FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -
- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM
ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE
SOME ANTI CALVINIST WEB PAGES BRIEFLY REVIEWED
I did not become a Calvinist until about two or three years after I was
converted to Christ. My post conversion background was Fundamentalist
but not Calvinistic. It was not without a struggle that I came into
Calvinistic views. Personally, I like to discuss these things
graciously with those who take an opposite view. My experience is that
bitterness can usually be found on both sides of the divide. I do not
knowingly misrepresent the other side. Any mistakes or misconceptions
are immediately corrected. Since there are hundreds, if not thousands,
of web pages out there, I cannot obviously review them all. I do not
undertake to review those who attack these doctrines from a non
evangelical Christian point of view. I will content myself to trying to
correct those misunderstandings both believed and propagated by real
Christians. The judgement of charity demands that I treat such as
misunderstandings - I would hate to think that any real Christian would
resort to deliberate misrepresentation.
In
these brief reviews, I do not undertake to point out every error or
misrepresentation in the page nor even answer them. Such would [1] take
too long and [2] mean that if I omitted to mention any, it would be
taken for granted that I believed them to be the case. If your site is
reviewed here, you might like to take on board the criticisms and
especially correct any misunderstandings. I am always happy to change
my review if and when the case warrants that I do so.
The
common one that will be seen to crop up is the total omission of any
mention of the Calvinistic belief that man's inability to believe and
the consequent damnation of the impenitent is on account of sin. If you
grasp this, then it will save you going off on a tangent that the god
of Calvinists is a blood thirsty monster. Some of the questions asked
in these sites are worth asking. "Why do Calvinists evangelise?" is a
sensible question. (Answer: See 7 reasons why Calvinists evangelise)
But it is one thing to query whether evangelism is consistent with our
belief that God will infallibly draw in His elect - it is another to
state that "Calvinists don't believe in evangelism" It is statements
like this along with some of the more crude forms of ignorance peppered
with words akin to blasphemy that benefit no one.
CH
Spurgeon was very charitable towards those who held to non Calvinist
views, but at times he found it hard to contain his righteous
indignation when speaking of some who opposed these doctrines. At the
opening of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, he said:
"The
most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes,
I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this
day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of
matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John
Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to
defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will,
and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were
never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were
never in existence." (7:550)
REVIEWS
(Some
pages may have been changed since these reviews, but they are still
included to demonstrate the way some who oppose Calvinism go about
trying to refute it.)
David Cloud: Endorsing Dave Hunt's Book "What love is this?"
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/davehunt-calvinrefutation.html
My
Review: As the reviews below will show, I am not a big fan of David
Cloud. In this page on his website, he publicly endorses Dave Hunt's
book on Calvinism, "What love is this" Mr Cloud here gives us quote
after quote from Dave Hunt, evidently in agreement. I comment on each
of these quotes. A number of things bother me about this page. Dave
Hunt makes the totally amazing statement: "There is no escaping the
fact that in Calvin's entire Institutes of the Christian Religion there
is not one mention of God's love for the lost!" (p. 151) Any one with a
copy of the Institutes does not have to look far to see that this is a
total fabrication. Wrapped it all in definite language will not
intimidate any one from checking. That Mr Cloud repeats these
allegations without checking them shows to me a willingness to repeat
anything about Calvin that detracts from him. Another point with
special interest to the matter below re: the free offer…on this
page Dave Hunt gives a quote from Calvin affirming the free offer of
the gospel. Mr Cloud dutifully repeats it…but still maintains on
another page that Calvin denounced it. Doesn't any one check these
things?
***************************
David Cloud: Calvinism Debate Who is the real enemy? www.wayoflife.org/fbns/calvinismdebate.html
My
Review: Although he professes to have read Iain Murrays excellent book:
Spurgeon vs Hyper Calvinism, Mr Cloud fails to adequately distinguish
between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. He does acknowledge some good
elements which flow from Calvinism and avoids some of the more silly
statements that Calvinists are fatalists or do not believe in
evangelism. One main blot on this article is the amazing statement that
John Calvin denounced the free offer of the gospel. This is based on
one statement Calvin made which actually concerned the result of gospel
preaching - as opposed to its scope - and which is torn from its
context. (The very next sentence affirms the free offer) Despite some
email correspondence with proof to the contrary, this untrue allegation
has been allowed to stand. A useful exposé of "quick prayerism"
appears at the end of this article. However as Spurgeon observes,
Calvinists cannot preach the sermons which lead to such practices :-)
Click here for my full review of this article.
***************************
David Cloud: I reject TULIP theology www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ireject.html
My
Review: A short article where Mr Cloud quotes from a selected part of
the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Decrees of God.
Unfortunately, by leaving out section 7, he fails to tell the whole
story and so presents a caricature. The edited out paragraph reminds us
that those who are ordained to dishonour and wrath are thus dealt with
for their sin, to the praise of his [God's] justice. The WCF section on
the Last Judgement (Ch. 23 section 2) affirms the same truth. Men are
damned because of sin…nothing else. Also in this site, Mr Cloud
peddles the idea that Calvinists do not believe that the grace of God
can be resisted. This is not so. The Bible and our own experience teach
us that it can. We do believe, however, that there comes a time in the
experience of the elect, when the call to salvation is effectual. Mr
Cloud is right to say that it does not detract from the Sovereignty of
God when God gives man - although I would use the word allow - the
potential to resist Him. He is wrong to say that Calvinism is wrong to
attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. As
Spurgeon said long ago…we do not try to reconcile friends who
have never fallen out. Of little value.
***************************
David Cloud
Does All mean All?
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/doesall.html
The Danger of teaching Christ died only for the elect:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/dangerofteaching.html
My
Review: Both these pages are extracts from the writings of one George
Zeller, Middletown Bible Church, CT 06457 but evidently endorsed by Mr
Cloud. They contain the classic non Calvinist arguments re: the
unlimited nature of the atonement i.e. that Christ died for elect and
reprobate alike without any distinction. This means that Christ
purposed to save those who would finally reject Him, actually took
their sins on His own body to the tree, paid the price in full of their
redemption, satisfied the divine anger and justice, presumably rose
again for their justification - although they were never justified -
and sees His sovereign purposes frustrated because their sin out-bounds
His grace. In all this…the Saviour is still meant to see the
travail of His soul and be satisfied. I think not.
Both
pages quote the same incident of an ex-Calvinist who looks at all the
Scripture evidence … and concludes: "If Christ really did die
for all men then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer
than it does." How true! The point is a good one - not easily dismissed
by the Calvinist who does not desire (as alleged in these pages) to
force Scripture into his neat theological system. Click here for some
difficulties regarding Unlimited Atonement. Jay Adams is quoted -
although we should always look up the full quotation as there appears
to be a tendency among non Calvinists to carelessly misread what some
Calvinists are actually getting at - as denying that the Christian
Counsellor cannot tell any unsaved sinner that Christ died for him
seeing He died only for His own and they are known only to God. I
simply declare that Christ died for guilty sinners and every last
breathing sinner may conclude himself among that number if he comes to
Christ. There is no reason why any sinner may despair on this matter.
We are not guided by the secret decree of God, but by the clear
declarations of His word and the offer of the gospel is for all men and
the warrant to believe is to extended to elect and non elect alike.
This was the position of Calvin himself and also of Calvinists in
general. The non Calvinist seems to take the worst possible application
of these thoughts, whereas the Calvinist will happily press home the
promises of God which are offered to the "whosoever" to every man in
accordance with the Bible command: Mark 16:15 etc.,
The
statement that Christ's death is sufficient for all and efficient for
only those who believe is also held by Calvinists. Calvin himself was
quite happy to quote and endorse it (Comments on 1 John 2:2)
Finally…Zeller quotes Sir Robert Anderson quoting Horatius Bonar
in regards to the "alls" of Scripture. It ought to be pointed out that
Bonar believed in Particular Redemption. It is easy to dismiss the
Calvinist argument over the word "all" as semantics. Let the non
Calvinist go through his concordance and he will soon be forced either
into the "limited all" camp in some matters or into blatant
"Universalism" in the other. He himself will have to learn to "rightly
divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) and run the risk of being
aligned as a user of semantics.
***************************
CLICK HERE FOR OUR PAGE ON WHY DAVID CLOUD IS NOT A RELIABLE CRITIC OF CALVINISM
***************************
Mark Huss: Four Implications of Calvinism http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.net/fbcfouri.htm
My
Review: A complete hatchet job by Mark Huss on Calvinism. All the usual
rubbish like Calvinists are fatalists…don't evangelise or pray
etc., the Calvinistic god is a monster etc., Complete rubbish from
beginning to end. Worse still…he repeats himself extensively
near the end. Useful only if you want your sanctification and patience
sorely tested.
***************************
James Crumpton: For the Lily www.wayoflife.org/fbns/forthelily.html
My
Review: Mr Crumpton does not give us any references or quotations,
relying instead on his own flawed misunderstanding of what Calvinists
hold. He seems to believe that although Calvinists deny man's ability,
we also deny man's responsibility. (Calvinists believe in man's total
responsibility) He implies that Calvinists believe that people were
arbitrarily assigned in unconditional election to Hell or to Heaven
before the foundation of the world. This misrepresents Calvinism's
belief that while salvation is all of grace…damnation is all of
sin. He totally misunderstands what Calvinists mean by the perseverance
of the saints. If you really want your Calvinist faith
challenged…avoid this page. At best, it is superficial.
***************************
J.K. Fulbright: Why I am no longer a Calvinist www.bereanpublishers.co.nz/False_Doctrines/why_i_am_no_longer_a_calvinist.htm
My
Review: One would assume Mr Fulbright, having professed Calvinism,
would be able to state our case fairly. This is not to be. He
propagates the thought that Calvinists believe that we are saved
against our will - which we don't. We believe that our hearts being
renewed, we come willingly to Jesus Christ. Also propagates the view
that Calvinists do not evangelise or pray with passion. Can any one
spare a Church History book? He confuses Hyper Calvinism with real
Calvinism. Perhaps Mr Fulbright believed these things he shares with
us. If so, I'm glad that he has abandoned them…but if so, he was
never a Calvinist. A very disappointing site from one who, on his
profession, should know better.
***************************
Fundamental Baptist World Wide Mission Position on 5 point Calvinism http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn1.htm
My
Review: Short sharp statement of policy. Makes some of the usual silly
statements i.e. Calvin taught that man is a robot etc., and get
mightily confused over Calvinism and man's responsibility Brands
Calvinists as heretics and believers of damnable heresies. So there you
are. God greatly blessed with revival the preaching of damnable
heretics like Spurgeon - an article of this damnable heretic actually
appears on this site - & George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards
etc., However our friends have a big problem. These folk - like myself
- are firm believers in the Authorised Version and in their site they
hasten to assure us that the translators of the Authorised Version were
superior people etc., True! … but to quote David Cloud most of
them were Calvinists! So you can be a damnable heretic believing all of
those horrible Calvinistic things and still be - again to quote the
site - a person fit to translate the word of God? Does nobody ever sit
down and check these things? I think we are a bit short here on
consistency. We take up this matter of the Calvinists who translated
the AV elsewhere.
***************************
Craig Ledbetter: Some serious Questions for Calvinists! http://www.biblebc.com/some_serious_questions_for_calvi.htm
My
Review: Brother Ledbetter is a good friend of mine and an encouragement
to me in my ministry. He pastors a neighbouring church in Blarney, Co.
Cork. His article is succinct, getting to the heart of the matter very
quickly. He blissfully avoids those more outrageous allegations which
some of the sites above seem to glory in. He asks questions rather than
makes statements which is a fair way to go about it. However, he does
blot his copy book at the end by giving his summary of John Calvin's
belief. I quote: Calvin - "Ye are, or ye are not already chosen to be
born again! So don't worry!" (this is not a quote, but a summary) As
can be seen from my "Serious Answers to Serious Questions" web page,
Calvin never took this position and the two quotes given from Calvin's
commentary on Isaiah 55:6 and Matthew 11:12 specifically challenge
those who would sit back and do nothing. I think it is a pity that
Calvin gets loaded with things he never believed. Many of the questions
asked, although valid, are easily answered. Man deserves nothing but
damnation for his sin.
***************************
Craig Ledbetter: The Forgotten Five Points of Calvinism http://www.biblebc.com/Christian_Helps/forgotten_5_points_of_calvin.htm
My
Review: Although appearing on Brother Ledbetter's site, linked from the
above page, this piece was contributed by Jeffrey D. Nachimson. It
consists of five quotes from Calvin, although there are no references
given to enable us to examine them for ourselves i.e. whether he
actually said these things or in what context he did so. Had this page
been entitled, the 5 forgotten points of Calvin (as opposed to
Calvinism) then this review would never have been written. The first
quote concerns Calvin's acceptance of Amillennialism. It is hard to
know why this should be considered a belief of all Calvinists, when
many Calvinists are pre-millenialists and others are post millenialists
and reject Calvin's view on this matter. Also, there non Calvinists who
embrace the Amillennialist position. The second point is a quotation
concerns Calvin's threat (which he saw carried out) to have Sevetus
killed if he ever came to Geneva. I have never met a Calvinist yet who
agreed with Calvin on this matter. At best, we can only try and explain
the somewhat brutal age in which Calvin lived, but we cannot and have
no desire to excuse him. If all Calvinists ran around threatening to
kill those rank heretics who crossed our paths, this so called
"forgotten point" which we are meant to embrace might be held against
us. But we don't and therefore it is difficult to see why it should be
added to this page and under this title. The third point concerns a
quote from Calvin about predestination to hell. One quote, even if it
were referenced, is insufficient to give the full story of what Calvin
believed. We can all snatch out quotes and leave them stand alone in
the shame of their nakedness. This is neither honest nor helpful nor
glorifying to God. In the 3rd Book of the Institutes and the 23rd
chapter, where Calvin deals with this complex matter of reprobation, we
read the following words: "Accordingly, we should contemplate the
evident cause of damnation in the corrupt nature of humanity - which is
closer to us - rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible
cause in God's predestination."( 3:23:8) Calvin believed, as do
Calvinists, that men are lost in hell because of their sin. No man is
in hell who does not deserve to be there. The fourth point concerns
Calvin's belief in infant baptism. But again, like his Amillenialism,
this belief is rejected by many other Calvinists e.g. those of Baptist
persuasion (see the 1689 Baptist Confession) and embraced by non
Calvinists. John Wesley believed in the baptism of infants. Again, why
this should be included as forgotten point of Calvinism (as opposed to
Calvin) is a mystery. The fifth point concerns Calvin's view that the
sacraments have the same office as the word of God to offer and set
forth Christ and in him the treasures of heavenly grace. No comment is
made here to inform us what Mr Nachimson supposes this to mean. I can
only hazard a guess that he supposes that Calvin believed that saving
grace is conveyed through a sacrament. However since it is basic
knowledge that Calvin, as a Reformer, fought a long running battle with
Rome over this very matter, then this can hardly be the case. When we
break bread, we do "show forth the Lord's death" (1 Corinthians 11:26)
and likewise in baptism, we "show forth" the truth that believers have
died in union with Christ etc., Calvin was anxious to preserve the
spiritual import of these sacraments (or ordinances as some prefer to
call them) and subsequently said what he did.
Overall,
not a particularly helpful page on the Calvinism issue. Three out of
the five issues raised are hardly relevant, while the one on
reprobation consisted of a single quote which fails to credit Calvin
with the belief that men are damned in hell purely on the basis of
their sins and not an arbitrary decree. The last issue re: the role of
the sacraments is just left there with no comment, but once it is
explained by Calvin's overall position, it contains nothing but what
every Christian, Calvinist or not, can say "Amen!" to. I think the idea
behind this kind of criticism of Calvinism is that Calvinists are blind
followers of John Calvin and want to dot all his "i's" and stroke all
his "t's" This is not the case. That we admire John Calvin and hold
with John Wesley * (that's right) that "Calvin was a great instrument
of God; and that he was a wise and pious man" (although, like Wesley,
we abhor his treatment of Sevetus) we do not deny. But we only admire
him and don't mind too much that we are branded Calvinists because we
believe that by and large that he was very Biblical in the things which
he taught. We only follow Calvin inasmuch as he follows Christ. Beyond
this fundamental condition we steadfastly refuse to go.
*
Comments made in: some remarks on "A defense of the preface to the
Edinburgh edition of Aspasio Vindicated." Wesley's Works Volume 10 page
418
***************************
Baptist Fire Recommends (February 2000) http://www.baptistfire.com/books/fisk.shtml
My
Review: This page recommends the book Calvinist Paths Retraced by
Samuel Fisk. However, the ignorance of the reviewer shines through in
the very first sentence! I quote: "This editor has often wondered why
most books on Calvinism take the hyper-Calvinist (5 point) position."
As mentioned above, when a man cannot tell the very basic difference
between a Calvinist and a hyper Calvinist - then he is in no position
to speak on the subject of Calvinism. I trust that the book reviewed
manages to do so. The reviewer also caricatures the Calvinist response
to lost souls with the words ("Hey, we can't change anything--it's all
predestined!") This might cause a few sniggers among his non Calvinist
friends, but that's about it. The only reason why I am reviewing this
page is the amazing statement he makes below. Wondering why few non
Calvinists can produce scholarly books to answer the Calvinists, he
comes to the conclusion - with the help of a few preacher friends -
that "most Bible believing preachers are so busy doing house to house
evangelism that they rarely have time to write books! Calvinists, on
the other hand, seeing no urgent need for evangelism ("Hey, we can't
change anything--it's all predestined!"), are able to devote large
portions of their ministry to writing on the subject." So there you
have it. The Calvinists are in their study writing books - the non
Calvinists meanwhile are evangelising the lost with the gospel.
Yes…I smelt a rat too! Are we not talking here about a scholarly
book? Yes we are…but the difference is: "Thankfully, Samuel Fisk
found time to write Calvinist Paths Retraced. Drawing from over 300
sources." Are we to assume that he was content during his time in the
study to let sinners go to hell…or is that just the reserve of
the Calvinists? As the man said - you need brains to be smart.
***************************
Moriel Ministries http://ww2.moriel.org:8004/sermons/forgot.htm
My
Review: I was asked to review this particular page by a believer in New
Zealand who is "becoming very tired of the misinformed attacking the
truth." However the writer is not attacking Calvinism as such...more
outlining his perception of the failure of the Reformers. Here he makes
a couple of amazing statements that the Reformers had no evangelistic
burden for Roman Catholics or the Jews. Our page on Calvin the
soulwinner will ably refute this...at least as far as Calvin is
concerned. Many souls were converted to Christ both in Geneva and in
Scotland through straight gospel preaching. Spurgeon's famous saying
confirms this: "John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered
through Scotland must thunder through England once again." Since its
central theme is wrong, then not a great website.
***************************
http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/index.html
My
Review: This URL was passed unto me by a Reformed Presbyterian with the
comment that he found the Calvinistic content of the site "to be
comprehensive; unconvincing, but comprehensive nonetheless." There are
quite a few pages on it and I have not examined them all. (These things
take time!) In none of the pages which I read over was there any of the
rather silly statements so beloved of others i.e. Calvinists do not
evangelise or that the Calvinistic god is a monster etc., The writers
(both converted RC's but still outside any formal fellowship) supply
plenty of Bible verses which they assume will demolish Calvinism but
they work on the assumption that 1) Calvinists do not believe in the
responsibility of man....2) our doctrine of limited atonement means we
believe in a limited invitation to sinners... 3) We do not believe that
men can resist the grace of God. These are false perceptions which make
their arguments of no effect. In their exposition of various texts,
they assume that if God commands something, then man is necessarily
able to perform it. In their definition of the 5 points of Calvinism,
they omit (as many do) to say that Calvinists believe that man's
inability to perform stems from his own sinful heart. They consistently
argue that believers can lose their salvation - a natural outcome of
the freewill position. I noticed quite a few pages given over to a
detailed exposition of Romans 8:29-31 position. Again the inability to
understand some of the more basic Calvinist beliefs mars what has the
potential to be a challenging site.
***************************
http://johnnydz.truepath.com/
My
Review: This URL was passed unto me with the comment by a pastor. The
site itself does not have much Calvinistic content, mainly an article
on Romans 9 which is answered by James White and the debate between
Norman Griesler and James White. I looked at his reviews on various
anti Calvinist books. It didn't help his cause much to read the
following comments on Dave Hunt's offering: What love is this?
"Interesting reading, and much better and more accurate than Calvinists
like to admit." I have commented on Hunt's effort elsewhere, but I tend
to take the line...if you think Hunt has done a good job answering
Calvinists, then you deserve each other :-) Sorry...I just can't take
Hunt seriously anymore.
***************************
http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm
My
Review: D.A.Waite restricts his attention here to the doctrine of
Limited Atonement and sets about the usual pattern of looking at all
the universal verses and insisting that they must mean "every last
person in the human race" Which creates problems as documented
elsewhere. His treatment of Isaiah 53:5 gives us an insight into the
difficulties the Christ-died-for-every-last-sinner folk must struggle
with. The sinner might be healed with Christ's stripes...but that
doesn't mean that he is justified etc., Never saw that one before.
Sometimes it is the surprise of the novel that keeps us looking at
different sites. Even John Wesley in his notes accepts the orthodox
interpretation, commenting: "Healed — By his sufferings we are
saved from our sins." He tries to redefine those of us who believe that
Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the whole world but effectual only
for the elect as only thinking we believe in Limited Atonement. Apart
from the fact that we can speak for ourselves - thank you anyway! - it
shows that Mr Waite fails to recognise wherein Calvinists limit the
Atonement. It is he who is "mixed up" - not us. We do not limit it's
sufficiency (and it is this which allows us to make a free offer
-another basic Calvinist belief) but we limit its intention. Mr Waite
believes that those of us who believe in Limited Atonement are heretics
and preachers of another gospel as described in Galatians 1:8 Since Mr
Waite is better known (and better appreciated) in his role as a
defender of the superiority of the AV, I take up these last comments
elsewhere. He indicates that perhaps in the future, he will open up the
subject of Calvinism again, but before he does so, he might be better
revising this particular effort with a bit more research. Another case
of what a non Calvinist thinks we believe rather than a thorough
attempt to find out from recognised Calvinist sources what we do
believe.
***************************
http://www.wholesomewords.org/pfcalvin.html
My
Review: Nothing new in this effort by Paul Freeman. Standard fare in
the not-too-deep John R Rice tradition. States the "all" and "every
man" passages to affirm unlimited atonement etc., Perhaps non
Calvinists should take time to show us Calvinists why "all" and "every
man" etc., must mean every last sinner ever born i.e. all without
exception rather than all kinds of or all without distinction. This is
where the crux is and stating just some well known and equally loved
and equally used Bible verses will not in itself convince us that we
are in the wrong. No mention that Calvinists believe that men are lost
because of their own personal sin. Until this is grasped and stated, we
get the impression that the non Calvinist critic is chasing his own
tail. Little point showing us those verses which teach that men can
resist the grace of God since this orthodox Calvinist belief. I take up
this matter elsewhere as a result of seeing this particular web site.
It gets a bit messy in places e.g. when the writer has Calvinists
telling sinners that they "cannot believe" As if that is all that the
Calvinist tells sinners. It would be more accurate (and therefore
truthful) to state that Calvinists preach that men cannot believe in
and off themselves but that they can believe through grace (Acts 18:27)
and that they should cry out unto God. This is a whole different
scenario from the rather lopsided situation which Mr Freeman is trying
to paint for us. The article ends with a suggestion that if your church
isn't evangelising…then it might be that the dreaded five points
of Calvinism have been embraced. Don't be waylaid by "purposely evasive
answers" by your Bible teacher! If you miss this particular article
…don't feel cheated or hard done by. As we say…
unfortunately standard fare.
***************************
http://www.crisispub.com/
It
was suggested to me by email that I review and add this site to my
page. If you have ever opened someone's Bible to find every last piece
of white page covered with written notes etc., so that you feel
somewhat swamped…this is the same feeling you get when you open
the above page. Definitely not user friendly. A great play is made upon
the idea of defending Calvinism from the original Greek which at once
takes the debate away from the common five eighths (like myself) and
into a very limited sphere indeed. I cannot help but remember that the
faith was delivered unto the saints as opposed to the
scholars…although we should not despise learning. This Website
attacks the doctrine of the penal sufferings of Christ which surely
puts it at odds with evangelical Christianity as a whole (and not just
Calvinism) To be honest, I don't think this site is helpful to anyone -
friend or foe alike - researching the Doctrines of Grace.
***************************
http://liver-and-onions.blogspot.com/
One of the worse antiCalvinist sites I have ever visited. The
writer
seems to be totally possessed with his jihad against Calvinists (whom
he insists in calling "Calamites" for some strange reason) sometimes
posting two and three times a day, and sitting up into the "wee small
hours" of the night time to do so. I haven't posted on his
comment page, simply because he is rude and hectoring and therefore of
little use corresponding with. Although some of his arguments are
doctrinal in content, others are like the one here
where he lists some dangerous Calamite sites and warns against
Calvinists. These sites include that of Phelps ("Godhatesfags") and
"Outside the Camp" (who damns practically every Calvinist who even
thinks Arminians are saved) and Harold Camping. Now if we all
played that imbecile game, we could link people to Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts and
other crackpots and warn people about where non Reformed doctrine can lead. But
we don't, because we are responsible adults and don't feel that we have
to blacken those who take the opposite view in order to help establish
our own. We might say of this site with its culinary title: "There is death in the pot" (2 Kings 4:40)
***************************
Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland