Author: Papa Giorgio
Reacting With Faith Is a Work?
Memevangelist’s (FACEBOOK) meme (see here) inspired the above. They have great ideas and thoughts that I love to expand on.
Synopsis
This article argues that one of Calvinism’s foundational doctrines is that saving faith is not something sinners exercise on their own but is a supernatural gift sovereignly implanted by God only in the elect. Jeremy Myers surveys numerous Calvinist theologians—including Calvin, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, White, and others—to demonstrate that this is not merely an isolated belief but a defining feature of Reformed soteriology. He then challenges the common appeal to Ephesians 2:8–9, arguing that the “gift of God” is salvation by grace rather than faith itself, and contends that Scripture consistently portrays faith as the human response to God’s gracious revelation rather than a special endowment given only to certain individuals.
Synopsis
Jeremy Myers argues that although Calvinists insist they do not believe faith is a work, their theological system implicitly treats it as one. Because Calvinism reasons that if faith originated with the sinner it would become a meritorious work, Calvinists conclude that God must first create faith in the elect. Myers contends that this reasoning misunderstands the biblical nature of faith, which Scripture repeatedly contrasts with works rather than equating with them. The article documents numerous Calvinist statements showing that their concern is preventing faith from becoming a human contribution to salvation.
Synopsis
This article develops the biblical case that faith is fundamentally different from works. Myers examines Romans 4, Ephesians 2, John 6, and other passages to show that faith is the empty hand receiving God’s gift rather than a meritorious act earning salvation. Faith contributes nothing to the accomplishment of redemption; it simply trusts Christ’s finished work. Therefore, allowing sinners to believe freely does not diminish grace or provide grounds for boasting because faith receives rather than accomplishes salvation.
Synopsis
This article argues that Calvinism’s understanding of total inability and exhaustive divine determinism leads it to redefine faith as something that must be sovereignly caused by God lest it become a human work. The author maintains that this conclusion rests upon a misunderstanding of both human responsibility and the biblical definition of faith. Scripture consistently portrays faith as humble trust and surrender in response to the gospel—not as a meritorious achievement. The article further argues that Ephesians 2:8–9 teaches that salvation is God’s gift, not faith itself, and that holding sinners responsible to believe does not make faith a work or diminish God’s glory.
Calvinism concludes that faith must be irresistibly given because it assumes that if faith originates in the sinner, faith would become a work that contributes to salvation. The article argues this assumption is mistaken because Scripture defines faith as trust, surrender, and reliance upon Christ—not as merit. Christ’s death is the ground of salvation; faith is simply the means by which that completed salvation is received. Therefore, requiring sinners to believe neither diminishes grace nor gives them grounds for boasting.
Synopsis
This article examines the Calvinistic doctrine of gifted faith by tracing its theological assumptions and comparing them with biblical teaching. It argues that Reformed theology makes regeneration logically precede faith because sinners are viewed as incapable of believing apart from irresistible grace. The author responds that throughout Scripture people are commanded to believe, are held accountable for unbelief, and are never told that faith itself must first be implanted by God. Faith is presented as trusting God’s promises rather than as a supernatural substance infused into the elect.
Synopsis
This article critiques the Calvinist claim that allowing sinners to exercise faith would make salvation partly dependent upon human effort. The author argues that this commits a false dilemma by assuming faith must either be God’s unilateral gift or else become a meritorious work. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes faith from works, especially in Romans 4, where Paul intentionally contrasts the two. Therefore, believing God’s promise cannot simultaneously be treated as the sort of work Paul excludes from justification.
Synopsis
Jeremy Myers argues that biblical faith is not intellectual assent, mystical certainty, or a supernatural force implanted by God. Instead, faith is relational trust—relying upon the character and promises of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Faith functions like trust in everyday human relationships: it responds to evidence, grows through experience, and involves personal reliance rather than meritorious effort. Understanding faith this way removes the false tension between grace and human responsibility, since faith contributes nothing to salvation except receiving what Christ has already accomplished.
Taken together, these articles advance one central thesis:
- The Calvinist system concludes that faith must be sovereignly given because, if faith originated with the sinner, it would function as a work or human contribution to salvation.
The authors challenge that premise by arguing instead that:
- Scripture consistently contrasts faith with works.
- Faith is trust, not merit.
- Faith receives salvation rather than earns
- God commands all people to believe and holds them responsible for unbelief.
- Therefore, allowing faith to be the sinner’s genuine response to God’s gracious revelation does not compromise salvation by grace alone.
The Grace Calvinists and Arminians Miss
This has been updated (7/24/2026)
This is the thumbnail in my “slider” for the curious
This first graph is what got me thinking about this update, and I will fix what I see is wrong with it in a bit:
One of the most common misconceptions about Provisionism—and one of the reasons I’ve updated this post—is the assumption that Provisionists believe the Gospel alone functions as the only means by which God graciously enables people to respond to Him. While the Gospel is God’s supreme and saving revelation, Provisionism has always affirmed that God graciously reveals Himself and calls humanity through multiple means, including creation, conscience, providence, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and ultimately the proclamation of the Gospel.
The disagreement with Calvinism and Arminianism is not whether God enables, but what Scripture teaches about the nature of that enabling and whether mankind is born with an inherited inability that requires a special grace before one can respond in faith.
The issue is that the above column subtly reduce Provisionism’s doctrine of grace to “the Gospel alone” as though the Gospel were merely information that unaided sinners evaluate. That’s not how Leighton Flowers or most thoughtful Provisionists describe it.
Provisionism doesn’t deny that God enables; it denies that He gives a special, universally distributed prevenient grace that restores a lost faculty of faith. Instead, God has provided a multitude of gracious means by which He reveals Himself and calls sinners.
For example, God’s gracious revelation includes:
- Creation (Romans 1:18–20)
- Conscience (Romans 2:14–15)
- Providence and God’s kindness (Acts 14:17; Romans 2:4)
- The convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8–11)
- The inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 4:12)
- The preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:14–17)
- The testimony of believers (2 Corinthians 5:20)
- God’s patient appeals throughout history (Acts 17:26–31)
The Gospel is the climax of God’s provision, not the entirety of it.
Provisionists argue that God has graciously provided everything necessary for people to respond to Him through His self-revelation in creation, conscience, providence, the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit, the inspired Scriptures, and especially the proclamation of the Gospel. Rather than a universal prevenient grace restoring an innate inability, Provisionists see these God-ordained means as sufficient to render every person genuinely accountable before Him.
Soteriology 101 is right when they emphasizes the Gospel because Romans 10 and the Great Commission are about how people come to saving faith:
Article Two says:
“We deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.”
Article Four says:
“…providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit…“
Article Eight says:
“…accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.”
Article Ten says:
“…the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation.”
Amen!
I am angling a slightly different question that Soto 101’s Statement of Faith, which simply asks [even if unsaid]: “How does God save people?”
What I am saying retroactively applies to times prior to Calvary and the Gospel and the spread of it across the world, as well as to those who have not heard the Gospel presented. This is RPT’s question:
- How has God graciously revealed Himself throughout history so that every person is morally accountable before Him while also providing His saving revelation according to His redemptive plan?
Those are not identical questions. Romans 1 and Romans 2 aren’t explaining how someone is regenerated. They’re explaining why everyone is “without excuse.”
This covers:
- Adam through Noah.
- Abraham and the patriarchs.
- Israel under the Law.
- Native Americans before European contact.
- Modern unreached people groups.
- Those of us who have heard the Gospel.
Your Native American article raises precisely the kind of question that illustrates this continuity: What about those who lived centuries before the Gospel reached the Americas? The New Testament doesn’t give a detailed answer about every case, but it consistently affirms two truths:
- God has never left Himself without witness (creation, conscience, providence, etc.). Acts 14:17 is especially explicit: “Yet He did not leave Himself without witness…” Romans 1–2 makes the same point regarding accountability.
- The Gospel is God’s appointed means of proclaiming salvation under the New Covenant (Romans 10), while salvation itself has always been through Christ, even for those who lived before His incarnation (Hebrews 11).
MORE HERE:
- What About Those Who Never Hear the Gospel? (Apologetic Press)
- What About Those Who’ve Never Heard the Gospel? (Be Thinking)
- Are Those Who Have Not Heard the Gospel Damned? RPT Q&A +More (RPT)
Provisionism’s doctrine of divine provision is not limited to the post-Pentecost proclamation of the Gospel. Throughout redemptive history, God has graciously revealed Himself through creation, conscience, providence, and His promises, rendering humanity accountable while progressively revealing His plan of redemption. Though salvation has always been through Christ alone, the Gospel is God’s appointed means of bringing people to saving faith under the New Covenant.
My Re-Write:
Provisionists affirm that the Holy Spirit draws sinners through the Gospel unto salvation. At the same time, Provisionism recognizes that God has never left Himself without witness. Through creation (Rom. 1:18–20), conscience (Rom. 2:14–15), providence (Acts 14:17; 17:24–31), the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8–11), and ultimately the proclamation of the Gospel, God graciously reveals Himself, rendering every person without excuse and genuinely responsible for his or her response to His revelation. Saving faith comes through the Gospel (Rom. 10:17), but God’s gracious self-revelation is broader than the Gospel alone.
This is how I describe it on my X ARTICLE to bolster the idea:
Throughout history, God has graciously revealed Himself in many ways, including:
- Creation
- Conscience
- Providence
- Covenants
- The Prophets
- The convicting work of the Holy Spirit
- The incarnation of Christ
- The proclamation of the gospel
These expressions of God’s self-revelation are not rigid stages through which every person passes in the same sequence. Rather, they represent the many ways God has made Himself known throughout redemptive history, often overlapping in a person’s life and always finding their fullest expression in the person and work of Jesus Christ. At Calvary, God’s self-revelation reached its clearest expression, where His holiness, justice, love, and grace were displayed in the sacrificial death and victorious resurrection of His Son.
Physicist Michael Guillen’s testimony illustrates this beautifully. As a committed atheist, it was not one isolated event that brought him to Christ. Rather, his understanding was gradually shaped by the wonder of creation, the limits of scientific materialism, his search through competing worldviews, meaningful relationships, and ultimately the witness of Scripture.
His journey reminds us that God often draws people through many converging streams of revelation, each pointing beyond itself until they find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
(I just want to give a shout out to Provisionist Perspective for encouraging me to do an X version of my post)
- Within the Non-Calvinist camp, there are at least two nuanced views on how God allows sinners to respond in faith. The first view is the Arminian view — which says that God’s work of grace (prevenient grace) for all people is needed to enable any sinner to freely choose to respond in faith to the Gospel message. The second view is the Provisionist View — which says that the Gospel message itself [see more below] is God’s work of grace so that when it is preached to all people, any sinner can freely choose to respond in faith. The proclamation of the Gospel is powerfully sufficient enough to bring salvation to those who will believe. While the Arminian and the Provisionist each have a different take on why all humans can respond to God’s offer, these two views both affirm the importance of God’s initiative of grace to invite all sinners to salvation. (from the book Grace For All: Understanding God’s Plan of Salvation).
— Michael R. Cariño
The “More Below”
Grace Enablements
Includes but are not limited to: God’s salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of his power so that all may know he is the Sovereign (Isa 45:21–22) and Creator (Rom 1:18–20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), working of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:1–6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching (John 6:45), God opening minds and hearts (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; 26:17–18;), and the power of the Gospel (Rom 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Rom 3:11).
Because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, man can choose to seek and find God (Jer 29:13; Acts 17:11–12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God calling (Acts 2:39), drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuō, is used in both verses. “About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.” Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.
These are grace enablements in at least three ways; first, they are provided by God’s grace rather than deserved by mankind; second, the necessary components for each and every individual to have a genuine opportunity to believe unto salvation are provided or restored by God; third, they are provided by God without respect to whether the individual will believe or reject, which response God knew in eternity past.
The offer of the Gospel is unconditional, but God sovereignly determined to condition the reception of the offer upon grace-enabled faith; therefore, faith is not reflective of a work or virtue of man, but of God’s sovereign plan of salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). This indicates faith is the means to being regenerated and saved, not the reason for being saved. This truth of Scripture does not imply God is held captive to the choice of man, but rather it demonstrates God in eternity coextensively determined to create man with otherwise choice and provide a genuine offer of salvation, which can be accepted by grace-enabled faith or rejected. Additionally, to fulfill this plan, God is not obligated to disseminate the Gospel to people he knows have rejected the light he has given them (Rom 1:18–23) and will also reject the Gospel; although he may still send the Gospel to them.
IMPORTANT?
Why I think this is important. The North American Missions Board (NAMB) essentially states:
People have not heard the Gospel.
Therefore, they are condemned because they never heard it.
Provisionism does not begin by asking, “What happens to those who never hear the Gospel?”
It first asks, “Has God graciously revealed Himself sufficiently to every person to hold them morally accountable?”
Scripture repeatedly answers that He has. From creation and conscience to providence and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, God has never left Himself without witness (Acts 14:17). The Gospel is God’s appointed means of proclaiming salvation through Christ, but His gracious self-revelation has never been limited to the Gospel era or to places where missionaries have already arrived.
NAMB says:
- “people who never have an opportunity to hear the Gospel stand condemned.”
To which I ask: Are they condemned because they never heard the Gospel?
Another version (thanks B.J.)
William Lane Craig:
WLC’s view is anathema to NAMB, sadly. And this is the evidence of the rot of Calvinism.
Here is my chart on the differences broadly speaking:
CLICK TO ENLARGE – right click and choose:
“Open Image In New Tab” and it be at it’s largest
Neo and New Calvinism Lightly Defined (and more)
Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, compares and contrasts #Calvinism, #Arminianism, & #Provisionism during a recent interview on @SlaveckMoraru‘s podcast.
Nathaniel Sutanto and Cory Brock define what the “neo” actually means. They argue the “neo” does not mean abandoning Calvin. Nor does it mean inventing a new theology. Instead, it means retrieving classical Reformed orthodoxy while speaking to the questions of the modern age.
They summarize Kuyper like this:
Calvinism is a world- and life-system rooted in God’s sovereignty that develops a complete understanding of theology, church, politics, science, morality, art, and society from one central religious principle.
That’s much stronger than simply saying “a worldview.”
They identify the theological center near the end of chapter two and summarize Neo-Calvinism’s central theological commitments:
- God’s absolute sovereignty
- humanity as God’s image
- radical sin
- common grace
- engagement in every sphere of life
- the kingdom of God as renewal
They explicitly say these themes define Neo-Calvinism.
The term Neo-Calvinism has been used in two related but distinct ways, making it important to understand how a particular author is using the label. Historically, Neo-Calvinism refers to the Dutch Reformed movement that emerged in the late nineteenth century under Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. Seeking to recover historic Reformed orthodoxy while addressing the challenges of modernism, secularization, and liberal theology, they presented Calvinism as far more than a system of soteriology. Rather, it became a comprehensive Christian worldview in which Christ’s lordship extends over every sphere of life—including the church, family, education, politics, science, business, and the arts.
Historically, Neo-Calvinism denotes the Kuyperian tradition that rearticulated historic Reformed orthodoxy for the modern world, emphasizing a comprehensive Christian worldview. New Calvinism is a contemporary movement influenced by many of these theological and cultural convictions, yet distinguished by its stronger emphasis on the doctrines of grace, evangelical renewal, and Reformed soteriology rather than Kuyper’s broader philosophical and institutional vision.
The movement’s defining themes include God’s absolute sovereignty, sphere sovereignty, common grace, the cultural mandate, humanity as God’s image bearers, and the conviction that redemption renews creation rather than abandons it. As Kuyper famously declared, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!'” Modern scholarship likewise emphasizes that the “neo” in Neo-Calvinism does not signify a departure from Calvin or the invention of a new theology, but rather the retrieval and rearticulation of historic Reformed orthodoxy for the intellectual and cultural challenges of the modern age.
Consequently, Calvinism became what Kuyper described as a comprehensive “world-and-life system” rooted in God’s sovereignty and extending to every area of human existence.
In recent years, however, the term has also been used more broadly in popular evangelical literature to describe the early twenty-first-century resurgence of Calvinism commonly known as New Calvinism. This movement is associated with figures such as John Piper, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Matt Chandler, C. J. Mahaney, and others.
AUSTIN FISCHER3
Austin Fischer [above videos] acknowledges this distinction, noting that while “Neo-Calvinism proper” refers to Kuyper’s Dutch movement, he uses the term for the modern revival of high federal Calvinism—a usage influenced by Time magazine’s 2009 feature on the “New Calvinism” and Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed. William W. Klein similarly refers to the rise of the “New Calvinists” or “neo-Calvinism” in the introduction to the revised edition of The New Chosen People.
Although these leaders are more accurately described as New Calvinists than historic Neo-Calvinists, they share important Kuyperian emphases, particularly God’s comprehensive sovereignty, a God-centered worldview, and the conviction that Christ’s lordship extends beyond the church into every sphere of life. Their movement, however, is generally more revivalistic, conference-driven, and focused on the doctrines of grace, expository preaching, and evangelical renewal than on Kuyper’s broader philosophical, educational, and institutional program.
For that reason, readers should not assume every reference to Neo-Calvinism carries the same meaning. Some authors reserve the term exclusively for the Kuyper-Bavinck tradition, while others employ it more broadly as a synonym for New Calvinism. Recognizing this distinction helps avoid confusion when reading contemporary Reformed literature. For those wishing to explore the subject further, Cory C. Brock and N. Gray Sutanto’s Neo-Calvinism: A Theological Introduction and The Oxford Handbook of Calvin and Calvinism, edited by Bruce Gordon and Carl R. Trueman, provide excellent scholarly treatments of the historic movement, while Austin Fischer’s Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed and William W. Klein’s The New Chosen People illustrate the broader, contemporary usage of the term.
John Owen’s Dilemma Answered Scripturally
This was a graphic posted on a friend’s Facebook wall. So I thought it was worthy to respond to.
And the response is really an adaptation of this post at LEESOMNIAC:
Evaluating John Owen’s Trilemma and Double Payment Argument for Limited Atonement
John Owen’s argument is rhetorically powerful, but it assumes a false dilemma. He presents only two options: either Christ’s death actually secured the salvation of every individual for whom He died, or it merely made salvation possible for everyone while accomplishing nothing in itself. Scripture, however, presents a third category. Christ objectively accomplished redemption through His death, fully satisfying the demands of God’s justice and establishing the basis upon which God can genuinely offer salvation to the world. The question is not whether the atonement accomplished anything—it accomplished everything necessary—but how and when its benefits are applied.
Even Calvinists acknowledge a distinction between accomplishment and application. If Christ literally paid for every sin of the elect in the fullest commercial sense at the cross, why are the elect still described as “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) prior to conversion? Why are they justified only when they believe (Rom. 5:1)? Owen’s “double payment” argument seems to require that the elect could never be under condemnation after Calvary, y
et Scripture plainly says they are until they are united with Christ through faith. That demonstrates the New Testament itself distinguishes between what Christ accomplished historically and when individuals come to participate in those benefits.
Nor does this make faith a work that completes an unfinished atonement. Scripture consistently contrasts faith with works (Rom. 4:5). Receiving a gift does not contribute to purchasing the gift. Likewise, believing in Christ does not add to the value or efficacy of His sacrifice; it is simply the God-ordained means by which sinners receive what Christ has already accomplished. The cross is not weakened because its benefits are received through faith any more than the bronze serpent in Numbers 21 was weakened because those who looked upon it were healed.
Finally, the repeated appeal to passages such as Matthew 1:21, John 10, and John 17 demonstrates for whom Christ’s saving work is effective, not necessarily for whom it was intended as a provision. No Provisionist denies that Christ saves His people, lays down His life for His sheep, or intercedes for believers. The disagreement is whether those texts exclude other passages that explicitly speak of Christ dying for “the world” (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), tasting death “for everyone” (Heb. 2:9), or reconciling “the world” to God (2 Cor. 5:19). Rather than forcing these texts into an either/or framework, it is better to let all of Scripture speak: Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, genuinely offered to all, and fully effective for all who believe.
Here is a response infographic I made:
Frank Turek Rightly Notes Calvinism’s “Islam god Problem”
- “The main problem in my view of the five point Calvinist view is that it makes God more like Allah than Yahweh.” – Frank Turek
Yep. See my:
Did they go too FAR?
In this panel discussion, Frank Turek, Allen Parr, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy), and Braxton Hunter engage in a thoughtful conversation surrounding Calvinism, divine sovereignty, and Romans 9.
At the center of the discussion is the tension many Christians feel when reading Romans 9 – how to understand election, God’s sovereignty, and human responsibility without flattening the text into a system. Is Paul teaching determinism? Is he speaking about corporate election and historical purposes? Or is there a deeper synthesis that holds both divine sovereignty and genuine human response together?
Whether you are Reformed, non-Reformed, or simply trying to understand Romans 9 more clearly, this discussion highlights the key issues that continue to shape evangelical theology today.
Conversation Series: Cults from the 70’s (Love Israel)
(Originally posted at my old blog July 26, 2007)
During conversation the other day with a customer at Whole Foods, it was revealed that this person was, is, enamored with a “hippie movement” from the late 60’s (some say 68′, others 69′) that was situated for many years in the Seattle Washington area. The group is commonly called Love Israel, named after its founder… who’s real name is Paul Erdman. But this “organization” has gone by a few names: Jordan Village Farms, Love Is Real Family Inc., Love Family, Church of Jesus Christ at Armageddon, Church of Armageddon.
Is It a Cult Though? (click to see)
Israel Love’s (Paul Erdman) followers renamed themselves in like fashion, for example: Patience Israel, Serious Israel, Charity Israel, Abishai Israel, Honesty Israel, on-and-on. With “love” being the central tenant, this New Age cult – like most others – quickly fell into drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, family’s torn apart, bankruptcy, mind-control tactics, and yes… even death. In fact, Erdman’s sexual activities were the subject of much scandal, not to mention the fact that he fathered a dozen or more children with many different women. One dispute after another involved the group in various legal battles, which included zoning and housing violations. All this combined with the many lawsuits from families of cult members led to a mass egression in the mid-eighties of most of its followers. (The lawsuits were mainly to get back savings accounts, property and possessions back after they ere “donated” to Paul Erdmann.)
Revelations
This movement got its start with revelation Paul Erdman received that indicated that he represented the authentic message of the New Testament. Thus, he and his followers felt they were the “true” Christians as well as the “true” Israelites. Old Testament dietary laws were incorporated into this group’s lifestyle while at the same time Old Testament restrictions on “altered states of consciousness” were ignored. Speaking of which, altered states of consciousness were reached by ritualized inhaling of the vapors from an industrial solvent called toluene. Paul Erdman taught that inhaling these vapors was a religious ritual that his members must follow. Follow, that is, until two members died from it in 1972; at which time this practice was “stopped.” I say “stopped” because the group continued to use hyperventilation, hallucinogens and marijuana as aids to altering consciousness.
Reportedly all members of the group had visions, dreams, and revelations that explained their purpose on earth. Duh! You could include most of the “Orange Sunshine” consuming hippies in this “revelational” category. Cocaine, of course, later became the drug of choice for Paul Erdman. Shortly after the egression of about 350-or-so people in 1983, the Church of Armageddon was officially disbanded in 1985.
While officially disbanded, a small core of people still follow the religious leader Love Israel. Recently Brotherhood Israel sold ecstasy to two undercover agents reconfirming the addiction to drugs this cult has.
Hollywood Connections
As with other cults of the day (Manson Family for instance), the Church of Armageddon had its own connection to Hollywood. The son of the father of talk television, Steve Allen, was part of this group for some time which prompted Steve Allen to write a book on the subject. The book is entitled Beloved Son: A Story of the Jesus Cults, and is currently out of print (I have a copy of course) and should be considered a dated read, however, it is still “chalked full of nuts,” literally!
The Communal 60’s and 70’s
The hippie movement of the sixties produced a mix of Marxian communal living arrangements with a dash of Christianity and New Age (Eastern) thinking thrown in for authority in edicts and lifestyles. Groups such as At Twin Oaks (Virginia), East Wind (Missouri), Ganas (New York), The Farm, and the like popped up all over the place.
The picture is from Alaska 1975
Marriage
Similar to these groups the followers do not marry each other with the classical understanding of the monogamous relationship, but considered themselves married to each other in the universal marriage of Jesus Christ and are not bound by “worldly traditions” of matrimony. Love Israel and other leaders had the prerogative (still does, just with fewer people) of permitting couples temporary bonding for the purpose of having children. The humorous question is has thinking spread to the modern left of today? The Church of Armageddon got its name from Revelation 16:16 where Armageddon is mentioned as the gathering place of the end-time.
1977 “Love” Passover
Positive Aspects?
Of course. Nothing is purely negative. The group farmed and fished and they developed a free restaurant and a 24-hour inn where guests were housed and fed at no charge. Members distributed food from their farms and fishing boats to needy neighbors. But the good is outweighed by the bad theology, brainwashing, and fear tactics.
Bankrupt! (2003 article By Jennifer Langston)
No longer in the “Queen Ann” area of Seattle, likewise no longer in Arlington, the cult has had to move after declaring chapter 11 bankruptcy. Something ironic since the “Church” rejected worldly laws and governing bodies. The few members (about 30) have moved due to this bankruptcy, selling its spiritual center to a Jewish organization in late 2003. They then moved to the Canadian border and at last report had fewer than 50 members. The Love Israel Family has set up tents along 52 acres near China Bend, a scenic river bench about 10 miles south of the U.S.-Canadian border in Stevens County.
Interesting Factoid
Because of the growth of the many cults during this time, there were many kidnappings and deprogramming done. Family members would pay for the cult member to be kidnapped and then have cult-deprogrammers talk these people through what constitutes the movement as a cult and try to deprogram the influence of the movement on this individual. The first taken from the Love Family was Cathy Crampton. Cathy’s parents allowed CBS to film the kidnapping and deprogramming, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Exit counseling got its start in these times, and many great books and insights have come from the study of brainwashing since.
Modern Day Thinking
Of course, in our Politically Correct environment, all opinions and actions are considered equal in weight and judgment. What is true for you may not be for me! Who are you to say I am wrong in my choice? There are no absolute moral laws. Moral choices are decided by the individual or by society and are not subject to intervention by you… if you do you are considered intolerant. This type of thinking will create more cults and more people who will unite and I am sure in the future we will hear of it. We will hear of the punch being drunk to catch a ride on a comet or to leave this horrible life for a better one. The more the West steps away from the Judeo-Christian-Grecian culture, the less rational and logical thinking will be applied to peoples personal lives. Thus, relativism will “seize the day.”
The below is from STEVE HASSAN’S SITE:
Description:
Founded by Paul Erdman, aka “Love Israel” in 1968 in Seattle, Washington. Purports to be fulfilling the vision of Jesus Christ on Earth by working toward a vision of a community that is committed to “love” one another and forgive one another.
Reached zenith of membership in the mid-80’s with nearly 400 members. Dissolution of the majority of the group came about when families of members sued for return of property turned over to the family and allegations of monetary and property mis-management occurred.
The remaining members moved to a 290 acre ranch near Arlington, Washington. During the 90’s the leader and his lead “elder” Serious have formed multiple “corporations”, one of which is The Love Is Real Family, Inc., reportedly a non-profit corporation. Additionally, Serious is the registered agent for: The Jordan Village Corp., The Golden Triangle Development, Inc., The Bistro, Inc., and The Love Is Real Family, Inc. The Bistro is a restaurant concern in Arlington, Washington, reportedly owned and operated by the family. Also reported in the Seattle Times is a evening coffee club called the Compassion Cafe. Members confirm that this is a Family concern but at this point I’ve been unable to obtain documentation to confirm this connection.
I. Behaviors
Great cultural pressure to adhere to group’s norms of dress, styles, manner of talking.
Communal living idealism, so food is regulated by the core group. Key members of the group do not go without food or sufficient provisions. Out of favor members tend not to be taken care of as well or poorly.
Early morning meetings are de riguer and the lifestyle encourages late evenings as well, therefore, not much sleep occurs.
Members are encouraged to contribute all to the family upon joining. Households are reportedly self-sufficient, but must contribute (as of 10/00) 1/3 of their income to Love so that the payments on the property may be made.
Leisure activities of the members revolve around the family actitivies. Love Israel frequently takes trips around the world, particularly Europe. Lesser members never, if ever, travel.
Must always ask permission to make major decisions. Marriages must be “sanctioned” Otherwise, less formal couplings are neither discouraged nor encouraged, although couples are encouraged to experiment outside their union.
Morning “prayer” meetings are often used for getting to what people think/feel.
If you are in favor, you get more food, greater benefits, more freedom. Out of favor and you get job assignments that aren’t as welcome… punishments, group pressure, etc.
There are many rigid rules and regulations. Dependency is wrought first by financial dependency developing into emotional dependency and “learned helplessness.
Perhaps the only real autonomous people there are Love Israel and Serious Israel.
II. Information
Leaders decide who needs to know what. Likely only Love Israel, Serious and their most trusted companions know key areas of the business dealings of the two men.
III. Thought
Must internalize the group’s truth as truth
Loaded language techniques are rampant.
No critical questions about Love, his doctrine or his policies are legitimate. You are a traitor if you question him.
IV. Emotional
Excessive use of fear. Many of the people who have been there for 20 or so years have developed such an indoctrination to the culture that living outside the “family” has become extremely difficult.
(Wiki Source for Photo)
References and Sites Used For This Bio
Websites used:
- Israel Love’s website is at:
http://www.loveisraelfamily.com/(now a dead link) - Steve Alan Hassan’s Freedom of Mind Center is a good resource;
- So to is Rick Ross’s site; See HERE and HERE
- Wikipedia;
- Religion News Blog;
- Context Institute (member[s] of old group)
- Margaret Singer and others.
- History Link — see HERE and HERE
Some books I used:
- The Encyclopedia of American Religions, vol II. By J. Gordon Melton;
- Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, by James R. Lewis;
- America’s Alternative Religions, by Timothy Miller;
- The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults, by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi.
Calvinism Undermines the Gospel
It is almost demonic. How do you say that Calvary, Christ’s finished work, the Word of God, and the Gospel shared with people is useless, non effective…. without saying it? This is how:
- Calvinism assumes that without the intervention of God no one will ever want Christ. Left to themselves, no one will ever choose Christ.
— R.C. Sproul (Chosen By God, p. 34)
Calvinism and Abortion [Bonus: Johnny Mac]
Mind you, I am not the biggest fan of Faith On Fire, but once in a while there is really good stuff. It is 10-minutes long, here is his description:
Christianity is under attack more today than ever, and a big part of that attack comes from Calvinists. Did God create billons of people that God never wanted? Calvinism teaches that God did exactly. Calvinists want people to believe that the God of the Bible has predestined billions of people to hell before they were ever born. They think God has kept any hope of salvation from most people on purpose for His own glory and so God can demonstrate His wrath on them because God ordained and decreed their eternal punishment before the foundation of the world. They believe God reserves salvation for only some preselected elect people who are saved unconditionally by God’s grace.
According to Calvinism, Satan wants all people to join him in hell and the lake of fire, and they think God wants only most people to join Satan in hell and the lake of fire, and Satan doesn’t even have much of anything to do with any of it because it was all meticulously and divinely determined by God before Creation anyway.
TULIP or the 5 points of Calvinism are doctrines of salvation unique and distinctive to Calvinism, not Biblical Christianity. Those Calvinistic doctrines are from Satan and I expose the implications of them and the dangerous errors of that theology.
A slightly unrelated post to confirm there are no rebellious creatures in Calvinism:
Sin and repentance, according to Johnny Mac, are fully subsidized by an eternal decree. So his TULIP belief undermines this graphic. There is no “person” outside the eternal decree to “sin”. There is no “rebellious creature” in Calvinism.
_________________
“…it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory…. [t]his includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…”
— Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor
“I wish very Frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so.
— Gordon H. Clark
“God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to!”
— Theodore Zachariades
“Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God.”
— Loraine Boettner
… how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.
— John Calvin
Leaving Calvinism By God’s Decree (Memevangelsit)
[BTW, I love this post because it show just how “off” Calvinism is, and how it undermines any Biblical commands and categories.]
Here is the original (to the left) with an edit by whom I assume are Calvinistic in their leaning (to the right). I say this because they are saying that Satan is driving out solid Biblical teaching via that Calvinist teachers:
Which got me thinking. The person did not realize it, but they undercut their own argument.
How?
This is how [I created a larger cartoon – click to enlarge]:
Satan’s ultimate ambition is to usurp God’s position (Isaiah 14:13-15, 2 Thes. 2:3,4).
Right?
However, John Calvin notes:
- “[W]e infer that God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments.”
- “Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of His judgments”
- “That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what He has previously decreed with Himself, and brings to pass by His secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture”
- “That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what He has previously decreed with Himself, and brings to pass by His secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture”
- “not that He intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because He bends them to execute His judgments, just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God.”
Etc, etc. (Institutes 1.18.1. and 1.18.2.).
- … how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.
— John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11
- …it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…
— John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
- “Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise,” argues Calvin, “God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgments.” (Calvin, 1.18.1.)
Satan is said to blind the minds of those who believe not (2 Cor. 4:4). So, you note that the “blinding by Satan” is by spitting out the ingested Calvinist acolytes. However, Satan is ultimately irrelevant since the elect still get saved and the non-elect still go to the lake of fire for eternity. The Devil is God’s Devil (to summarize Martin Luther) and never operates outside the Lord’s decree (Sproul). The Devil is God’s servant (Piper, MacArthur).
So, the change in the cartoon is really a defeater. It undercuts any point trying to be made.
In other words, you are saying God put Calvinism into the person. And God took Calvinism out of the person.
To circle back: God would be usurping Himself.
Too Depraved To Respond To The Gospel?
As far as the Scripture is concerned, it is very clear that faith and believing come first and the new birth follows. The Scripture is replete, lucid, and compelling in teaching that the order is faith prior to regeneration, and faith is a gift that God endowed man with in creation not in selective regeneration; moreover, God is working in order to give men and women a real chance to trust Him unto salvation (John 16:8). Salvation is offered as a free gift (Romans 6:23) to all who are in need of forgiveness (Romans 5:15, 18), and people are summoned to act upon the offer by accepting the gift by—grace-enabled—faith (John 1:12). “Never does the Bible say, ‘Be saved in order to believe; instead, repeatedly, it commands, ‘Believe in order to be saved.’” (GEISLER)
If God has decided in eternity past which individuals he will not save, then those individuals cannot be thought of either as being truly loved by God or as being the objects of his saving intentions. Calvinists protest that it is simply a mystery as to how God loves people he wills to condemn before they are ever born. Some assert that God has two wills, one “hidden” and one “revealed,”108 or two kinds of love,109 but most Southern Baptists view these answers as having neither a biblical nor logical basis. Moreover, Calvinists’ affirmation of “single predestination” over against “double predestination” as a method for absolving God of the charge of actively causing the lost to spend eternity in hell is unconvincing. To say that God merely passes over the lost rather than actively causing their perdition is both a distinction without a difference110 and a flat refusal to own the implications of the Calvinist system.111
108. Piper, “Two Wills,” 107–24; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 683–84.
109. MacArthur, “Does God love,” par. 4–5.
110. If I have the ability and opportunity to rescue someone who is drowning, then I have an obligation to render aid. If I simply stand aside and let them die, then I am morally culpable. Calvinist objections that the sinner is already dead will not suffice. If I have the ability and opportunity to regenerate a spiritually dead person but do not, then my culpability is the same.
111. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, 148–49.
This statement by MacArthur is “anti-Gospel.”
It negates the power of the Word.
In the end this is what MacArthur is saying if you take into account his Calvinism:
- God by means of divine decree determines all peoples decisions/actions
- Potter by means of molding determines all pots decisions,actions,shapes, etc…
- Programmer by means of preprogramming determines the Avatars/Robots decisions and actions
- Puppeteer by means of strings determines all the puppets movements, actions, decisions
- Author by means of writing a story determines all characters decisions, actions
This life in Calvinism has everything completely and fully scripted with every thought, action, deed. Welcome to the world of the avatar. The world of make belief – sounds much like the world of Walt Disney.
The “gospel” according to Calvinists is akin to a “cosmic lottery” then.
In a post detailing misreading’s of Scripture, I end with this:
TO SUMMARIZE:
- If the “T” is correct, there is no rebellion against God’s will. Add the “U” and the “I,” the Gospel is rendered meaningless. It is sad, but it is a logical outgrowth of those. The Word of God, the Gospel message sent to a dying and sick world is secondary, Calvary becomes moot. Your hope can only be in if you won the cosmic lottery.
So when the unbeliever stands before God and Romans 1:19-20 is in the thought of our Holy God, when the words come out of said unbelievers mouth,
“I could not believe in your salvific offer because of my nature which you ensured. I suspect you won’t torture a cow [cows are biologically designed to eat grass] for eternity because your command was to eat meat, but ensured their nature was vegetarian.
What should God’s response be?
Are We PRE-PROGRAMMED To Reject The Gospel?
Dr. Leighton Flowers | John MacArthur | Calvinism
Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to John MacArthur on whether we are pre-programmed to reject the Gospel or not. Check out the full video here: 
Not only does this “pre-programming” dilute Scripture and it’s clear teaching, but it dilutes truth as well!
- Preprogrammed definition: (of instructions or data) programmed into an electronic device to control future action. “the drones are designed to follow a preprogrammed route at the push of a button” (Berean Apologetics)
(Adapted from another comment) This is why Christians need to put on the whole armor of God to protect us against becoming infected By malware. We need to put on the Girdle of Truth! May we stand firm in the truth of Your Word so we will not be a victim of Satan’s lies.
RONNIE ROGERS completes the idea simply with the two views compared:
Compatibilism
Determinism and moral responsibility are compatible; hence, the name. This compatibility is not achieved by compatibilism being less deterministic than hard determinism. Rather, it is achieved by defining free choice to mean as long as a person chooses according to his greatest desire, he can be considered to have made a free choice for which he is morally responsible; even though given the same past, he cannot choose differently in the moral moment of decision.
Consequently, the difference between compatibilism (soft determinism) and hard determinism is not to be found in the levels of the deterministic nature of each because they are the same. Rather, the difference is compatibilism contends people are morally responsible for their choices if they are made according to their greatest desire, and hard determinism says they are not.
Therefore, moral responsibility is the product of defining free choice as a person acting in accordance with his greatest desire even though the desire is determined. I frequently find Calvinists who affirm soft determinism and disavow hard determinism because they think soft determinism is not as unflinchingly deterministic as hard determinism. That kind of thinking is based upon a misunderstanding of compatibilism.
Libertarianism
Man is not determined. He has the actual ability to choose between accessible options, at least in some scenarios. Libertarians contend determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility. Man possesses actual otherwise choice and can, therefore, act or refrain in the moral moment of decision even with the same past within a given range of options. Extensivism contends God endowed man with this ability, which is an aspect of being created in the image of God. [2] God determines the range of options. Adam’s range of options before the fall was greater than humanity’s options after the fall. The range of options available before the fall was the result of creative grace.
Fallen man can still choose between options. He did not lose his libertarian moral freedom, but the range of options is less than man had before the fall. Since the fall, man has lost the ability to make choices that are inherently righteous or spiritually restorative (making one right with God) based solely on creative grace. To make an inherently righteous or spiritually restorative choice, God had to provision redemptive grace, grace enablements.
For compatibilism to be the biblically reflective approach to understanding Scripture (what the Bible actually portrays and teaches), Calvinists would have to explain why the Bible, from Genesis 2 through Revelation 22, is absolutely permeated with verses, events, challenges, commands, offers, and judgments that clearly reflect that people have libertarian free will. That is to say; they can choose to act one way or differently in a myriad of passages (Gen 2:17-3:24; Josh 24; Jer 32; Mark 10:17-31; Rev 22:17-21).
Libertarian freedom allows for both determined events (events uninfluenced by human choice) and undetermined events (events influenced or caused by human choice) in which people choose between options. And whatever they did choose, they could have chosen differently even with the same past.
Compatibilism, Calvinism, requires that everything is determined, and if there is even one verse (I believe there are hundreds if not thousands that do so) that demonstrates the person had the freedom to choose differently than he chose, in the moral moment of decision, Calvinism and compatibilism collapse into an unbiblical perspective.
Consequently, unless a person can demonstrate the Bible teaches only micro-determinism (every verse that speaks of choosing reflects only a predetermined choosing wherein the appearance of having the freedom to choose differently is an illusion), he should totally and quickly disavow Calvinism. If a person chooses to remain a Calvinist, he is integrity bound to speak consistently with the micro-determinism of his position. In my book, Does God Love All or Some? I demonstrate that Calvinism’s view of moral freedom is absolutely in conflict with the teaching of Scripture when we consider all the Scripture.
What makes the micro-determinism in Calvinism, compatibilism, so difficult to detect is that Calvinists often interpret, talk, and teach the Scripture libertarianly. Meaning, they do so as though there is an undetermined choice involved, i.e., man can choose among the options available in the passage, and whatever he does choose, he could have chosen differently. Now, while that is true to the Scripture, it is in absolute contradiction to compatibilism, Calvinism.
Therefore, if a Calvinist is not going to live, speak, teach, interpret Scripture, and pray in a way that is consistent with micro-determinism so that both the Calvinist and the one whom he engages understands his deterministic perspective, he should disavow Calvinism.
(Emphasis added)
And that is the bottom line. If you adopt the Calvinist “TULIP,” you jettison truth. Truth in Scripture, truth in God, truth in reality, and truth in reason.
I believe I do understand Calvinism very well and that is why I argue that it cannot be put into the service of evangelism because there is no “good news” in the Calvinist soteriological doctrines. As such, Calvinism is not “evangelical,” which means “to bring good news.” When Calvinist’s do evangelism that have to abandon their soteriology and preach a non-Calvinist version of the gospel which is truly “good news,” but inconsistent with their Calvinist “doctrines of grace.” I argue against Calvinism because ultimately the truth of the gospel is at stake. (Source)
Calvary becomes moot.
The Gospel becomes moot.
A humorous look into the above via HOPPERS CROSSING:
A man has just entered heaven and is being given a guided tour by St. Peter. As they walk past a certain group of people, Peter tells him to be extra-quiet and not to disturb them. The man asks why and Peter replies, “They’re the Calvinists. They think they are the only ones here!”
A Calvinist is about to enter heaven. There are two lines, one labelled “Chosen” and the other “Free will”. He decides that the “Chosen” line is the one for him and lines up. When his turn comes, he is asked why he joined that line. He replies that he chose to join it.
“No!” he is told. “This is only for those who do not choose. You have to go to the other line. It’s the one for those who choose.”
So he lines up at the “Free will” line. When he gets to the official at the head of the line, he is asked, “Why did you join this line?”
He replies, “Because I was told to join it.”
“Then,” replies the official, “You’re in the wrong line. This is only for those who choose to join it.”
Islam and Violence | Michael Jones
In this session from NAPC 2026, Michael Jones takes a deep dive into the question: what does the data actually say about the link between Islamic doctrine and violence?
Michael shares some eye-opening research on how things like the concept of jihad and the fusion of religion and state impact everything from global conflict to domestic stability. He compares these findings with other faiths, offering a data-driven look at how certain teachings have shaped history and continue to influence our world today, breaking it down with clear evidence and academic rigor. If you’re interested in the intersection of faith, history, and sociology, you won’t want to miss this one.
With these graphs, when you click it it will enlarge. When you right click that opened the enlargement, choose “open image in new tab” for it to enlarge even more… your mouse turns into a plus symbol.
