The GOD-gene, Heredity and Election

Introduction

The God-gene – “Science has finally caught up with the Bible” is a phrase often heard in evangelical circles and, believe it or not, the brainchild who has shown an immense interest in brain research, especially in the field of quantum mechanics and neuroscience, and in particular the influence of meditation (occult mind control) has on these scientific studies, is the 14^th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso.

The unholy marriage of science and meditation (occult mind control and manipulation) is a felonious attempt to integrate the physical with the spiritual realm and has spread like wildfire throughout the western world. Even stalwart atheists have taken a liking to it. Two of the most prominent promoters of brain (mind) manipulation in the healing of diseases are Michelle Strydom and Caroline Leaf whose Christianized methodology is nothing else than an offshoot of eastern mysticism and meditation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xnw9vO8nhM

In the video on the link given above, Sid Roth says:

Brain and DNA God-gene

Both the brain and genes are physical stuff which the Bible never once smooth-talks (Philippians 3:21). If the human mind was able to change the brain and the genes of a person through mind manipulation, Paul of Tarsus would never have lamented the wretchedness of his flesh (the thoughts, deeds and desires of his old nature) (Romans 7:18-19) and consequently come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ alone, and NOT your thoughts or anything you do of your own accord, can change your mind and consequently your well-being for the better. Paul would never have said, “there is not a single good thing in my flesh” (including the brain, DNA and genes) if the flesh could do anything that is pleasing to God (Romans 7:18).

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 8:5-8

Carnal mindedness is not necessarily the indulgence in all kinds of sins, but to think you can do something yourself to enhance your spiritual and physical well-being. You are in fact saying, “I don’t need Jesus. I can do it myself.” Hence Michelle Strydom’s heretical words on page 26 of her book, “Healing Begins with the Sanctification of the Heart. “NO DISEASE IS INCURABLE.”

What you think is what you get, for better or for worse, it is entirely up to you! Therefore, if you want to change your life, if you are not happy with the state of your health, you have got to change your thinking!

GOD-gene: vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2)

It’s like saying, “Move over God. I don’t need you. I can change my destiny with my wonderfully sanctified thoughts.” Whereas the health, wealth and prosperity contenders believe that you can change your brain and genes, some Calvinists lean more toward the God-gene hypothesis which proposes that human spirituality is influenced by heredity and that a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences.

An American molecular geneticist, Dean Hamer, has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals. Whatever research you may be inclined to believe, both have the same intent and that is to familiarise you with a practice that opens you to the doctrines of demons, viz. spiritual or mystical experiences brought on by meditation and mind manipulation.

This article is a response to an email Discerning the World received from Laurens le Roux. To prove his assumption that the so-called God-gene could be true, he quoted from an article by Caitlin Yoshiko Kandil

Finding Faith in DNA

Why do some people believe in God, while others don’t? Is it a person’s choice, the result of upbringing or simply divine will? Theologians have grappled with this question for centuries, but over the last few years, scientists have jumped into the age-old debate to offer an entirely new explanation: genes.

One of the most attention-grabbing efforts to link spirituality and genetics was put forth by geneticist Dean Hamer in his 2004 book, The God-Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes. According to Hamer’s hypothesis, spirituality is a “biological mechanism” that is imprinted on our DNA. “We have a genetic predisposition for spiritual belief that is expressed in response to, and shaped by, personal experience and the cultural environment,” writes Hamer, who years earlier claimed to find the genetic basis of male homosexuality. Although other scientists have put forth this idea in the past, Hamer became the first to identify the gene where God may reside—VMAT2, an acronym for vesicular monoamine transporter 2.

The idea of a God-gene echoes longstanding religious debates about whether a person’s level of faith is determined by free will or destiny. In Judaism, discussions about hashgachah pratit, or divine providence, are the subject of rabbinic literature and Jewish philosophy, and ask to what extent God interferes in the details of a person’s life. In other words, is a person’s religious behavior guided by her own choices, or by some immutable force, be it God or DNA?

The Bible also alludes to this in Genesis, when God promises Abraham that his descendants would always have a special relationship with Him by virtue of their bloodline. Rather than a gene, however, God says that a “seed” will be passed “throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant.” This pact gave birth to the idea of the “chosen people,” a group whose progeny would have a preordained—and inherited—closeness to God. But Moshe Tendler, an Orthodox rabbi and professor of biology and medical ethics at Yeshiva University, dismisses the notion that God is in the genes. “I attribute religiosity to the working mind of man searching to answer the mystery of life,” he says.

The God-gene has also come under scrutiny within the scientific community. Hamer’s study has yet to be replicated (true of much research in the field of behavioural genetics) and has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although he coined the phrase “the God-gene,” Hamer himself admits the term is problematic. VMAT2, he explains, only accounts for one percent of all genetic variance. “That means that most of the inherited effects on self-transcendence can’t be explained by VMAT2,” he writes. “There might be another 50 genes or more of similar strength.”

While Hamer’s God-gene theory has stirred controversy, his work is part of a growing body of research linking religious behaviour to genes and the brain. “There is no God-gene, but there are God-genes,” says Matthew Alper, author of The “God” Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God.” “Religious behaviour basically plays into almost every part of our brains, and for all of these parts there are different genes.”

This research dates back to the 1970s, when scientists at the University of Minnesota conducted a study on twins separated at birth and showed that genes do indeed play an important role in what they called “intrinsic religiousness.” All of the twins grew up in different environments, but the identical twins, who share matching DNA, were much more likely to have similar levels of spirituality than fraternal twins, who share only half of their DNA.

Other studies in the burgeoning field of neurotheology rely on cutting-edge technology to make connections between religion, genes and the brain. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist and author of the 2001 book “Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief,” uses advanced scanning technology to capture images of the brain during spiritual states. “There are lots of parts of the brain that we have observed that appear to become involved when people engage in spiritual practices,” says Newberg. “If it’s a very emotional experience, then an emotional part of the brain is involved. If it’s an experience where they lose the sense of self, then areas of the brain that deal with the sense of self are involved.”

These genes have distinct evolutionary advantages, argue Alper and Newberg, such as lowering stress and increasing brain functioning. So what about atheists, or those born without God-genes? Alper says that as with other traits, religiosity falls on a bell curve, so while the majority expresses a moderate religious disposition, a minority on one end exhibits “hyperreligiosity” and a minority on the other end is “spiritually tone-deaf.”

Is God “a God of Love?”

In response, Laurens le Roux wrote:

I am aware of the onslaught on Calvinism, which, perchance, may be justifiable why certain of their doctrines come under fire. My own sights are focused on the question of election. The criticism aimed at it is that a God of love (1 John 4:8) will never do something like that. I find it difficult to accept it out of hand, and for the following reasons. (We shall look at Laurens le Roux’s reasons a little later).

It is a pity that Laurens le Roux should see the command to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints “(Jude 1:3) as an onslaught on Calvinism without realizing that Calvinism is an all-out onslaught on the Gospel of God. Most people think it is tolerable to accept some doctrines (even those of other religions) when they seem to compliment the doctrines of the Bible.

It is patently a very subtle deception of the devil to warm the imprudent up to false doctrine (2 Corinthians 11:14). They conveniently forget Jesus’ warning in Galatians 5:9 that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” The irony is that the doctrine of election is not merely a little leaven, gradually soaking its way through the lump to leaven it; the lump has been leavened with corrupt leaven from the very beginning, because it injected its deadly poison into the very heart of the Gospel, the doctrine of salvation, from its very inception.

You cannot strip the deadly Calvinistic TULIP “flower” of one or two of its “petals” and still believe it is soundly biblical. The entire TULIP attacks the heart of the Gospel — salvation — and cannot be separated into segments of which some are acceptable and others not. Salvation is the whole lump, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

It is also a pity that Laurens le Roux interprets 1 John 4:8 inaccurately. Was this the only thing he had done, it would probably not have been so bad because inaccurate interpretations can always be straightened out by proper contextual exegesis. However, when your reading begins to wobble regarding proper semantics, your spiritual footing also begins to wobble very dangerously.

According to Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) the Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics, new views and perspectives on any given subject can create or recreate a transformation in your thinking, and ultimately in your behaviour.

Note carefully: 1 John 4: 8 does not say God is “a God of love.” Had it been the Holy Spirit’s intent to convey to Bible readers that God is “a God of love,” the assumption could have been made that Jesus Christ is “a God of truth,” “a God of life,” and “a God of a way.” Love, truth and the way had never been independent, self-existent rudiments of which God is merely a God, and which He randomly withholds, changes or disperses to suit his affinity for the elect and his rejection of the non-elect or so-called reprobate.

Moreover, if it had been true that God is a God of a self-existent emotion such as love, it implies that there are other gods who are likewise gods of love, of a truth and of a way. Graphically, it would look something like this. GOD + LOVE = A GOD OF LOVE. Therefore, GOD + TRUTH + LIFE + THE WAY = A GOD OF TRUTH, OF LIFE AND OF A WAY. I can assure you that this is not the God of the Bible, but a false god who disseminates a false love among his disciples and their doctrines of which Calvinism is a prime example.

That is precisely what Calvinists are doing. They imply that God bestowed a kind of detached element of emotion called “love” on the so-called elect in a salvific way, even before the foundation of the world, and withheld the element of emotion (called love) from the non-elect or so-calledreprobate before the foundation of the world. Some false teachers in the likeness of John MacArthur speak of two separate kinds of love of God, one which he calls a special love reserved for the elect only and a general kind of temporal love He expresses in allowing the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the evil and unjust as much as He does it for the good and the just (Matthew 5:45).

God is not just “a God” but the only true God (Isaiah 44:6), and when He declares that He IS love (1 John 4:8, 16), it means that He alone IS the very essence of love. Therefore, godly love is not just an emotion but a Person, in the very same way that Truth, Life, and Way IS a Person. Without Him, there is no love, no truth, no life, and no true way. It is impossible to split the Person in two and say, “this half is a special love for the elect and the other half is a temporal love for the non-elect.”

With humankind, love is an emotion, a token of one’s affection, a relational reaction between two or more persons. With God it is not merely an emotion that randomly bursts forth from his heart whenever He wants to express his affection for someone. No! He IS love and as such, He cannot do otherwise but love everyone. Hence his magnanimous command in Matthew 5:43-45.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Matthew 5:43-45

The children of God must be like their Father in heaven who loves everyone without exception and without the slightest hint of partiality (“For God shows no partiality” – Romans 2:21, ESV). It simply means that because God is the very essence of love, his children cannot and should not do otherwise than to treat and love their enemies in the same way, and as much as they do their closest of kin and neighbours.

Despite these God-given commands, Well-known Calvinists such as John MacArthur, James White, Paul Washer, and John Piper like to tell the world that God hates sinners. From whence did they get their insidious claim? They derived this doctrine of hatred from their beloved father, the serial killer John Calvin who said the following:

“God distinguishes between the righteous and the unrighteous, and in such a way as shows that he is not an idle spectator; for he is said to approve the righteous, and to hate the wicked. The Hebrew word … bachan, which we have rendered to approve, often signifies to examine or try. But in this passage, I explain it as to distinguish the righteous from the wicked. It is farther declared, that God hates those who are set upon the infliction of injuries, and upon doing mischief. As he has ordained mutual intercourse between men, so he would have us to maintain it inviolable. In order, he must be the enemy of the wicked, and wicked men’s love of iniquity, to teach us that those who please and flatter themselves in their mischievous practices gain nothing by such flatteries, and only deceive themselves”

John Calvin (Commentaries on Ps. 11:5)

Only Calvin could have written something so thoroughly Pharisaic, mirrored in the words “I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, . . .” (Luke 18:11), whilst he himself was set upon inflicting injuries on others and even murdering them. God must have hated him for his atrocious deeds of which you can read here.

John Owen (1616-1683) wrote:

[1] “We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die; God having ‘made some for the day of evil’ (Prov. 16:4); ‘hated them before they were born’ (Rom. 9:11, 13); ‘before of old ordained them to condemnation’ (Jude 4); being ‘fitted to destruction’ (Rom. 9:22); ‘made to be taken and destroyed’ (II Pet. 2:12); ‘appointed to wrath’ (I Thess. 5:9); to ‘go to their own place’ (Acts 1:25)” (Works, vol. 10, p. 227). [2] “… reprobation … [is] the issue of hatred, or a purpose of rejection (Rom. 9:11-13)” (Works, vol. 10, p. 149).

Had we preferred to say “a God of love” rather than “God is love,” we would have had to refer to Him either as “a God of hate” or “God is hate,” if we wanted to be consistent in our arguments. Bear in mind that when Moses asked God what he should say to the enslaved Israelite in Egypt when they asked him who sent him, he had to say, “I AM hath sent me unto you.” Hate being the antithesis of love, should then also be incorporated in God’s Name “I AM” if we were to respect the Calvinists’ clarion that God hates sinners, in particular, the reprobate. Therefore, we may safely assume that the Calvinists have a twofold view of God’s character, one of “He IS love” (toward the elect) and “He IS hate” (toward the reprobate) (Please remember the severe warning in Isaiah 5:20).

To elaborate on the Calvinists’ folly of a twofold love/hate God, we need to remind ourselves of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:45. Note carefully, He says that if we want to BE (this is more than just emulating Him) like our Father so as to BE his sons (male and female), we must love our enemies. It is only in the being like our Father in heaven, and not merely in the trying to emulate Him, that enables us to love our enemies. He is love; therefore, we must love.

God loves his enemies; therefore, we too must love our enemies. Sonship in the Bible entails much more than being a descendant of someone who helped bring you into this world. To be a son in the image of his father, the son had the same work as his father. If the father was a baker, the son was also a baker. If the father was a carpenter, the son was also a carpenter (Matthew 13:55). Later, when He started his ministry, Jesus said “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” and only said what He heard his Father say (John 12:49).

Similarly, the adopted sons of God should think, do and say what their Father in heaven wants them to think, do and say. Imagine what would happen, if the adopted sons obeyed their Father in heaven to love their enemies, but the Father Himself set at naught his own commandment and hated his enemies (sinners and the reprobate).

It would immediately make of Him an unrighteous God which is completely untenable. Oh, but of course, Calvinists would probably say that He can do as He wishes, and even overrule his own commandments to his adopted sons because He is sovereign. If He could do this with his adopted sons, He could have done it with his own Son which again is untenable.

Can and does a God who has revealed Himself as the essence of love, also hate? Of course, He can. Can and do God’s adopted sons who he commanded to love their enemies also love their heinous and rebellious deeds against God and humanity? Was it possible to love Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi-Amin, John Calvin and similar tyrants who butchered many innocent people, and yet also hate their evil and wicked deeds with a passion? If not, you may have forfeited the wonderful opportunity to be called a son of God. Was King David and Paul of Tarsus any better than these villainous fiends? Or is anyone who hates his brother any better than those foul murderers? (1 John 3:15). True love is to love the person for Christ and his Gospel and to hate his wicked deeds. The cross of Christ is the paragon of love and hate (anger, resentment, and judgment). He died to save sinners because He loves them and hates their sin.

No, saith the pristine chosen Calvinists, Psalm 5:5 distinctly says that God hates sinners and not only their sins. (Read here for an explanation of this verse), If God hated sinners, He would have hated all of humankind because all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord. At any rate, the verse does not say He hates sinners but the workers of iniquity. It evidently refers to the habitual doing of evil and wickedness which motivates God’s wrath and hatred, especially when the wicked habitually resist his love and refuses his call to repentance and faith.

Similar verses the Calvinists use to validate their reformed views that God hates sinners (the reprobate) are Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:11,13, 22; 2 Peter 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and Acts 1:25. They seem to say that God sovereignly created some for heaven and the rest for hell. However, it blatantly contradicts what some other passages in Scripture tell us about God’s heart.

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4; KJV).

Proverbs 16:4; KJV

The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (ESV).

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Ezekiel 33:11; 18:32

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

2 Peter 3:9

How do we reconcile Proverbs 16:4 with the above passages in Scripture? Well, first, of all, by not reading into them your own preconceived ideas. The verse does not say that God’s love is restricted to a select few, whilst the rest (reprobates) were created for the sole purpose of casting them into the eternal Lake of Fire. It speaks of the DAY of evil. The ESV (Calvinistic Bible), believe it or not, presents a better rendering in its translation of “yôm ra‛râ‛âh” as “the day of trouble” instead of “day of evil.”

The phrase rendered “day of evil” points to a specific time when God is going to pour out his wrath on the entire world as predicted in Daniel’s 70 times 7 weeks prophecy as the last week (seven-years tribulation), also known as Jacob’s Trouble. Strong’s concordance translates the word “yôm ra‛râ‛âh” as adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery, and trouble. In Deuteronomy 4:30 the word “tsar tsâr” is used to describe the latter days and like “yôm ra‛râ‛âh” it too carries the meaning of adversary, affliction, anguish, distress, and trouble.

Calvinists often use Jude 1:4 to authenticate their reformed view that God sovereignly ordained some to everlasting perdition. The KJV renders the word “prographō” as “ordained” and the ESV as “designated for,” as if God had sovereignly chosen and destined them for eternal damnation in hell from of old. The word “prographō” says nothing of the sort. It simply means it was previously written in Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 8:19-22; Jeremiah 5:13-14), that false prophets and teachers will stealthily come amongst his children to destroy their faith, and who will bear the brunt of God’s wrath if they persist in their false doctrines. It does not mean that He ordained them to proclaim false doctrines so that He may send them to hell.

The central theme of Romans 9 is not that God predestined and elected some to eternal punishment in hell but concerns God’s patient endurance in his longsuffering toward the unrepentant. (Romans 9:22). God’s longsuffering is not about Him being tolerant of those whose fate He allegedly has already sealed and ordained to be cast into hell before the foundation of the world. 2 Peter 3:15 distinctly says that God’s longsuffering is salvation.

Like the phrase “God is love” the phrase “God’s longsuffering is salvation.” says more than just being patient. It is a patience that is salvation and simply means that no other being other than God can exercise this kind of longsuffering. It is a longsuffering of which the purpose is to save lost sinners and not to bite the bullet whilst he endures the sin of the so-called wicked reprobate. God alone can delay the promised return of his Son, Jesus Christ. Hence the supremely magnanimous designation “God’s longsuffering is salvation.”

The Dualistic Love of Calvinism’s Reformed Theology

The dualistic view of God’s love in Calvinism is a direct onslaught on God being the essence of love. It is for this very reason why they conspicuously and so utterly deviously have changed the meaning of the word “world” in John 3:16. One of today’s doyens of Calvinism is John MacArthur, the “it-is-OK-to-take-the-mark-of-the-beast” evangelist among us still alive today. He says:

The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. (DTW comments: Like so many other doctrines in the Bible that deal with salvation, MacArthur deviously changes 2 Peter 3:15 from “God’s longsuffering is salvation” to “God’s election is salvation.”)

Those who hold this view, often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world. Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found in the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, “God loves whom He chooses.He does not love everybody.” He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world…”) “refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from ‘the world of the ungodly.'”

Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? It is evident, that they are showered, even on unrepentant sinners. (DTW comments: Do you hear echoes of Islam in this weird statement?)

At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God’s love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2 verse 4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past. But from that, it does not follow that God’s attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred.

Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live. Pink, was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love.

The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7 verses 6 to 7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4, verse 8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same. Nothing but God’s own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love. (Emphasis added).

John MacArthur – Does God So Love the World?

Despite MacArthur’s admission that God is love, his dualistic view of God’s love divided unequally between the elect and the non-elect, the one as a particular salvific love for the elect and the other as a benevolent temporal love for the non-elect, is an outright denial of Matthew 5:45. In fact, the Lake of Fire affirms that God is love, and not just a god of love who showers his salvific love on some and withholds it from others. How do we know that this statement is true? There are several reasons.

The Everlasting Lake of Fire is prepared for the Devil and his Angels

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:41

Why was the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his fallen angels and not for human beings, and why are human beings going to be hurled into the Lake of Fire together with the devil and his angels? Hebrews 2:16-17 makes it very clear why the devil and his angels will never be granted the opportunity to repent and be saved. The following quote is from the Amplified Bible

For, as we all know, He (Christ) does not take hold of [the fallen] angels [to give them a helping hand], but He does take hold of [the fallen] descendants of Abraham [extending to them His hand of deliverance]. Therefore, it was essential that He had to be made like His brothers (mankind) in every respect, so that He might [by experience] become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things related to God, to make atonement (propitiation) for the people’s sins [thereby wiping away the sin, satisfying divine justice, and providing a way of reconciliation between God and mankind].

The KJV translation says:

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 2:16-17

If God had decided to grant the devil and his angels the same opportunity He had given humans to be saved, Jesus Christ would have had to take on the nature of fallen angels as well. However, the anointed cherub (Lucifer) and the angels already enjoyed the gloriously magnanimous presence of God when he was still perfect in all his ways, but wilfully shunned it all with contempt the moment they sinned? (Ezekiel 28:14-15; Genesis 1:6). They knew perfectly well what the eternal glory and bliss the presence of God offered his creatures. Yet, God’s anointed cherub sinned when he was filled with pride (1 Timothy 3:6). At that very moment, Lucifer and the angels who chose to follow him were already judged (John 16:11), with no hope of ever being redeemed.

If the so-called reprobate were condemned and judged before the foundation of the world, as indeed Satan and his angels were judged, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 25:41 would have been a lie, because the cursed (unbelievers) will only be judged after Jesus Christ’s 1000 years reign on earth (Revelation 20:11-15). This judgment will be based on the choice they had made to follow Satan instead of Jesus Christ. Anyone who chooses to follow Satan and his angels will have to bear the same judgment he and his angels faced before the foundation of the world and consequently also be cast into the Lake of fire which God prepared for the devil, and his angels and NOT humankind. It completely debunks the Calvinist view that God predestined and judged the reprobate before the foundation of the world unto the Lake of fire.

If Man’s Basic Carnal Instincts and Evil Desires are the Reason to get Married, What happened to Love?

To understand God’s righteous judgment to the Lake of fire in the light of Him being the essence of love, we need to make it very clear that God could never have been called the essence (or fountain) of love if mankind was bereft of a free-will and the ability to choose whom they wished to follow – Satan or Jesus Christ. Calvinists believe that they will be in heaven one day, not by their own choice but by God’s sovereign decree. What kind of love would a young woman expect when a man says to her, “You shall marry me because you have no say or choice in the matter. I am your sovereignly chosen husband to be.” Do Calvinists have any idea what a marriage between one man and one woman is and how it’s supposed to reflect the relationship between the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) and his bride (the Body of Christ)?

Love can only be true love when it is reciprocal and for that to be so, both parties must have their own free-will. Instead, John MacArthur advises the Christian youth to work for marriage as soon as they were out of college,

“The longer you wait the more you prolong the struggle with your own flesh, and your own evil desire … and stall off the purpose of God from being fulfilled in your life.”

John MacArthur – How he met his wife.

Paul of Tarsus would probably have been overjoyed to hear that a hasty marriage with a beautiful lass was the only way to overcome your own  nasty flesh and evil desires, as he describes it in Romans 7. Imagine how Paul would have reacted if John MacArthur told, him, Paul, old buddy, ” “The longer you wait the more you prolong the struggle with your own flesh, and your own evil desire … and stall off the purpose of God from being fulfilled in your life.” So, old buddy GET MARRIED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

MacArthur’s marital proposal to Patricia sounds a lot like Jacob and Rachel’s love story in Genesis 28:

And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother to cool down the ember hot struggle within your own flesh, and your own evil desire.

Genesis 28:1-2

It also remarkably resembles Isaac’s and Rebekah’s love story in Genesis 24 where Rebekah, when asked whether she wanted to go with Isaac’s servant to meet Jacob, said:

And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, “Do I have any choice in the matter. As far as I can recall, I don’t have a free-will to make any choices of my own. And so, therefore, I must go to help Jacob cool down the ember hot struggle in his flesh, and his own evil desire.”

Genesis 24:58

Bible Passages that Seem to Validate Reformed Theology

Laurens le Roux continues:

1. There are many of us who experience that, despite the logical and convincing evidence given in favour of the truth of the Bible and the God of the Bible, there still are people who just cannot accept it. Why not?
2. Then there is for me the Bible which indicates that certain people just cannot believe which places the doctrine of election under the searchlight again. I have quoted some of the proof texts (the quotes are from the KJV. Please read the verses in context.)

• MATTHEW 13:11: He answered and said unto them because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them, it is not given.

Logical assumptions do not always lead to convincing evidence that something is true and neither do the apathetic responses of sinners affirm reformed theology. I assume your statement that there are some who just cannot accept the truth is deliberate because you exclude the fact that man has a free-will which he may use freely for or against the Gospel truth, in allusion to the possibility that man was programmed that way by virtue of a gene known as the God-gene.

The only reasonable evidence available to mankind that God’s Word is the truth is faith. Indeed, faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1) and “Through faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:3). The unseen things (spiritual dimension) are evidenced and are understood by the fact that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. The Amplified Bible says it thus:

Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses]. For by this [kind of] faith the [a]men of old gained [divine] approval. By faith [that is, with an inherent trust and enduring confidence in the power, wisdom and goodness of God] we understand that the worlds (universe, ages) were framed and created [formed, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose] by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

It firmly repudiates the idea that some (the elect in the context of Calvinism) were born with a so-called God-gene which supposedly gives them the ability to accept the Gospel truth whilst the reprobate were/are deliberately deprived of such a gene and hence completely unable to accept it. Although the concept of complete inability is rife among Calvinists (e.g. John MacArthur) the God-gene hypothesis is completely alien to Calvinism. The irony, however, is that the doctrine of divine or sovereign predestination which, as MacArthur says, compliments the doctrine of absolute inability tends to encourage some people to believe that the God- gene might be true. By the way, John MacArthur’s affirmation of the so-called doctrine of absolute inability contradicts his own testimony of how he was saved. Read the following carefully and see whether you can spot the contradiction.

In an interview Phil Johnson had with John MacArthur, John explained his conversion as follows:

PHIL: “So you’re saying, are you saying it would be difficult for you to put your finger on when your conversion took place?”

JOHN: “Yeah. I’ve never been able to do that. And it doesn’t bother me. I think I’m one of those kids. I was one of those kids that NEVER REBELLED AND ALWAYS BELIEVED. And so, when God did His saving work in my heart, IT WAS NOT DISCERNIBLE TO ME. I went away to high school and for all I knew, I loved Christ, I was part of the ministry of the church. I went away to college and I wanted to serve the Lord and honor the Lord. I was certainly immature. But at some point along the line, I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart, but I think it may have been to some degree imperceptible to me, because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time, I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe. And I guess that’s, in some ways that’s a grace act on God’s part. So that all that wonderful training found some level of fertile soil in my heart and none of it was wasted.” (Emphasis added).

John MacArthur’s Life Testimony

If mankind had been so absolutely unable to put its trust in God, in order to be saved, it follows that it must also be absolutely unable NOT to rebel against God and to have ALWAYS believed. Judging by MacArthur’s self-acclaimed ability to never have rebelled against God and always believed in Him, contrary to his assertion that mankind as a whole is wrapped in a kind of Lazarus-deadness of complete inability, the God-gene hypothesis could probably be a verifiable reality. Why not, when we consider the probability that God in his sovereign election and predestination chose to implant his God-gene in John Fullerton MacArthur Jr. the moment he was conceived in his mother’s womb?

Could this be the reason why Jesus said: “it is given unto you [including John Fullerton MacArthur Jr. and the rest of the elite Calvinists who have never rebelled against God and always believed] to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the reprobate who have always rebelled against God and cannot believe, even if they wanted to] it is not given”? (Matthew 13:11).

No! absolutely not. The term Kingdom of heaven is not a reference to God’s eternal Kingdom but Jesus Christ’s Millennial Kingdom of peace on earth which He promised to establish on earth at his Second Advent. Israel as a nation was quite familiar with his Kingdom promise to them. However, the religious Jewish hierarchy together with their followers opted for a kingdom they wanted to establish themselves.

Matthew 11:12 very clearly says: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Those who wanted to establish their own rule on earth in resistance to Christ’s message were not let into the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven. A mystery is a truth formerly kept hidden from people and was only revealed to those who had a sincere desire to know the truth which God chose to reveal in in own sovereignly chosen time.

The Dominionist theology of our day (the Kingdom-Now bunch) are doing exactly what the Pharisees wanted to do, that is to usher in God’s Kingdom on earth with their own efforts. These are the ones to whom Paul refers in Romans 1:18-19 as the men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. They know the truth but mollycoddles it in their unrighteousness to satisfy and tickle the ears of their followers.

• ACTS 16:14: And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

The verse does not imply that God chooses to open some peoples’ hearts and leaves others’ unopened because they are not predestined and elected unto salvation, or do not have the alleged God-gene implanted in them. Yes, of course, God hardens hearts and minds of people but only when they persistently and rebelliously resist his truth. It happened to Israel as a nation (Romans 11:8-10). Bear in mind that Lydia was already a worshiper of God when Paul and Silas met her in the city of Thyatira. Despite her having worshiped God, she had never responded in faith to the conviction of her sinful lostness by the Holy Spirit (John 7:38).

Many people worship God but have never come to a bible-based saving faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:21-22). Many seek after God in prayer and worship and yet never find the strait gate and narrow way (Matthew 7:14). I can assure those who believe in the alleged God-gene that they haven’t found and will never find the strait gate and the narrow way until they repent of their waywardness and reject it as a lie from the pit of hell, including, I may add, the belief in predestination and election unto salvation because they allegedly have never rebelled against God and have always believed (John 7:38).

• 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

There isn’t the slightest hint in this passage to suggest that the natural man (unbeliever) cannot be saved unless he or she has been imbued with some sort of God-gene or is one of the predestined and chosen elect. It merely distinguishes between the spirit of the world and the spirit which is of God. The spirit of the world is self-centered, egotistical and incessantly concerned about temporal things. Paul describes it rightly in second Timothy.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

2 Timothy 3:2-5

They are very religious and quick to say “Lord, Lord” but deny the power of godliness through their lifestyle which is completely devoid of the power of the cross.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18

Anything else to which mankind allots salvific power other than the cross of Jesus Christ, including the so-called God-gene, mind manipulation, and predestination and election, amounts to a foolish opinion of the cross which leads to perdition. Indeed, they often refer to, preach about and pay allegiance to the cross but add something else to it to gain salvation. For instance: The “I” in the Calvinistic TULIP which stands for “irresistible grace” foolishly denies the necessity of faith in the power of Christ’s cross. Assuredly, there is no need for the cross when God sovereignly, monergistically and irresistibly grants his salvific grace to a chosen elect. There is no such thing as irresistible grace. If there had been Stephen, the martyr could never have said:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Acts 7:51

Jesus laments the fate of Jerusalem with heartbroken sorrow when He cries out:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Matthew 23:37

He could not gather together (redeem) Israel because they themselves allegedly could not believe, by virtue of a God-gene they allegedly did not have in their DNA. In fact, He once rebuked them for their heredity pride as though that was their gateway to heaven (Matthew 3:9; John 8:39-40).

• 1 CORINTHIANS 4:7: For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Paul is not referring to a God-gene and/or electoral kind of salvation in this passage. He exhorted his Corinthian brethren against spiritual pride which caused division amongst themselves. Their aptitude for speaking in tongues, prophesying and the miraculous, caused them to pridefully compare each other’s spiritual gifts. Paul. On the other hand, had no such wish to compete with anyone to determine who was the wisest, strongest and most honourable (verse 10). That was not for him to decide. Only at God’s divine judgment seat would everyone’s works be judged according to His immeasurable grace where everyone will receive their due praise (verse 5).

• JAMES 1:16-18: Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

In the light of the subject being discussed (the God-gene and predesigned election), Laurens le Roux seems to have quoted this passage to hone in on the words, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, . . ..” A quick glance may indeed move us to think that only God’s will is involved in the act of redemption and that those whom He begets (redeems) have no will of their own in the matter of salvation.

Nevertheless, the following four words “with the word of truth” dismiss with cost such reasoning. “Of his own will” does not mean that He sovereignly wills to save some (whom He adorned with some kind of Gods-gene as a token of a predesigned election). It alludes to the fact that God (Trinity) initiated and perfected his plan of salvation before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:18-21) without the help of any other agency, and that his redemption could only be required through faith in his word of truth (John 8:32, 36; Romans 10:17).

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:21-25

• 1 TIMOTHY 3:8-10: Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

Paul deals with the requirements of the office of a deacon in this passage. One is to hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. Note carefully, he does not say “holding the mystery of faith” as though God mysteriously grants some the gift of faith (subsequent to the alleged monergistic regeneration of the elect), and mysteriously withholds it from the reprobate for whom He allegedly did not die on the cross because He does not love them salvifically. Holding the mystery of “the faith” and not just “faith” in a general sense of the word, always refers to the faith, the only faith, that leads to salvation, which is so magnanimously articulated in the words, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31). Salvation is contingent on a biblical faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Anything short of this is not salvation, including the belief that God grants his gift of faith only to his elect subsequent to their irresistible and monegerstic regeneration (as MacArthur said, “at some point along the line, I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart, but I think it may have been to some degree imperceptible to me, because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time, I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe.”

• ROMANS 9:1-22: I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

Romans 9:20-22 is probably the most quoted passage in the Calvinists’ arsenal of verses to prove that their reformed theology is correct. Their failure to understand the true meaning of Romans 9 lies in the fact that they never or hardly ever read it in the context from which it was taken. In the 18^th chapter of the book of Jeremiah, God tells the prophet to visit a potter’s house where he saw a potter making a vessel out of a piece of clay. While the clay turned through his cupped hands it was spoiled “in” (and not “by”) his hands which puts to naught the view that God sovereignly created some to inherit eternal life and others to inherit eternal damnation. God used this as an example to demonstrate how He would deal with the nation of Israel if they persisted in doing evil. Verse 13 describes Israel’s vile and horrible sin of idolatry by calling her a virgin who had become a harlot. He would pardon and restore her to Himself if they turned from their wicked ways and again make them a vessel of honour for his Namesake, and so revoke the disaster he promised to send. Their shocking response that there was no use in repenting sealed their fate. Jeremiah 44 reflects their callous stubbornness.

But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

Jeremiah 44:17-18

Bear in mind that this was God’s elect people speaking here (Isaiah 45:4) who willfully chose to disobey God and not God’s own sovereign will to change them (the same lump of clay) from a vessel of honour to one of shame and dishonour made fit for destruction in hell (Matthew 8:12). Furthermore, Paul’s heartrending and sorrowful outcry that he wished he himself were accursed from Christ instead of his brethren after the flesh hardly confirms the doctrines of grace (TULIP). Paul of Tarsus would have been a real silly-billy, to put it mildly, if he was expounding the doctrines of grace in Romans 9. Why would anyone in his right mind be willing to suffer the eternal pangs of hell for a lump of clay made fit for destruction (reprobate) so that they may escape the pit of hell, when he knew that there was no chance for them of ever being redeemed because God pleasurably predestined and elected them for destruction before the foundation of the world? Even more beyond belief, is the fact that an elect person (Paul himself) would be willing to be cast into hell for God’s elect (Israel) when he knew that the elect would and could never experience the pangs of hell because God had chosen them unto salvation before the foundation of the world? Both these scenarios prove that Calvinism is a travesty and that those who adhere to its so-called doctrines of grace are devilishly deceived.

Paul’s lament within the framework of the God-gene hypothesis could probably be described in the following way. Paul of Tarsus who’d been endowed with the God-gene the moment he was conceived in his mother’s womb and, therefore, divinely prepared for eternal bliss in heaven before the foundation of the world, sought to have the God-gene removed from his DNA so that he may be cast into hell for the sake of his brethren after the flesh who had NOT been endowed with the God-gene when they were conceived in their mothers’ womb. Does it make sense? No wonder Paul of Tarsus wrote:

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; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (fictitious myths).

2 Timothy 4:3-4

The God-gene hypothesis is nothing but a manmade fairytale written by an unbeliever, Dean Hamer, in his 2004 blockbuster book, “The God-Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.”

EPHESIANS 2:8-9: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [not through your own effort], but it is the [undeserved, gracious] gift of God; not as a result of [your] works [nor your attempts to keep the Law], so that no one will [be able to] boast or take credit in any way [for his salvation]. (Amplified Bible).

The gift spoken of in this verse is not faith but salvation proper which is wrought through faith (Hebrews 11:6).

PHILIPPIANS 1:29: For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Suffering on behalf of Christ Jesus is a privilege given to whosoever believes in Him. (2 Timothy 3:12; Acts 9:16). There is nothing in this verse suggesting that some are given the gift of salvation whilst others are sovereignly deprived of it. The word “whosoever” (pas) is used seven times together with the word “believe” in the New Testament. The KJV Dictionary definition of “whosoever” is “anyone,” or “any person whatever.” It includes everyone. There is not a single hint of exclusion in the word. (John 3:15-16; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 John 5:1). Whosoever (anyone) who dares to change its meaning to convey predestination and election does it to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Laurens le Roux poses the question:

Then there are several verses in the Bible where God promised Abraham, the father of the believers, that his offspring would be blessed. Should we interpret it as a physical reality (heredity) or is it merely imagery?

Genesis 12:3 deals with Abraham’s physical offspring through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) and not in the broader sense of all believers. To curse Israel (the Jews) is tantamount to cursing the salvation that is of the Jews, Jesus Christ (John 4:22). Hence the stern warning that God will curse individuals and nations who curse and harass the Jews. It does not in the very least profess to promote Calvinism and its doctrines of grace.

Laurens le Roux ends his discourse with these words.

Admittedly, the God-gene argument is still hypothetical and needs to be verified scientifically. But what if it were true? We can definitely not yet say it is untrue! Yet, it appears that the Bible does suggest a kind of election. I do not believe the whole counsel of God has been fully disclosed and until then we certainly must believe like a little child.

The Word of God (the Bible) never, I repeat, NEVER panders to possible truths allowing us to think “But what if it were true?” It unequivocally says, “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free” (from error, deception, and misguided, so-called scientifically proven facts). What did Paul mean when he said, “for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27; ESV, Calvinist Bible), if the whole counsel of God has not been revealed to us yet? Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, 6) and anyone who seeks after scientifically verifiable facts to prove biblical doctrine is not living their lives in faith and, therefore, cannot please God, let alone believe like a little child. There is a huge difference between believing like a little child and being tossed like children from one heretical teaching to another.

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;

Ephesians 4:14

May God increase our discernment so that we may know truth from error and not be led astray by cunning false teachers who lie in wait to deceive, including those in the Calvinist fold.