Was the Apostle Paul Divisive?

In writing in opposition to Calvinism while tweeting on Twitter I hear from folks now and then stating that I am being divisive by what I tweet and by what I write on this blog. Some state that what I really should be doing is working to unite all Christians.  Still others state that I should be preaching the gospel to the lost and leave these other issues alone.  Around all these accusations is the greater accusation that I am divisive.

I have tried to respond to these accusers to explain that I am actually not attacking other Christians but instead I am exposing bad doctrine that I am led to believe is "another" gospel.  I also point out a couple of other things out in my defense.

First, I ask where the line should be drawn?  For instance many Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses state that they are Christian.  Is it not okay to expose their bad doctrines and theologies?  Where is the rule that we should only test the doctrines of cults and not doctrines that are in the church too?

Secondly I ask them if Paul was divisive in his actions as recorded by scripture.

I want to consider this question in this article.  Was the Apostle Paul divisive?  It is a great question and a good issue to consider because Paul was overt in his Epistles when stating his concern and even outrage over what he was seeing in the New Testament church that he was so faithful to.

To start with Paul confronted Peter.  Yes, Peter!  Peter was considered by many to be the leader of the New Testament church.  Some say he was the actual leader of the church while others say it was James, the brother of our Lord.  But even if James was the positional leader of the church, Peter was perhaps still regarded the spiritual leader. Who was this upstart named Paul to confront Peter?

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”   Galatians 2:11-14 ESV

Paul uses strong language to show how he handled Peter.  He uses the word "oppose" to describe his confrontation with Peter.  Was Paul being divisive and even heavy-handed in his brush-up with Peter?

Paul was just getting started.  He lashed out at the Galatians in his letter to them and he was not gentle. He goes after them:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?  Galatians 3:1 

How is that for just loving the Galatians for who they were? (sarcasm).  Paul went right for the jugular.  He was very upset with the Galatians because they were allowing themselves to be deceived by keeping the Jewish law and their practice of circumcision as something that had to be done to be saved.  Paul's entire letter has a terse corrective tone and his tirade has to do with their bad theology and acceptance of another gospel.

In Paul's first letter to Timothy, Paul is at it again.  Once again, he names names.

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.          1 Timothy 1:18-20

I wonder what my Twitter followers would think if I started naming names of those whom I had handed over to Satan.  That would cause a bit of a stir, wouldn't it?

 Later in the same letter Paul is at it again.

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:16-17

The reason Paul names Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander is that they were departing from the truth by stating a doctrine Paul did not agree with as they were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place.  Now I thought that we as Christians should not worry about doctrines and not be divided from other Christians even if they are off in their bad doctrines?  By the way, where in scripture does it ever say that?  Paul clearly warns Timothy to avoid speaking with these men.  Was Paul being divisive?

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul describes another situation he had with some believers that were with him while he was bringing the gospel to Asia:

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.     2 Timothy 1:15

There's our Paul again, causing everyone to turn away from him, so divisive! (sarcasm).  Yet here again Paul once again identifies names of men who left him. Remember, this was more than just showing their names to a few hundred Facebook friends.  The names Paul was namng would ring in infamy for hundreds of millions who have read the Bible over the millennia.

This was not the first time that Paul had experienced separation from other believers,  In his early days he had another separation event:

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. Acts 15:36-41 

So was Paul divisive when he separated from Barnabas?  I mean, after all, it was even over a small matter of a young brother being weak in the Lord and leaving Paul and Barnabas prematurely.  Come on Paul---that's divisive (sarcasm).

The truth friends is this.  In this case and in every other, Paul was not being divisive. Paul was so committed to the gospel that it drove everything he did.  He thought that leaving John Mark would give them a better chance to strengthen the churches that they intended to visit.  Barnabas disagreed and this led to their split.  Interestingly, Luke never mentions an opinion in the matter either from himself or the Lord on whether Paul or Barnabas was right or wrong in the matter.  Therefore God saw it and did not tag either Paul or Barnabas with the "divisive" label.  In fact, God used their separation to increase his kingdom as those going forth had just doubled in size.

Was Paul divisive when he confronted Peter or the Galatians over theological issues? No, he was not and because he did confront them over their theology he was able to preserve the gospel in the case of Peter and to turn the Galatians from following after another gospel and Jesus.

Was Paul divisive when he named out Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander for promoting bad doctrine?  No, because Paul understood that bad doctrines destroy the faith of some if left unchecked. Can folks be divisive over theology?  Yes, I am sure that happens especially when believers argue over small interpretations of scripture or over certain practices.  What I am speaking about here is more than the petty squabble of what day believers should assemble to worship on or whether we should have chairs or pews in the church.  There is a difference!  When a confrontation arises over seriously bad doctrines or the acceptance of other gospels then one must speak and contend for the gospel.

Paul was not divisive and neither have many of the great people of God throughout the centuries who contended for the faith by confronting what they considered to be extra-Biblical.  I do not believe that I am divisive and others who like me contend with doctrines that seem as if they are another gospel or which upset people's faith.  You may ask me: "What about unity?  Doesn't that matter?".  Sure it matters but unity at the expense of holding to and defending false doctrine is never enouraged in scripture.  Unity is worthless if it is based upon embracing false doctrines.

As for me I have never ended fellowship with a Calvinist over my disagreement with them over their gospel.  In fact, I love Calvinists and have good friends that are Calvinists.  The attacks against me then that indict me as "divisive" are unwarranted because going after bad doctrine is not a divisive action.  Instead it helps maintain the true gospel.  If no one ever spoke up over all these many years we would not have a true gospel to preach.  How sad that would be!

In my situation, I know that some of the accusations made against me are from Calvinists who just want to shut me up.  I will not be silenced.  I will contend for the faith!

Paul encouraged Timothy to watch his doctrine:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

Paul expressly wrote that all believers contend for the faith:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  Jude 1:3

So the next time someone tells you that you are being divisive for contending for good doctrine and exposing bad theology, ask them a question:  "Was the Apostle Paul Divisive?"

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my divisive---er---pithy tweets on Twitter @confrontcalvin)

The Dead Guy Lie

Many Calvinists use what I call "the dead guy lie" to teach that man cannot respond to God.  I do not accuse them of lying on purpose because I don't think that is the case. However a lie is anything that is false and yet still stated as being true no matter the intention of the originator. The dead guy lie is a fable and it is used to shore up the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration occurs before faith instead of the traditional New Testament based view that man must believe in order to be saved.

There are multiple problems with this fable that many Calvinists now teach on a regular basis.  My intention in this article is not to just single out John MacArthur because other Calvinists hold to this same theorem.  Still, I will use MacArthur's teaching because he is so good at expressing this ill-conceived analogy that has now become Calvinist doctrine.

John MacArthur's blog "Grace to You" contains a teaching entitled "The Doctrine of Absolute Inability".  Here he teaches his dead guy theorem using John 11, the story of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead:                                                                                                                

And then verse 43, most interesting.  “And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come forth.’ ”Now what interests me here is that Jesus gave a command to a dead man.  I’ve done a lot of funerals.  I’ve seen a lot of dead people.  I’ve never asked any of them to do anything, nor has anybody else.  Especially would I never say to a dead man, “Bill, come forth.”  I mean, you wouldn’t waste words.  You’d look foolish.  Dead men can’t hear.  Dead men can’t think.  Dead men can’t respond cause they’re dead and dead means the absolute inability to do anything in response to any stimulus.  There’s no will.  There’s no power to think or act.  But, look at verse 44. “He who had died came forth.”  Lazarus did exactly what Jesus asked him to do.  Amazing.  He must have sort of stumbled out of there because “he was bound hand and foot with wrappings.  And his face was wrapped around with a cloth and Jesus said to then, ‘Unbind him and let him go.’”Dead men can’t respond.  Dead men can’t obey commands.  He couldn’t, but he did.  He did what was impossible.

How?  How is it possible for a dead man to do what Jesus told him to do?  We all know the answer.  Because Christ gave him the ability to do it.  If Christ hadn’t given him the life, he couldn’t have obeyed.

There are some substantial problems with MacArthur's use of an analogy that equates a biologically dead man with a spiritually dead man.

Problem #1:  It is philosophy that MacArthur is teaching above.
The reasoning used by MacArthur is entirely based on human reasoning and philosophy. His argument has its roots in Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" where Calvin quotes philosophers to convince his readers that man is so depraved he has no ability to respond to God.  MacArthur's reasoning above is clearly extra-Biblical and is pure human reasoning.   His entire diatribe comes strictly from his own human understanding.

Problem #2:  His teaching tactic is "bait and switch".                                             

MacArthur derives the basis for his central point from a story recorded about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.  He then reads in to the passage what he wants it to say about a doctrine that really has nothing to do with his thesis in the first place.  The Biblical story about Lazarus is about death and being raised from the dead by Jesus but MacArthur changes it to mean something that simply is not in the text. He baits the reader into learning about death but then switches it to support a thesis of his own making.  It is simply bad exegesis to anchor a doctrine on a story where the whole message is changed from its original intent.                                                                              

Problem #3:   It has no scriptural basis or foundation.
MacArthur uses the Lazarus account to build a doctrine but the passage lends him no help except that it refers to death.  In fact, there are no scriptures that speak specifically to what MacArthur teaches in his teaching above.  No Biblical passage equates spiritual death with physical death in the manner that MacArthur does and yet this is the absolute center of MacArthur's Calvinism.  What MacArthur squeezes out of the story of Lazarus is all he has as Biblical substance and even here he does his exegesis by his own bias.

Problem #4:  Overemphasis on equating spiritual death with physical death.
MacArthur and many Calvinists make the error of equating spiritual death with physical death.  Who says that spiritual death and physical death are the same?  They are clearly not the same.  One has to do with the death of man spiritually which has to do with man's spirit.  The other has to do with the death of the body. The two deaths have some similarities but in truth are radically different.

When Adam and Eve sinned they became spiritually dead but did they cease to function?  The Bible records no difference about them after the fall except to note that they had come to know good and evil because they ate from that tree.  No scripture in Genesis or any other book in the Bible states that Adam and Eve or mankind lost their ability to reason or move in free will due to the fall and their spiritual death.                                                                                                  

Who says a physically dead man is exactly the same as a spiritually dead man?  No one but Calvinists.  Which scripture states this clearly?  None.                                                    

Physically dead men can't reason but spiritually dead men can.  Physically dead men can't hear but spiritually dead men can.  Physically dead men can't reason but spiritually dead men can reason. MacArthur's entire theorem above is bogus!  He is making the conjectured error of equating spiritually dead men with physically dead man.  This is nothing but whimsical philosophy and his argument does not have merit.

Problem #5:  It is not coherent reasoning.
MacArthur clearly states above that a dead man can't hear if one calls him out but that is exactly what Jesus did.  Jesus made a dead man hear!  Read the passage again.  That is what the Bible records. The literal scriptural statement declares that Lazarus heard Jesus and then was made alive.  If Jesus can walk on water and is truly sovereign then he can make a dead man hear, can't he?  If Jesus can raise a dead man he can make a dead man hear.  That is exactly what takes place with Lazarus---Jesus speaks to a dead man and he hears and then comes to life!  Even MacArthur's main point is misstated by him.  If a physically dead man can hear and respond---surely a physically alive man though spiritually dead can hear and respond!

Secondly, MacArthur paints himself into a corner he can't get out of.  If he is right in his premise that a dead man can't reason then a dead man can't be brought to life either. Right?  Has MacArthur gone to any funeral and seen a dead man be brought to life simply because a person spoke to him?  No.  If dead man Bill can't come forth because someone called him then Bill cannot be made alive either. MacArthur can't have it both ways! Physically dead men don't come alive again just like they don't hear or think.  If a physically dead man can't respond at all as MacArthur intimates then how can he respond by being made alive?  He can't if one is consistent in their thinking!  The analogy is carried too far by MacArthur and is interpreted with his Calvinist bias.

Problem #6:  MacArthur glosses over what Jesus said before he called Lazarus forth.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

MacArthur mentions the above verse in his blog prior to what I copied above but never discusses Christ's point that "he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."  Why?  Because it is an inconvenient truth for MacArthur and Calvinists to admit that Jesus clearly stated that believing is what makes a man live and it is what makes him never die.  Then he asks Mary if she believes what he has just said to prove his point. Here, right smack dab in MacArthur's chosen text we find Jesus declaring that people must believe to have life. The truth is that spiritually dead men don't come to life until they believe.  In fact just before Jesus called out to Lazarus scripture records:

And then Jesus said to her, ‘Didn’t I say to you that if you believe you’ll see the glory of God?’                                                                                                                         

Jesus mentions "believing" again even because his point is that men must believe to see the glory of God.  Christ's whole point is that those who believe in him will live and even if they die in the natural yet they will live eternally. MacArthur never mentions this point but instead reads in to the text his dubious concoction that dead men can't respond.                    

Problem #7:  The Holy Spirit's work in salvation is ignored.
MacArthur's dead man theorem gives no place at all for the Holy Spirit's work and activity.  Scripture clearly states that Holy Spirit has been sent to convict the heart of sinful man.  Ironically, the problem is that Calvinists don't give enough credit here to the Holy Spirit and are only focused on their bogus stance that man has no ability to respond.  The Holy Spirit is here on earth to confront men's hearts so that they might repent and believe.

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; John 16:8-9 ESV

It is the Holy Spirit who convicts man while he is still dead in his sins.  Conviction comes before salvation, not after.  Calvinism's bogus idea that man cannot respond leaves the Holy Spirit out of the equation and this is not acceptable.  Even if man was unable to respond due to his fall in the garden, the Holy Spirit is capable of making man respond. To say that man cannot respond is to remove the sovereignty of God from the Holy Spirit and provides that man's inability to respond is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit.

Problem #8:  Raising a physically dead man to life is different than raising a spiritually dead man to life.  
This is huge.  While MacArthur focuses on what dead man can't do by analogy he ignores how dead men are made alive and this is absolutely his greatest error.  Jesus spoke to Lazarus and Lazarus heard his voice and was made alive.  This is how Jesus raised people from their physical death.

However Jesus made the spiritually dead alive not by simply calling their name out.  No indeed! There was only one way that Jesus could make man spiritually alive and that was through the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead.  Jesus made the spiritually dead people alive by dying on the cross and by rising from the dead.

I will say it again.  Stating that physically dead people are the same as spiritually dead people is pure folly because their being raised to life is very different.   Raising men from the dead physically is abundantly different then making spiritually dead people alive.  Otherwise Jesus would not have needed to go to the cross---he would have simply called us all by name and we would have all been made spiritually alive. There would have been no need for Jesus to die and pay for our sins if all he had to do was call us out from the dead by name.

Problem #9:  MacArthur and Calvinist's ignore the overwhelming scriptural view that man believes and then is saved.  This problem is Calvinism's biggest for it is simply undeniable that scripture is clear about believing before salvation:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.  Mark 16:16

Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Luke 8:12                                                                                       

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 15:11

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  Romans 10:10

There are many other scriptures that communicate the same as the above.  It is patently clear that those who are born-again are those who believe first, then are saved and made alive.  Regeneration does not happen before faith!  There is no path for MacArthur's dead man theorem. The dead guy lie is a bridge to nowhere since it has no scriptural foundation and is sheer fantasy based on an illogical and unscriptural analogy.                                                                                

Bridge to Nowhere

                                                 

The whole premise that God first makes alive those who are dead and then they have the capacity to believe is pure poppycock and is not supported at all by scripture.  Don't believe the dead guy lie because it is simply dead philosophy.  Instead simply believe what the scripture says with great clarity dozens of times---man must believe in order to be saved.

The next time you hear someone quote their ideas from the "dead guy lie", stop them and tell them that the analogy has no validity.  Then either quote my problems above or send them to this blog.  It is important to pull down strongholds of false teaching that propagate another gospel.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy comments on my Twitter @confrontcalvin)

Why Fight Calvinism?

Recently I received a compliment from a distant relative after posting an invitation to read this blog on Facebook.  The woman thanked me but also stated that "no one that I know cares about this stuff let alone writes about it."  The truth of her comment caused me to ponder as to why I confront Calvinism.  Is it true that no one really cares about Calvinism?  Does it matter if I make a stand against Calvinism?  Why fight Calvinism in the first place?                    

For some of us, Calvinism is an important matter whether we are for it or against it but the observation that most people could care less about it is probably true.  I acknowledge that for most people Calvinism is not on their radar.  This was true for me until around three years ago when Calvinism came crashing in to my world and then God rose me up to warn others about the dangers of it.

Some of us do care about the dangers of Calvinism because they are very real.  I have heard from others that like me oppose Calvinism and are voicing their concerns.  These folks have expressed gratitude for my boldness in taking on Calvinism as aggressively as I have.  They say that it strengthens their own resolve.  I think Calvinism may affect people like cancer does.  No, I am not saying anything weird like Calvinism is a killer or disease like cancer.  What I am saying is that most people don't notice cancer until it strikes someone close to them and then it is something that becomes important in their life and they make an effort to understand everything about it.

Most folks that are passionate about Calvinism have had it affect them or someone they know in a tangible way.  I have seen this happen multiple times in the last few years as I have seen several people get affected by Calvinism in some way.  I think a wary awareness of Calvinism or Reformed theology is on the rise today and I am encouraged by it.

I have also heard from Calvinists who find my tweets on Twitter.
Most of these folks use Twitter's search tool to find my tweets and then

reply to them with questions or pejorative comments.  Some of the comments say that my tweets are divisive.  They may be right in some respects but my intent is not to divide but to challenge and confront Calvinism.  I especially want to warn people so they at least take a good hard scriptural look at these doctrines before deciding how to respond to them.  I understand that a person will pay a price for standing up against something that seems dangerous or harmful but it still needs to be done.      

The Apostle Paul is a strong Biblical example of this.  He put into writing his criticism of doctrinal problems with others and it became scripture that we now read about thousands of years later.  Was Paul divisive for trying to maintain a true and pure doctrine?  Of course not.  Paul simply battled for the truth even named names of people he confronted for bad doctrine.  Paul records that he confronted Cephas (Peter) in Galatians 2:11 saying:

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

Paul's comment is pretty strong language considering the man he confronted is thought by many to be the leader of the young Christian church at that time.  Paul wrote this statement to the Galatians because he was confronting them about running after another gospel and another Jesus.  Later Paul named names again when he wrote to Timothy:

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.  Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:16-18

Paul confronted Hymenaeus and Philetus because of their theological belief as these two men believed and taught that the resurrection had already taken place.  Paul concluded that the men were destroying the faith of some.  Was Paul being divisive?

The fact is that Paul believed in contending for the faith:                                  

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people. Jude 1:3

Paul also told Timothy:

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.  1 Timothy 4:16

My point is that Paul was neither divisive nor did he intend to be divisive.  Paul loved the body of Christ and was deeply grieved when folks "departed from the truth."  I am certainly no Paul but this is my heart too.  I love the truth and I am grieved when people I love and care for depart from the truth.  My heart has grieved deeply when I have seen friends whom I love and respect depart from the truth by adopting Calvinism.  My agenda is not to attack Calvinists as people or individuals.  I have no agenda to divide the body or to slander anyone.  My goal is simply to confront the doctrine of Calvinism because I am convinced that it is a dangerous departure from the truth.  My conviction is to contend for the faith that was entrusted to me as one of God's holy people.

A Reformed friend of mine asked me why I was not confronting other doctrines and teachers that were in his mind much worse than Calvinism.  That is a good question and I will answer that here. There are likely more but I am going to list (5) five reasons why I fight Calvinism and why everyone should care about the dangers that I share here.

#1: Calvinism is a Departure from the Truth

I believe that Calvinism is a departure from the truth.  Paul was concerned that some departed from the truth and we should share his concern.  I don't discuss the doctrines of Calvinism in this article because I address my concerns in other blog posts.  Suffice it to say that Calvinism is a clear departure from the truth.  Please read my other blogs on Calvinism.

#2: Calvinism Destroys the Faith of Some

The result of some departing from the truth and preaching another gospel is that it destroys the faith of some.  Bad doctrine yields bad fruit.  Ironically Calvinists would not like what Paul states about faith being destroyed since they don't believe the elect could ever have their faith destroyed. However, this passage is clear that Paul is concerned that someone's faith can be destroyed by bad doctrine.

The truth is that I have seen the faith of some damaged by Calvinism when they began to believe it.  I saw one man pull completely away from fellowship with other believers after reading Pink's book "Sovereignty of God".  Another man I know had one of the greatest hearts for the lost that I have ever seen and God used him as an evangelist.  He too read Pink's book and announced that he had changed his thinking completely.  It appears now that he no longer has a heart and passion for the lost.  His love for the lost was destroyed by departing from the truth by reading a book on Calvinism and accepting its conclusions.

There is substantial evidence that people change when they receive Calvinist teaching as true and turn from the sound doctrine found in scripture.

#3: Calvinism is pervasive and far too popular.

One of my greatest concerns is the following that Calvinism has today.  Led by a new dynamic group some refer to as the "New Calvinists", Calvinism under the name of the "Reformed" label has found a spark of popularity today.

A poll by George Barna in 2010 showed that 36% of American Christians identify as Calvinists. This pervasiveness then is why I believe God raised me up to confront Calvinism.  I know there is a lot of doctrinal garbage coming at the body of Christ today but some of it has little affect on people's lives and most of it does not resonate with people.  The threats even by cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses do not concern me as much as Calvinism.  Why?  Because these groups have been clearly identified as not being in the "Christian" family of churches because much of what they teach and believe is not Biblical.  I know it happens but I have never known an authentic Christian who became a Mormon or Jehovah's witness.  I can't say the same about Calvinism as I have seen some friends get sucked into it.

Most people have a red flag go up when approached by someone about Mormon or
Jehovah's Witness theology.  My goal is to warn people so that they

will react in the same way when Calvinism is introduced to them as truth.      
                                                                            
#4: Calvinism misrepresents God.

This is a big one for me!  I am not going to spend a lot of time here but I spend a lot of time pointing this issue out on my tweets on Twitter and in other articles posted on this blog.  I am convinced that the great awesome God of love is being horribly misrepresented by Calvinism.  Frankly, I am not sure why more people are not upset about this too.

Calvinism makes God unfair by proclaiming that God predestined only some of be saved while also predestining some to be punished for eternity for no reason at all.  Even worse, many Calvinists teach that God actually created evil and even desires that men do evil so that God's purposes are fulfilled. This misrepresentation of God is a strong motivator for me and is a key as to why I confront Calvinism.

#5: There must arise a standard.

My goal is not just to make a lot of noise or to divide people or churches.  My intention is to assist somehow in raising awareness as to what Calvinism really teaches.  Many get sucked in to the Reformed movement but really don't know what Calvinism is really about.  I want to raise a standard against this dangerous theology. I want to make a difference and I want to provide support and encouragement for those who oppose Calvinism like I do.

Three years ago I did a search in Google on Calvinism and what I found was disconcerting.  Most websites at that time supported Calvinism and there seemed to be little opposition.   Recently my Google searches reveal that this has changed dramatically.  There seems to be at least as many sites and blogs challenging Calvinism as there are supporting it.  I think that the New Calvinists have had their day in the sun and the pendulum is now swinging back.  Faithful men and women are now rising up and speaking about their concerns with Calvinism.

More people every day are recognizing Calvinism when they hear it and they understand it for what it is.  The backlash is rising and it is beginning to have some real effect.  I am committed to confront Calvinism as long as the Holy Spirit moves me to do so.  I invite others who have Paul's jealous heart for the saints to join me and others in contending for the faith that has been entrusted to us.

Frankly, I would rather write about the great glorious truths in scripture and not worry about Calvinism but the Holy Spirit has called me to contend with Calvinism and so I must lay down my own desires and obey him.

We all need to warn our friends and family before they are approached about Calvinism.  If they have not been exposed to Calvinism then we should give them a quick overview of Calvinism and why it is dangerous. You can also point them to my blog or some the other good blogs online.  There are also some excellent YouTube videos that expose Calvinism.  For those who want a very comprehensive understanding,  I recommend Dave Hunt's book entitled: "What Love is This?".

If you don't know your pastor's stance on Reformed theology, I recommend you simply ask him what he believes about it.  Then suggest that your pastor speak out about Calvinism or bring in someone like me to teach on its dangers.

Let me be clear.  Our standing against Calvinism does not mean we hate or despise Calvinists.  We can love the Calvinist but loathe these doctrines.  Many Calvinists are likely saved too because they are saved just like any other born-again Christian and that is by having faith in Jesus.

Why should good believers rise up against Calvinism?  They should because they love God and they love the true gospel of Christ.  They should rise up because they love the lost and the Good Shepherd who left heaven to die for them.

Let us not shrink back in the face of Calvinism for any reason even if it leads to persecution.  Paul suffered most of his persecution from others who called themselves Christians, especially the Judaizers.  The Judaizers were Christians who insisted that believers must conform to Old Covenant laws.  They were ruthless in their persecution and confronted Paul in every city that he visited.  They were instrumental in having Paul beaten, whipped, stoned and imprisoned.  Let us not be afraid of anyone who might get angry with us because we stand against the doctrines of Calvinism.

What I desire most is the opportunity to share the true glorious gospel that Christ has given the whole world and I pray that this will be in the hearts of all true believers.  We are not ashamed of the real gospel and therefore we will defend it and proclaim it when given opportunity.

Let's rise up, take a stand against Calvinism and proclaim the true gospel which is truly the GOOD NEWS!

Darrell Brantingham                                                                         

(Check out my pithy tweets on Twitter at @confrontcalvin)