Was C.S. Lewis a Calvinist?

Listen to the Podcast: CS Lewis debating John Piper over Calvinism

In the most recent “Ask Pastor John” podcast with Dr. John Piper he answers the question, “What Arminians have influenced you the most.”  He was gracious in his reply but he did erroneously allude to the belief that CS Lewis was not to be included among the list of Arminians who have had influence on him because of a recent presentation at one of his conferences that apparently attempted to prove CS Lewis was Calvinistic.


I almost fell out of my chair…literally.

Those of you who know my story are aware that reading CS Lewis (along with AW Tozer) is what helped to lead me to reexamine my interpretative methods and eventually recant Calvinism.  I have read every word of CS Lewis, some of them multiple times.  I have a theological “man crush” (look it up, its a real thing) on this guy, and while I may be uncertain about some scholars stance on this issue I have absolutely no doubt about CS Lewis.

I’ll be brief here because it will not take long to prove my point.  Here are a few quotes from CS Lewis that may help shed some light on this:

“God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them – but only if the people will let Him. In that way He has really and truly limited His power.  Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of  free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else. The more we succeed in imagining what a world of perfect automatic beings would be like, the more, I think, we shall see His wisdom.” – CS Lewis, The Trouble with X

And from the Screwtape letters…

“You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little overriding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be.” -CS Lewis

Lewis also says this in “The Problem of Pain.”

“If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear — and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity — when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of God is worth simply nothing — may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.”

Enough said…

And, NO there is no evidence that CS Lewis later recanted these views, in case someone is wondering.

John-piper-bloodlines-trailer-380x200Piper also suggests that “Arminians” are more philosophical and less exegetical in their approach to interpretation.  This is simply untrue and Dr. Piper never provides any support to back up this accusation.  I discuss some of these issues more in-depth in THIS PODCAST: “Influenced by the “enemy?”.


Listen to the Podcast: CS Lewis debating John Piper over Calvinism

Dr. Roger Olson, a notable Arminian scholar, also rebuts Piper’s statements HERE.

38 thoughts on “Was C.S. Lewis a Calvinist?

  1. Indeed, in light of such specific and clear quotes from Lewis, why would brother John Piper try to insinuate Lewis was a Calvinist? Granted I didn’t hear the lecture John heard but unless CS Lewis repudiated these earlier quotes, such a claim is unfounded and even ludicrous.

    1. Because quotes taken from one time in a person’s life only show their theology at that specific time. Other quotes can show that theology has changed. I wouldn’t say Lewis became a Calvinist but he became Calvinistic. He certainly abandoned his full Arminian stance that he took earlier in his Christian walk. You cannot prove anything by taking a few quotes from a person who’s theology spanned decades.

      1. Manley,

        Can you provide quotes or links that indicate this “change” in Lewis’ views? In my experience, people tend to read their view into quotes (as is often the case with scripture).

        Knowing how much even J. Arminius himself sounded like an adherent to Calvinistic doctrines makes me skeptical of these types of assertions about other likeminded scholars. IMHO, modern day Calvinists are so accustomed to “Arminians” sounding shallow theologically that when they come across one who isn’t they mistaken them for one of their own.

  2. C.S. Lewis was not a theologian. I love “Mere Christianity” as a philosophical argument for faith, but when I give it to people I always remind them that he is not a theologian. To look to him as a place to gain theological understanding is a mistake.

    1. Spurgeon wasn’t a “theologian” either, yet few Calvinists would hesitate to quote him in support of their soteriology. What makes a man a theologian? Education? Agreement with your theology? If what a person says is true to the text (to the best of your discernment) then it’s theological regardless of the credentials of the one who said it.

      1. you said it exactly..if what a person says is true to the text, then it’s theological. I assume that what you mean by being theological, is being in accord with the scriptures, the bible.
        about what you mentioned on quotes by c.s. lewis which you mentioned are proofs that he is/was not a calvinist, would we rather surely and soteriologically be correct to say that what the scriptures says is, so and so, what we need is that christians ought to read or listen to what the scriptures say about this issue, not what personalities said, i think you will agree with me in this.

  3. Lewis is neither, and his conclusions fall on both sides not because he is confused, but because he thinks that it is mostly a non-issue.

    According to Lewis God exists beyond space and time. This is a fact that neither Calvinists nor Arminians will dispute and neither would I. Lewis poses the argument then that if God created time then time has no effect outside of our existence, and the two views are based on time, therefore they are meaningless in the big picture.

  4. Leighton, God also used C.S. Lewis to help me in my journey out of Calvinism. I appreciate this post as well as your entire blog. You have been important in helping me understand Romans, esp. the corporate view of election. And I have a crush on C.S. Lewis too. 🙂 Blessings.

  5. Leighton, if you have a theological man crush on C S Lewis, I think it’s only right that you should let him introduce you to his theological father, George MacDonald, who would no doubt be as protective as any father over who his son is dating 🙂

  6. I find these discussions useless and divisive. Who cares if he was a Calvinist or Armenian? Only those of you who love to split hairs and consider it a good use of time. In the New Testament, the evidence of our Christianity is our love for one another, not our ability to defend or explicate Scripture.

    1. Julie, so you went on a blog dedicated to soteriology to assert that it doesn’t matter what someone believes about soteriology?

      1. Lewis flat out denied “Total Depravity”, therefore denying Calvin and his teaching. It would be an insult to Lewis’ intelligence to say he didn’t know what he was denying. He was no closet Calvinist. To say “he was a Calvinist and didn’t know it” is completely disrespectful to his legacy. Lewis knew what he believed and it wasn’t Calvinism. George Macdonald, the Master according to Lewis who influenced everything he wrote (his words, not mine) was the farthest thing from Calvin. For those not familiar, a similar disconnect would be like John Piper calling Pope Benedict “The Master”. The problem is Lewis is too likable and can lead people away from Calvin. What’s someone like Piper supposed to do? It’s all part of the larger “re-branding” of Calvinism. They changed the name, softened the teachings, made it more nice and appealing, added charisms, good speakers, nice websites, and the word “Biblical” to everything. It’s new paint and caulk on an old house with a faulty foundation. See through it and seek truth.

  7. He says in a letter to Emily McLay dated August 3rd, 1953. “I find the best plan is to take the Calvinist view of my own virtues and other people’s vices: and the other view of my own vices and other people’s virtues.”

    While I’d consider myself an Armenian, this is just something to consider


  8. THANK YOU for this post!

    At the end of the day, IF God is the one puppeteering us around, HE is the one responsible for sin, as we have no ability to decide between the two. On the other hand, If GOD is responsible for original sin, He can hardly condemn humanity to eternal damnation without being THE MOST UNJUST JUDGE of ALL ALL TIME.

    Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. Did NOT God say, “You may eat from all the trees of the garden but ONE. (The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). On the day you eat thereof, you will die.” Now, IF God were to direct Eve to the very tree He told her NOT to eat from, how could A&E be held morally responsible for a choice they did NOT make, but God made for them, IN CONTRADICTION to what HE told them (DON’T eat from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil) . This makes God not only a liar but a hypocrite on top of it.

    Have you read Dave Hunt’s “What Love Is This?” My hardcover copy looks like a coloring book, with the highlighters .

    Mr. Piper doesn’t believe in free will, then whatever wrong he does is GOD’S doing. How can he lay claim to God’s HOLINESS while saying that God decides what we will do? The woman who sleeps around, gets pregnant and has an abortion. The man who beats his wife. The businessman who defrauds his client, The guys who plowed planes into the WTC. If there is NO free will, God didn’t just KNOW such things would occur, he DECIDED they would.


  9. Dr, Flowers is correct, I would say not to many but hardly any, maybe other than John Piper would quote C.S. Lewis as he leaned very much in the Roman Catholic sense of his understanding of Scripture and was a mystic like A. W. Tozer.

    Taken from “Sharper Iron”

    We know Lewis denied the The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.

    In Mere Christianity Lewis was clear that he rejected the substitutionary atonement:

    “Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying [Christ’s] was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to…. Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works.11” C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1969),pp. 57-58

    “While Lewis reframes this doctrine to make it sound a bit ridiculous he is nevertheless clear that he is not a fan of what is considered one of the fundamentals of the faith. That Christ died in our place, taking upon Himself our sin and satisfying the righteous wrath of God is not an “immoral” or “silly” theory—it is the very heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).”

    “Justification & Sacramentalism
    J. I. Packer lamented that Lewis never mentioned “justification by faith when speaking of the forgiveness of sins, and his apparent hospitality to baptismal regeneration.”12 In Mere Christianity Lewis wrote,

    “There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and…the Lord’s supper…. And perhaps that explains one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion…. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us.13 Lewis, Mere Christianity,pp. 62, 65.”

    My Words Kevin
    To think that C.S Lewis is somewhat of go to in defeating Calvinism when he has an apparent belief in “baptismal regeneration” is shocking to the uttermost. We know this is heresy. I do hope that those who read this will not attack me but only see that I am giving the facts and truths about Lewis as has been done on here many times when it comes to Augustine or Calvin. And remember it is not Calvin or Augustine we are talking about. So I hope there is no SPIRITUAL GAS LIGHTING in trying to go to these two and that we just focus on C.S. Lewis here at the time. I will read all comments but will not respond. This is for my edification to see how one reacts to an individual that has been “a go to ” to defeat another doctrine when this individual has some serious orthodox falsehoods himself.

    “Lewis obviously had a faulty, sacramental view of justification which only naturally leads to the next problem.”

    “Eternal Security
    Lewis believed that a Christian could lose his salvation: “There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians…. A Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it.”14 Lewis, Mere Christianity page 64

    My Words Kevin
    His last words are really eye-opening and speak volumes as to whom C.S. Lewis believed was the Saviour. It was the “efforts of the professing believer, he can lose his Christ-Life, so with his LFW he must make efforts to keep it”

    My Words or bible quotation Kevin
    Jude: Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

    There are those who are “called” but all are called by the gospel right. But no one can doubt there is a distinguished call made between those externally called by the gospel and those who are drawn through the instrumentality of the GOSPEL CALL by the Spirit of God and become known as THE CALLED OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

    Romans 1:6-7 – 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

    7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

    Quotation of C.S. Lews Screwtape Letters denying the keeping power and Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ:

    “The mission of Screwtape was to bring a young man who has just become a Christian back to the devil’s fold. “I note with grave displeasure,” the demon Screwtape admonishes his apprentice demon Wormwood, “that your patient has become a Christian…. There is no need to despair; hundreds of these adult converts have been reclaimed after a brief sojourn in the Enemy’s camp and are now with us.”15 C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 11”

    My words Kevin
    These next to quotes by C.S. Lewis are so shocking I would quite “quoting I would recommend quit quoting C.S. Lewis altogether

    Lewis was an inclusivist believing that some moral non-Christians would be saved: “Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life.”16 In the Last Battle, the final volume in the Narnia series, Aslan (the Christ figure) accepts the service of a follower of the god Tash: “Son, thou art welcome,” Aslan says to this individual. Emeth (the Tash-server) protests, “I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash.” But Aslan insists, “All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. 17 C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle (New York: Collier Books, 1951), p. 156.

    Even more clear, and more shocking, is this statement:

    There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.18 Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177

    My words Kevin
    Lewis actually that there were people in “Doctrines of Demons” who were being led by God’s secret influence, Even a Buddhist. I know Dr Flowers uses Romans 1 and he is a Inclusivist. Romans 1 made it clear that that no one really believes there is no God because all of God’s creation declares God’s glory and Deity, Although Romans 1 makes it clear the unbeliever tries to push God out his/her thoughts to practice their ungodliness in unrighteousness upon whom the wrath of God is upon. The creation does not lead to further special revelation to be saved. We are saved one way only the Scripture tells us. To deny this is to deny the Word of God.

    Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

    So yes as we know there are at least 6000 people groups today that have not heard the gospel that is the power of God unto Salvation and there is no other way or no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved and that is Jesus.

    So millions upon millions have died in their sins without ever hearing the gospel. Mere speculation that one can obtain further special saving gospel knowledge is irrational and a claim that is not supported by the Word of Truth and must be rejected as an argument of silence and going outside of the bounds of Biblical Soundness!!

    More of C.S. Lewis and his love for Roman Catholic Doctrine

    True to his Anglican faith Lewis confirmed that he made confessions to a priest, believed in purgatory and prayed for the dead. Lewis expert Wayne Martindale writes,

    “Lewis believed in Purgatory, both because of tradition and because it appealed to his imagination…. His argument goes like this. We are all sinners. We die with a sin nature. The gap between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of the creature is so unimaginably wide and deep that a profound transformation must happen. And, borrowing from Dante’s view that the soul in Purgatory willingly and even joyfully undertakes the discipline of each step in learning to love properly… Lewis sees Purgatory not as something formed upon us as punishment, but willingly embraced for the good it will do us.19 Wayne Martindale, Beyond the Shadowlands ( Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), p. 203

    An article in Christianity Today admits, “Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration.”20 Bob Smietana, “C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today (December 2005), p. 29.

    My words, Kevin
    Think about it, C.S. Lewis confessed his sins to a man, a catholic priest to receive forgiveness. It seems he never understood or rejected Christ, our Great High Priest whom we have forgiving grace daily and cleansing of sins through Christ Holy Blood. If one is honest this is serious and not something to just (say well we all make mistakes) No this is a High Doctrine of the Word of God, that speaks to the very issue of the Gospel and Salvation. Lewis did not believe Christ was sufficient to atone for his sins and bring about forgiveness that he went to another sinful man to obtain it. That is something not to just be flossed over. Then he believed in purgatory. We know he believed in man’s efforts to keep that man saved. But he also believed in Rome’s unblblical view of purgatory and one that I know even Mr. Wagner would agree with me. C.S. Lewis believed in BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Many of the ECF believed in this so does this make it right. No we go to God’s word and we know that God alone through brings about regeneration and conversion. Even if you do not believe it that way you know Baptismal Regeneration is wrong. Be on Guard when reading Lewis and using him as a defense when he is ransacked with false teaching and that which could be called heretical.

    Those who read him must keep these things in mind, filter his teaching through the grid of Scripture and hold him to the same standards that we are to hold all others. Because Lewis was a man with an incredible ability to package his insights in thought-provoking ways does not mean that what he writes always aligns with God’s Word. He was a man who had keen analytical abilities and incredible writing gifts. But he was a man who rejected or minimized many of the most important truths given to us by God.

  10. “I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him. (C. S. Lewis, Letters of C. S. Lewis, (New York, Harper and Row, 2001), p. 428.)

    Learning a lot about CS Lewis. Wonder what my next study of AW Tozer will result in?

  11. More reasons Lewis should not be quoted to defeat a doctrine one things is wrong. When you need to start with the false and some would even say heretical teaching of Lewis himself. I sure hope some do not actually defend him.

    2. Adam and Eve were not literal people
    The prominent pastor Tim Keller, who is an avid student of C.S. Lewis (14) writes “One of my favorite Christian writers (that’s putting it mildly), C. S.Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved.” (15)
    Lewis himself writes the following (which was never revised, updated, or changed in new editions of his books): “Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past… “We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…. They wanted some corner in this universe of which they could say to God” (C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain 16)

  12. 2. Adam and Eve were not literal people
    The prominent pastor Tim Keller, who is an avid student of C.S. Lewis (14) writes “One of my favorite Christian writers (that’s putting it mildly), C. S.Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved.” (15)
    Lewis himself writes the following (which was never revised, updated, or changed in new editions of his books): “Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past… “We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…. They wanted some corner in this universe of which they could say to God” (C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain 16)


    Imagine a Reformed pastor standing up before his congregation and repenting for departing from the Faith of Calvinism and dishonoring his heritage and instructions? He says to his members:

    “I come before you in sackcloth and ashes to repent for being unfaithful to our Founding Father of our denomination, John Calvin. We need to restore everything he set in place with his Institutes! Are you ready? If so raise your hand!”

    I would be eager to see what percentage raised their hands. Then he hands out copies of Calvin’s manual of instructions for how to deal with heretics. Then after the members read the manifest he asks them:

    “So who is still aboard? If you are not for Calvin, you are against him!”

    There would probably and rightfully be a total evacuation if not riot in Ephesus. Yet Calvin remains paradoxically a sacred cow and great servant of God in the eyes of all Reformed Denominations leaders who should know better and its members who remain in darkness about the dark side of John Calvin. They still praise this reprobate instead of marking him and silencing his defenders!

    In this regard, I invite and entreat you to be alerted to the following so you will know that you are not alone, including an excerpt from my upcoming book exposing Calvin:

    John Calvin’s Geneva
    (I discovered this site in a Google search for Calvin and Theocracy because with Theocracy, Reformed Theology is Counterfeit Calvinism).

    And if they are Reformed Baptists, then they are twofold Counterfeit Calvinists. And if they oppose Replacement Theology, they are a Trilogy of Counterfeit Calvinists. And in all three cases constitute Inconsistent Calvinists, and would therefore be invalidated in John Calvin’s eyes and would have to be marked as heretics!

    I invite you to also read my commentary posted on Hicks site as well as this website:

    Bob Kirkland’s Calvinism: None Dare Call it Heresy

    I invite you to particularly not Val Lee’s comments.

    And here is another comprehensive expose on Calvinism:
    The Heresy of Calvinism Part 1

    The Heresy of Calvinism Part 2

    Here is an excerpt from my upcoming book: JOHN CALVIN: CANCER OR CURE?:

    Three Leaves just like a real Tulip has Three Petals (Not Fake Five)

    By James Sundquist

    The Synod of Dort that launched TULIP couldn’t even count. A Tulip has only 3 petals not 5 (even ULIP is only 4). Holland sells 1.5 billion tulips a year and there was not one wise among them that would stand up in the council or ever sense and say “Wait a minute, a tulip has only 3 petals, so why are creating a fake flower acronyms of 5 points in TULIP?” If you are going to practice numerology or magic arts, at least get your figures right. So forget the Apostle Paul’s warning about myths, let’s press on a perpetuate this myth until the Lord comes! And forget Liberty in Christ, that Paul declared. Only difference between Communism and Calvinism is one is Atheist but both are Absolute Power which corrupts absolutely! Totalitarianism must reign and Truth is disposable!

    About three years ago after purchasing our house, after spending hundreds of hours restoring the interior, we went to work restoring the property and grounds surrounding the house. One of the projects involved removing all of the brush, weeds, and poison ivy. We even brought in a professional landscaper and crew to clear and haul away all of the debris. But even after all of this work and expense, there were still patches of poison ivy in various places and on the adjoining properties. So I went to Home Depot to get advice. They told me to get this chemical that you have to spray on the leaves. Then you have to wait a number of days for the leaves to change color, turn brown, dry up, and eventually shrivel away. This would purge our property of this threat. The poison ivy was easy to identify because of the three leaf clusters, I learned when I was a kid growing up by the woods in Oregon. Don’t be fooled by this lethal trinity. There it was poison oak. Some weeks later my daughter had a friend from school come and visit her. They played in the yard and hid in the bushes for fun. But one of these bushes had poison ivy growing inside of the bushes, not readily detectable. At the time, I was not concerned that the kids were playing in back yard. After all, I had cleared out any danger of poison ivy, right? A few days later her face turned red and starting itching horribly. She was in agony. So we took her to the doctor and got her a prescription of Prednisone. She eventually healed, but not without a great deal of torment. This reminded of what happened to my mom when I was growing up. We had chopped down all of the poison oak in the woods across the street from our house. We gathered all together and made a big bonfire. (Back then burning was allowed). My mom was not even involved in the cleanup or gathering of the poison oak to burn. She was just standing nearby cheering the family on and giving us all moral support. But the smoke from the fire started blowing around her and towards her face. And like with our daughter, no one was really concerned or wary, even though we all had an almost reverence for how wicked poison oak is. Well a few days later her face and neck became as red as a radish and her whole head swelled like a basketball. My father was a physician and immediately knew that this was an emergency and took her to the hospital and gave her Penicillin and antibiotics. She was in great misery and we all felt for her as her beautiful face was all distorted and she was in anguish. She almost died. It was a close call. So I am very familiar with this evil.

    Back to our home. One day, weeks later, thinking all of the poison ivy had been eradicated, I went down to remove the remaining weeds and roots still sticking out of the ground. The hoe had poison ivy oil on it because it was on my gloves. But thank God we remembered to scrub down the hoe. I even had gloves on and a long sleeve shirt for protection. But while pulling, digging, and hoeing roots were sticking out of the ground, one root sprang loose and grazed my wrist…it didn’t hurt and I didn’t even see a mark. I didn’t think anything of it…just thought it was an ordinary branch…and thank God it was removed so that the entire yard looked great now. It appeared to be safe for habitation, friends, and fellowship. But it was NOT an ordinary branch, rather it was one of the remaining roots of the subterranean poison ivy network. There was nothing the naked eye could see to cause any alarm, even with my expert knowledge of identifying poison ivy. Days later a nasty rash broke out on that very place on my wrist and got worse by the day, that itched so badly, I wanted to claw my arm off. Brother Jimmy at church, who also once had a nasty battle with poison ivy, gave me some medicine to clean and help the itching and burning. It was very helpful. And I was very grateful for this gift. But the pain and suffering did not disappear immediately. But how could this have happened? I was so sure this dangerous threat to my family and friends and clients that visit our house, was over. Boy was I wrong. Scripture warns us that you can’t get figs out of a thorn bush. The reason is that the tree or vines can only produce what the roots are:

    “For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.” Luke 6:44

    It does not matter how much you till, water, fertilize, or kiss (I pray that you don’t kiss the leaves) the roots, it will ONLY produce poison ivy. It will NEVER produce fruit that is good.

    Though these are all true stories, they are also a parable of what has happened to the church with the root system of Sovereign Grace Ministries, 9Marks Ministries, the Gospel Coalition, Biblical Counseling Coalition, Ecumenism, Emerging Church, and Old Calvinism (John Calvin), Reformed Theology, and New Calvinism. The root system of Sovereign Grace Ministries is the shepherding movement. The root of Calvinism is Theocracy. Combine the two, you have a demonic alloy of two metals that are even stronger when these principalities are combined. My term for this bondage and abuse of spiritual authority. Poison ivy must come. But failure to heed the warning signs is a dereliction of duty of the watchman and steward, to be once informed and then do nothing. But it is even worse to then blame the messenger for sounding the alarm and defaming that person’s good name and reputation. So who is really the one who “troubleth his own house”? The one who removes the roots of the poison ivy, or the one who refuses to remove them and blame the messenger? And God forbid that we should make a green salad with either the leaves of poison oak or poison ivy and call it healthy eating or give it to your guests at your home or church and called being “hospitable to strangers” or those you compel to come to your feast that you meet in the streets.”

    “Calvin is dead, but his legacy lives on to this day and is still considered by many to be the Pope of the Reformation. His DNA is to this day embedded in white supremacy in South Africa, and yes the U.S., with people like legendary Reformed Theologian Robert Lewis Dabney who stated: “colored men . . . should not be ordained to the full work of the gospel ministry, simply because they belong to the negro race.”…1.5 million died in the Civil War, almost destroyed our country. To this day churches are divided into black churches and white churches, in spite of desegregation. The PCA states this about Dabney: “PRINCE AMONG THEOLOGIANS AND MEN.” Dabney was serving a prince all right, the Prince of Darkness. And David Engelsma’s denunciation of Dabney in America would be found where? And had Reformer Calvinist heirs obeyed Scripture to name names and mark them (i.e., Calvin), it might have prevented or at least mitigated the plague of racism in the name of Jesus and the spiritual E. Coli Bacteria that spread worldwide, that Calvin was a great “servant of God”, or God forbid that we give him the title of Hero of the Faith, as defined in Hebrews Chapter 11, or simply remain silent in the face of his iniquity, as was the case in Engelsma’s sermon on Calvin in Angus Stewart’s church. Regarding the Belgic Confession, I find it extraordinary that Calvin and Calvinists would adhere to the 5 Solas of the Reformation, one of which being Sola Scripture, and even insert it into the confessions, but then add a whole bunch more traditions of men requirements and thereby go beyond what is written, condemned in Scripture.”

    And here is a pathological discription of what happened to Servetus and any human body being burned alive, their organs boil, then explode:
    “Die In A Fire – Christopher S. Penn”


    Calvin a servant of God? A man you would want as your pastor? And since we are commanded to judge a tree by its fruit, which of these fruit of the spirit did John Calvin possess?;

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 Answer: ZERO

    And which Gift of the Holy Spirit did John Calvin possess?:

    “In addition to wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, prophesying, serving, and others listed above, hospitality is a spiritual gift. It is given by the Holy Spirit, by God’s grace, and it’s used to serve others.” I Peter 4:9-10 Answer: ZERO. You want the true Doctrines of Grace, that Scripture captures them perfectly!
    Therefore, the REAL Doctrines of Grace
    Calvin. Calvin’s behavior bears no resemblance to how the Apostle Paul treated even heretics!

  14. CS Lewis is my favorite as well. I was being led down the heresy of Calvinism, but my reading of the scriptures in full context kept telling me something doesn’t add up. John chapter 3 ..whomever, whoever, and world does not imply chosen ones. How could Peter deny Christ 3 times if he was chosen? I can’t understand why so many believe Calvinism. They are following Augistine and Calvin. Not Christ.

    1. Hello Elis and welcome
      Yes I agree.
      The Calvinist mind is conditioned to read scripture so as to affirm Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
      This doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass follows a meticulous program of infallible decrees
      As Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin states
      “God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
      (The Doctrine of Divine Decree)

      But the Calvinist then faces three huge problems.
      1) Within his moment to moment life experience – he does not perceive what the doctrine stipulates.
      He perceives his own mind as the DETERMINER of his choices.
      He does not perceive an external mind controlling his brain and determining every impulse.

      2) When he reads scripture – he doesn’t see within the general narrative of it – a god who controls every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain.

      3) The general narrative of scripture as well as man’s system of justice attribute sins and evils to man rather than to a deity who determines every impulse coming to pass.

      Therefore – the disconnect between the dictate of his doctrine and what he perceives forces him to be DOUBLE-MINDED.
      He is forced to go about *AS-IF* some things are NOT DETERMINED in every part.

      Calvinism is therefore a form of mental ensnarement.
      I thank the Lord that he protected you from it!


  15. Pingback: S5E35 - After Hours with Leighton Flowers - Pints With Jack
  16. John Piper actually got the idea that “exegesis favors Calvinism” from a non-Calvinist philosopher. See 6:00-8:05 of this video:

    Piper presents this in a youtube video titled: The Difference Between Calvinists and Arminians

    1. Hello Aiden and welcome.

      Just to let you know – your post had a link in it – which the system automatically identifies as spam.
      I removed the link so that the post could be accepted.

      This video by Piper – BTW – makes for a wonderful example of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK

      Here are two statements for example:

      1) god chooses who will believe and undeservingly be saved in spite of their sin.

      Calvin’s god meticulously determines every impulse that will come to pass within every human’s brain – which includes every sinful impulse. He makes every impulse come to pass within their brains – infallibly – and thus irresistibly.
      Thus humans have NO CHOICE in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within their brains.

      For some humans – Calvin’s god determines a “belief” impulse to come to pass within their brain.
      He declares that “belief” impulse as the impulse which “Saves them” from the sinful impulses he determined to come to pass within their brains.

      2) god thus decides who will rebel and deservingly be lost because of their sin.

      Out of the total population of humans – in whom Calvin’s god meticulously determines every sinful impulse – he decides which impulses will be labeled “rebel” impulses – and which humans will be labeled “deservingly lost”.

      Calvin’s god gets glory and pleasure out of creating creatures for eternal torment.
      He determines sinful impulses to come to pass within their brains – so that he can blame humans for being the recipients of impulses which he determined.

  17. So glad I was able to watch leighton flowers and mike Winger cause they made me Calvinist through their debates with James white .

    1. Hello Eliseo and welcome

      I got a kick out of your post.
      If you REALLY were a Calvinist then you would know – the only thing that can “MAKE” you a Calvinist is an infallible decree.

      And per the standard definition of “Choice” which is defined as the ability to select from more than one available option – no such condition exists within Calvinism – because for every human event and every human impulse – the infallible decree grants only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.

      Consequently – you having a choice of whether to be a Calvinist or not does not exist in Calvinism!

      Good luck being one! :-]

      1. What’s with the hostility and passive aggressiveness? What does it matter if a person genuinely follows God and believes more in the Arminian or Calvinist viewpoints, or even has a 3rd interpretation altogether? As long as the faith is genuine, rooted in God’s infallible word, and helps them to live a life honoring to God, it seems like we’re all on the same side here. Sure, Eliseo’s comment up there is unnecessarily baiting, but don’t rise to it. You’re better than that. Save your energy for advancing God’s kingdom, not an earthly reputation. Earthly reputations are only going to last a few more decades, and there will always be a surplus of trolls on the internet.

        The church has been going through this kind of internal politics for almost 2000 years:

        “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” – Titus 3:9 (ESV)

        “for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” – 1 Corinthians 3:3-7 (ESV)

      2. Hello Just another guy and welcome
        What’s with the hostility and passive aggressiveness?
        Its in your mind. That is called psychological projection.
        The ego projects its own condition onto others
        You would be wise to ask the Lord why you do that?
        What does it matter if a person genuinely follows God and believes more in the Arminian or Calvinist viewpoints….
        Your error here in thinking – is the inability to discern that self-contradictions and DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS does not qualify as “genuine”
        Just long as the faith is genuine, rooted in God’s infallible word…
        The point of the post you are responding to – is that in Calvinism – Calvin’s god creates some believers specifically as CHAFF – giving them *FALSE* faith. So in this case – your error is to not know the difference between *FALSE* and “genuine”.
        You’re better than that. Save your energy for advancing God’s kingdom…..Earthly reputations are only going to last a few more decades, and there will always be a surplus of trolls on the internet.
        Another example of psychological projection.
        This is becoming a pattern with you!
        And thank you for the quoted verses!
        I love those verses!!

      3. Reproof and correction!

        2 Timothy 3:16
        All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

        Strange Doctrines

        Hebrews 13:9
        Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

        Reprove and Rebuke

        2 Timothy 4:2
        Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

        Itching ears

        2 Timothy 4:3
        For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

        Doctrines of devils

        1 Timothy 4:1
        Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

        Doctrines of Men

        Colossians 2:22
        Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

        Tossed to and fro

        Ephesians 4:14
        That we henceforth be no more children, 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;

        It’s the doctrine…not about being nice!

        Matthew 16:23
        But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

      4. Welcome “Guy”. The NT is full warnings about false teaching. Believers can be enticed to unfruitful, spiritually sick lives from unsound doctrine.

        Calvinism’s harm

        The issue isn’t Calvinism as much as it is the false underlying teaching in it of the eternal immutable predestination of all things before creation to work out only one way.

        That harmful teaching affects one’s motivation for evangelism and one’s confidence in prayer, one’s trust in the clarity of God’s self revelation in the Scriptures, and one’s attempt to worship God for His holiness.

        2Co 5:14 NKJV – For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; [the clear motivation should be love for all the lost when witnessing, but for the Calvinist evangelism is only a duty]

        Mat 24:20 NKJV – “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.” [the clear indication that their prayers would be used in determining when the fall of Jerusalem would happen, but the Calvinist denies prayer changes or influences divine choices that are not yet made]

        Gen 6:6 NKJV – And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. [the clear indication that God was sorry that He made man, and was grieved in His heart, but the Calvinist firmly denies that God can experience such grief].

        Psa 29:2 NKJV – Give unto the LORD the glory due to His name; Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. [the clear indication that God’s holiness is beautiful, but the Calvinist wants God’s eternal hatred for most of mankind to be declared holy.]

        ******* Calvinists need to be asked –
        Do you have the motivation of longsuffering love for all unbelievers, especially those that are hardened against the gospel and aggressive towards you? Or does your motivation of duty in evangelism get too quickly satisfied and does the thought of their probable reprobation make you move away from them too soon? Or does the thought enter your mind that if they are one of the elect they’ll get saved anyway, and does that also make you move away from them too soon?

        Do you believe your prayer will influence God to send more gracious opportunity to the unbeliever to seek Him, than He would have if you hadn’t prayed?

        Do you believe God grieves when one dies lost and condemned for rejecting His mercy that they could have humbly received? Do you grieve?

        Do you really believe that God in His holiness went against His own definition of justice and decreed the creation of many people who would be unable to ever hear His call of mercy, who would only be able to sin, and then God would condemn them to everlasting torment for rejecting His call of mercy, which they could not hear, and condemn them for all those eternally immutably predestined sins?

        Here’s a good short video the rightly describes harmful Calvinism – https://youtu.be/VTghv1_OCfM

Leave a Reply