Fallacious Arguments by Neo-Evangelicals and Reformed Calvinists Addressed

Janruary 31, 2025

We frequently receive comments or emails that disagree with us. We are fine with that. Some are kindly written while others cantankerous. They really doesn’t matter to us; in fact we see it as a badge of honour when we are hated for doing what the Bible demands and commands of us. We also aren't surprised about this, since the same hatred, and worse, was experienced by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who stated:

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (Jn 15:18-20)

Some that write provide pathetic arguments in favour of worldliness, erroneous and false doctrine, false practices, and so forth. The following rebuttal is written as an example of individuals who adhere to neo-evangelicalism and reformed theology/Calvinism, reflecting the massive confusion and contradictions and compromise that exist in these heretical and unscriptural camps. The common and heretical arguments given not only reflect a mostly unregenerate nature (they clearly do not understand the truth, they believe a lie, and thus are absent of the indwelling Holy Spirit of Truth, 1 Jn 2:20-21, 27) and are a means to censor and stifle our work. We aren't deceived about it.

I've found that I'm about done being concerned about trying to please people who won't listen. It's also an apologetic position. People's problem is mainly rebellion, not knowledge. So I can try to win the argument with knowledge, but that won't solve the problem. I've decided I'll tell the truth and some people will listen and some won't. The change will occur through supernatural intervention, not my manipulation. I can't do anything about the people who won't listen. Their changing will have nothing to do with my attempts to connect with them on their terms. They'll read this report and they'll believe it or they won't. I don't want to waste time trying to persuade someone who refuses to hear the truth of Scripture.

The following are not the only accusations and arguments that we receive; this report covers more of the same: Answering False Accusations of Warring Spiritual Warfare.

1. Debating and contending for the faith is bickering.

Debating over the truth and dealing with error over text or email or letter, which is really just contending for the faith, is apparently “bickering” to some. Actually, it’s not but it does reveal specific things about the person that makes that egregious claim in the context of contending for truth. There is nothing petty or trivial about fighting for God’s truth, over critical issues. It’s doing exactly what the apostles and the Lord Jesus and others were doing in Scripture (e.g. Matt 23; Acts 15; Gal 2; Jude; etc) and we see in no place that it’s ever referred to as bickering. Paul was consistently disputing or debating with people over the truth, noted in Acts 9:29; 15:2, 7; 17:17; 19:8-9. Of course there can be ungodly and carnal debating loaded with logical fallacies and dishonesty and lies, for instance of the type we see among Reformed Calvinism, ironically (since this argument is made by a reformed calvinist), such as James White and Phil Johnson but Biblical debating on the other hand is really nothing more than evangelizing that person and the audience, using the sword to pull down strongholds in their minds (2 Cor 10:3-5).

The problem actually isn't really debating but a hatred for reproof and rebuke, so the argument of bickering in debating is more often than not a logical fallacy commited by a scorner. The word “scorner,” contextually as used in the following verses, refers to someone who expresses disdain or contempt for the one who reproved and rebukes him. He is not of the truth and disdains the one who is, which is how false teachers and their masses of supporters flow (2 Pet 2:1-3).

“He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.” (Pr 9:7)

“A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise. . . . “Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. . . . A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.” (Pr 15:12; 9:8; 13:1).

2. Allegedly much is hard to understand in Scripture (just like Calvinism).

Apparently Calvinism is really hard to understand, just like many things in Scripture are hard to understand, but that evidently doesn’t mean we reject it because it’s difficult. This is what reformed calvinist fans inform us, though they are ashamed of the label:

“I am not a fan of the term “Calvinism” . . . There is much in Scripture that is hard to understand, but it doesn’t mean we reject it.”

This is a perversion of what Scripture teaches, which tells us without reservation that all true born again believers know and understand the truth (1 Jn 2:20-21, 27; Heb 6:1-2; Pr 8:8-9; 22:20-21). The Bible does indicate that “SOME things hard to be understood” (2 Pet 3:16) in Scripture, but NOT “much” as was claimed. This is a major area where Calvinism derails and further exposes itself. They corrupt a lot of scripture, twist the doctrines of God and salvation, make it so complex that you have to have a Phd in the “church fathers” and “reformed fathers,” with majors in Augustine and Calvin to actually understand their system. That is why it is “hard to understand,” like Scripture apparently is. This is the cop out and red herring in their maneuver to get a free get out of jail pass for their illogical and false arguments.

People that don’t understand the harder things in Scripture, will take Scripture and “wrest” them “as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3:16). The reason for that, according to God’s Word, is because they are both “unlearned and unstable” (2 Pet 3:16). As harsh as that might sound, it gets worse. This is followed by God’s diagnosis of this serious issue: it’s an “error of the wicked” (2 Pet 3:17), which obviously refers to someone that is unsaved. No wicked person is a born again believer. And this is exactly what Calvinism does when it comes to election, predestination, foreknowledge, free will, sovereignty of God, grace, the nature of man, and more. They do this because they do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit of truth (Jn 15:26; 16:13) who “teacheth [the saved] of all things,” and “guides [the saved] into all truth,” as promised (Jn 16:13; 1 Jn 2:27)

They corrupt doctrine by wresting scripture and by privately interpreting passages, forcing their “theology” into them, to keep the system breathing and alive, at the expense of the rest of Scripture and most times even at the expense of the very passages themselves. These are man-made theological systems that are foreign to God’s Word. God has a lot to say about this, pronouncing severe warnings which are not directed towards someone that is genuinely saved but to false “believers,” false teachers, to the “wicked” (2 Pet 3:17; 2 Jn 1:9-11; Ju 1:4-16; 1 Tim 4:1; 6:3-5; 2 Tim 3:5-9, 13; 4:3-4; etc). They also do it with history, reconstructing it to fit the theology and system. Calvinism itself doesn’t derive its doctrine from Scripture but from John Calvin, Augustine, and other reformers and “church fathers” and from other Calvinists since that day. No one has ever become a Calvinist by reading the Bible but by reading the footnotes in certain Bible perversions and other books or listening to their sermons and podcasts.

Reformed Calvinism however isn’t alone in this dastard deed. Neo-evangelicalism does it to a massive amount of scripture in order to keep their worldliness and sin and toleration of compromise and heresy going. Other groups are guilty of it as well, with many who embrace easy believism and quick prayerism while rejecting true Lordship salvation (and no, Lordship salvation does NOT originate with Calvinism), doing so on the back of corrupting and perverting salvation passages into something post-salvation (e.g., Mark 8:34-38).

3. Since much is hard to understand in Scripture, we shouldn’t make a big deal about other (erroneous) interpretations; in other words we shouldn’t or can’t be to objective or dogmatic.

The argument is made that we cannot hold to dogmatic positions or know the truth absolutely, that one cannot be completely objective, since believers will have differences of interpretation.

Experientially someone could say this as a mere human opinion but Biblically, there is actually no room given to non-objectivity or relativism. Our minds, our opinions, our beliefs, and our practices are to be governed completely by the Word of God—impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced. Can a true born again believer always do that with complete perfection? Unfortunately no, yet it is the goal nonetheless, and the Bible doesn’t read like that it cannot be obtained. In fact we have verses that indicate this.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect [complete], throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Doctrinal growth demands complete objectiveness and absolutivity.

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.” (Heb 6:1-3).

Leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ and going on unto perfection is certainly complete objectivity, especially in the doctrines mentioned here in Heb 6, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, resurrection.

The false philosophy is in completely denial of the doctrine of perspicuity which is noted in passages such as Pr 8:8-9, where God the Son says,

“All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.”

Scripture has only one meaning and its plain to him that has the indwelling Spirit of God.

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” (1 Jn 2:20-21)

Both this passage and Pr 8 sounds an awful lot like complete objectiveness. The Word of God is one doctrine, one interpretation, one faith, one gospel, etc. There may be more than one application, but never more than one interpretation. But even application is objective. Most application of scripture assumes the truth or certainty of a second or minor premise. One of the three steps of apostasy, on The Road to Apostasy is not understanding how the words of God applies. Application seems several notches removed from interpretation and several more from what the words are. If you can't be sure of the first two, the last one seems hopeless. And this is where we’re at today, as I have repeatedly observed in dealings with evangelicals, reformers and even fundamentalists over basic Biblical applications. Historical Christian applications have been rejected, ejected, marginalized, or abandoned by these people. If you talk about applications like you know, you're proud. There are so many ways, easy ones, to explain away application, when you've already done so with the interpretation and the identity of the words. Scripture expects us to know the application of Scripture to all cultural issues and otherwise, because those who have the indwelling Spirit of God do know (Pr 8:8-9; 22:20-21; 1 Jn 2:20-21). What God says, people can know, IF they want to know. It assumes we know, because we do know. Not knowing is either blindness or feigning ignorance. Blindness or feigned ignorance won't work in the end with God. He knows we know. You can read more about False Application of Scripture — A Capitulation to or Cause of Apostasy at that link.

Scripture is plain and perspicuous (meaning clearly expressed and plainly understood—Pr 8:8-9), and all its words are important since we’re to live by its every word (Matt 4:4). The doctrine of perspicuity is about absolute truth, and it, like all scriptural doctrine, is under great attack. God never works in a way that circumvents the Bible. If the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit in it?

Therefore, though it may be true that “believers may have some differences of interpretation,” the Bible doesn’t excuse it. It doesn’t give any allowance for it. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of truth” and He teaches truth to all He indwells (1 Jn 2:20-21, 27). He doesn’t teach different truths to different peoples, but the exact same. When there are two opposing opinions, one or both are wrong. Zero false doctrine is to be allowed and the Bible is clear that all saved people will follow after sound doctrine, since that is the voice of their Shepherd whom they follow (Jn 10:1-5, 27). “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (Jn 10:5, 27). In Jn 8:37 Jesus said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” You see how these passages imply that truth, sound doctrine, which is the voice of Christ, will be followed after since that is Gods voice. When someone follows after teaching that is unsound, false, contrary to scripture, they are following the voice of strangers (Jn 10:1-5). The obvious contrast that is taking place here is between saved (sheep, that hear and follow Christs voice) and unsaved people (pretending sheep, that do not hear and follow Christs voice)

Preachers and teachers are to preach only “sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1) and to allow “no other doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3). Zero toleration of error. This is why the expose of false teachers is necessary. Warning of danger. Sounding the trumpet. Obedience to Gods Word. These false philosophies come about because of compromise, toleration of and capitulation to error, sin and worldliness, and not practicing Biblical separation, all without practically any resistance. Anyone that sounds the alarm within the system, is ignored, denied, rejected and ejected. Many times, actually pretty much all the time, the foundation of the issue is false professions and professors pretending to be Christian, while they are actually not. They are counterfeits. When we look at Scripture however, no differences in beliefs are allowed for anywhere in Gods Word, and especially as we look at the passages on local church unity. We have no allowance to be impartial to error or false teaching or misuse of Scripture. We are to contend for the entire faith, fight for the entire faith. Everything matters. Everything is important, though some things are of greater importance. The Bible reads everywhere that zero error, zero sin, zero false teachings or corruption of Scripture is to be allowed or tolerated. Everything must be dealt with regardless how “little” something might appear. It is only “a little leaven” that eventually “leaveneth the whole lump,” a warning regarding sin (1 Cor 5:6) and doctrinal error (Gal 5:9).

What happens with true biblical unity in these unBiblical experiments of multiple conflicting doctrines and interpretations in heretical churches? The incredible diverse and conflicting doctrines that are embraced and accepted in essentially all evangelical and reformed churches and others like it, even including fundamental-type churches, is mind blowing. It borders retardedness. In many ways we see in Scripture that God requires objectivity, equity, justness, oneness, soundness. This is unity according to Scripture. His Word says it is to occur and can occur in each individual true church. It is total, complete unity, described several times in the NT, and based upon the truth. Biblical unity is oneness, the same type of unity that God the Father has with His Son and the Holy Spirit (Jn 17:11, 21). These three are one in nature or essence, but also one in purpose (Jn 10:30). The unity God expects or requires is to be found in a church, and the following verses describe it: Rom 12:6; 15:6; 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25-26; Ac 2:42, 45; 4:31-32; Eph 4:1-16; Phil 1:27; 2:1-4; 3:15-19; 4:1-2; Heb 6:12; 1 Pet 3:8-9. Unity is to “speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor 1:10). Believing and speaking “the same thing” means one doctrine, sound doctrine, which is contrary to the destructive “unity in diversity” philosophy that is promoted today. The foundation of true biblical unity is the new birth and then continuing in sound doctrine. True Christian unity is experienced when born again believers of a local assembly are committed together to the same biblical faith, doctrine, practice and true Text of the Bible. The passages above describe this as believing the same thing, holding to the same sound doctrine, the same spiritual convictions, the same scriptural goals, speaking the same language and judgment, having the same mind and mouth, being of one accord and standing fast in one Spirit. God requires this true unity in the true NT church. Is that possible? Yes it is. We see that in Scripture, churches such as the Philadelphia church and the Smyrna Church, Philippi Church. We see that between Paul, Timothy and Titus. As an independent Baptist, I have also been in churches where this either was or is the case. And I presently know churches like this.

Fake unity on the other hand is overlooking differences in doctrine and practice and Bible interpretation and even Bible versions, which amounts to overlooking false doctrine and sin and evil, all in order to get along. Rather than someone saying he doesn't believe and practice biblical unity, he replaces it with fake unity and then says he is practicing unity. Worse yet, because of fake unity being considered or called real unity, the ones who believe and practice biblical unity are portrayed as the purveyors of division. The NT talks about diversity in the body, but that is diversity of spiritual gifts or giftedness. There will be variation in gifts in a church, but not variation in doctrine and practice. There is one doctrine and one practice, like we read in Eph 4:3-6: “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” A church should expect this as unity. Variation isn't unity. It is division. What sometimes people call unity is actually division, real division and not unity. False doctrine or false interpretation of Scripture (which then produces false doctrine) brings division. The person opposing, exposing and contending against false doctrine is not the one causing division; the division is caused by the one who believes, embraces, and propagates false doctrine. Because fake unity is considered or called real unity, many times the accusation of division is completely reversed. The one who believes and practices biblical unity is the one that is portrayed as the purveyor of division.

This is one of the reasons why neo-evangelicalism and contemporary Christianity is in the sad state that its in. It lives according to a deceptive form of relativism. Its allowed leaven, and more leaven, until the entire thing, churches, denominations, peoples and families became leavened completely over. The pursuit of certainty according to modernism spurred by the enlightenment no longer relied on the objectivity of God’s revelation as authority, and this has resulted in great apostasy in practically all areas of Christianity.

The Bible always casts doubt upon the alleged faith of a professing believer, teacher or preacher, that is guilty of teaching false doctrine (e.g. Rom 16:17; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Jn 1:9-11), false gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and/or falsely interpreting God’s Word and perverting it (2 Pet 1:16-21; 3:16-17; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2-4), even as all these passages do, and more. I am only being a messenger. The Bible says it, and I report it, applying it to real life.

For further reading on this subject, please see: True Biblical Unity, What the Bible Requires, Vs Fake Unity, the Most Common Today.

4. Scripture apparently cannot be applied, thus worldly cultural elements are not sinful for they are not mentioned in Scripture.

The neo-evangelicals favourite assertion among favourites arguments goes something like this:

“A lot of the things you mention as sin are nowhere in Scripture mentioned as sin (CCM or women wearing pants, Gyms in church). Many of these are issues of conscience. Acts 15 is an interesting chapter on what are the essentials of the faith as the Gentiles were being pressed by the Jews to hold to things that were not actually biblical and therefore the apostles write them they letter in which they (the Gentiles) then rejoice.”

There are a number of things in this one short paragraph that exposes the heretical and unBiblical way of thinking that engrosses the neo-evangelicals mind and philosophy, which is a means of tolerating sin and worldliness in their homes and church. The statement is very concerning, expressing a lack of understanding of Scripture and once again a denial of the indwelling Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth.

Music. Biblical principles against CCM are mentioned all over Scripture, contrary to this deluded idea, as if God wasn’t aware of the evil music that would one day come down the pike. Apparently these same charlatans who take sovereign control of God’s sovereignty and His foreknowledge miss the boat when it comes to the music concept, which somehow falls between their ears, even though music and its elements are found hundreds of times in Scripture, and entire Books are written as song books (i.e., Psalms, Song of Solomon). When the Bible speaks of not loving the world, it’s speaking of not loving the things of the world (obviously), and music most definitely plays a part in that. CCM, like any other worldly music, is most definitely a thing of the world. It’s unbiblical in all its facets. CCM is unholy, worldly, fleshly, ecumenical, charismatic, adulterous, and contrary to worship expressed in Scripture. Nothing about CCM is Biblical. Not its lyrics, melody, beat, attraction, musicians or flaunting sensual style. Its completely of the world. It’s unclean and the product of darkness. It has no light in it or cleanness. It is condemned as “another spirit” in scripture (2 Cor 11:4, cf. 12-15). There is not a single CCM musician that is actually truly saved. Not one and not even close. And that isn’t hard to discern either as we see their absence of a Biblical testimony and their corrupt and evil fruit, which only comes from a corrupt and evil tree (Matt 7:15-20; 12:33; Lk 6:43-49; Ju 1:12-16). But the fleshly overtones is all the reason one needs to know that its horribly wrong, worldly, and entirely the product of “the rulers of the darkness of this world,” from “spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph 6:12) which is obviously referring to the Devil and his minions. CCM is a “spirit of error” which is “that spirit of antichrist” (1 Jn 4:1-6). It also reveals a “depart[ure] from the faith,” by “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” (1 Tim 4:1). Within hours of my salvation the Holy Spirit gave me earnest conviction and discernment concerning this, through the Word of God, resulting in the destruction of tens of thousands of music albums, some of which contained CCM. There is a reason why heathen Catholics and the secular world can listen to this music and love it.

When a person is truly born again he loves the commandments of God and “hates every false way” (Ps 119:127-128) and thus will “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph 5:11). It’s what the saved person loved before they were regenerated, and now they hate it and want nothing to do with it (Eph 2:1-5). That means they will certainly hate this CCM/“Christian” rock worldly trash and reject professing “Christians” and “Churches” that compromise and apostatize with it, and hate what they do and the way they do it; and hate the philosophy of ministry that it represents and the way it misrepresents the God of the Bible; and hate the way it deceives the people involved in it and what it does to churches and homes; and hate the way that it ruins discernment and perverts a biblical or true understanding of spirituality and love; and hate the way it endorses false worship for churches.

Absolutely everything in this life can be applied to Scripture including music. Wisdom is using the Word of God rightly in a practical manner and only saved people can truly do that without confusion, contradiction or hypocrisy. Many, many things are not directly mentioned in Scripture, like drugs, cigarettes, porn, ungodly movies, abortion, sodomite marriage, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t addressed in Scripture. Or will you use the same excuse for those things as well? Why don’t professing contemporary Christians live in these sins, since they are not mentioned after all? That would be consistent with their unscriptural beliefs concerning CCM, woman wearing mens attire, gyms in church, ungodly entertainment and much more. You can’t be hypocritical or double-minded about it. Absolutely everything in this life is in fact addressed in Scripture. God isn’t the author of confusion, nor of surprise, but what neo-evangelicals and reformed calvinists hold to is nothing but confusion and catching God by surprise, as if He didn’t know the evil that would be present in this present world, which is a very curious concept for someone that embraces reformed Calvinisms version of God’s sovereignty. This is a disaster actually and very revealing why the apostasy is so bad in these churches, in the world of neo-evangelicalism.

CCM music is hammered hard here:

• Christian Contemporary Music (CCM), the Soundtrack of End-Times Apostasy

• Judging Music: Judging “Christian” Contemporary Music (CCM) to be Strange Fire and Unfruitful Works of Darkness

• The Incongruity of Contemporary Worship Music (CCM) and Country Music (High Valley) with God's Word

• Christian Contemporary Music (CCM), the Soundtrack of End-Times Apostasy

Clothing and Appearance. Gender indistinctive clothing confounds the garment that once differed the sexes for us, which is androgynous and rejection of authority toward God and husband. Woman wearing that which pertains to a man (De 22:5; 1 Tim 2:9), while not many men are wearing that which pertains to a woman (I.e. dresses). Why not? Why don’t they start dressing as a women? When a man does dress as a woman, what is he then called? Right, a transvestite. Yet the same standard is not held towards a woman?! That exposes the serious hypocrisy and double standards of todays so-called Christianity especially in “evangelicalism,” bought completely over to feminism and the world. It started back in the 40’s for the evangelicals. Since then its been a downward spiral into apostasy. The word transvestite is defined as “a person who dresses in clothes primarily associated with the opposite sex.” And it can be used toward either sex. If a man's wife dresses as a man, then she is a transvestite by very definition. Worse, De 22:5 tells us she is an abomination to God:

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Thats the truth whether you like it or not. Ignoring God’s truth doesn’t speak well of a professing Christian. Speaking the truth to a professing believer is an act of love (2 Tim 3:16-17). Gender indistinctive clothing is not only immodest but also an androgynous attack on God as Creator. It’s a denial of what God has made. It confuses God’s creation. It mixes light with darkness and clean with unclean, which is the greatest evil, the kind God spews out of His mouth (Rev 3). Furthermore, it's certainly a gospel issue because it’s an external reflection of the heart according “to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). The fundamental principles of modesty pertain to the heart; modest dress is merely a reflection of a modest heart. It’s tied into salvation because as we think in our heart, so are we (Pr 23:7). Good fruit from a good tree, corrupt fruit from a corrupt tree. The woman wearing men’s garments is rebelling against Gods ordained authority and sowing to the flesh which means she reaps corruption and it’s end, eternal hell fire, indicating she was never saved to begin with. But a woman that is truly saved and thus sowing to the Spirit, will live like it and that very importantly includes how she dresses (Gal 6:8). Her end is “everlasting life.”

God created distinctions in clothing (De. 22:5) and since He indwells His children, He will convict them over this matter. Up until about the 1940’s, with the industrial Revolution and many men being away at war, and woman having to fill their roles, leading to a rebellion against God’s hierarchy in the home and the feminist movement, a woman would be shunned from society if she wore pants. Till that point in time, from God's creation of man, woman ONLY wore dresses. Look at any writings, paintings, pictures, etc. Yet, I actually don’t need historical proof of it because the Bible tells us that already. Prior to those years, no one had to even preach on this subject or defend the truth, because no one transgressed it. It wasn’t an issue. People knew what was right. It’s practically impossible to find writings on it from those thousands of years ago, beccause it was never a controversy. And a woman would have been immediately church disciplined had she ever wore pants in those days.

Not only is it an abomination to God for woman to wear pants, or a slight on what He has made, but it’s also an extremely poor testimony for a woman to dress how the world dresses and additionally, a stumbling block to men, transgressing the clear command to “use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal 5:13). An excellent presentation by way of video can be viewed here: Dressing for the Lord.

The fallicious argument is made that unsaved woman wear dresses, which is a common argument among neo-evangelicals justifying their sin:

"There are many women who wear dresses who have a heart that is still dark and sinful yet they have cleaned themselves from the outside."

Its actually a red herring and straw man, which is a misrepresentation of our argument, which was further stated to the tune that this meant we are teaching that a person cures their heart with externals. We address the cure issue specifically further in this report, under # 8 logical fallacies. What is given here for argument makes no difference to anything and is a mere distraction from the truth. Orthodox Jewish woman have always worn dresses over the thousands of years, since they understand the commands of God in the OT quite well, but vast majority of them are lost. Unsaved people are frequently living after the things commanded in the Word of God, but that doesn’t prove or disprove a truth. Truth is found in Scripture and we obey it, if we are saved. Born again believers fulfill and establish the moral elements of the law (Rom 3:31). Keeping the externals to be saved is a works gospel, and many do it for that reason, attempting to be justified by the deeds of the law, but that doesn’t undermine the doctrine of modesty and godliness, the evidence of salvation for the truly saved, the outward being a reflection of the inward. Modesty is an outward reflection of the new heart, and pants on a woman is a far cry from modesty or God-honouring. The Jews always kept the external aspects of the law while neglecting the thing most important, which was conversion (Matt 23; Mk 7). The externals were about the show, a facade, pomp before the people but they “omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:” Jesus said, and “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” (Matt 23:23). (Though tithing is the example here, it applied to any commands of God that refer to the external, e.g., dress, hair length, drink, food, etc). That didn’t mean the external elements, “the other,” were wrong, only that they had their priorities wrong and that was simply because they were unregeneate, which is precisely what Jesus is pointing out in this chapter, over and over, reproving their evil hypocrisy, which is the case of every unsaved professing believer. So they were putting the cart before the horse, but the horse of the one making this fallicious argument has no cart at all! He is denying the externals, a huge evidence of salvation, the substance of true conversion, which is just common Biblical sense. Even in this context, Christ speaks to it: “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matt 23:26).

The host of evangelicals/reformers today profess to be saved, profess to have the inside of their cup and platter cleansed, yet they deny the cleansing of the outside of the cup and platter, which is the necessary and absolute manifestation of any internal cleansing. This is a powerless “gospel” that doesn’t save because it doesn’t actually change the heart. The whole being must be changed, not just one or two things, and that is what true conversion does. If a man is in Christ, “he is a NEW creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor 5:17). The believer has a new nature, not another nature (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1-10). New is "kainos", that is, new as in different. We don't have the old with something new added, but something that is entirely different. The old is gone, which is what Eph. 2:1-10; Rom 6–8 and 2 Cor. 5:17 say, "old things have passed away, all things are become new.” What is old has passed away and has been crucified (Gal. 2:20; 5:24; Rom. 6:6), "Knowing this, that our old man is [aorist- perfect tense, just like Gal. 2:20 and 5:24] crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:6). Though we still have the old flesh, essentially a dead carcas nailed to the cross that we drag around, that is not our nature any longer. The very first thing God took care of in the Garden of Eden after man’s fall, was the matter of dress.

Saved people characteristically obey God’s Word and that includes, very importantly, the matter of dress especially in woman because of the great issue of sexual temptation and lusts of the flesh, and since that is where sin has been given allowance. When professing Christians don’t obey after they have been convicted and know the truth, they simply prove themselves to be absent of the indwelling Spirit of God. 1 Jn 2:3-5 and Jn 14:15-24 amongst other passages makes that crystal clear. Disobedience is the mark of an unsaved person (Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5; Ti 3:3; Eph 2:1-3), what we cover in Evidence of Salvation in John's Epistle’s. The Bible alone tells us what is right, and the fact that majority oppose the Bibles teaching only proves the Bible to be right.

Entertainment and Pleasure. The neo-evangelical says that gyms in churches are just a matter of conscience. Oh really? The church has become an entertainment centre, but that is fine and Scripture has nothing to say about it? Can someone please find me one passage in Scripture that even remotely allows for the church to become an entertainment centre? Good luck with that. In the mean time, let me share Scripture among many that reflects the heresy of churches that entertain: “For men shall be lovers of their own selves,… lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;” (2 Tim 3:2, 4). A gym in a church reflects one hundred percent love of pleasure more than a love of God. And then the rest of what these churches do and believe, with it’s unregenerate membership, reflects the truth of that passage even further, and it naturally would. They dovetail. A heretical church has to do what it has to do to keep the lost professing believers coming in. If they took away all the entertainment and emergent church atmosphere, the numbers would dwindle down to nothing. The people aren’t there because there is power in the preaching, or because of its adherence to strict Biblicalism, but because of the allurement of the flesh and carnaility that is mixed with spirituality. 2 Tim 3 is a warning to how professing “believers” will be “in the last days” which shall be “perilous times” (v. 1), which is true of practially all evangelical churches, and majority of reformed. And the verse that follows, tells us that these professing believers are actually heretics that need to be separated from.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (v. 5).

NONE of these things is a matter of conscience. Can you find me even one Bible verse on that, without doing great damage to the passage, context and Bible? Conscience is not our final authority, it actually has no authority. God’s Word is our only authority and its very black and white, but neo-evangelicals/reformed Calvinists turn it into a grey mess. Using corrupted “bible” perversions and listening to false teachings and being fed the heresy of the apostate “church fathers” will certainly result in such unscriptural beliefs. And if your “conscience” isn’t being effected by these sins because of what the Word of God says about it, that tells me your conscience is seared and you’re likely an unbeliever. The false and unscriptural philosophy of conscience being a greater authority than Scripture (which is implied, seeing that opinions trump the truth of Scripture), is perfectly inline with that of the lost Israelites during the time of the Judges, when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Jud 17:6; 21:25).

Distorted and Corrupt View of Worldliness. The same individual continued with the following, revealing a perverted view of worldliness that holds supreme in evangelicalism:

“To be worldly is to esteem the things of the world above the Gospel of Christ. Or it can be to esteem external things that you want to see in everyone else above the Gospel of Christ. . . . The list would never end if someone is simply focused on outer appearance. It is what the Pharisees did and Jesus condemns it.”

No one is “focused on outer appearance.” Thats a ridiculous straw man argument and actual lie. And they know it, so it then becomes an ad hominem (personal) attack.

What he is describing as "worldly" is not worldly according to Scripture. Worldliness is an adoration of the zeitgeist. The noun “zeitgeist” is German, and carries the idea of the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era. The word combines two words, “Zeit,” meaning "time," and “Geist,” meaning "spirit" or "ghost." As the word suggests, it is the defining spirit or mood of the age or culture wherein applied, characterized by the ideas and beliefs and essense of the culture of the world in that present time. It is a well known philosophy, with the scholars of the world maintaining that each era has a unique spirit, a nature or climate that sets it apart from all other epochs. Zeitgeist refers to the culture of the world, the nature, characteristics, attitudes, temperaments that would generalize the culture of the age we live in. The Bible clearly relates to this, and addresses it continually throughout Scripture, requiring the application of God's Word to the zeitgeist of the world. It has a purpose of course, and that is separation and non-conformity.

In no age or epoch of the world has the culture been is so pervasively and pervertedly wicked, ungodly and unrighteous as now. Never before. Globalism has created a world of wickedness, but it's not new, only new levels. The Bible speaks to this repeatedly, indicating that evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13), that perilous times will come where professing Christians will be just like the world, full of "[self-love], covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;” (2 Tim 3:2-4). These are all symptoms of the underlying love of the world, but that doesn’t mean all symptoms are present in every false professing worldling. Worldliness is not merely "to esteem the things of the world above the Gospel of Christ." This is a compromised definition giving allowance for toleration of elements of the zeitgeist, by a people that are mostly ashamed of identifying with Christ and His holiness, further reflecting their hypocritical unregeneracy. It’s no wonder there is so much worldliness amongst neo-evangelicals and reformed calvinists and contemporary Christianity.

2 Pet 3:3 warns,

"There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts."

Since these are religious scoffers, a necessary part of the justification for walking after one's own lusts involves a delicate balancing between professed adherence to the Scriptures and a walk according to those lusts. To overcome this difficulty, one simply increases and expands the number of things that "cannot be known or culturally applied" from Scriptures, paving the way to God-approved lust following. Interestingly, at the same time, often these same people have no trouble stretching the "application" of the Scriptures to whatever trendy social justice issue happens to be the cultural rage at the time.

The false arguments however are in defiance of what Scripture teaches. When the Bible speaks of worldliness, we can understand what that means and we do know what it means. The Bible doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not smoke crack cocaine.” Yet the Bible does make that point, but it must be applied to do so. The same argument can be made for dress standards and corrupt communication. The bible doesn't tell us what is profane. It doesn't tell us what the attire of a harlot, the clothing of a prostitute is. Scripture applies to cultural issues. And of course the same can be applied to music. God demands His Word applied to cultural issues. To obey God’s Word, the Bible must be applied to cultural issues. When one disobeys God on cultural issues, he is sinning against God. When one continues to disobey God, thus sinning against Him, in a characteristic manner, he inadvertently exposes his unregenerate hell-bound estate (1 Jn 2:3-5) and spiritually dead carcass abiding on the broad path that leads to destruction and damnation.

Acts 15 and Essentials. Acts 15:29 is used to argue that these are fundamentals or essentials for the Gentiles, and everything else is of secondary importance.

Acts 15 is not a chapter on the “essentials of the faith,” contrary to the deceived and wresting mind of the neo-evangelical heretic. It was never written for that purpose. The Jews that were corrupting the gospel were false teachers. Paul and Barnabas are disputing against their false gospel in the first two verses of that chapter. The Gentiles were being pressed by Jews that were false teachers and Peter and this letter clarifies that quite clearly. The letter was written by “the apostles and elders, with the whole church, … Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.” (vv. 22-24). Adding to the gospel, even just one thing like circumcision, makes it a false gospel (Gal 5). And none of the sins mentioned in v. 29, “meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:” were characteristic of the Jews but rather of the Gentiles. The Gentiles were exhorted to abstain from such sins which were chiefly among the Gentiles, obviously strongholds among Gentiles.

But that wasn't it. These were not the only things they needed to keep, which is a heretical teaching and a form of ranking doctrines. When you rank doctrines, you are going to let teachings go like tomatoes falling off the back of a produce truck, as noted with this egregious philosophy. The God of the Bible doesn’t approve of any disobedience of Him. In essence, God is left out of this discussion. It centres on man. It’s man-centred “theology.”Ironically, ranking doctrines doesn’t love God. God is loved by keeping all His commandments, words, and sayings (Jn 14:15, 21, 23; 1 Jn 2:3-5). You may claim to love your neighbour or “brother,” but you don’t actually love him or God (1 Jn 5:1-3). We have doctrinal and practical light and then doctrinal and practical darkness with no shades of grey in between. If everything that He says is true, then all of it is important, not just Acts 15. All of it needs to be followed. We don’t have liberty to sin (Rom 6:1) which then means we don’t have liberty to fellowship with anyone (e.g. 2 Cor 6:14-18; Eph 5:5-11; 2 Jn 1:9-11). Faith keeps God’s Word and faith pleases Him. Most reformed calvinists and neo-evangelicals know nothing about that. Their faith is fake and dead, like the kind of faith exposed in Jam 2:14-19, the faith of devils (v. 14).

The essential and non-essential teaching of uniting only over certain things (such as Acts 15) or even over just the gospel, encourages apostasy. It comforts false profession. It alleviates the distinction between true and false belief. It lends itself toward turning people into twice the children of hell they once were, and all in the name of the gospel. All of it fits precisely into Calvinism and reformed theology which is filed with false professors.

We dive further into this heresy here: The False Practice of Ranking Doctrine into “Essentials” and “Non-Essentials” is Phariseeism.

5. Reformed theology is Paul’s theology.

Reformed Calvinist cheerleaders make the following audacious claim:

“Paul the Apostle himself was the one who wrote Romans and Ephesians, which is loaded with the theology that our church [a reformed Calvinist neo-evangelical church exposed here] holds to. Call it reformed theology, it’s just biblical theology.”

The theology of Paul the Apostle harmonizes with all the rest of Scripture, both NT and OT, and contradicts Calvinism at every turn. And this is easily provable. Actually we have done that already in the links that follow below. “Reformed theology” for the most part is not “biblical theology.” The TULIP is mostly corrupted, and really easily exposed. Calvinism perverts massive amounts of Scripture penned by Paul (and by many others). Which Scripture of Paul and for what doctrine? Consider an example. The following scriptures are corrupted to support the TULIP:

• Total Depravity: Rom 3:10-18; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3: 2 Th 2:13.

• Unconditional election and reprobation: Rom 8:29-33; 9:13-33 [favourite prooftext]; 11:2-7; 1 Cor 1:26-29; Eph 1:3-5, 11; 1 Th 1:3-5; 5:9; 2 Th 2:13; 2 Tim 1:9; Ti 1:1.

• Limited Atonement: Ac 20:28; Rom 8:29-30; 2 Th 2:13-14.

• Irresistible Grace: Ti 2:11-12. Etc.

• Perserverence (dealth with here).

When Calvinists lay out their system and plug the verses in, they can make them make “sense” — if that’s all you were left with, a dozen or two cherry picked verses out of the entire Bible. But that is condemned as private interpretation of scripture (2 Pet 1:16-21). When challenged on their perversion, they throw out the victim card, "There is much in Scripture that is hard to understand, but it doesn’t mean we reject it."

The problem goes much deeper. The corruption and perversion and wresting of Scripture that occurs by reformed calvinists is appalling, but they do the same to the character and attributes of God Himself, exposed in these same reports, which is even more appalling.

• Trampling Calvinism’s TULIP

• Calvinism’s Sovereignty over God’s Sovereignty

• A Rebuttal of an Article on Calvinism's Doctrine of Election and Free Will - Part 1

• Debunking the Calvinist Error of "Foreknowledge = Predetermination"

• Romans 9, Election, and Calvinism

• The Pagan, Gnostic Origin of Calvinism

And just for the record, being anti-Calvinist because God’s Word is anti-Calvinist does not make us Armenian. That’s one of them logical fallacies that Calvinists run with.

6. Many of the Reformed Calvinists arguuments resort to non-Calvinists taking away from Gods sovereignty in some manner.

For example the problem of “easy believism” is blamed by reformed Calvinists on “Arminianism” because it puts the emphasis on man’s responsibility and attacks Gods sovereignty. Calvinists say that other systems limit God's sovereignty or control. Apparently when those systems assign to man free will, they limit God's sovereignty. Instead of God being in total charge, man is partly in charge. Actually, it has nothing to do with taking away Gods sovereignty and replacing it with mans responsibility. The issue isn't with God's sovereignty, but with Calvinism's version of God's sovereignty, which requires a presupposed system preceding Scripture. The reason God doesn’t save easy believists is because they won't genuinely repent, not because they aren’t born again before they are saved (Calvinisms heretical doctrine of “Monergism”). Not because they can’t, but because they won’t. Further, their refusal to repent is not because they think that salvation rests soley on man. These arguments are extraBiblical, while the Bible actually tells us the reason. The issue with easy believist and quick prayerist isn’t a rejection of God's sovereignty, or even some sort of man-made system from the 4th century by an apostate Augustine and then propagated by an equal heretic by the name of John Calvin, but rather because sinful man won’t repent, out of their own volition. The Bible tells us that. Clearly:

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (Jn 3:19-21).

Repentance is the issue, which is overcome by the easy believest through the preaching of repentance (e.g. Matt 4:17; Mk 6:12; 10:17-21; Lk 13:1-5, 23-30; 24:47-48; etc). Easy believism is caused by corrupting the doctrine of salvation through the corruption of repentance and faith and who Christ is (He is Lord, King and Saviour). Easy believism is connected to quick prayerism and its a cheap form of getting numbers and pew warmers, and its done by people who themselves have mostly across the board never been born again (We say mostly because a person for example that is newly saved, through the true gospel, might be swept into teaching this due to the church he attends, but he won’t stay in that error very long due to what Scripture says and the teaching/leading of the indwelling Spirit of God).

True regeneration by the way results from true conversion, and we are actually talking about true regeneration —i.e. salvation, the new birth, conversion, saved —and not the regeneration that Calvinism believes in, which is being regenerated or born again before you can be saved, something that reformed calvinists believe, part of the system of the TULIP (as noted in this SOF, from the GBF): “We teach that regeneration is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit by which the divine nature and divine life are given (John 3:3-7; Titus 3:5). . . . As a result of this wonderful work the repentant sinner, enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation.” This is plain heresy, and actually a damnable heresy because it’ll prevent true conversion from actually taking place, and is one of the many explanations why so many reformed Calvinists are unsaved. Jn 3:3-7 and Ti 3:5 are also perverted and wrested out of their meaning. Both passages are referring to the event of salvation, the new birth, regeneration, it’s all the same language describing salvation.

There is no actual conflict between the Biblical version of Gods sovereignty and man’s free will. Because God is in control, possesses all power, He can accomplish what He wants in any way that He wants. God uses His power to accomplish His will. That doesn't mean God determines everything. The Bible doesn't read that way. I'm not saying that God couldn't determine everything. He has the power to do anything He wants to do. However, everything can be in His control without His controlling everything. If God is not controlling everything, that doesn't mean He isn't in control. God is in total charge. Many verses teach this. However, it's also easy to see that He exercises that sovereignty, that charge or control, by also allowing man free will. Many, many verses teach this. Here is a few among thousands: Pr 1:20-32; Isa 1:18-20; Matt 21:28-32; 23:37-39; 1 Cor 2:8; Rev 22:17; Lk 13:1-5, 23-24; Jn 3:15-21; Rom 1:18-19; 2:1-5; Heb 2:1-4; etc. These passages make it extremely and perspicuously clear that man has a free will, including when lost (e.g. Is 1:18-20; Matt 21:28-32; 23:37-39; Rom 2:1-5; 1 Cor 2:8; Heb 2:1-4).

Consider just one example among these. In Lk 13:23, because of how things were going in Jesus' ministry, someone asked him, "Are there few that be saved?" If the Calvinistic view of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were true, the system that flows out from a wrong view on Gods sovereignty, and that man has no free will, Jesus should say, "There are few because God chose only a few and Christ died for just a few. Men are dead and they are unable to respond unless God first regenerates them to believe." But Jesus didn't. He made it sound like few were saved because men weren't striving (agonizing) to enter the narrow gate (v. 24). If He wanted men to strive, all He needed to do was to regenerate a few more to do so. And how much actual striving is necessary when grace is irresistible. No resistance doesn't sound like striving. And if God is a God of love, which He is, then He would elect all to eternal salvation and not eternal reprobation.

7. Not owning the label, duplicitously.

When the Reformed Calvinist is put in the spotlight against people who despise this false teaching, they might say:

"I am not a fan of the term “Calvinism”. I hate it as it puts a label on people that often isn’t true."

Reformed Calvinists very frequently, just like Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Moslems, attempt to hide what they follow and truly believe, their label, even though their teaching and philosophy and practice is completely inline with reformed theology and Calvinism. Very often you will come to a church website that fully embraces reformed theology and calvinism, yet neither label is found and the repulsive doctrine is subtly woven into their statement of faith, sermons and articles.

Reformed Calvinists have written to me in this strain, stating they have displeasure over the use of the term “Calvinism,” even though they will argue that somehow Calvinism and reformed theology is “Paul’s theology” and Biblical theology, because they intuitively know the stigma and resistance to the heretical doctrine. Their displeasure is misplaced. We don’t like the term “Calvinism” because it represents false doctrine, and in some instances even a false gospel, a false God and another Jesus, amongst other errors, but I find usually when someone doesn’t like the term its because of the stigma, blemish, serious defects, and characterizations that it comes with. The reality is however, those same people attend churches that are steeped in Calvinism, so obscuring this truth doesn’t help anyone, but reflects a certain duplicity and underhandedness that is common in this camp.

So if Calvinism reigns at so-and-so neo-evangelical church, why hate the title then? Why not just own it and make it clear to everyone? Even place it right there in the church title? _______ Reformed Calvinist Church. It has a nice tune to it. Not being transparent is duplicitous and a smokescreen to ones true position and identity, something that should be unbeknownst to true Bible believing churches, typically only noted in cults such as JW’s an SDA’s. Yet, it is actually daily common among Calvinists, John Calvin “the reformed church hero” himself leading by example, and then proceeded to torture and murder many of his opposers in cold blood (minimum 50+). Me thinks if you despise the title and don’t want to own it, then you shouldn’t be there. You should then oppose it and expose it like the Bible demands (Rom 16:17; 2 Tim 3:5-9).

So be brave and courageous and come out of the closet and just own it because that is what you identify with.

8. Red Herrings and Straw man Logical Fallacies.

Logical fallacy —The writer claims that somehow when we preach biblical standards and anti-worldliness that we are saying these things cure the heart:

“But getting rid of gyms and putting on a dress will not cure what is in the heart. You said wearing pants was a sin and a gospel issue because it reflected the heart. There are many women who wear dresses who have a heart that is still dark and sinful yet they have cleaned themselves from the outside.”

Only amongst so-called “Christians” would one hear these ridiculous and fallicious arguments. It is a serious straw man argument and it behooves us that they can’t see the opposition to God’s Word in what they write and argue.

What we have on the external is the reflection of the internal. God teaches godliness and holiness and righteousness, for those who apparently do not know these attributes exist in Scripture and in the truly saved person.

No one here has ever actually said that “getting rid of gyms and putting on a dress” would “cure what is in the heart,” as readily noted in any of our reports. The point is when the external doesn’t align with what is being professed for the internal, that almost always points to hypocrisy and an unsaved estate in Scripture, just like the opposite does, where someone cleans the cup on the outside, while the inside continues to be full of extortion and excess.

The Scriptures do acyually put some focus on outer appearance. It’s a major evidence of salvation but we agree it can also be a cloak for self-righteousness. God the Son alluded to that in Matt 23:5. That doesn’t change the fact that its proper usage is a reflection of a regenerate heart. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because of their HYPOCRISY, not because of their outward appearance. Read Matt 23. The guy is distorting the truth and the grace he is advocating for is contrary to Scripture. It’s the grace that is condemned in Ju 1:4, “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.” The same grace that saves, changes the person immediately and permanently (Ti 2:11-14). The true grace of God that saves a sinner (Ti 2:11) does teach the saint to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,” and to “live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; . . . and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Ti 2:12-14). That starts immediately at salvation, not at some point after. When the saint lives “soberly, righteously, and godly,” and he will, that will ALWAYS bring external change. There is not one example anywhere in Scripture where it didn’t and there are many many more passages like this and plenty of examples as well. The dress standards for woman of the world are the clothing of the strange woman, noted in Proverbs, the “attire of an harlot” (Pr 7:10), and pants certainly fits into that.

Of course pants are wrong on a woman since its a man’s garment, but many people aren’t really interested in the truth but rather in devising doctrine on how they can continue living after their lusts and still go to heaven. Most men are cowards and allow their wives to rule over them. Here’s a bit of a rude awakening for such: people that live after their lusts are scoffers (2 Pet 3:3) and scorners (Pr 13:1), and absolutely no place in scripture is either a regenerate saint. They are in desperate need of repentance and the new birth (see Pr 1:20-25). They ignore the truth like we expose in this article: Immodesty and Transgenderism, and don’t actually deal with the Biblical argument or the Biblical references. That is very typical in Reformed Calvinism and Evangelicalism.

Logical fallacy — Another red herring and straw man on sin:

“Much of what you label as sin would condemn yourself if someone held you to the same standard.”

Unlike majority of neo-evangelicals and reformed calvinists, who are hypocrites and thus unregenerate, I actually hold myself to the exact standard of Scripture, and I can actually do it because I am regenerated and have a new heart and life, and it really isn’t difficult at all. Its only difficult for those who pretend to be Christian but are in fact lost and thus have no power (Eph 1:19) or victory in their lives over sin (Rom 6:1-23; 7:4-6; etc), since they have never been “crucified with Christ,” never become “dead to sin.” Sin continues to have dominion over them, contrary to the truly saved person (Rom 6:6-22),

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.“ (Rom 6:14)

John summarizes it well:

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 Jn 5:3)

They are only grievous to the one that is pretending and confused.

The writer claimed that we only condemn things that we don’t like and we do it with one verse, something he and others allegedly see all over our reports. Well that is quite the statement to make by someone who admitted to having read only a couple reports. Does he have omniscient abilities that we don't know of? First of all, we condemn things that are unbiblical, not what we don’t like. There are things I don’t like but I don’t condemn because they are not biblically wrong. In this (he and they) are actually judging motives, which is evil judgment (Jam 4) since there is not even one example they could provide, which is very telling. Secondly, we always use a large selection of Scriptural passages to buttress and prove a position. Its an ad hominem fallacy since we actually reference around seventy (70) different verses in that post on Apostasy (which was the report in question). Thirdly, he goes ad hominem (personally attacks), but doesn’t actually deal with anything we have written, never showing one actual verse that we allegedly take out of context or use inappropriately but rather creates fairy tale examples pulled out of thin air to spite us and charge us falsely. But isn’t that the behaviour of scoffers and scorners? Its very, very common behaviour amongst neo-evangelicals and reformed Calvinists. Fourthly, God takes false accusations very serious. He claims that we are slandering the church he attends, without providing any actual proof, and accusing us of using scripture wrongfully, without, again, providing any actual proof. How does he know we were referring to his church in every single one of the points made in the report? Did we not write: “Though I’m broad-brushing all churches within these denominations, I believe there are some exceptions to things mentioned here.” The truth is, we were dealing with a neo-evangelical denomination and not a reformed calvinist church, though they overlap in major ways, hence the accusation. This judging of motives and not proving accusations and charges is very, very common among these hypocritical people, but its evil, foolish and shameful, even as Pr 18:13 tells us:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

So in what manner would those same standards condemn us, since he claims they would? The burden of proof rests on them but they almost never provide anything, not even distorted facts or passages corrupted out of their meaning and that have nothing to do with what we write. They can't even do that, but they are absolute masters of compromise and logical fallacies, which is just another (subtle) form of lying, malice and bearing false witness. When we expose their buddies or big evas or heretical pastor or some other connection, they say "a lot of it is untrue and I can show you," yet they show nothing except horrible logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, fallicious arguments, as presented in this report. When we ask for proof from the reports that they are allegedly disproving, we hear nothing but crickets. They can't disprove the facts and what Scrpture says so they resort to the only thing they can do: personally attack, logical fallacies, slander, ignore, and so forth, which is VERY typical behaviour in these circles, especially those who stick more closely to the reformed Calvinist camp, learning the diabolical and wicked behaviour from heretics like James White, whom we expose in this first part: James White is a Heretic and Liar, and His Book, “The King James only Controversy,” is Fiction.

Logical fallacy — Following up from the above claims, the writer goes on to give examples of how he could make the Bible says whatever he wants it to say, giving extremely poor arguments, unBiblical arguments and illogical arguments, red herrings diverting from scriptural truth and actually attacking the absolute truth of God’s Word.

“I wanted to look at your life I could zero in on what I thought was wrong and use a bible verse (often out of context or inappropriately) and say you were sinning or an apostate. Say you hold to eternal security I could quote Hebrews 6 and say you are an apostate. Say you don’t hold to eternal security I could quote Romans 8 and John 10 and say you were and apostate. You might think that makes no sense and yet I see you doing exactly that. You see something you don’t like and you condemn it with one bible verse. I see it all over your posts. Another guy could come and do the same thing and say say you need to stop working Saturday and in his mind he would be able to show you from Scripture why he believes it is the Sabbath. Then he might say your wife is dressed worldly because she wears different colours than his wife does or because she wears no head covering 1 Cor. 11 he will show you. Then he might say your phone is of the devil and that you are not supposed to have an IPhone because David said he would not set anything unclean before his eyes ( yes they use that verse). Or you shouldn’t have a TV because 1 John tells us we shouldn’t be of the world. All day he could tell you how you are “sinning” and in his mind you are and he thinks he proves it with Scripture.”

Its actually unbelievable that anyone would argue in such an nonsensical and illogical manner, as if Scripture doesn’t mean anything or have precision meaning in what it says, as if Scripture doesn’t actually clearly teach principles and application, as if all of Scripture doesn’t perfectly harmonize as one interpretation, as if Scriptural truth cannot be known of certainty. These are the type of illogical and ridiculous arguments heard on a frequent basis from Neo-evangelicals and Reformed Calvinists, who glorify doubt and expose their lack of understanding and double-mindedness.

The hypothetical examples used concerning someone being able to genuinely prove their position on keeping the Jewish Sabbath, or a wife dressing in different colours is worldly, or using 1 Cor 11 to prove head coverings or use Ps 101:3 to oppose iPhones, or 1 John 2:15 on not having TV’s — glorify doubt and corrupt the truth and reflect the idiocy that takes place when truth is exchanged for fables. Are they unable to apply the Word of God to the things of this life, which is wisdom? Head coverings are easily refutted in 1 Cor 11 (read vv. 15-16), again context is everything. Obviously it’s whats on the televoision and iPhone that makes it sinful, while an object on its own rarely is sinful (though it could be, if it becomes an idol, but that wasn't the point). He claims that someone could use the above passages to prove their position and claim I am teaching wrong and I am worldly and thus sinning. God’s Word is not an empty box of cereal, or a jar of peanut butter. It actually has meaning and power, and everything is sound when interpreted in context and with wisdom. We can know and do know what scripture means and how we can apply it to everyday things, including the culture of the world. But this is glorifying doubt and reflecting major confusion, and denying absolute truth and sound doctrine. No wonder these groups of heretics are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Eph 4:14). Gods standard on the other hand is ”sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1) and “no other doctrine” (1 Tim 1:6).

Of course a person can stretch the Scriptures and read into the passages what they eisegetically desire, sometimes even changing the meaning of the words to get their conclusions (something extremely common in fact within the Calvinist camp), but if you are truly saved you not only know the truth but you also know how you can know what the truth is and thus oppose that which is not of the truth. I am saying that the Bible is interpreted by the words that are written there and we know a truth based upon the context and then scripture rightly divided, that is perfectly harmonized, and the grammar behind it. Heretics are interested in pushing an agenda, a presupposition, but God’s Word doesn’t contradict itself, or confuse itself. The philosophy he is illustrating is seriously concerning and should absolutely never ever come out of the mouth of someone that professes to be saved. False teachers and teachings are debunked because God’s Word is not only truth but it also contradicts error and exposes it. No one can make the Bible say what he would like it to say, and the only people such a person is fooling are unsaved fools and the simple minded (they are also unsaved) who believe every word (Pr 14:15, 18). The wise Berean tests all things by Scripture (Ac 17:11; 1 Th 5:11) and he knows the truth (1 Jn 2:20-21; Jn 8:32) and is able to apply the Word of Truth to all aspects of life, whatsoever may come his way.

What he writes and what the Bible declares are two entirely different things. The writer claimed an apostate can defend his heresy from the Bible but that tells me he doesn’t actually know the Bible. Heresy is easily refuted by understanding the truth. God the Son delcares,

“All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.” (Pr 8:8-9)

This passage is telling us that God’s Word is perspicuous, that is plain, clearly expressed and understood. But it is only to such that understandeth, and has found knowledge, which is the saved person. We come to perfect understanding and knowledge at conversion (hundreds of passages say that, everywhere in Proverbs and Psalms). Pr 22:21 speaks to this:

“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”

And 1 Jn 2:20-21, 27:

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. . . . But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

The writers position appears to be one of unbelief or skepticism, the way of the apostate. The whole Road of Apostasy in Evangelicalism is a road of "faithlessness." Each step of the disobedient and sceptical way takes away confidence in the Word of God that should be there. Not believing what the Bible actually says is a position of a scoffer and scorner, which leads me to the greater concern in all this, in that the Holy Spirit of God is completely left out of the equation by evangelicalism and reformed Calvinism. That is very tell-tale to the unbiblical nature of their positions and their true spiritual estate.

Logical fallacy —The man-centred straw man of first going to the people or their pastor, which is very convenient and a great manipulation of what Scripture actually teaches and demands:

“So my plea would be for you to show grace. There is a time for rebuke and reproof but you need to go to the people or the people’s pastor first.”

The “plea . . . to show grace” was allegedly towards heretical doctrine being preached in heretical churches, where sin and worldliness is excepted as truth and “grace.” And all done in public in some manner, or in public forums.

I’d be interested to know where in Scripture it says we “need to go to the people or the people’s pastor first.” Can someone give me one example from Scripture? Does Rom 16:17 say I should first go to the person or pastor?

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom 16:17)

Or Eph 5:11,

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

This is a make-belief fairy tale to keep compromisers, false teachers, heretics and apostates unaccountable to their false teachings and corruption of Scripture. It’s man-centred, and we abhor it and sharply reprove it. There is not even one hint anywhere in Scripture about such an odious idea but rather tons of scripture that oppose it (e.g. Rom 16:17; Eph 5:5-11; 2 Tim 3:5-9; 3 Jn 1:9-11; throughout Proverbs; etc). It also reveals a corrupted view on the pastors role in a church, putting him on some kind of unscriptural pedestal. God is not the author of this. When a professing Christian and/or church goes public with their ministry, I mean as in publishing teachings and sermons publicly, they immediately invite public scrutiny. It’s a given and absolutely required and nowhere does Scripture indicate that I must first approach the person or church. Public is dealt with publicly.

No doubt that people that make this false argument are also taught to misuse certain passages to support the error, passages that they likewise misuse and abuse, which is the way of man-centred heretics manipulating and butchering Scripture (which is really no surpise considering that they use mutilated and butchered perversions of God's Word to begin with, such as the ESV). Hammered with this man-centred teaching and corruption of Scripture, a concerned watchman (Mk 13:34) is usually bullied into silence or into leaving the church. 1 Tim 5:20 is conveniently ignored in their abuse of scripture: “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” That means to expose before all, as Paul did leading by example in naming ten professing Christians in 1 and 2 Tim, and as he did with Peter before the entire church of Antioch and for the rest of the world to read (Gal 2:11-15).

9. Reformed Calvinists and Neo-Evangelicals see what they want to see when it comes to facts and truth, and not what it actually says. Case in point: Martin Luther.

In response to our article on Were Martin Luther's 95 Theses True to Scripture, or Heretical? the following disagreement was given:

“I read a good bit of it and saw many areas where Luther spoke against the practices of the pope but you said he didn’t. I see you take his points out of context when you say he denies salvation by faith alone or assurance of salvation. He is condemning the prophets who say they are vindicating souls by proclaiming peace and yet he knows the way of salvation is through many tribulations which Jesus also said it was. But I will also admit I was surprised that he didn’t speak more against the pope. I don’t need to defend the man but I think sometimes we also need to show some grace. Remember that was right at the beginning as he was coming to grips with justification by faith. He did not write the 95 theses so much to condemn the Catholic Church (there I agree with you) but to point out faulty doctrine in hopes it would start discussions among the people. But I haven’t studied it much but from what I know he went on to defend the doctrine of justification by faith and often almost losing his life for it.”

Luther didn’t write against the Pope but approved of him in the Theses, as clearly documented , and that is why he didn’t condemn the Roman Catholic Church. It’s not difficult to read that in the 95 Theses. It is simply not true that there are within the 95 Theses “many areas where Luther spoke against the practices of the pope.” The reformed calvinist is seeing what he wants to see and not reading what the paper actually says, which I find to be a very common problem among reformed calvinists as they zealously indulge reformed theology and calvinistic material and exalt their reformed heros to ungodly pedestals. There is actually not one example of Luther speaking against the Pope besides the abuse of indulgences. And besides what we documented, there are many more serious issues with the 95 Theses. Like what? You can read about them in the report but here are a few. Though saved people clearly live repentant lives, Luther corrupts and twists Matt 4:17 into post salvation while the passage has ONE meaning and that is salvation. Only. Very, very clearly. No. 14 is pure fiction. Numbers 17 and 18 are both positive affirmations of purgatory, along with numbers 19 through to 29, and 35. Numbers 47 and 55 are an approval of buying indulgences, and 49 of papal indulgences. No. 58 teaches a false gospel of works. The 95 Theses are almost entirely heretical, if not completely, which is maybe why reformed calvinists never bring them up. Then when someone does, they argue the clear facts away by bearing false witness and blatant dishonesty. The Theses is certainly not the work of a regenerate Spirit-indwelled saint. They give approval for popery and a works gospel, promote major unscriptural teachings and heresy, and merely sugar coat the things he protested, never a clear denunciation of the evil false doctrine and damnable heresies of the RCC, many of which Luther brought with him into Protestantism. There is no clear distinction between the clean and unclean, between light and darkness, but rather an intermingling and spiritual adultery which is evil and only reflective of a lost feigned estate. And of course that is always the MO of false teachers, and no one represents that better than Martin Luther.

Contrary to widespread opinion, Luther’s 95 Theses have nothing to do with justification by faith alone—which is actually not supported, but rejected, in them. Nor do they utter a word of protest against the Catholic Mass, the sacramental system, Mary worship, the Pope, or numerous other Roman Catholic heresies, since Luther continued to embraced many of these heresies after his Roman departure. They certainly say nothing against baptismal regeneration, a damnable heresy that Luther also clave to his entire life.

As far as Luther believing in justification by faith alone, this is simply not true. Luther actually denied justification by faith by his acceptance and teaching of a false works gospel, something not only evident by his Theses but moreover in many of his other writings. Throughout his small and large catechisms he teaches baptismal regeneration and salvation through the church ordinance of communion, as proven here, Luthers own quotes (CAPS emphasis by editor):

Luther called “[baptism] a new birth by which we are . . . loosed from sin, death, and hell, and become children of life, heirs of all the gifts of God, God’s own children, and brethren of Christ.” (Luther, Works, 53:103).

“I call to You for this CHILD, Your servant, who prays for the gift of Your baptism and desires Your eternal grace through spiritual regeneration:" . . . "The almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given birth to you a second time through water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all Your sin,…” (Luther's Baptismal Booklet, 1523)

“To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and PURPOSE OF BAPTISM IS TO SAVE. NO IS BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BECOME A PRINCE, BUT AS THE WORDS SAY, ‘TO BE SAVED’. To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." (Luther's Larger Catechism, 1529).

"Therefore every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to practice all his life; for he has always enough to do to believe firmly what it promises and brings: victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, the grace of God, the entire Christ, and the Holy Ghost with His gifts.” (ibid).

“Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man's door just such a priceless medicine which SWALLOWS UP DEATH AND SAVES THE LIVES OF ALL MEN. . . . AND IF I AM BAPTIZED, I HAVE THE PROMISE THAT I SHALL BE SAVED AND HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, both in soul and body. . . . NO GREATER JEWEL, THEREFORE, CAN ADORN OUR BODY AND SOUL THAN BAPTISM, FOR THROUGH IT WE OBTAIN PERFECT HOLINESS AND SALVATION, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire.” (ibid, pp. 85-86)

“Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that WE MUST BE BAPTIZED OR WE SHALL NOT BE SAVED.” (ibid, pp. 80-81)

"Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. . . . As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism" (ibid, p. 90).

“WHAT DOES BAPTISM GIVE OR PROFIT? IT WORKS FORGIVENESS OF SINS, DELIVERS FROM DEATH AND THE DEVIL, AND GIVES ETERNAL SALVATION TO ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS, . . . How can water do such great things? It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost,…” (Luther's Small Catechism, 1529).

The binding Lutheran symbol, the Augsburg Confession, states that “baptism . . . is necessary to salvation” and “condemn[s] the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without baptism” (Article IX).

Luther obviously denied salvation by grace and faith alone in favour of adding baptism to salvation, a false works gospel, believing that water baptism produces regeneration/salvation, that one can only become a Christian through this means. The actual facts contradict Luthers claim to have been “justified by faith.” He embraced a works-gospel, which is “another gospel” (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4). All these quotes were written years after he was cast out of the Roman Catholic Church. So whatever Luther meant by “man is saved by faith and not by works,” it’s obviously not the same thing what the Bible teaches. He is exalted as a popular example of embracing justification by faith alone through grace alone, whereas the truth as we have seen clearly is a rejection of the true gospel of Christ and an embracement of justification by works. Today, majority, if not all, Lutherans embrace the same false gospel of baptismal regeneration as their father.

So Luther denied “salvation by faith alone or assurance of salvation,” not only because of what is clearly a works gospel expressed above from his Catechisms, but also what he wrote under No. 58 of the 95 These's, which allgedely was taken out of context. It actually wasn't, here it is:

“Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.”

Luther claims here that both the merit of Jesus Christ and of dead Catholic “saints” are a means whereby saving grace is received. Apparently salvation is by sanctification, rather than through justification by faith alone according to Luther. Furthermore, he is saying that both dead Catholic saints (he is referring to Catholic dead "saints") and the works of the outward man (cross, death and hell) are the means through which saving grace is received. Not ever at any point did Luther regret or renounce any of his 95 theses, and that speaks VOLUMES.

Luther also embraced a false gospel of salvation through the ordinances. He taught that communion was necessary for maintenance of salvation; that through communion, one received forgiveness of sins that threatened one's relationship with Christ. Consider a few quotes:

”For here in the sacrament [Communion] you receive from Christ's lips the forgiveness of sins, which contains and conveys God's grace and Spirit with all his gifts, protection, defence, and power against death and the devil and all evils" (The Large Catechism, p. 98).

In his Catechism he taught that communion “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself.” (Formula of Concord, 1577).

“We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and wine. . . . That the right hand of God is everywhere; and that Christ, in respect of his humanity, is truly and in very deed seated thereat.” (Articles I, V).

Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper, consubstantiation, is even further damnable heresy and practically identical to Rome’s transubstantiation.

There are plenty of other reasons why Luther was a false teacher, but we see it right from the beginning in the 95 Theses. There is good reasons why the Baptists/Anabaptists, the true church of Jesus Christ throughout the centuries from the time of Christ (though known by other names as well over the centuries such as the Paulicians, Waldenses, Albigenses, etc)—something both Calvin and Luther even admitted— had nothing to do with either of these men, who viciously and maliciously hated them, slandering them as “the henchmen of Satan.” Of course we know of the murderous persecution of these Bible believing groups by these two wolves in sheep’s clothing, Calvin being exposed here: John Calvin's False Gospel, and Persecution/ Murder of Opponents.

The catechisms were actually all written at minimum 6 years after his departure from Rome and up to 12 years or longer after nailing the 95 Theses to the church. The great reformer Luther would have rejected the heresies that he continued to embrace, had he been genuinely converted. He wasn't and nor have majority of his followers since that time. We don’t give “grace” to false teachers. Ever. Salvation isn’t a lucky dip into a cereal box looking for the surprise toy. You either are born again and have the indwelling Spirit of God or you are not, and are absent of the Spirit. What you believe and teach and promote, and how you handle Scripture will importantly tell the story as to which side you really are, what road you meander down, either the broad path that leads to destruction and damnation, or the narrow road and strait gate that leads to life and few there be that find it (Matt 7:13-14). Martin Luther was a heretic and ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing and his road was a road to destruction, further exposed in the following article: Martin Luther — A True Born Again Believer or a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

Conclusion

Evangelical and Reformed Churches are “lukewarm” indeed, but the Biblical definition of lukewarm as found in Scripture, is that of a lost and apostate church (Rev 3:14-18). Lukewarm doesn’t mean saved. Nothing in Rev 3:14-18 reflects anything except a lost people. Those that are blind (v. 18) are lost since God opens the eye of the blind at salvation (v. 19; cf. Eph 4:18; Ac 26:18; 2 Cor 4:3-4; 1 Th. 5:4-10). Those that are naked (v. 18) are lost because they are not clothed with the white raiment of salvation (v. 19; cf. Rev 3:4-5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 16:15; 19:14). Those that think they are rich in this world (v. 18) are lost (v. 19), their affections with mammon and not with God, having never bought the gift of salvation, not buying with money or price (Is 55:1-7; Pr 23:23) but with their very lives by repenting, and denying themselves, and losing their lives for Christ and the gospel sake (Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:34-36; Lk 9:23-25; 17:33; Jn 12:25). These are the ones that Christ will spew out of His mouth (v. 16).

If Jesus Christ was truly in these people, they would obey His Word because they love Him. Your love to Him, or hate, is demonstrated by the litmus test of obedience.

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.” (Jn 14:23-24).

If it is true as the writer alleges, that he "do[es] not get [his] beliefs from man, but from Gods Word,” then he would actually flee from Calvinist Reformed institutions, since they are loaded with the beliefs of man, namely the men Augustine and Calvin and Luther but also many others including neo-Calvinists. They are also, just like evangelical churches, loaded with false doctrine, heresy, and Scripture perversion. There is not a person in the world that believes what Calvin taught who should not be terrified concerning the reality of his or her salvation. He should also reject neo-evangelicalism and everything it comes with including modern bible perversions, ungodly CCM music and immodest transgenderism dressing standards, and more. Its extremely unBiblical and heretical and no one should have a shred of assurance of salvation that embraces these things or attends these churches.

The theme remains the same throughout Neo-evangelicalism and most of Reformed Calvinism, Protestantism and most of mainstream Baptists, that of not arguing Biblically and logically but with fallacious arguments, and sadly way to many independent baptists are drinking at these wells as well, many of which are unregenerate themselves, and being infected with similar illogical false arguments.

We “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:16) and “[love]… rejoiceth in the truth.” (1 Cor 13:6). Pr 15:31-32,

“The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise. He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.”

We won’t and can’t be silent in the face of error and sin. We will obey Gods Word even if that means to stand alone. The Bible contains plenty of examples of men that had to stand alone, both OT and NT. The desire or motive isn’t there for that, but the true faithful servant of Christ will if that is all he is left with. But truly we are never alone, for our Captian, the Triune God, is with His servants always, "for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." (Heb 13:5b-6). I have been “bought with a price;” therefore I’m “not [a] servant of men.” (1 Cor 7:23).

“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Gal 1:10).

No lie must be left unexposed. We will follow the commands (Ju 1:3; 2 Tim 2; 4; Titus 1; 2 Tim 3:5-9, 16-17; Ac 17:11; 1 Th 5:21; etc) and examples of the Lord and apostles, as also commanded (Matt 10:25; 1 Cor 4:16-17; 11:1). Meekness is not weakness and it never surrenders truth. It stands up and fights for the faith. We are fully aware of the unpopularity surrounding criticism of golden calf’s, but that never stopped Moses or other prophets of the OT, or Paul or Jude or Peter or the Lord Jesus Christ or the deacon Stephen or anyone else in the Bible for that matter. We live in dangerous times but we are in great company, so we'll keep doing what God demands (e.g. Ac 17:11; 1 Th 5:21; Rom 16:17; Eph 5:11; 2 Tim 3:5-9, 16-17; 4:1-5; etc), but never to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture.