Friday, November 12, 2010

...And They Just Keep Coming: More on Kirk Bookmyer's Hyper - Calvinsim Attitude

This post has been completely updated with no captions or cut-offs of the photos. Please read carefully and note how one who cannot answer with a Scriptural basis responds with emotions. Anyone wishing to read the entire thing on Facebook may do so at this link: Facebook Coversation - Kirk Bookmyer & Steven Long. Thank you.


A couple of months ago I did a post (the very first one on this blog actually) about Hyper-Calvinism. The post can be read in it's entirety here. The conversation took place between myself and a man by the name of Kirk Bookmyer. Mr. Bookmyer is under the impression that one must be a Calvinist in order to be truly saved. Yesterday, I logged on and found the following comment left for me:

ForAllTruth said...

Thanks for posting this. You saved me the trouble of exposing your lies myself!

Here are more writings of mine for you to post.

Please do not edit them, either. Thanks, again.

Note, how he quickly accuses me of lying. Somehow he is under the impression that I "edited" our conversation. Well, just to prove I didn't I have the original conversation with profile pix and all. Yep! Thanks to technology I was able to track down the original conversation and as you, the reader, will see that I edited nothing out. The exchange is a series of 11 different photos. I broke them up so that you would be able to clearly see all the words and everything that was said. And so, Mr. Bookmyer, I humbly dedicate this post to you. If ever again you should accuse me of something at least make sure there is no way for me to track the info down.


  1. Hyper-Calvinist foiled again by reality and truth. I can just picture him shaking his fist at the screen "I'll get you Steven...and your little dog too."

  2. Mr. Bookmyer reminds me of a quote by R.C. Sproul regarding die-hard Calvinists: they know the doctrines of Grace, but they don't know the grace of the doctrines.

    I was especially amused how he took James White's separate statements that Roman Catholicism and Arminianism are both man-centered. Talk about forgetting context: while Dr. White does believe that Arminianism and Roman Catholicism are inherently man-centered in their presentations of the gospel, it is for different reasons, and with a far wider set of problems for Roman Catholicism. He considers Arminians brothers in Christ. Just to illustrate this: in his dialogue with Dr. Dave Hunt on the radio, he pointed out that Hunt's soteriology was closer to Rome than that of the reformers; yet on his YouTube videos, Dr. White affirmed that he considered Dave Hunt a brother in Christ. Like Steven pointed out, Dr. White does not believe Arminians are going to hell. Mr. Bookmyer has therefore come to a different conclusion than the original source he was citing. It's rather akin to Muslims quoting atheists to disprove Christianity, even though the conclusions of atheism and Islam are entirely different.

  3. You make WAY to many assumptions. Context is the key to understanding what anyone writes. The context is that you think that anyone who denies the God of the bible (as I define it - i.e. A Calvinistic God) is a Christian. To be even more clear. Read A.W. Pink's Sovereignty of God. Pink describes my God. Norm Geisler and many other Arminians describe a DIFFERENT GOD. You say that they are the same God (as if the Calvinist and the Arminian worship the same god. That is THE lie. Those are the kinds of lies I am talking about.

    I thanked you and encouraged you to post more of my stuff. I was seriously impressed and thankful for you having the integrity NOT to edit them but to post them as they actually happened. So please, continue! Please post this one, too (unedited, of course). That way people will understand that I approve of what you are doing here. Thanks! May the REAL GOD be glorified!

  4. You make WAY to many assumptions. Context is the key to understanding what anyone writes. The context is that you think that anyone who denies the God of the bible (as I define it - i.e. A Calvinistic God) is a Christian.

    That then is the real problem, Kirk. It's how you define who God is, not the Bible. You seem to be under the impression that Anyone who has not come to the conclusion of God's absolute sovereignty is not saved. That is unscriptural and that is what you must cease to do. You must be willing to define salvation by Scripture's terms, not your own.

    My problem with you is not that you are a Calvinist but that you continually exceed the parameters of Scripture. You point people to links about damnable teachings but I have consistently examined the links you post for your "proof" of what you believe and always notice two key things:

    1.) The links are all sermons about false teachings, prophets, etc. They have nothing to do with the Calvinism/Arminian debate. They are general sermons giving general guidelines on how to avoid false teaching. Nothing is said about believing in Calvinism; nothing is said that one is damned if he/she does not accept Calvinism.

    2.) The very men that you link to do not hold your position that one must be a Calvinist to be saved. Why then, do you post them? For example, in our first conversation you quoted James White as supporting your position. Yet when I pointed you to this article you totally ignored it.

    If you are going to persist in and promote your beliefs (especially using men of God as your "proof") then I will contact these men personally and warn them that you are using their good names to promote heresy.

    I am entreating you now as a brother, Kirk, to stop your divisive behavior. Things you have said have been destructive rather than edifying. Regardless of what you think, you are not bringing glory to Christ or His body by your behavior. Those of us in the body of Christ disdain such things and those on the outside looking in are repulsed by your actions.

    Please, consider carefully your attitude and actions before doing them. Thank you for taking time to read this.

    With all sincerity,
    Steven Long

  5. So what do you say about A.W. Pink when he wrote??? There are plenty of people who agree with me that the bible describes a Calvinistic God! Where do you think James R. White gets his theology (theology = the description of the true God)? He got it from the bible. Thus the God of the bible is THE GOD! And this God is the exact God Calvinism portrays.

    Men imagine that the Most High is moved by sentiment, rather than actuated by principle. They suppose that His omnipotency is such an idle fiction that Satan is thwarting His designs on every side. They think that if He has formed any plan or purpose at all, then it must be like theirs, constantly subject to change. They openly declare that whatever power He possesses must be restricted, lest He invade the citadel of man’s “free will” and reduce him to a “machine.” They lower the all efficacious Atonement, which has actually redeemed everyone for whom it was made, to a mere “remedy,” which sin-sick souls may use if they feel disposed to; and they enervate the invincible work of the Holy Spirit to an “offer” of the Gospel which sinners may accept or reject as they please. The “god” of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The “god” who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form “gods” out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a “god” out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A “god” whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt.
    A.W. Pink Attributes of God, Chapter 5 – The Supremacy of God

  6. Kirk,

    I've pointed you to a link earlier regardign James White's view on this subject. You seemed to almost ignore while continuing to use him as proof of your beliefs.

    In fact, you continually quote or link to authors who do not agree that a person must be a Calvinist in order to be saved.

    Pink was a passionate person about doctrine, which we all should be. But we should also be careful not to tread where Scripture doesn't. But note as well that he says some of the same things that the great preachers today say. Yet, they do not hold to the belief that non-Calvinists are not saved. Spurgeon called Arminianism heresy but he also called those whose faith exhibited fruit, brothers.

    As far as the Bible is concerned the only requirement for salvation is repentance and faith. Let us be careful not to condemn those who need no condemnation.

  7. Mr. Bookmyer, I think you're misunderstanding what Steven is trying to convey: we are not to go beyond what is written, and we are to go by the words of scripture. Obviously if I didn't believe Calvinism was the biblical interpretation of soteriology I wouldn't believe in it, however I recognize that the core of soteriology is two of the five solas: Solus Christus with Soli Deo Gloria. I have a good friend who is not a Calvinist, but has a grasp that she is only saved by Christ alone, and upon no other name can she entrust her salvation.

    You continually name-drop Calvinists and quote theologians, and while that's good it's also not where we base ourselves; I adore Jonathan Edwards, but I put scripture over Edwards (and I think he would be proud of me for doing so). Likewise, you keep quoting people for evidence of your point when it has already been addressed as erroneous (I pointed out that James White believed Arminians to be brothers in Christ). You are also forgetting some of the most classic examples of this: besides the example given by Steven with Charles Spurgeon, let's not forget that George Whitefield and John Wesley were on opposite ends of the spectrum, yet they considered one another good friends and godly men. All these men would either oppose hyper-Calvinism or showed no signs of it.

    My point is that scripture does not tell us a person has to believe in the Five Points of Calvinism to be saved; they have to repent and believe in Christ to be given eternal life. A person who believes this is saved.

  8. Let's think this through..

    Holy Writ describes the Calvinist God, right?

    I say, yes.

    Holy Writ says to worship the true God?


    Therefore, since the Arminian god is not the God of the bible (see the answer to the first question), and the faith alone must be in the Calvinistic God (Jesus) to be a saving faith, then the Arminians have a false-faith and are themselves false converts.

    Steve, you error, by saying that since people agree with Pink on some matters but draw different conclusions, then we can just go with the conclusions.

    James White doesn't adhere to his own teaching. He stresses a Calvinistic God as the only God that is biblical. Then, he erroneously/arbitrarily concludes that Arminians who worship a different god are saved just because they use the same terms (such as faith alone, Christ alone). You folks along with James White are ignorant of (or perhaps intentionally suppress) the fact that just like all false forms of Christianity from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism they use the same terms (like faith alone, Christ alone) but define them within a framework of thought that has the wrong god to begin with.

    So I could talk all day about loving President Lincoln and I could say all sorts of things that other people who TRULY admire him would agree with until I said that it was so interesting to know that Lincoln was an alien from another planet. At that point they would be correct to conclude that despite all the true things I said about Pres. Lincoln, I must have no idea who he really was at all. I got a fundamental aspect of him all wrong.

    Just as if someone denied the Trinity has the wrong god, so does the Arminian. The Arminian affirms the Trinity but denies a defining characteristic of the Trinity. What is that characteristic? It is that The Trinue God achieves the salvation of everyone for whom Christ died. What kind of God doesn't control the destinies of His creatures effectively by Himself? Therefore, Limited Atonement is an essential of the faith. Because without it you don't have the biblical God, at all.

  9. "I've pointed you to a link earlier regarding James White's view on this subject. You seemed to almost ignore while continuing to use him as proof of your beliefs." S. Long

    Of course, I ignored it. I know what his conclusions are. I find them to be conclusions that are inconsistent with most of what he teaches. His teaching is biblical. But his application is not biblical. It is like he is an Arminian in practice but a Calvinist in theology. He is unstable. John Piper has a similar problem. This is the double-minded man that the Holy Writ warns us about. Do what they say, but don't do what they do! That is a constant warning in the bible. One that I take seriously. So I will quote James White and omit his application that undermines what I wish to quote! Same goes for Spurgeon!!! I will not stop quoting what is helpful while discarding and ignoring what is not helpful to the furtherance of the True Gospel.

  10. ForAllTruth;

    The problem is that your doctrinal legalism can be applied any where. Are Evangelicals, who believe in believer's baptism, supposed to consider Presbyterian to be heretics because of their belief in infant baptism? After all, one might say that the "biblical God" teaches believer's baptism in Holy Writ. Are you willing to go that far? If you say no, and demand everything be based on the doctrines of grace, then I ask, again, where in scripture is that demanded?

    You might say, "Well it's demanded to believe in the true God!" All right, but show me where soteriology of the Calvinistic mantra is demanded of the believer? That kind of argumentation reminds me of Roman Catholics who take John 6:53 and try to say that if you don't believe in the Real Presence you are condemned. The fact is, many things are demanded of believers, such as faith in Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, etc.), but the Five Points of Calvinism are not.

    Furthermore, there is some inconsistency here. You demand a 100% Biblical application of all beliefs (at least those held by you). All right - you've pointed out that James White, John Piper, and Charles Spurgeon (and I'm guessing George Whitefield as well) all had unbiblical applications. Are you therefore saying they were heretics? Or maybe whitewashed tombs? You've already said he's "unstable" (which I don't see at all), but that's stopping short of being completely consistent.

    Furthermore, if you think these men are "unstable" or have inerrant applications, then why do you quote them for proof of your beliefs? That's something you have yet to address.

  11. What I find truly amazing, Kirk is that you use the exact same tactics to defend your beleifs as those who are Muslim, Mormon, Atheists, etc. Just as Muslims use Bart Ehrman to express that Christianity is wrong (forget about the fact that he thinks all religion is wrong) and declare vicotry in that a "scholar" has agreed with their conclusions on Christianity, so you too have done the exact same thing.

    You have declared what these teachers teach in that it is good and in the next breath damns them as heretics. Why do you do such? Because you cannot defend your position from Scripture. You would rather use a sort of logic to try and defend yourself, but your logic goes way beyond the parameters of the Bible. The reason these men (Spurgeon, White, Piper) believe that a person can be an Arminian and still be saved is because they don't tread where Scriptre doesn't.

    I've asked you numerous times to present Biblical support of your position. You are either unwilling or unable to do so. Becuause of this, this will be the last commetn I publish of yours unless you decide to stick to the blog rules[link here].

    I've been more than fair in listening to you so please read them carefully and do not bother to comment again unless you are willing to adhere to the guidelines.

  12. Well, if the God of the Bible is a Calvinistic God then faith in another god (the Arminian one) is pointless. If you don't think that the whole bible teaches that then I see no need to quote all 66 books on your blog!

    You and I are of different religions and only one is Christian.

    I have answered all of your questions. You are just to dumb to realize it. I quote people when and where they are right. And I disagree with them where they are wrong. I don't care if you like it of lump it. You are nothing to me.

    Look at others who agree with me on some of these issues....

  13. Read this too. You act like I am all by myself with no support.

  14. You will know doubt like what I read here. I think this sums up your views does it not?


  16. The problem with your views and those who agree with you Kirk, is the same problem with those Arminians who claim that Calvinism is a damnable heresy: They both go where Scripture doesn't. It's plain & simple. No need to keep posting links, or articles. All the arguments these guys use are the same.

  17. BTW, the answer to the last link you posted is no. I do not fully agree with the gentleman who wrote it. The Synod of Dort did not condemn Arminians as unsaved; or at least I do not recall that from the history of the Arminian/Calvinist debate. I've read the book The Articles of the Synod of Dort and Its Rejection of Errors but recall nothing of the sort as this gentleman proposed.

  18. And just for the record, I never claimed you were "alone" in your beliefs. I simply said that you could not quote one reputable author who agreed with you.

  19. He's far crazier than you think... Child rape?

    someone needs to call the feds on this guy...also now going around and harassing pastor's children on facebook?

  20. "Child rape is the judgment of God on the evil child."

    OK...this guy is officially whack. And I don't use that term loosely.

  21. I've read the child rape thing before. Just like all his other stuff it is full of his opinions and no Scriptural support of any kind. It's obvious that he has no children or one to love. My question to him then, would be: what about those who are Christians that experience that kind of tragedy?

    Some people just don't think before they open their mouths!