Recently a Facebook post went out from Justin Pierce to open a discussion about what Mark Cahill, the Evangelist that wrote such great works as “One Thing You Can’t Do in Heaven”, has said concerning Calvinism.
Most of the responses were an assumption Justin thought Mark was wrong… Funny though, I haven’t seen Justin say that…
What Mark has written was well thought out and I, so far, don’t see what is wrong with it; I also do not agree with Calvinism in every point. I believe the Calvary Chapel viewpoint on the Calvinism -vs- Arminianism debate is correct:
And, so far, I see Mark agrees with that perspective.
So? Why the uproar?
The problem I have is how Calvin’s ideas appear to be universally assumed correct by such men as R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Dave Hunt, to name a few. WHY is that? Why should Calvin’s ideas be assumed so right when his arguments can so easily be blown apart, as Mark has done ? Why do so many feel the need to twist Scripture into Calvin’s mold?
As I have said on the posting I will also say here:
Why do we assume Mark is wrong? Why do you insist on following Calvin instead of Jesus?
One of the best observations Mark made was concerning the definitions assumed by Calvin, which Dave Hunt himself brought up!
In The DVD by Dave Hunt called ‘What Love Is This?’, he made a very interesting observation. In order for Calvinism to be true, they would have to change the meaning of words in certain verses to fit their theology.
‘World’ must be changed to ‘Elect’ 20 times
‘Whoever’ must be changed to ‘Elect’ 16 times
‘Whosoever’ must be changed to ‘Elect’ 16 times
‘All’ must be changed to ‘Elect’ 16 times
‘Everyman’ must be changed to ‘Elect’ 6 times
I ask then why you must “change the meaning of words in certain verses to fit [Calvin's] theology?” WHY?
I know I’ve probably angered some and ensured others (like Hyper-Calvinists) will just call me a heretic. But I don’t really care; The point is whether or not Mark is right. Opinions on this matter mean nothing.
I find, so far, I agree with Mark Cahill on hat he has written, but I have not yet done an exhaustive study; I find the wrenching of Scripture by Calvinists so tedious that even reading a treatise against Calvinism requires some effort for me.
But what I do say concerning the response to Mark’s evaluation on Calvinism is, “So, and?”
Seriously, what of it? Why the rancor?
Thank you Mark for the attempt to bring some clarity but I fear it falls on many, many deaf ears. I guess they weren’t “elected” to hear it…