King James Identified the Most Evil Teaching

Referring to the pronouncement of this doctrine of calvinism at the Synod of Dort, England's King James (who gave us the King James Bible), though he was no Arminian and hardly a "saint," expressed his repugnance with calvinism:

"This doctrine is so horrible, that I am persuaded, if there were a council of unclean spirits assembled in hell, and their prince the devil were to [ask] their opinion about the most likely means of stirring up the hatred of men against God their Maker; nothing could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God's love for mankind than the infamous decree of the late Synod..."

A Strained and Unwarranted Redefinition of Words

Who could argue with the king's condemnation? Nevertheless, the attempt is made to muster biblical support by redefining certain words and phrases, such as "world," "whosoever," "any," "all men," and even "sinners" to mean only the elect. For example, Paul's statement that "Christ Jesus came into the world to saved sinners" (1 Tim 1.15) seems on on its face to mean that His desire was for all sinners to be saved. That understanding would, of course, refute Calvinism. Therefore, the word "sinners" is redefined to mean only "the elect among sinners."

There is nothing anywhere in the Bible, however, to suggest that "sinners" really means the elect. The words "sinner" and "sinners" are found nearly seventy times in the Bible: "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners" (Gen. 13.13); "the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13.22); "behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Mark 14.41); "for sinners also love those that love them" (Luke 6.32); "we know that this man is a sinner" (1 Tim. 1.9); "but this man [Christ]...is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7.24-26), etc. There is not one place in the Bible where "sinners" could be construed to mean "the elect."

Yet when the salvation of sinners, or God's love for sinners, is spoken of, then the Calvinist insists that "sinners" means the elect, such as in the following statements: "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. 11.19; Luke 7.34), "This man receiveth sinners" (Luke 15.2); "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5.8), and so forth. Such redefinitions are required all through Scripture in order to support Calvinism.

Throughout the New Testament, the same Greek word is always used for "sinners." Thus there is no license whatsoever to give it a different meaning in certain cases in order to rescue Calvinism. Clearly, Calvinism would collapse if the Bible really meant that Christ came to save all sinners without discrimination, instead of only some sinners, i.e., the elect among them.

If Calvinism can't be rescued then how can it Reform anything, and how can it's Reformation be saved? It is but a dead works.

As taught in calvinism, besides a select group, all others are predestined by God to eternal damnation. The gospel can be preached day and night to sinners, yet to no avail, because they are totally incapable of believing the gospel since the calvinism Jesus didn't die for them either because he was incapable of doing so or because he did not have the love to do it. According to calvinism, God allegedly has no desire whatsoever to open their blind eyes and give them faith to believe. He does that for the elect alone (through Unconditional Election), though He could do so for all. Yet never is this repugnant doctrine of calvinism ever taught in Scripture!

"Moderate" calvinists would claim that what is just described is hyper-Calvinism. Attempting to deny "reprobation" or "double-predestination" (which Calvin clearly taught), the moderates would say that God merely left the non-elect to the just consequences of their sin. Left to their doom those He could have rescued, or predestined them to that fate-what is the difference?

The Westminster Confession of Faith states, " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and other foreordained to everlasting death." Calvin taught the same thing so there is no difference between moderate and hyper-calvinism (no matter how it is sugar-coated):

"...many...deem it most incongruous that of the great body of mankind some should be predestinated to salvation and others to destruction. The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree."

It's only impossible to deny if you are a false Christian and can't discern between predestination and foreknowledge. Calvin is forced to maintain what he admits is a "dreadful" decree. Why? Not by Scripture but by his unbiblical insistence that God can only foreknow what He decrees. Why believe a dreadful doctrine that is, therefore, false? Because he is unable to think otherwise as though controlled by some evil spirit or demon. Form that dreadful error in assuming, it follow that since God knows everything that will occur, He must have decreed everything that would ever happen-from Adam's fall to the final doom of billions. Thank God that the Bible says the opposite: that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3.16). Both "world" and "whosoever" must be changed to "elect" for Calvinism to be sustained.

Not only that, but the word "elect" must further be changed as well, because the Bible use the term "elect" in a variety of ways: for Israel, for Christ, a lady, a church, and angels. Never, however, is this word used to indicate that there is a select group who alone have been predestinated to be saved. Never!