Why am I saying this? Well, it has been placed in my heart that while my blog will cover small & big things, I also want to touch on other things that would otherwise be a waste of time for my youtube page, such as the very topic I am addressing in this post, namely Melvin Jones' Pulpit Pimps. His website is http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/. Let me just say off the hand this is not a personal knock on the man himself. I understand he has had his run ins with many false prophets,and he has publicly aired the differences he has had with his wife on which church they attend. Those are off-limit topics in my blog here. Mr. Jones has done a good and at times humorus job exposing these Word of Faith/ Oneness heretics who continue to fleece the flock and rob people of their money in the name of some false blessing that God is promising them. In that regard, I wish him well and Godspeed.
However, Mr. Jones has elso embraced the false doctrines of Reformed THeology, and for that he and his Pulpit-Pimps blog need to be exposed.
I have noticed as of late that Mr. Jones and his followers have continually written articles attacking anyone that dares disagree with their false doctrines of
Calvinism, and while they will say that they are not attacking anyone, the fact that they must continually write articles criticising so-called "Arminians" is a sign theyare either obsessed or someone has angered them to do so.
When I prerused the Pulp Pimps message board, I had made known one time that I was a King James Onlyist ( a term I absolutely HATE by the way since it betrays WHY us King james Onlyists are such.) Well, Mr. Jones was none too skippy about that fact. As a matter of fact when I had to deal with him on that issue, I wrote to him giving him details about why I reject the modern Bibles such as the New American Standard, and in that post I offered to e-mail a copy in Word Format of book I did on the Bible versions issue. Needless to say, Mr. Jones did NOT post my message on his board since he moderates what can and cannot go on his board. While it is his right to reject any post he so chooses, the fact that he ignored many of the facts I provided in that post showed he is either not interested in truth and wished to suppress it, or the truth was just too much for him. Either way, it does not bode well for a man who claims who defend the truth.
I have decided to refute some of the lies of Pulpit Pimps in regards to their false doctrine of Calvinism. Mr. Jones, IndependentConservative (real name unknown at this time,) and GaryV have all espoused the lie that the early church was calvinistic in nature and that Calvinism is orthodox and historical Christianity. Please take a few minutes to watch three videos. The first is by me,called, Against
Calvinism pt 10: What the Early Church REALLY believed regarding Free Will...:
The 2nd video, again by me, is part 11, called Against Calvinism pt 11: Gnosticism, Infant Baptism and the truth...:
These two videos are self eplanatory exposes of one Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus, living in the 2nd century, claimed to be a direct link to the apostle and spoke for Apostolic truth, and according to Irenaues, man CLEARLY had free will and as a matter of fact accused the GNOSTICS of refuting free will. Doesn't bode well for Calvinists who throw the terms"arminian" and "pelagian" in the same manner their Roman Catholic cousins throw the term "separated brethren." All three terms mean the same thing-heretic- and thus why I do not consider a 5 point Calvinist my brother but rather a man outside the faith who has maligned the holy nature of God to his own peril.
Now I want you to watch this third video, which is not by me, but by a youtuber named RefutingCalvinism, who has done his research and showed conclusively that the early church not only believed that man had A FREE WILL, but they rejected clearly what became known as the false "doctrines of grace," or Calvinism.
I don't think I need to do anymore fact searching regarding the early church. That they believed that man had free will and they rejected calvinistic teachings is
not up for debate. To deny such is to just be an outright liar. This is why Calvinists trace thier roots from John Calvin to Augustine and jump right to the
apostle Paul. It's a manipulative tactic used by Calvinists to make their position
look orthodox. The fact that they jump from Augustine to Paul shows the lack of any
historical support for Calvinism in the first 3 centuries of Christian existence.
Ask a Calvinist to name a Calvinistic Christian prior to Augustine and before Paul, and they'll look as perplexed as they are arrogant. And just for the record, as I have shown in my videos, the apostle Paul was NOT a Calvinist and the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 MUST ignore Malachi 1 among other scriptures for its position to hold.
Now I want to do a little refuting. This will be one of many refutations of some of the false articles written by either Melvin Jones or his associates on the Pulpit Pimps blog. In this case it will be an article written by a man known only as GaryV, a Pulpit-Pimps regular. The name of the article is "Free. But Free To Do What?," written on March 11th, 2009. The link is here:
http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/?p=896
To make sure he has made the Bible null and void, Melvin Jones, in defending GaryV's nonsense, wrote a sort of "foreword" to the article:
"(Address the argument. GaryV has presented a discussion of free will. He has presented a discussion on what freedoms we truly have as a saved person and as an unsaved person. If you respond, do not present one of the knee jerk responses such as “John 3:16 says ‘whosoever will’ means we can choose. Afterall, he just spent a bunch of words discussing the will. )"
So we can't use God's word in refuting heresy because Melvin Jones and his followers have deemed (as any good Calvinist would) that certain words to NOT mean what they say. I cannot blame Mr. Jones for he has only done what his forefathers before him have done. Arthur W. Pink said the word "world" cannot mean the world, but rather "the world of believers," even though it is a huge stretch of the text to say such a thing. Mark Keiler, in his careful manipulation of the Greek text, has
convinced his followers that the word "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 does NOT mean all, but rather some of a select kind. If you want to scramble your brain and serve it for breakfast with Coco Puffs, listen to D. James Kennedy on this subject of the word "all." Sorry to burst your philosophy bubble, Mr. Jones, but we WILL use the Bible and especially John 3:16 to refute your heresies.
Let us dissect the article written by GaryV. He begins with lie #1:
"We’ve been back and forth on the issue of “free will.” It occurred to me that if we are going to debate the subject, it’s incumbent upon us to define terms. I agree man has a will, but I deny that it’s free. I will further say the Bible never says the will is free."
So the Bible never says man's will is free? Well, let's see if God agrees with GaryV:
Leviticus 19:5 -And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
Notice that the LORD said that the children of Israel would offer a sacrifice OF THEIR OWN WILL. Now if man does not have a free will, why would God lie and say he does?
Leviticus 22:18-19- Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.
God does seem to emphasize "at your own will," doesn't he? He even helps define free will for you a few verses later:
Leviticus 22:29- And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.
Ezra 7:13-I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
Now the Calvinist will argue that these were the words of Artaxerxes the king, and not of God. However, Ezra would disagree in verse 27:
"Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem"
So we have proof that God placed in the heart of the King of Persia to remind the men of their "free will." And if you read chapter 3 of Ezra, there's also this little nugget from the Holy SPirit:
"And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD."
WILLINGLY OFFERED? Is that what the Bible says or not? Again, to GaryV, Melvin Jones, and other Calvinists who put tradition above the Bible: God is truth, and you Calvinists are liars.
1 Corinthians 7:36-37-But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."
"let him do what he will..." Although Anton Lavey unfortunately batardized this phrase and made it the mantra for Satanism, it doesn't change the fact that Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, said a man can do what he will when it comes to a particular issue of marriage.
Now why would God speak of something that does not exist? Why Would GaryV insist the Bible does not mention what it actually DOES mention? Unless the calvinist wants to continue the word games they are famous for, I think when the Holy Spirit says "freewill," it means "freewill," or else He would have used ANOTHER word for what He wanted to convey. I would hope GaryV would repent and admit error when he stated the Bible never says the will is free, when in fact it does. To say it doesn't is just to flat out lie. However, many a gnostic, err, I mean Calvinist, have admitted the Bible does mention free will. Their new argument, to save face, is that, yes, man has a free will, EXCEPT when it comes to actually believing on Christ. You see what a confusing mess Calvinism can be.
Now it is important to keep in mind that when GaryV refers to Arminians, he is referring to anyone that denies Calvinism, not necessarily one who holds to the tenants of Arminianism, which includes the notion that you can lose your salvation. In some ways, as I have documented in my video, Unbelief is a sin, Non-Calvinist, the calvinist and arminian both agree that salvation can be lost. The Arminian, however, is honest about it, while the Calvinist creates a problem-solver: the
old "he was never saved to begin with" get-out-of-jail card. The fact is a lot of Bible believing Christians believe your salvation cannot be lost, and I am talking about the Calvinist-denying kind. I'll do a separate blog down the road showing why the 5th point of Calvinism, PERSERVERANCE of the Saints, is straight up works salvation and is not eternal security at all. Anyway, here is what GaryV says about these mean-old Arminians and free will:
"In the Arminian mindset a free will is a will free from external influence. It is a will that can make choices by itself, without being influenced or moved by God. This, for the Arminian is especially true with respect to salvation. However, what the typical Arminian refuses to take into his or her calculus is that the will is tied directly to the nature of the being."
Lie#2 - Somehow, Bible believing Christians believe that a man's will is free if it cannot be influenced by God, at least according to GaryV. This shows two things: 1)the calvinist is wrong regarding what Bible believing Christians believe regarding free will, and 2) the calvinist is wrong regarding what free will is, PERIOD. Notice, in GaryV's last sentence, he states that "arminians" refuse to take into their calculus that the will is tied directly to the nature of the being.
This is important for us to dissect GaryV's entire article because as we will see, his whole premise is just laughably flawed. We will go back to this argument in just a bit.
"How many here agree that God the Father has a free will, and can do whatever He wants, or wills, to do? I won’t post Scriptures to demonstrate that He does, since I am certain most (if not all) of you agree that He does.
But here is a curious thing: The Bible says God cannot lie (Titus 1:2); Notice it doesn’t say he doesn’t want to lie. It says He can’t lie. Why not? Why can’t He lie? Doesn’t He have free will in determining whether or not He tells the truth? Of course He does.
The Bible also says that God CANNOT be tempted with evil (James 1:13). Why not? Has He lost free will in this area as well?? No. Of course not."
Lie#3- somehow, Free will is not TIED to a want, but tied to a nature. The Scripture is true, God CANNOT lie. Why is it God cannot lie? GaryV agrees it does not diminish God's free will, but he ignores simple scripture to prove why God can FREELY CHOOSE not to lie. Now, I am not saying God could have chosen not to lie. He CANNOT lie. It is against God's nature. WHY is it against God's nature? It is because God CANNOT sin, and sin is always compared to a form of bondage. 1 Peter 3:19 talks about when Christ "went and preached unto the spirits in prison." Many have sugested that the prison is referring to Hell or some other place where OT saints went prior to the Crucifixion. If you've seen my Sons of God: Follow Up Q&A Video, you know I do not believe in that and I give scriptures to prove my point. One such scripture is found in Isaiah 42:7, which the LORD says, "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." This prison is referring to sin if you read the whole chapter in context. For example, in verse 18 of Isaiah 42, the Lord says, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see." In verse 20, the LORD says, "Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not." This is similar to what God said in Ezekiel 12:2, which states, "Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house." It is obvious the blind and the deaf are referring to those who refuse to keep God's commandments, IE sinning. Therefore, in the context of what is being stated in ISaiah 42:7, the prison is referring to sin. Prison is likened unto sin because of sin's power to enslave a man. God is FREE to do as he pleases because He is free of sin. Man is not, but because man is free it does not mean he CANNOT do right. He unfortunately cannot do right EVERYTIME, but he CAN do right. This is why God cannot lie, because He is free from sin. When you think about it, it's really not that hard of a concept. Calvinism must unfortunately make the Bible as convuluted as itself in order to survive its loopholes.
So when a man who knows God and is saved commits sin, does that mean he is not excersizing his free will? Of course not. He has knowledge of the truth and had the capability to make a free choice not to sin, but man WILL sin. However, if man is so totally depraved that he can only know sin and hate God (despite the fact that he does not KNOW God prior to hearing the Gospel, ROmans 10,) why do alot of UNSAVED men not commit murder? How come so many unsaved men do not RAPE? How come so many unsaved men do not become sodomites? You would think if man is not so free of will, then all unaved men would become deviants. That is not the case, because man has the capability to choose right and wrong, but the bottom line is also that ALL have come short of God's glory. but this leads to GaryV's next attempt to prove his point:
"Everyone’s free will is constrained by its nature. That goes for animals, humans and God. Free will is limited by the nature of the one exercising it. Let me explain from the animal kingdom first, move up to man, then ultimately to God.
Does a lion have the freewill to eat daisies and buttercups rather than meat?? Of course he does. What’s stopping him? A lion is big and bad enough to eat flowers if he so chooses. None of the other animals on the Serengeti would be able to stop him. He has the freewill and the power to eat ANYTHING he desires, doesn’t he? With respect to flowers, there is nothing forbidding him from eating daisies. He has the free will to do so whenever he wishes. "
GaryV has resorted to comparing man with animals, and he is not the only Calvinist to do so, but it's laughable because this is what atheists and evolutionists would do since they see no distinction between man and animal. Once you accept that the Bible clearly makes a disctinction between man and animal, you begin to understand why GaryV's arguments here are just, well- bad.
First, the Bible says in Genesis 1:26-27 & 5:2 that man was created in God's image. Lions, dogs, birds, plants, trees- none of those were created in God's image. Man was given a special role in God's paradigm, so special was man that God injected a little bit of HIMSELF in man. Animals and plants do NOT have that sane claim. Man was created with a SOUL. This is what distinguishes him from all other living beings. When a dog dies, he dies. He does not have a soul to go to heaven or hell.
It is over for him. Same with cats. Same with all other animals, same plants, etc. Call it annilationism for animals if you will. Animals are divided into genus and species. Humans are not. Animals are not under bondage to sin. Man is. See why it is stupid to compare animals with humans? Take one of the stupidest animals in the world, the ostrich, whom God Himself said was stupid, according to Job 39:17. Yeah, there are many times where God had deprived wisdom from men, but not from man as a whole. Here God said he deprived the ostrich AS A WHOLE. Again, in God's paradigm, animals are totally different from man.
GaryV goes on:
"By analogy, the spiritual nature of man works very much the same way. Do I have free will in spiritual matters? Yes, insofar as my will is always determined by my nature. Unfortunately for me, my nature before Christ transformed my heart was to hate God, to revile God, not to seek God or desire God. Since by nature I was an enemy of God, I could never choose Him because it would be contrary to my nature, which dictates my appetites (sin), and directs my will to hate and reject God."
Typical Calvinist jargon. Like parrots they recite the old "we hated God before we got saved" mantra. However, the only time the Bible mentions anyone hating God, it is AFTER hearing the truth, not before it:
Romans 1:21- "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." :Notice it starts off by saying they became darkened AFTER THEY KNEW GOD. The next few verses outlines a very perverse descent into depravity by these people who REJECTED GOD. They eventually become reprobated, vile, sodomites, murderes, and in verse we have this:
"Backbiters, HATERS OF GOD, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,"
So you see, beloved, haters of God are those who hate God AFTER they recieved the knowledge of God, not before it. What does the Bible say about men in general prior to hearing the truth of God. Does it say we hate God? Romans 10:14 says, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Paul says NO MAN can call upon God until they hear OF HIM. Why? Well, the Bible is clear that none seeketh after, there is none that doeth good, no not one, but that's because we're in prison, under bondage of sin. We don't seek after God because we do not know of Him. When we find God, it is only after God REVEALED Himself to us, through the power of preaching. Yes, the Bible says in Romans 8:7 that the carnal mind is enmity with God, meaning our fleshly mind is an enemy of God, but put two and two together. First, Paul wrote that as an admonition to CHRISTIANS, so Christians therefore are capable of slipping into a carnal mind. Second, We know from Jonah 4:11 that, after the city of Niniveh heard the preaching of Jonah and repented from their wicked ways before the Lord, God made this incredible statement: "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
The Lord said He is sparing Nineveh from destruction because they could not tell right or wrong, which is why instead of having Jonah preach damnation unto them, He had the prophet preach an ultimatum- repent or be destroyed. Why? BEcause since they knew not the wrong they were doing, God had mercy on them and allowed their eyes to be open so they could freely choose their own fate. Their carnal minds were at enmity with God, which is why God had to do something about it, yet they knew not God because they weren't seeking after Him. They didn't care to because as Romans 10:14 says, they have not HEARD of Him. So one cannot hate God according to the Bible until AFTER they have heard of him and freely reject Him.
We go down further in GaryV's main point which is this:
"It would be impossible for those without Christ to receive the Gospel (which is of the Spirit) or any other thing of God. Without Christ, not only do we not seek him or understand Him, but if we found Him we could not receive Him. We were incapable of doing good in that manner. "
Lie #4- Faith is a good work. This is where Calvinists are just either willfully ignorant or wicked. It cannot be any clearer in Romans 4:5 that FAITH IS NOT A WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS- IT'S NOT A WORK, PERIOD. The Calvinist does not care. He has been brainwashed by their Calvinist masters and calvinist commentaries that faith indeed IS a work. GaryV lies when he says that we could not recieve Him when we found him. Lie, lie, LIE! John 1:12 easily refutes this horrific lie:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
So, according to this scripture, the power to become sons of God were given to those WHO HAD ALREADY RECIEVED HIM. It's as clear as day. Further proof?
Ephesians 1:12-13- "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."
According to that passage, trust in Christ came BEFORE the seal of the Holy Spirit, not after it.
"God therefore must make the first move. If He does not first change our nature we cannot ever choose Him by our will (it’s against our natures and desires) nor receive Him (because we cannot receive anything of the Spirit, including the drawing of the Spirit)."
No one denies that it is God making the first move. It is called the foolishnes of preaching, God's modus operandi. Spirit-filled men must answer the call to preach the gospel and share the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. However, as GaryV continues to push the lie that we are incapable of recieving Christ, you have seen the Scriptures that show otherwise.
Now GaryV brings about one of Calvinism's pet passages:
"According to that little narrative out of Acts, who believed? Who received? Only those already ordained by God to Eternal Life. Who made the first move? God did. He chose the Elect before the foundation of the world, before you had a free will, before you had done good or evil, before you existed to make a choice."
He is of course referring to Acts 13:48. The Calvinists read it as "God ordained whom He ordained and they believed." The scripture, however, actually reads "the ones who were ordained were the ones who believed." And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. All who were ordained believed. The word "ordained" is a present tense, not to be confused with "foreordained," which suggests what Calvinists think is being done in the passage of Acts. Jude speaks of a ordination "of old" when referring to false prophets, and Peter in 1 Peter 1:20 speaks of "foreordination," so when the Bible wants to speak of an ordination that has been pre-determined, it would say so. Consider this passage in Acts 14:23:
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."
The Bible here speaks of an ordination, same word used in Acts 13:48. Was this a predetermined ordination? It was clearly an ordination that was done PRESENT TENSE. Same with Acts 13:48, or else a different word would have been used.
Then GaryV uses another typical Calvinist pet passage:
"According as he hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him
Eph 1:4 "
He misuses this scripture to his own peril. That passage is NOT saying that our salvation was predetermined, but that our purpose for our salvation is predetermined, meaning God intended for those who got saved to be CONFORMED to the image of His son, as per Romans 8:29. The Bible defines itself, but GaryV would no doubt not listen to correction. He and his brethren at Pulpit-Pimps would rather listen to their Calvinist masters than the Bible, so therefore I will oblige them in this case. Here are the words of a very famous pastor regarding "predestination:"
"Our text begins by the expression, "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate," and many senses have been given to this word "foreknow" though in this case one commends itself beyond every other. Some have thought that it simply, means that God predestinated men whose future history ho foreknow. The text before us cannot be so understood, because the Lord foreknows the history of every man, and angel, and devil. So far as mere prescience goes, every man is foreknown, and yet no one will assert that all men are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus. But, it is further asserted that the Lord foreknow who would exercise repentance, who would believe in Jesus, and who would persevere in a consistent life to the end. This is readily granted, but a reader must wear very powerful magnifying spectacles before he will be able to discover that sense in the text. Upon looking carefully at my Bible again I do not perceive such a statement. Where are those words which you have added, "Whom he did foreknow to repent, to believe, and to persevere in grace?" I do not find them either in the English version or in the Greek original. If I could so read them the passage would certainly he very easy, and would very greatly alter my doctrinal views; but, as I do not find those words there, begging your pardon, I do not believe in them...."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ will say, in the judgment, concerning certain persons, "I never knew you," yet in a sense he knew them, for he knows every man; he knows the wicked as well as the righteous; but there the meaning is, "I never knew you in such a respect as to feel any complacency in you or any favor towards you." See also John 10:14-15, and 2 Timothy 2:19. In Romans 11:2, we read, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknow," where the sense evidently has the idea of fore-love; and it is so to be understood here. Those whom the Lord looked upon with favor as he foresaw them, he has predestinated to he conformed to the image of his Son. They are, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Ephesians, "predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will..."
"I. Mark then, with care, that OUR CONFORMITY TO CHRIST IS THE SACRED OBJECT OF PREDESTINATION."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Glorious Predestination, March 24th, 1872
So Spurgeon, a Calvinist, KNEW that the text was not referring to predestination of salvation, but a predestination of conformity AFTER one is saved. Even an old time Calvinist proves GaryV wrong.
To address one more point, GaryV shows his arrogance, as would any Calvinist, with his 'exegesis" of John 17:6-9:
"This is why Christ does not pray for the world, but only those whom the Father has given Him, that is, the Elect.
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. Jhn 17:6-9 "
Before we show what John 17:6-9 is REALLY saying, let us once again prove GaryV wrong with the Word of God. So Jesus actually did not believe in praying for all men? Well, Luke does not agree with GaryV:
"And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God." Luke 23:33-35
Here we have Jesus asking the Father to FORGIVE THE ONES WHO CRUCIFIED HIM! So Jesus only encouraged to pray just for the brethren? Wrong. That means GaryV's interpretation of John 17:6-9 is wrong. Jesus was referring NOT to the elect but to the APOSTLES! His prayer to the Father was for the APOSTLES, not the elect, and it isn't until verse 20 that He makes clear that the whole time He was praying for the Apostles because he then includes "them also which shall believe on me through their word." So it's clear the whole time he was referring to the APostles, and then THOSE THAT BELIEVE ON HIM, not those that were chosen. Another fallacy in GaryV's poor attempt to jusitfy this passage for his wicked doctrine is found in verse 15, when Christ said to the Father, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil." Now why would Christ NOT want them to be taken out of the world? Because in verse 18 He says, "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." Now why in the world would Jesus send His disciples into the world if He is not praying for the world? The answer is in - yup -John 3:16. For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. In John 17:18 Jesus wanted His apostles to do out in the world what HE was sent to do in the world, which is what? According to the Bible, Jesus came to call NOT the rightous, but SINNERS to repentance (that is, if you have a King James Bible. If you have New American Standard Bible, which is the Bible of Pulpit-Pimps' choice, the part about "repentance" is missing.) Now who are the sinners? Well, goodnight, according to ROmans 3:23, that would be EVERYONE. Jesus was sent to preach to the WORLD, not to confirm the world but to convict it of its wickedness and need for salvation. So when Jesus said He will not pray for the world, He is saying he will not pray for the world's way of things or its system, but He clearly wants those in the world who are receptive to God's word to be saved.
I think I have dissected GaryV's article well enough with no need to further go into any more detail. This will be the first of many articles I will write refuting the heretical attempts by those at Pulpit-Pimps to expouse their Calvinism against the Bible. The Gnostics over at Pulpit-Pimps may or may not care that I refute their reformed catholic garbage. It may not be a popular thing to do, but dadgummit someone has to. Lord knows there's a blood-bought Bible believer prerusing the internet late at night who has questions about this issue and needs some answers. May the Lord bless them.
