the assumption behind this is the idea of neutrality.

  • The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues.
  • Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?
  • The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral one if it is morally neutral? How can morally be morality at all and be neutral?

3. For love to be real, it must have the possibility of being rejected.

God wants us to love him freely, not by compulsion. Therefore, fallen man must have the ability to love God. It is simply that he chooses to love other things.

  • Scripture teaches that love for God is a product of His grace. 1Ti.1:14. If grace is necessary to make us love God, then it follows that follows that we had no ability to love him before the arrival of grace. It also means that grace is not given because we chose to love God. We chose to love God because grace is given. Grace, not a virtue in man, takes the initiative.
  • This premise is similar the one that says, “Contrary choice is necessary for freedom to exist.” Does God periodically give the saints in heaven an opportunity to hate him so as to be ‘fair’? Did Jesus have some ability to hate the Father? Or was His love for the Father a reflection of what He himself really is?
  • If faith is a gift of grace, as we saw above, then why is it strange to think that love may not be also a gift of grace?

4. A person cannot be punished for what he cannot help doing.

  • If that is the case, then a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature compels him to do. Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.