Calvinism is an Abomination?

 

I don’t want to beat the “anonymous ODM” issue to death but there is one more “anonymous” blog that I’d like to introduce you to….as it is not only “anonymous” but is also “non-interactive”……meaning they don’t allow comments from their readers…..

 

http://abominationnation.blogspot.com

 

Please note the tag line on the Abomination Nation ODM site;

 

This blog exposes all that is false and deceptive be it teachers, leaders, beliefs, movements, or anything that fails the test of Scriptures. My goal is to inform and protect His sheep against all that would destroy them. Don’t be deceived”!

Fair enough….and from the looks of things the anonymous owner of Abomination Nation has spent a considerable amount of time “cutting and pasting” other people’s work…..as I scrolled down the page I saw this from the blogger;

This blog serves as a resource for information on false teachers, teachings, and movements. The content does not reflect my opinion whatsoever, but rather verifiable facts, so there is no reason for discussion or argument.”

OK…great! So I’m scrolling down and I see the following link;

http://abominationnation.blogspot.com/search/label/Calvinism

Apparently Abomination Nation claims that John Calvin is a false teacher and “TULIP” has failed the test of Scriptures….and has found some folks who agree, cutting and pasting their work and counting this work as “verifiable facts”…..

 

Verifiable facts?

 

 

I’m glad Abomination Nation has cleared this issue up….maybe the endless debating that has taken place over the last 450 years or so can cease as Abomination Nation claims as a “verifiable fact” Calvinism is a false teaching…

 

Geesh…

 

Fairly arrogant on the part of Abomination Nation don’t you think?

 

 

For the record John Calvin didn’t “invent” Calvinism….nor did he invent the acronym “TULIP” ….Abomination Nation claims “TULIP”;

This blog serves as a resource for information on false teachers, teachings, and movements. The content does not reflect my opinion whatsoever, but rather verifiable facts, so there is no reason for discussion or argument[emphasis mine].

TULIP” is an acronym meaning;

 

T=Total Depravity

U=Unconditional Election

L=Limited Atonement

I=Irresistible Grace

P=Perseverance of the Saints

 

The above doctrines are based upon God’s Sovereignty….either God is Sovereign or He isn’t….that’s one thing those who claim the above doctrines are false don’t seem to be able or willing to grasp…..

 

I’d be curious which of the 5 points Abomination Nation considers needn’t be discussed or argued because it is a “verifiable fact” these are false teachings? Apparently ALL of them as the site doesn’t allow comments!

 

How would adopting the above doctrines….and I personally have BTW……destroy me as the tag line of Abomination Nation claims? That’s a fairly presumptuous statement for Abomination Nation to make don’t you think? I’m sorry but claiming as a “verifiable fact” the Five Points of Calvinism is false teaching is sheer ignorance of the Word…

John Calvin learned most of his theology from Augustine…..who learned most of his theology from Paul…..who learned ALL of his theology from Christ…..WHO INVENTED IT!!!!!

 

So, based on the “verifiable facts” Abomination Nation has presented then the Apostle Paul is a false teacher and so is JESUS….

 

Unbelievable!

 

If I’m a false teacher because I follow and teach the inerrant Holy Spirit inspired writings of Paul….who followed the teachings of Christ then I’m in good company…

 

I didn’t see John MacArthur….or John Piper….or Charles Spurgeon…..or Arthur Pink…. on Abomination Nations list of false teachers…..I believe they all either teach or taught the very same doctrines……wonder why that is?

 

Maybe Abomination Nation hasn’t gotten around to them yet?

 

At least we can understand why this blogger chooses to remain anonymous…and why comments aren’t allowed….would you want to defend the premise that Paul and Jesus were false teachers?

 

I know I sure wouldn’t…..

 

As if the above wasn’t disturbing enough this anonymous blog owner refuses to accept comments from those who may offer a rebuttal to the “verifiable facts” presented….trapping the unsuspecting or uniformed reader into believing Calvinism is an ABSOLUTE heresy….after all Abomination Nation claims what is presented on his/her site is a “verifiable fact”….

 

That my friends is an ABOMINATION…..

 

Abomination Nation isn’t the only ODM site that doesn’t allow comments…..there are a few others we will be examining in the coming weeks….but Abomination Nation is the only one I can find that is both anonymous and non interactive….if there are others kindly let me know….

 

I pray for those who have fallen victim to Abomination Nation’s anonymous non-interactive blog….especially where “Calvinism” is concerned……

 

If anyone wants to discuss the 5 Points of Calvinism please feel free to do so here…we aren’t afraid of discussion at Theology Today….in fact we welcome it because unlike the cut and paster at Abomination Nation each of us are on a quest for the truth….something Abomination Nation claims to posses…as a “verifiable fact”….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Calvinism is an Abomination?

  1. Hi Phil,

    I do have a real problem with ODM’s that won’t allow comments. We have an old saying here in the South – if you can’t take the heat – stay out of the kitchen.

    The Church fought the battle of the heresy of pelagianism way way back in time.

    This just goes to show that we could all use a good dose of Church history….

    http://www.carm.org/heresy/pelagianism.htm

  2. Is it true that Calvin was responsible for some people being burnt to death ?
    What was his theology on infant baptism and also on baptism by sprinkling ?
    Finally, regarding Limited atonement,did he really teach that Christ died only for the people who had been predestined ?

    Phil: Read John 10 and Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount) in regards to Limited Atonement….the other questions you asked have nothing to do with TULIP….

  3. TULIP concerns Calvin, and these questions concern Calvin. Like you’ve examined others who may OR MAY NOT be heretics, I just thought it would be fair to examine his theologies. If you prefer to be a hypocrite and play smart with words by saying things like ‘the other questions you asked have nothing to do with TULIP’ I have nothing more to say. And I don’t see Limited Atonement in John 10 or Matthew 5-7.
    Phil: Try 10:14-15, 28 and Matthew 7:13-14….and we will discuss the other matters at another time…

    What I see is “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…YOU HYPOCRITE, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Are you sure you don’t have a plank in your eye ?
    Phil: I see it’s ok for you to judge eh?

    I have seen many posts here saying Jesus, Paul and Peter judged thus making excuse for their disobedience in judging people.It’s true this men judged. But YOU ? Who gave you the authority to judge ? You are not Jesus or Paul not even close. Do you know these men raised the dead ? They were in a position to judge. NOT YOU ! Who told you to sit in the comfort of your homes and make a website shouting to the world this man is wrong and you are right?Paul and Peter didn’t sit in their homes and simply wrote letters passing judgments on others. They sacrificed their lives. Why don’t you go to muslim countries or china or India where christians are being persecuted instead? Leave everything and be tortured for Christ. Am I expecting too much ? Or is this what Jesus expected ? Do you do this ? The apostles did.
    Anyways if anyone else hinted you can judge but the Lord said you cannot, obey HIM not Paul or others. Don’t try to interpret scripture according to your own sinful, boastful and lustful desires. I now know your true motive for ‘exposing’ false teachers and heretics. It is just to gain praise from people and show how much more you about scripture than this man or that man. You are jealous that people who know less are more popular and richer(know that I do not side with WOF or other televangelists).
    One other thing, read and study scripture always putting Jesus first meaning don’t study what Jesus taught in light of what Paul teaches rather study what Paul teaches in light of what Jesus taught. This is your error. You may deny it or even be unaware of it but you are always putting Paul first and Jesus second. This is why you are in error.
    One last thing, don’t put up you email ID as if you are willing to help and answer questions. I have been waiting for more than 1 month for your answer. You are going to have a hard time(if you do try) convincing me you are better than many you have ‘exposed’ and that you are nothing but a hypocrite. REPENT. Forget everything you think you know and begin to study scripture again as if you were a child. God may be merciful and forgive you.
    That’s one long rant….you are very angry with me eh? Because of an email? What email?

  4. PS : Actually the other questions have everything to do with TULIP. If God has predestined certain people to be saved [Unconditional election], they are the ones who obey him. Baptism has everything to do with obedience.

    Phil: Yes baptism has everything to do with obedience…and Calvin believed that babies should be baptised by sprinkling them….probably derived from his Catholic upbringing….

  5. Not because of an email, because you cunningly chose to ignore answering questions who could put you in an awkward position.
    theology.today@gmail.com <===== is this your mail or not ?

    Phil: Yes, this is my email….and there is nothing you can say or do that would ever put me in an awkward position and you had better tone it down a notch if you ever desire to post here again…capice?

  6. Fanal,
    Read the last 3 verses of I Cor. 5. If we are members of God’s assembly, we are commanded to judge within the assembly. Matthew 7:1-5 tells us that the first qualification (after salvation) to judge is to be living a pure life first. Take out the plank so you can see your brother’s speck. Then and only then can we rightly judge. Also, see Lev. 19:17-18. Under both New and Old Covenants we are to judge our brothers for the sake of unity and truth. Yes, unity. Read Phil. chapter 1 to see that unity isn’t the result of letting things go, but of a high level of knowledge and discernment on the part of all in the assembly.

    This is exactly backwards of what is taught in Evangelicalism, so if this seems upside down to you, please be patient with us. Read these passages and see if we’re right.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  7. Mr Perkins,
    Have u read All of my comments ? Especially the 2nd [READ IT]
    Are u sure u don’t have a plank in your eye?
    These ‘judgments’ of yours sure do not bring unity. It never has throughout the history of the church. Why is that ? Its because we are all hypocrites. We just think we are better than others and use certain parts of scriptures to make people think we are righteous. Remove the plank from your eyes and then only will you make righteous judgment.
    Let me tell you this: When you defend a man who does not obey when the Lord commanded a man is to be a believer to be baptized [which means to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)], who instead follows the teachings of men and sprinkle water on infants calling it ‘baptism’, YOU are very very far from being free of ‘a plank’ in your own eyes. The BIBLE says ‘Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.’
    REPENT for You have been warned again and again. When judgment comes you will have no excuses saying I didn’t know better. LISTEN TO JESUS. Stop worrying about Evangelicalism worry about YOU.

    Phil: Was the thief on the cross baptized?

    You seem angry…angry is good but it isn’t helping you dude…

  8. PS: It’s not Fanal it’s Fanai. Getting my name wrong is not too much concern, getting Scripture wrong IS. Don’t try to interpret it yourself. Let the Bible interpret itself through the Holy Spirit which the father gives to those who OBEY Jesus and not others.

  9. This is nothing personal or emotional. Stop judging dude.
    Phil: Stop judging? That’s a laugh….all you’ve done is judge Phil P and myself…..

    How do you know he was NOT baptized ? For all you know he may have been baptized by John. Anyway baptized or not, when the King of Kings says he would be in heaven, that is Final, for him. You are not hanging on a cross are you ?
    Phil: No…but based on your little anonymous rebuke you’d love to see me on one wouldn’t ya?

    What’s your point anyway ? Are you trying to say baptism is not all that important,that it may be optional or it can be anyway one pleases ?

    Phil: What about Romans 10:9? Doesn’t say anything about baptism….

  10. I don’t make a blog shouting to the world what I think of you. I am telling it to your face. You don’t even seem to understand the difference between a rebuke and a judgment. Assuming I’m angry or wanting to see you hanging on a cross is funny. And what’s anonymous about the rebuke ? My name and email id are there.. what more do you want? I’ll provide ya. What concern is it of yours anyway if people want to be anonymous ? Do you know the Bible contains anonymous writings.
    Phil: So your anonymous rebukes are inspired like Scripture….hmmm. You are anonymous fanai…try googling fanai and see where that leads you….but its ok do what you like

    Romans 10:9 eh ? Let’s see..
    “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Now look at the word ‘LORD’. What does it mean? I’m sure you know it means ‘supreme in authority’. That means obeying everything the ‘LORD’ says. His commandments include baptism. There you are.
    Phil: Ever went to a hospital to pray for someone gravely ill and they profess with their mouth “Jesus is Lord” then pass away without ever being baptized? I have. What happens then? Baptism is an outward expression of faith but is it necessary for Salvation? That’s a gray area for me so you’ll need to prove that one

    In Matthew 12:34, Jesus says ‘For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks’. The way you speak reveals your heart. Obeying God is not doing some part God’s way and some part your own way. Remember Saul and Jeroboam son of Nebat. I know it’s gonna be a hard thing to humble yourself and admit that you have been wrong all along. The pride of human nature does that to us. But take heart. Even Paul was humiliated in front of his followers/friends.

    Phil: I’m not afraid to admit I’m wrong…and do so publicly for all to see…including those who search for me on Google….where have I been wrong “all along” Fanai? You show me where I’m wrong about the 5 points of Calvinism…or anything else for that matter. So far all you’ve shown me is nonsense and anoymous little tirades because I didn’t answer an email that I didn’t receive….

  11. [Phil: Ever went to a hospital to pray for someone gravely ill and they profess with their mouth “Jesus is Lord” then pass away without ever being baptized?]

    Let me tell ask you something here:
    Ever seen a sick person healed at the moment of baptism ?
    When Jesus commands you to baptize, why didn’t you ? Because they were sick.. huh ??

    Phil: Maybe because they were hooked up to tubes…..and I’ve never seen a sick person healed at baptism…..have you?

  12. @Phil :
    You are asking where you’re wrong ?
    You have a strange attitude. One moment you acknowledge Jesus as Lord but the next moment you question his authority. When a king commands a soldier to do something, the soldier doesn’t ask ‘Is it necessary?’ He does it without question. Who do you think you are ? Christianity is not based on proof, its based on obedience to the faith.
    Also baptism is the first step towards obedience. If you can’t even obey a simple thing like baptism, how are you going to obey God at all. You just think you do. Saul did, he was rejected.
    About those sick people who profess ‘Jesus is Lord’ and died, don’t you think its a little silly to use it to support your idea that baptism is not necessary. What if Jesus say to them ‘Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?’. Throughout scripture you find the dangers of disobedience. Sometimes God himself is involved in misleading a person who refuse to obey. When you refuse to take the very first step to obedience, do you think the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth ? You may think you are in right standing with God but in truth you are a rebel when you don’t obey. You may read and read the Bible and know a lot what is written, or know what this or that means in Greek or Hebrew, but you will never really understand what they mean unless you obey. You may have eyes but will not see or ears but will not hear.
    ” that servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.” Luke 12:47
    ” But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” Luke 12:50. That baptism was the obedience unto death. ” “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” It may not be your will to be baptized but it is Jesus’ will.
    “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36
    “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..” Matthew 28:19
    Scripture is very clear. Follow Jesus if you want to live.
    No time now on Calvinism. Cheers all.

    Phil: I offered a specific situation and posed a question…how is that silly? How am I disobedient to God’s Word Nicky? I was baptised over 30 years ago so according to what you say I have been obedient….Fanai eisegetes my words in the same way he/she/it eisegetes Scripture….which is why I don’t let some of his/hers/its posts go through….it’s too bad you don’t have time for the main topic of the OP….

  13. TO ALL–A WORD ON LIMITED ATONEMENT:
    “TULIP” is just an acronym to help remember five doctrines formalized by folks in Calvin’s community after his death. He didn’t make up “TULIP”. He was dead before the five doctrines were formalized. And the acronym had to come much later since it’s English, right?

    Limited atonement is much misunderstood by Calvin-haters and most Calvin-lovers. (And to continue an argument about which human we should most follow is carnal, if we remember what Paul told the Corinthians–so let’s keep that in mind, too.) Most folks take “Limited Atonement” literally for what those two English words mean.

    Two problems:
    1. As already pointed out, Calvin didn’t say it that way.

    2. The doctrine that Calvin DID enunciate later called “Limited Atonement” (I suppose because “TULIP” has an “L” and we of a certain age group need all the memory help we can get–I’m wiping drool from my keyboard even as I type) doesn’t limit the atonement in all ways.

    Let me explain with two questions: 1. Is the atonement sufficient to save all? Yes. 2. Does the atonement save all? No, at least not from hell. (I’ll explain that if someone asks.)

    Ergo, the atonement is unlimited in it’s capacity to save all and atone for all sin, but it’s limited in its effect because all sin isn’t atoned for completely. (Some remain unsaved.)

    Otherwise, hell would be unjust, right?

    And it even gets MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT! All sin is atoned for in that creation will be redeemed and restored, but some sin, while atoned for in the prior sense, isn’t atoned for in the way that it is effectual to save the men who committed those sins.

    In other words, all sin is paid for in a sense. Therefore, the world will be renewed. But not all sinners will be redeemed, so we know that they will still suffer for their sins. Calvin thought and wrote about all this in a very thoughtful and nuanced manner. What is thought of as “Limited Atonement” is oversimplified these days. There’s much more to it. And I really think we’d be much better off to forgot John Calvin (he’s dead, you know) and read our Bibles. I have come to a very calvinistic view, not because I’ve read him, but because of reading the OT and Romans and Ephesians. I’ve read enough of Calvin to fill an afternoon at most. And I plan to keep it that way.

    Thus, methinks we may exercise a bit of patience with each other and with our brother, Calvin. (We’ll see him soon enough, don’t you think?)

    Just a thought,
    Phil Perkins.

    To Fanai,
    Sorry about the name. The dot smears into the body of the “i” on my screen.

    Hers’s a question for you and you really need to answer it: You are jumping up and down about us judging. That’s very, very bad in your mind. So why are you judging us so harshly? What makes that okay? Find a biblical reason for this dichotomy.

    Here’s another question: I gently asked you to read verses, including a passage that says, “Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” This is just one of many direct commands to exerecise judgment (judge) within the assembly. Did you read it?

    The command to judge in a godly way is a major theme of Scripture and intimately part and parcel of the doctrine of regeneration, as well. It’s essential to the practical aspects of the doctrine of regeneration–how we use the doctrine of regeneration to live in and out of the assembly.

    I’ve been very nice to you. Anger is for facing evil, not brothers trying to reason. You don’t seem to believe this, but I sincerely do wish you well.

    Again, sorry about the name.

    Phil P. PS–If you stick to unlimited atonement, you logically have to end in the heresies of open theism or universalism. And that’s been the case historically, as well. It’s happening now in the West.

  14. One more note for Fanai,
    I am old enough to remember when today’s view that says we are not ever to judge became popular. It was while I was a young man. I remember the day when this wasn’t taught in the Evangelical church. Back, if one rebuked a sin, the sinner was expected to repent. The rebuker was actually looked up to as one who did something needful. Now he is hated as if he’s done wrong.

    Anyway, you admit you have rebuked Phil N. So you are breaking your own rule.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  15. Mr Perkins, Its kinda difficult when you’re asked a question and you’re reply gets censored. I’m hoping this one won’t be or at least it will be forwarded to your mail since you stated I really needed to answer.
    First question : [So why are you judging us so harshly? What makes that okay? Find a biblical reason for this dichotomy. Like I said to Phil you don’t seem to understand the difference between a rebuke and a judgment. I am not judging or condemning you. I am showing you your errors and rebuking you so that you may repent. I am doing it to your face unlike you and Phil. That’s the difference. If I make a blog and post comments about all of your errors that people all over the world will see, that would be judging or condemning.I might have preferred to mail Phil so that it remained private but unfortunately it seems email doesn’t function between us. You mentioned a few verses like LEV 19:17 which says ” `Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.” That’s not my rule it’s God’s. So I do it His way. If you insist I’m judging anyone that is your opinion. LET GOD BE THE JUDGE.
    Your second question. 5 Cor 5:12 ” What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” Notice the word “inside”. That is very important. You are to judge those inside whom you can expel provided you remove a plank from your eyes. Not through an internet website or anywhere where the person you judge don’t even know what is going on behind his back.
    Lastly you said [Back, if one rebuked a sin, the sinner was expected to repent. The rebuker was actually looked up to as one who did something needful. Now he is hated as if he’s done wrong.] This is exactly what seems to be going on here. I don’t even get my comments posted {hehe..}
    If I ever post a comment on the internet telling the faults and errors of a person so that people may conclude that he is a dirty sinner, except that it was addressed and meant to rebuke him, and people rebuke me, I will repent without making excuses.

  16. Hi Fanai,

    When you called me a “hypocrite” you went from what you consider “rebuking” to what the Bible tell’s us is judging….so that makes you a hypocrite…..

    Go behind people’s backs? How do you know I’ve done that? That’s another judgement you’ve made….in most cases I attempt to contact folks prior to their ever gracing the pages of Theology Today….in fact if I told Phil P some of the folks I converse with he’d fly all the way to Corfu and personally kick my butt….

    Again, I censure your comments because you don’t read my answer or if you do you eisegete it….I asked you specifically why baptism is mandatory for salvation and you flipped the switch and wanted to talk about Limited Atonement…hence I censured your comment…

  17. Isn’t it ironic that two anonymous people are judging two people who aren’t anonymous in a thread concerning anonymity?

    I guess its easy to be totally wrong and anonymous. Keep up the good work Nicky and fanal. You two are priceless and have made my day!

  18. You’re amazing Fanai.
    Okay, you’re right to get mad at us for the following 3 reasons, if I understand you:
    1. We do it publicly and you don’t.
    ANSWER: You’re on the same web site, so you’re just as public as we are.

    2. You’re rebuking and we’re judging.
    ANSWER: We can play xees, too. We just decided to call what we are doing “rebuking”. Xees!

    3. You see “inside” as operative and restrictive in I Cor. 5:12.
    ANSWER: First, you can’t find that restriction in the grammar or syntax and that is where you’d have to find it, since there is no “only” in the vocabulary–as in “only inside”. Second, this is only one of many passages commanding us to judge, rebuke, and reprove in the assembly. Putting this passage into scriptural context, it was written by Paul who often publicly rebuked sin inside and outside the assembly. What was not condoned by Paul in the Cor. passage is physical and social separation from unbelievers. The call to separate socially was a call to separate from “believers” who were in unrepentant sin. If you look back at the beginning of the passage (about verse 9), you’ll see Paul’s motivation for writing this passage was that some were carrying social separation to far, extending it to unbelievers. Thus, the judgement in this passage was specifically the kind that ended in excommunication. To summarize, we were to excommunicate only those who took the name of Christ and lived sinfully. Here is another passage from Paul that is similar, but deals with the excommunication of persons for one particular sin: Titus 3:9-11 says, “But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.”

    4. You claim a difference between “rebuke” and “judge” in Scripture. You’r only half right. The two words in both Testaments don’t have identical semantic ranges, but they overlap a lot. And in the NT they are often used interchangably. Both are used in the NT to mean the speaking of an exhortation or condemnation inside or outside the assembly.

  19. Fanai,
    Slobbering on the keyboard again–I hit submit, by accident. I wanted to deal with one more of your objections. You mentioned to Phil N., I believe, that you admitted that Jesus, Paul, and others had spoken against sin. You seemed miffed that Phil had used this example to speak forcefully himself against evil, because it’s presumptuous to assume that means we can do the same.

    Soooo–show us in Scripture, where we AREN’T to model our lives after Christ.

    IN Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  20. At Phil P.
    I am rebuking you publicly right in your face [this is scriptural..”Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.] , not behind your backs. Get that in your head. You don’t. You do it in your own little shells where the person you rebuke or judge don’t even know what you are saying about him/her. Maybe I am not using the right word here. When we use the word ‘judge’ there seems to be a difficulty in differentiating judging and rebuke. I’ll make it simple. We both judge.. ok. Difference being I judge to rebuke face to face, man to man and you judge to ‘gossip’. Women do that . You can play xeeee or anything, you can show off your vocabulary, do anything. You will know what it means to disobey and try to interpret Scripture anyway that suits you, on judgment day. Judge or rather ‘GOSSIP’ away but know that you have been warned and when judgment is upon you I can’t imagine what it’s gonna be like when the unrighteous judge is judged by the Righteous one. Please stop asking questions and try to explain what this word or that means all the time as if you know everything. You can’t and you won’t be able to. That’s pride in case you don’t know. I have nothing more to say to you.

    At Phil N :
    Hey dude, I’m really sorry if you have contacted ALL [not only a few] these people and have rebuked them, they have repented and gave you permission to post these articles about them. If not the rebuke still stands. I think you are trying to be clever with words here. That won’t do. Be truthful about it. You have asked a few questions so let me ask a few. First you said [Phil: Maybe because they were hooked up to tubes] Were all this sick people whom you didn’t baptize hooked up to tubes ? Was that the true reason you did not baptize them ? When the Lord commanded us to baptize and you don’t that is disobedience, hooked to tubes or not.
    Secondly, you said [in most cases I attempt to contact folks prior to their ever gracing the pages of Theology Today] did you or not actually contact ALL of them ? This sounds like an attempt to justify yourself before your readers… You won’t fool GOD.
    About your question which you insist I didn’t answer, it would have been nice if you had posted them and see if I answered. You said [ You show me where I’m wrong about the 5 points of Calvinism…or anything else for that matter.] I chose LIMITED ATONEMENT [one of the 5 points of tulip] and showed you how the Bible verses you quoted to support it did not hold water. Yet you accuse me of flipping the switch and wanting to talk about Limited Atonement…hence censured my comment. But that’s ok its your blog.
    Now about your question ‘why baptism is mandatory for salvation ‘ I thought I was pretty clear but I’ll say it again. Because Jesus commanded it. If you don’t believe obedience is mandatory for salvation if have a very big problem. And if you think obeying only some part and doing away with some which you think is unnecessary, you have a problem. Baptism spiritually means dying to self and complete obedience only to Jesus Christ. In other words to be fully soaked with the word of God and obey everything He has commanded.[Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Rom 6:3-4]

    Here are a few verses:
    “John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?”
    “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
    “But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected{does this ring a bell?} God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John”
    “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”
    “Those who accepted his message were baptized,”
    “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”
    ” Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, INSTRUCTION about BAPTISMS, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”
    “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. ”
    If you have anymore arguments, its not with me. If you still want to resist the Holy Spirit your blood will be upon yourself. You have been warned enough.

    Phil: “all these sick people you didn’t baptize”….there you go with your eisegesis…I was referring to a specific situation…..how do you know how many “sick people” I have or haven’t baptized? Stop twisting my words so you can “rebuke” me with your anonymous tripe….

    I’m getting tired of your asinine “rebukes” from your anonymous little fingertips…I’m tired of your questioning my sincerity and questioning my honesty….if we were face to face I doubt you’d have the courage to say anything to me….

    Most of the people you see highlighted on this blog I KNOW Personally….they know ALL about this blog as I have been threatened time and time again with legal action if I continue exposing them….

    Thanks for the laugh anonymous one….you made my day!

    Consider yourself rebuked anonymous one….

  21. Answer the questions hypocrite. I answered yours.
    Let me tell you knowing people personally doesn’t justify you before GOD to gossip about them. Maybe we’ll meet face to face.. maybe sooner than you think. Let’s see what happens. I’ll assure you it won’t be a threat or a lawsuit.

    Phil: With the exception of Matt Gonzales, Matt Sorger and the anonymous blog owners of my last three posts I have contacted or attempted to contact ALL of the parties involved prior to publication….

    Have I baptized every sick person I’ve ever visited? No. Have you?

    There…your little assumptions and questions have been answered….I’ll let Phil P respond to your anonymous little “rebuke” but you are BANNED from participating at Theology Today….not for your “rebukes” but because you are only here to pick fights….and just like a coward you do so anonymously…

    BTW: I hope you come to Corfu anonymous….send me an email and I’ll get you a great deal on a great room in a 5 Star luxury hotel…

  22. This is so hilarious.. like Phil says, Thanks for the laugh Fanai….you made my day! That too on christmas day !
    I have just witnessed two people who consider themselves experts on theology accused of being women-like gossipers.. LOL.
    The irony of it is that you have cunningly proved your accusations to be true scripturally by exposing their own testimonies. Too bad you are banned. But I’m sure a lot of people will appreciate what you have done.
    Phil P: I don’t blame you for banning fanai but maybe this will give you an idea why some choose to run a non-interactive site. Maybe they just feel its better to ban all at the start than just banning one or two when things begin to go wrong for them . No need for you to be concerned about how people run their sites. savvy ?
    Also, will you consider renaming this site to ‘ theological Gossipers’ ? [ Haha. that was a joke]. Pls don’t ban me, I’m not here for a fight, I’m just here to ‘interact’.

    Phil: Thanks for the laugh Nicky….fanai sure got the best of me lol….just like you do lol….my prayer is that anyone who argues against intelligent design doesn’t come here and read what you, fanai and femy write because they’d win for sure……

    Theology Gossipers? Hey, not a bad idea Nicky….but show me where using the wolves own published words and work from their own websites is gossip? If you can then please show me…wait….I’m sure you can but it most likely won’t make sense…..

  23. Hello every1,
    the 2 phils are very opinionated.Cavin-tithes,infant baptism?Spurgeon-tithes etc.yet others in dis age are FALSE TEACHERS 4 d same.Most ODMS ,yomisays,phil nassens are gr8 hypocrites.Matthew 7,u will be judged with d same judgment.being a calvinist is simply being carnal 1 Cor3;1-4.PLS BE CHRISTIANS.
    Again stop coming to calvin,phil(the 2).yomi’s defence every time,wat a confraternity for pet doctrines.
    Anyway,i join christians in evry nation,tongue,tribe without name calling and in-house fighting to say…MERRY XMAS!

    Phil: That’s Christmas….

  24. Before we even get into the details of the site referenced in this article, please realize that the site only generated 2 pages of links on a google.com lookup (see link), so its influence is minimal.

    As for the complaints of the anti-Calvinists posting on this thread, let’s get something straight. At one time, to be Protestant was synonymous with being Calvinistic. Mainly the humanists & the Papists were advocating human free-will/free agency. Is that what you want for your heritage?

    During the Reformation, the Reformers were opposed to radical reformers as much as they were opposed to the Papists. On one hand you had the Papists who wanted to have the Tradition of the Church without Scripture & on the other hand you had the radicals/enthusiasts that wanted to have Scripture (privately interpreted) without the Tradition of the Church. Both concepts were wrong & either lead to a religion disconnected from Scripture or a religion disconnected from history.

    What I see with much of the “radicals”, be they Word of Faith movement to the hyperpreterists is that they want to behave like the Bible just fell from the sky one day, or perhaps they are likely to think some guy found golden plates in a cave or some other guy was visited by Gabriel telling him to “recite”. The go-it-alone approach to the Bible & Christianity leads people to become cults or Popes of one. Jesus designed the Church to be ONE BODY, ONE community of believers — not just you & your Bible alone.

    This is how all these abhorrent, cultic, heretical groups are born — some guy or gal thinks he/she has found something new that no one has ever known & then they go about trying to replace 2000 years of Christianity with their new version.

  25. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines gossip as:
    1. A person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others
    2. a. rumor or report of an intimate nature.

    When you speak things about others in their absence, you are not only disobeying God’s Word (Leviticus 19:17), you are also destroying that person’s reputation in the mind of your listener. Scripture states that the sin of gossip is not limited to the spreading of lies alone, but also includes the improper involvement of yourself in another’s business (1 Timothy 5:13). Matthew 18:15 gives the Scriptural alternative to gossip. If you have something against someone, you should go to that person, tell your grievance, and hear his/her side of the story. It may be that you were wrong. Thus, you will not only clear up your misunderstanding, but you will have a chance to apologize as well.

    On the other hand, if you were correct and the person’s words or actions have in some way caused you or another harm, then that person is given the opportunity to repent. Scripture gives further instruction concerning the course to take if the person does not repent (Matthew 18:16,17).
    When you find yourself gossiping, repent at once so that God will forgive you of this terrible, destructive sin. Gossip has its roots in JEALOUSY, HATE and SELF-PRIDE. As with hate, you remove the person who is the object of your gossip from the love you should be showing (1 John 2:9,11; 3:15). As a result, you are murdering the person in your heart. In order to overcome gossiping, seek the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. As you acquire these virtues, you will not be boastfully challenging and envying others (Galatians 5:22-26). Instead, you will find yourself able to think of others as worthy of your love and respect. As you then show love, honour and respect, you will receive love, honour and respect in return.

    Phil: Nicky. The majority of the articles posted here at Theology Today deal with the Word of Faith Movement and the Signs and Wonders Movement…these are dangerous heresies that are very public and need to be exposed publicly. Many if not all of the “preachers” have been confronted privately by better men then me and haven’t repented or relented…they’ve gotten worse. This isn’t “gossip” or going behind anyones back and I’m sorry you don’t see that.

    I’m certainly not jealous or envious of anyone….I have a great life and wouldn’t trade places with ANYONE….

    As far as the blogger in the OP goes, how do you go to that person and discuss anything? There isn’t a “contact me” page there or even a comment section where you can attempt to discuss anything….just public information that anyone with a modem and an internet connection can access….don’t you get that?

    Did you come to me privately? No, you do not. You criticize me with the hopes I publish your comment…don’t you? Yet, you call me a gossiper….I think that’s all for you here as well.

  26. Hi Roderick,

    Thanks for your comment!

    Whether the reach is minimal or not IMHO even 1 person is 1 too many. It’s one thing to disagree with “Calvinism” but to say it’s a verifiable fact that “Calvinism” is a false teaching is absolutely insane….as you rightly pointed out this was Orthodox teaching LONG before John Calvin was born.

    It’s important for those of us with “larger platforms” to point out sites like Abomination Nation and offer readers a different view…don’t you agree? Your comment alone has probably reached more people with the truth then that entire website…that’s why I do what I do here at Theology Today.

    Dorothy Anderson’s series is equally important. Her courage as well as others (including yourself) is presenting something that very few people know about (and even less understand). Of course opponents to what Dorothy is presenting have the same opportunity as you all do….

    Abomination Nation is claiming to posses absolute truth which is error…and bringing this error to light is what Christ commands us to do…whether their reach is minimal or not that site is in error Roderick.

    Thanks again for your participation on this site and I hope you stick around. There are many battles to fight and I appreciate your willingness to stand up and fight for the truth regardless of the consequences…

    Phil

  27. Phil I wouldn’t be criticizing you if you had just stuck to exposing false teachings. But often you and your readers cross into and comment on people’s private lives.
    Let me ask you a question. Is the church in Greece so perfect that you need to judge churches in the US ? Doesn’t scripture tell us to judge within our own churches. Or are you afraid to judge the Grecian church ? Let’s see you do that and call a few church leaders over there names like you call some WOF preaches. Let’s hear what you have to say about the Pope and the catholic church. Or maybe you think they are the example of a perfect church. Maybe we should all convert start praying to Mary.. huh !!
    If you are sincere and have really set your heart to exposing heresies or false doctrines, don’t just stick with WOF. It would be a good idea to start from within namely the church in Greece.

    Phil: These WoF teachers ARE in Greece….anyone with a satellite dish and a TV can watch these hucksters 24/7 on over 20 different networks for free…I started this blog after one of my 10 year old students asked me to help him send 10 euro to one of the TV preachers so he could get a 1000 back….this blog was really for my tennis students Nicky….

    I keep it simple because of them….it’s sole reason is to educate them first and of course anyone that happens by…

    Whose private lives have I commented on Nicky? Please be specific? If I really wanted to do that I would talk about what really goes on backstage at TBN prior to PTL….or I could tell you all who was a homosexual, who drinks too much, who uses narcotics, whose sleeping with whom…or which famous TV preachers wives and daughters I slept with after preaching at a revival or whatever…but I don’t……

    As far as exposing the GOC and the RCC on Theology Today goes, there’s only me Nicky….I’ve asked a couple people to contribute so we shall see….and I’m not afraid to criticize the GOC I do this everyday to their faces…the late archbishop of Greece was one of the first people I’d ever met here and he always encouraged me to expose error….

  28. We will be hoping to see an article on ‘ The Roman Catholic Church Leaders and homosexuals ‘ including some names or something like that. Don’t show partiality it’s an abomination.

  29. Ok Phil.. Maybe I was too opinionated. It’s because I truly want the will of the Lord be done on earth and everyone I trust seem to be nothing but just hypocrites. I was harsh on you because sincerely you are the only person on media [ tv or internet] who seeems to really have a true zeal for God’s kingdom and not money or power. But reading people’s comments and my suspicions of anyone on the internet has led me astray [I’m still suspicious though..lol] .I was angry and I felt betrayed though i don’t know you personally [I have started reading posts here long before I posted myself] Like I said your comments on people’s private lives may be too opinionated but on some comments of the readers I still have my doubts. I apologize for my stupid comments and ignorance. But I will warn you to be always on your guard, not get carried away and step in peoples private lives. Stick to the false teachings. Also don’t take criticisms lightly though they may appear foolish. Use them to check yourself always.

  30. Like I said your comments on people’s private lives may be too opinionated
    *Like I said ‘my comments’ on your comments on people’s private lives may be too opinionated

  31. Hey Phil,

    This gossip site thing might be fun. I too have been thru the backdoor of the tent during the 70’s and 80’s. By the way, some of the biggest gossiper’s I have ever met were professional men and women of the “ministry”. Oh what fragil ego’s they have.

    PS. Merry Christmas

    Phil: So true, so true! Merry Christmas Boyd!

  32. Fanai,
    This is something you said to Phil N.:

    “Hey dude, I’m really sorry if you have contacted ALL [not only a few] these people and have rebuked them, they have repented and gave you permission to post these articles about them. If not the rebuke still stands. I think you are trying to be clever with words here.”

    I think what you are getting at here is Matthew 18, correct? There are three problems.

    1. This is a common misapplication of Matthew 18. That portocol is for Christians to handle the sins in the assembly. It isn’t for publicly taught false teachings or even public sins of any kind unless the confronter wants to follow this protocol. I know of no man of God who confronted false teaching this way. And, further, to confront false teaching privately is so impractical as to be almost silly unless the teaching only went out in a very small circle indeed. Paul likely didn’t travel back to Corinth to confront the man who took his dad’s wife. He wrote a public letter because it was a public sin that was being tolerated publicly. He treated Peter the same way in regard to socializing only with the Jews. If I know of a false teaching going around, I don’t have to first go to the false teacher and speak privately with him. Nor do I have to privately confront a man who is drunk in public before I suggest he stop that behavior. I have the freedom to do so, but this command isn’t for anything but sins in the assembly. In regard to false-teaching, that was always handled publicly. And that’s appropriate since anyone who traffics in false teaching may be in the visible assambly, but almost certainly isn’t in the actual body of Christ, since he is amost certainly not regenerate. (There is a lot to this, some of which I’ve discussed here before.) Read the beginning of the passage. “If a brother offends you…” This misapplication of Matthew 18 is recent. I believe it has been popularized by the many reconciliation “ministries” so popular today. It isn’t justified by the text, nor has the text ever been understood this way ever in the history of Christianity as far as I have ever read.

    Matthew Henry has a really great passage on this in his commentary. He says that we ought to go to those involved in public scandals privately first, so he leans a little further that way than I do. But what is really beautiful about Henry is this statement about judging and reproving in the assembly and how necessary it is:

    “A gross sin against God is a trespass against his people, who have a true concern for his honour. Christ and believers have twisted (read enmeshed or intertwined here) interests; what is done against them Christ takes as done against himself, and what is done against him they cannot but take as done against themselves. ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me,’ Ps. 69:9.” (Parenthesis added for clarity.)

    Isn’t that beautiful? How can we stay stoic when our Brother, our Father, and our Savior has been purposely offended? Does this not give the lie to those who reprove the reprover?!!!

    And, in point of fact, there are textual indications that this protocol is for only personal offenses. This is a matter of debate, but I go more strictly than M. Henry on that restriction for that reason. For a discussion of that see Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” on Matthew 18:15. Notice, too, that the more restrictive reading fits much more naturally with Peter’s question in verse 21. What is of particular note here is that Metzger will show that from the earliest times the saints took the more restrictive interpretation, too. But I respect Henry so much that I have a hard time being solidly against him on this point. And even Henry is clear that this doesn’t apply to false teachers or anyone else outside the assembly. (Perhaps I will write a post to explain this in proper detail.)

    The current understanding that this protocol applies to averything and everyone is simply wrong and the text doesn’t indicate it. And many, many texts contraindicate it, both narrative texts and doctrinal texts. Read Paul’s instructions to Timothy in I Tim. 4, for instance.

    2. While you are all over Phil N. about this, you are not doing it yourself. You have rebuked me many times now in public on this very comment thread. Never once have you contacted me privately. Do you see the problem?

    3. You’re accusatory on this matter without full knowledge of the facts. You have accused me of talking behind folks’ backs and not having the courage to do so publicly or to their faces. How would you know this? You don’t know this. You’re just angry. I’ve been fired from a Bible college and kicked out of a church for confronting their leaders about their sins. And the confrontations ran the gamut from private letters and face to face meetings to one public debate with a format preset to stop me from having much input at all, with literally dozens of accusers I wasn’t allowed to answer. I knew the format and went anyway for the sake of some who might hear the truth and realize what was being done to the faith. So I’ve paid my dues. You lie when you imply that about which you could not possibly have knowledge.

    Do I get an apology now?

    It sound like you’re threatening Phil N. with stalking and violence. You said, “Maybe we’ll meet face to face.. maybe sooner than you think. Let’s see what happens. I’ll assure you it won’t be a threat or a lawsuit.”

    How do you explain sort of talk, my brother?

    Lastly, you haven’t even tried to answer my last objections to you. Instead, you’ve only grown more angry. That isn’t appropriate. Anger against sin, yes. Anger because someone is trying to reason with you, no. I’ve answered you knowing that I have little chance of changing your mind. I often answer folks extensively for the sake of others, so they won’t be deceived. And that’s why I got into some of the more technical aspects of the Matthew 18 protocol here–for the edification of Phil N. and his readers.

    God Bless You and Yours in Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

Comments are closed.