Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Announcements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

facebook: Discerning the World

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

Click here for the General Comments Section Discerning the World - General Conversation Section

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article Archive

Click here to find a List of all Articles List of all Articles
Click here to find a List of all Categories to search by Categories / Keywords

Website Stats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Calvinists Justify the Known Murderer, John Calvin.

Calvinists Justify the Known Murderer, John Calvin.

John Calvin -Murderer

Known Murderer, John Calvin

Incarcerated criminals who’d received lifelong prison sentences often use foolhardy lackeys to do their dirty work for them. Many crimes are committed by proxy, exonerating the mafia masterminds in jail of some of the most heinous murders – thanks to the stupid lackeys who revere, fear and even worship their bosses in prison. It is a well-documented fact that John Calvin wielded great power over civil and ecclesiastical authorities and could sway the masses to dance to his tune like a proper Pied the Piper (No, I’m not referring to John Piper).

A master of the art of organization, Calvin had been able to transform a whole city, a whole State, whose numerous burghers had hitherto been freemen, into a rigidly obedient machine; had been able to extirpate independence, and to lay an embargo on freedom of thought in favour of his own exclusive doctrine. The powers of the State were under his supreme control; as wax in his hands were the various authorities, Town Council and Consistory, university and law-courts, finance and morality, priests and schools, catchpoles and prisons, the written and the spoken and even the secretly whispered word. His doctrine had become law, and anyone who ventured to question it was soon taught–by arguments that burked discussion, by the arguments of every spiritual tyranny, by jail, exile, or burning at the stake–how in Geneva only one truth was valid, the truth of which Calvin was the prophet.

But the sinister power of this zealot extended far beyond the walls of Geneva. The Swiss federated cities regarded him as their chief political member; throughout the western world the Protestants had appointed this “violentissimus Christianus” their commander-in-chief; kings and princes vied with one another in wooing the favour of a militant ecclesiastic who had established in Europe a Church organization second in power only to that ruled by the Roman pontiff. Nothing could happen in the political world without his knowledge; very little could happen there in defiance of his will. It had become as dangerous to offend the preacher of St.-Pierre as to offend emperor or pope. (“The Right to Heresy” or “How Calvin Killed a Conscience” – Castellio against Calvin)

It baffles the mind and often borders on the bizarre to see how Calvinists who call themselves loving and obedient sheep and followers of Jesus Christ fight tooth and nail to defend their hero, the murderer and serial killer — JOHN CALVIN (FrenchJean Calvin, born Jehan Cauvin: 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564).

Many Calvinists who have been defending the doctrines of John Calvin their entire life are now beginning to sing another song. In stead of defending the doctrines of grace, they are doing everything in their power to defend John Calvin. The song is called “How to Justify a Murderer.” The main reason for their U-turn is – wait for it –  the INTERNET. Yep! that’s right – the INTERNET. The internet is singlehandedly the best proof that Bible prophecy is the truth and nothing but the truth. Listen up!

 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:3)

The Amplified Bible says it thus:

Whatever you have spoken in the darkness shall be heard and listened to in the light, and what you have whispered in [people’s] ears and behind closed doors will be proclaimed upon the housetops.

I trust that you’ve noticed the connection between the internet and the Bible? The internet by far has made the most significant contribution to the uncovering of John Calvin’s murderous activities in Geneva, even more than all the books written on the subject put together. Believe it or not, some of the most zealous Calvinists are now beginning to admit – on the INTERNET – that Calvin was a murderer, and indeed a serial killer par excellence.

Many lesser known Calvinists, but of no lesser importance, are trying to put some distance between themselves and John Calvin. “OK Mr Serial Killer, we are so sorry for having to put you in our imaginative prison but don’t fret; we revere, honour and adore your “Institutes” so much that we will personally undertake the task of telling people that God never loved them and that his Son never died for them on the cross.”  Some South African Calvinists who no longer want to be known as Calvinists and yet still approve of his doctrines openly admit that they do not condone his atrocious crimes. Others claim that history bears witness to the fact that he never killed Servetus.

Shall we then page through some of the best and well-known encyclopaedias to see what HISTORY tells us.

Servetus forwarded the manuscript of an enlarged revision of his ideas, the Christianismi Restitutio, to Calvin in 1546 and expressed a desire to meet him. After their first few letters, Calvin would have nothing more to do with him and kept the manuscript. He declared to his eloquent French preacher colleague Guillaume Farel that if Servetus ever came to Geneva he would not allow him to leave alive.

A rewritten version of Servetus’ manuscript was secretly printed in 1,000 copies at Vienne in 1553. In discussing the relationship between the Spirit and regeneration in that book, Servetus almost incidentally made known his discovery of the pulmonary circulation of blood. In the book, Servetus argued that both God the Father and Christ his Son had been dishonoured by the Constantinian promulgation of the Nicene Creed, thus obscuring the redemptive role of Christ and bringing about the fall of the church; Servetus felt he could restore the church by separating it from the state and by using only those theological formulations that could be proved from Scripture and the pre-Constantinian fathers.

When some of Servetus’ letters to Calvin fell into the hands of Guillaume de Trie, a former citizen of Lyon, he exposed Servetus to the inquisitor general at Lyon. Servetus and his printers were seized. During the trial, however, Servetus escaped, and the Catholic authorities had to be content with burning him in effigy. He quixotically appeared in Geneva and was recognized, arrested, and tried for heresy from Aug. 14 to Oct. 25, 1553. Calvin played a prominent part in the trial and pressed for execution, although by beheading rather than by fire. (Was he the first ISIS terrorist who would rather have dissenters beheaded than scorched to death?). Despite his intense biblicism and his wholly Christocentric view of the universe, Servetus was found guilty of heresy, mainly on his views of the Trinity and Baptism. He was burned alive at Champel on October 27. His execution produced a Protestant controversy on imposing the death penalty for heresy, drew severe criticism upon John Calvin, and influenced Laelius Socinus, a founder of modern Unitarian views. (Encyclopaedia Britannica) (Emphasis and parenthesis added).

As you can see, John Calvin, opted for an execution by decapitation, the more humane Islamic way, than by fire, the more inhumane Roman Catholic way. Murder by proxy? You bet! John Calvin never ventured to pollute his hands with the impure blood of his non-elected enemies. He graciously let others do the job for him and they graciously performed his wishes to the letter.

At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[27] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, “It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity.[28] . . .

As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government, in an attempt to find some plausible excuse to disregard this legal reality, had consulted with other Swiss Reformed cantons (ZürichBernBaselSchaffhausen.) They universally favoured his condemnation and suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.[31] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. The party called the “Libertines“, who were generally opposed to anything and everything John Calvin supported, were in this case strongly in favour of the execution of Servetus at the stake (while Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead). In fact, the council that condemned Servetus was presided over by Perrin (a Libertine) who ultimately on 24 October sentenced Servetus to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.[32] When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation as a traitor rather than by fire as a heretic, Farel, in a letter of 8 September, chided him for undue lenience.[33] The Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.[34]

Calvin agreed that those whom the ruling religious authorities determined to be heretics should be punished:

“Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man’s authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.” [35] (Wikipedia) (Emphasis added)

Servetus, Michael , 1511-53, Spanish theologian and physician.His name in Spanish was Miguel Serveto. In his early years he came in contact with some of the leading reformers in Germany and Switzerland—Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer,Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, and probably Martin Luther. But he held views, concerning the Trinity in particular, that brought condemnation from the theologians of the Reformation as well as from those of the Roman Catholic Church. When he published Detrinitatis erroribus (1531) and De trinitate (1532), the feeling of opposition was so strong that he assumed the name of Michel DE Villeneuve, from the family home, Villanueva, and spent some time in Lyons, working on an edition of Ptolemy’s geography and other scientific works, then in Paris studying medicine. There he is said to have seen John Calvin. He became well-known for his ability in dissection and had unusual success as a physician; he discovered that some of the blood circulates through the lungs. From 1541 to1553 he lived in the palace of the archbishop of Vienne as his confidential physician. When (1553) he had a work setting forth his ideas of Christianity secretly printed, investigation was begun by the Inquisition. Servetus, arrested, tried, and condemned, escaped from prison. Several months later, while making his way to Italy, he was seized in Geneva by Calvin’s order. There, after along trial, in which Calvin’s condemnation was a stern factor, he was burned on Oct. 27, 1553. See biographies by R. H. Bainton (1953) and J. F. Fulton (1954). (Read here)

As you can see the internet is replete with abundant and highly reputable scholarly evidence that John Calvin was responsible for the death of Michael Servetus, albeit a murder by proxy because he resourcefully manipulated the authorities, in much the same way the Roman Catholic church manipulated kings and queens. Despite these damnable evidences against John Calvin, these Calvinists accuse the authors of some of the best and most reliable encyclopaedias of bearing false witness. Have they studied “The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59” (translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy) that meticulously bears witness to the following incidents?

  • During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.
  • From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.
  • During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen.
  • One burgher smiled while attending a baptism: three days imprisonment.
  • Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.
  • Some working men ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water.
  • Two burghers played skittles: prison.
  • Two others diced for a quarter bottle of wine: prison.
  • A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city.
  • Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.
  • A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance.
  • Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: four-and-twenty hours on bread and water.
  • A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.
  • A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung around his neck.
  • Another sang riotously in the street: was told ‘they could go and sing elsewhere,’ this meaning he was banished from the city.
  • Two bargees had a brawl: executed.
  • A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
  • A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.
  • Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.
  • Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.”

Have they studied the issues presented in the sources quoted in Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol. 8:

  • “The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”
  • Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
  • A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’
  • A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’
  • Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
  • Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
  • A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
  • A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
  • A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
  • A banker was executed for repeated adultery. (Compare this incident with Paul’s handling of the man who committed adultery with his father’s wife – 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 2:1-7)
  • A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
  • Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

Have our dearest Calvinist friends studied the issues from Other Sources:

  • Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).
  • Martin Luther said of Calvin’s actions in Geneva, “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).
  • “About the month of January 1546, a member of the Little Council, Pierre Ameaux, asserted that Calvin was nothing but a wicked man – who was preaching false doctrine. Calvin felt that his authority as an interpreter of the Word of God was being attacked: he so completely identified his own ministry with the will of God that he considered Ameaux’s words as an insult to the honour of Christ. The Magistrates offered to make the culprit beg Calvin’s pardon on bended knees before the Council of the Two Hundred, but Calvin found this insufficient. On April 8, Ameaux was sentenced to walk all round the town, dressed only in a shirt, bareheaded and carrying a lighted torch in his hand, and after that to present himself before the tribunal and cry to God for mercy” (F. Wendel, Calvin, pp. 85, 86).

Truly, we may ask: “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” (James 3:11)

CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY ON WHOSE SIDE YOU PREFER TO BE – MICHAEL SERVETUS OR JOHN CALVIN

Contrary to Calvin’s own views on infant baptism, many Calvinists unflinchingly take sides with Michael Servetus who called paedobaptism “an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity. Fortunately time machines are merely a figment of the imagination. Were it possible to send people back into the past, we could probably have sent these anti-paedobaptistic Calvinists back to 1553 so that they could find out first-hand wha the truth is and how Calvin treated those who regarded infant baptism a deception to be of the devil. On the other hand they could probably have pleaded with Calvin to spare Servetus’ life with whom they wholeheartedly agree on infant baptism.

The million dollar question is: Whose side would they have taken if they’d been at Michael Servetus’ infamous trial – his or John Calvin’s? I doubt whether they would have taken Servetus’ side because they would certainly have ended up on the stake with him for their opinion on infant baptism. However, I doubt whether they would have been bold enough to cry out “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.[34] 

Calvinists have no need of this kind of emotionalism because God sovereignly “monergisms” them with mercy. Why then should they cry out for mercy when it is given to them monergistically? Surely any plea for mercy wold immediately defame God’s sovereignty who declares “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15). By virtue of their election, there is no need for them to cry out for mercy. Should they, like Michael Servetus burn like a steak tied to a stake, God’s mercy is already sovereignly besowed on them, Poor Servetus, his plea for mercy must have fallen on deaf ears because he was not one of the elect.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIN AND HIGH TREASON?

Calvinists seem to have a problem with articulating the true meaning of words, to the extent that they not only make a distinction between “world” and “world,” “all” and “all”,” “whomsoever” and “whomsoever” but also between high treason and sin. In our introductory video Jerry Johnson admits that John Calvin was a sinner but firmly asserts that Michael Servetus was much much worse because he committed high treason against the community, the church and Christ. Before I continue, I would like to focus your attention on one little thing Jerry Johnson said toward the end of his video.

Until next week, this is Jerry Johnson standing contra mundum, and with the City Council of Geneva, against the world. (The expression “contra mundum” means to stand against or in defiance of all general opinion).

This is glaringly yet another one of the Calvinists’ “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” oxymorons. I want you to put on your thinking caps for a moment, as our beloved and revered Calvie, Paul Washer would say. Calvinists assert that the word “world” in John 3:16 and in many other passages in Scripture do not refer to the entire world (the whole of mankind) but only to the world of the elect. If it were true that “world” is limited to the world of the elect only, Jerry Johnson’s final remark in the video would have to be changed to read as follows: “Until next week, this is Jerry Johnson standing contra mundum, and with the City Council of Geneva, against the world of the elect.” What did Jesus say about a house that is divided against itself? “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25).

High treason may be defined as a deliberate act – by word of mouth, in writing or any other means – to misrepresent the intrinsic character/personality of someone with an intent to present him/her in a light other than the one the person himself/herself presents to others. High treason, therefore, involves the deliberate misrepresentation of a sovereign king or queen or person in leadership of a country so as to damage their cause/purpose and the well-being of their subjects. Let us now scrutinize Calvinism and the doctrines of grace in the light of this particular definition of high treason.

Does Calvinism misrepresent the intrinsic character/personality of the sovereign God, the Trinity? (John Calvin)

GOD IS (THE ESSENCE) OF LOVE

God never revealed Himself as the God of love. He is not an Entity or a Person who merely possesses the ability to show forth love and compassion. He IS love – the very essence of love. In this sense He can say of Himself “I AM LOVE,” (1 John 4:8 and 16), the very fountain of love. Yes, of course He is also the essence of righteousness, holiness and justice but it is his love that motivated Him to create the angelic beings, the entire cosmos and also mankind in his own image. His entire being is focused on loving his creation and especially his creatures. Even his hatred of sin and rebellion emanates from his love because sin separates his creatures from Him with whom He wishes to be in a relationship. In reality God who is the very essence of love cannot do otherwise but love all of humanity without exception, and indeed, so much that He gave his Son to die for the sins of humankind as a whole.

Calvinists rarely talk about God being the very essence of love. “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin hardly ever mentions God’s love. Their wrong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, especially in his alleged choice of a select few, predestined for salvation, tarnishes his essence which is love. To them love is not conditioned on who He is (the essence of love) but on who his creature are in his sight. If you are an elect He unconditionally loves you but if you are a reprobate He unconditionally hates you. Hence their wrong exegesis of Romans 9:13: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

True love is to desire the very best — not only for those whom you love and who love you — but even for your worst enemies, and the best you can wish for them is that they be saved. Paul of Tarsus was relentlessly persecuted by his own people and yet he was prepared to suffer an eternity in hell for the sake of the salvation of his brethren after the flesh.

“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.” (Romans 9:1-3)

THIS IS TRUE LOVE

Paul and Silas were put in prison for their doctrinal steadfastness on how one is saved and what it means to be saved. Their sincere and intense love for Christ’s gospel (doctrine) of salvation inspired them to face even the worst of persecutions, prison and death. It was love that compelled them to preach the Gospel (doctrine of salvation) (2 Corinthians 5:14). You cannot proclaim the Gospel if Christ’s love does not propel you to do so.

The mistake all Calvinists make, is to draw a distinction between God’s love and God’s doctrine. The truth is that God’s doctrine is God’s love revealed and God’s love is God’s doctrine in action. Therefore, to assume that love is merely part of doctrine and to suggest that love is not as important as doctrine is not entirely correct. Love is not a part of God’s doctrine. It IS His doctrine. That’s precisely why John 3:16 is the most quoted verse in the entire history of mankind; “For God so loved the world (a concise doctrinal statement, decree or declaration) that he gave his only begotten Son (doctrine of his love in action), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In what way is God’s love merely a part of his doctrine in this particular passage in Scripture?

Nonetheless, Calvinists have no other option but to interpret God’s love and doctrine in the way they do because, according to them, God does not love the non-elect. Show me where the non-elect are included in the abbreviation of the doctrines of grace as we find it represented in the acronym “TULIP?” Let’s briefly look at it.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY (YES; THE NON-ELECT ARE AS TOTALLY DEPRAVED AS THE ELECT).

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (YES; THEY WERE UNCONDITIONALLY ELECTED TO SPEND AN ETERNITY IN HELL, EVEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD).

LIMITED ATONEMENT (NO; THE ATONEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE ELECT ONLY)

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE (NO; GOD DOES NOT BESTOW HIS IRRESISTIBEL GRACE ON THE NON-ELECT)

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (NO; THEY ARE NOT SAINTS BUT THE REPROBATE)

The hatred Calvinists so easily contrive for non Calvinists (the non-elect) is an extension of John Calvin’s murderous disposition. How do they jusitfy their hatred? To emulate God and to defend his sovereignty they have no other choice (excuse the pun) to hate unbelievers (the non-elect) because God hates them.

——————-

So what do we have so far:

  1. Do not expect forgiveness from Calvinists.
  2. Do not expect love from Calvinists.

Ok then… but this is to be expected, they are a cult of course.

——————-

serial killer is traditionally defined as a person who has killed three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a “cooling off period”) between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification —>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer (John Calvin)

More...

33 comments to Calvinists Justify the Known Murderer, John Calvin.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    For the Love of His truth responded to Tom’s article with the below article. This article is a tragic, justifying hate. They have explained why they don’t have to forgive and now they show why they may hate. It is outrages and it is sad

      If I Love Christ There Are Some People I Cannot Love

      by Don Fortner

      True Christian love is not universal. It does not extend to all men. The fact is, if I love the Lord Jesus Christ there are some people I cannot love. There is such a thing as a righteous hatred.

      Listen to God’s servant David, the man after God’s own heart. He wrote these words under the infallible influence of God the Holy Spirit – “Do not I hate them, O Lord,- that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred. I count them mine enemies” (Ps. 139:21-22). A reasonable inference from those two verses is that those who are the Lord’s enemies, those who hold our God in contempt, are to be counted as our enemies and held in contempt by us.

      Yes, the Lord said for us to love our enemies and to pray for those who despite fully use us. That, by the grace of God, I can and will do. If a man abuses me, slanders me and does me harm, I can love him, forgive him, pray for him, and seek the best for him. BUT OUR LORD NEVER COMMANDED US TO LOVE HIS ENEMIES! And that is something I cannot do. Elijah held the prophets of Baal in comtempt. The Apostle Paul pronounced a curse of irreversible woe and eternal damnation upon any who came preaching another gospel. John the Beloved forbids us to receive into our homes those who deny the doctrine of Christ, telling us neither to feed them nor wish them well. David hated those who hated his God. And I find that same passion in my heart for the false prophets of our day.

      Love for Christ constrains me to hold those in contempt who rob him of his glory as our Redeemer and King. Love for the souls of men compels me to denounce those who preach a false gospel. Love for the church of Christ, the family of God, compels me to despise those who pervert the gospel of Christ. Love for the Lord God constrains me to hate those who deny his sovereignty and despise the gospel of his saving grace and majestic glory.

      How can I do otherwise? Those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ are my enemies. If I love Christ I cannot love those who deny the efficacy of his blood. I will not, I cannot cease to denounce and oppose the doctrines of antichrist and those who preach them, whether it comes in the form of papacy or in the form of modern fundamentalism. Loyalty to Christ demands loyalty in opposing his enemies. It would be far easier, and much more reasonable, for me to embrace as my friend a man who had brutally raped and murdered my wife than it would be for me to embrace as my brethren men who are set in opposition to the gospel of the grace and glory of God in Christ.

      What about you? Will you continue to embrace as true preachers and brethren men who deny the gospel of God’s electing grace, redemptive glory, and saving power? Will you continue to attend a house of worship where the blood of Christ is despised and the Word of God is trampled under foot? Will you continue to be identified with those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ? I admonish you who love the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel of his grace. Search the scriptures to see what God has revealed about his Son, find a man who is preaching the gospel as it is revealed in the New Testament, and go hear what he has to say. God may just speak to you through him.

      HL –

    ——————

    Unfortunately for Don, Grant and Elmarie the Bible says:

    Matthew 5:44 THE LORD SAID: “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;

    Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

    Proverbs 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:

    1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

    and the list goes on…

    Acts 7:60 Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.

    This is what happens when you read the John Calvin Bible instead of God’s Bible, you twist, mis-interprest and miss verses that the Lord Jesus Himself spoke.

    But I am comforted and I must not be sad because the Bible tells me… that because I am hated by them, that they hated Jesus Christ before they hated me.

    John 15:18-19 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

  • Jean

    Before I respond, let me make one thing very clear: Most modern-day Calvinists, like myself, do NOT support Calvin in all he believed and did. We simply agree with five of his confessions, namely Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.

    In other words, we have no problem ‘disowning’ Calvin, while still agreeing with much of what he said – in very much the same way, as we would condemn the atrocities of King David, King Saul, and Moses, to name but a few, while not tearing Exodus, First and Second Chronicles and First and Second Kings from our Bibles.
    http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/05/14/calvinists-justify-the-known-murderer-john-calvin/

    Please inform yourself before writing things like this.

  • Calvin didn’t kill a singe person. That’s right. Just as none of the popes, Hiter or Stalin did. Same difference! Maybe if Calvinists could get more fired up about following Jesus Christ than a fallible man, they’d be worth taking seriously.

    Hmm. So Calvin was a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone, as the gentleman on the top clip maintains. So what’s happened to his regeneration first then? Doesn’t Tulip now apply to him? That’s news to me.
    And Michael Servetus really deserved to be executed for spreading heresy because that was the done thing at the time. (Well, it was by Catholics and Calvinists.) So that makes it alright then, does it?
    Really?

    The Bible tells us that God never changes [Mal 3:6]. It also tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever [Heb 13:8]. Where then do Calvinists get the authority to to adopt the attitude that it is okay to do evil things in certain times because it’s what the world does? Don’t they know that Satan is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11] and that we are not to be of this world [15:19] because God has chosen us out of it [ibid] and that we are not to love the things of this world for the things of the world are not of the Father [1 John 12:15-16]?

    If Calvinists think they can pick and choose when we can and can not do things the world’s way–as they have done in the past–how do we know they won’t pick and choose to do that if they get the opportunity? Actually, we don’t know.

    The fact is: Christians do not have any authority to lean to our own understanding at any time [Prov 3:5].

    We go to the Word of God to conform our minds to it not to read into it what fits a paradigm that suits what we’d like to believe [1 Thess 5:21 & 1 John 4:1].

    This attitude that it wasn’t Calvin who killed Servetus but the civil authorities was the old Catholic trick: “Well folks, it’s not us who’s burning heretics at the stake, it’s really the civil authorities.”
    Yeah, right. And when the Inquisition handed their victims over to the civil authorities those authorities had to obey them just as the civil authorities in Geneva had to obey their relgious arbiters.

    Calvin hung onto his Catholic casuistry (as much as he did his Catholic Augustinianism and child baptism and belief that it is efficacious) when he reasoned thus. One thing is for sure, that is what his disciples are claiming by their defence of his virtual killing of Servetus: that he did reason thus.

    If it was okay for Calvin to kill Servetus which he did by his siding with the civil authorites–as surely as the High Priest killed Jesus by handing him over to the Romans [John 19:11]–then Calvin ought to have felt it was okay for his enemies to do the same to him.

    (While Calvin did not want Servetus burnt at the stake as a heretic but rather beheaded as a traitor, he still did want him killed.)

    After all, we are to love our neighbours as ourselves, bless those who curse us and pray for those who despitefully use us. Plainly, we are to love our enemies and do unto others as we’d have them do unto us. So if we do these things, and think it is okay to have our enemies put to the stake, we should think it is okay for them to do the same to us. Otherwise we are hypocrites. The same applies to Calvin.

    He was a human being and Calvinists ought to remember that when they put him on a pedestal. What is the difference between them putting him on a pedestal from Catholics virtually deifying their popes or Moslems deifying Mohammad? There is no difference. Whatever we put above–or even on a par wit–God becomes our God. As the Reformer Thomas Erskine stated, “A man who makes a god of his relgion won’t have God in his religion.” It is the same if we make a god of a man.

    Catholics could carry out their atrocities because they had their Unam Sanctum. Calvinists carried out theirs because they had their similar doctrine that they believe that God has ordained the overwhelming majority of humans to eternal hell.

    Faith to them is a consequence or result of regeneration. John 1:12-13 tells us that faith is the precondition of requirement for regeneration.
    Election to Calvinists is without regard to faith in Christ. John 3:16-17 tells us that it is in accordance with faith in Christ.
    According to Calvinists, Christ only died for the elect. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Christ died for all the lost.

    According to Calvinists, God only appears to offer salvation to all (that is, He is devious) and the elect can’t help but be saved and the unelect can’t help but be damned. Romans 1:6 tells us that salvation is offered to everyone on the condition they receive and believe in Jesus Christ. The nature of the offer of salvation, and the capacity to believe it, through the provision of the cross, is a free gift. Those ultimately lost have themselves to blame.

    According to Calvinists, those who persevere in holiness to the end of their lives prove they are among the elect. Those who do not persevere in these things till the end have proved they were never saved and therefore not among the elect. John 15:1-14 tells us that we should persevere in the same things to prove our love for the Lord. Failng to do so, shows a lack of love for the Lord and it means they lose felloship with Him in this life and lose rewards in the next.

    Who should we believe: Calvin, a cruel and fallible man, or the infallible Word of God?
    Calvinists make it plain where they stand. So should we who put our faith in Christ alone.

  • vincent holloway

    I don’t know any calvinists, sorry to hear you are having hard time.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    vincent

    They appear to be great people, until you try preach the gospel to them; then you become their worst enemy and they attack you non-stop. So count yourself luck you don’t know any, because as a Christian you have to witness to them lol.

  • Redeemed

    Vincent, you might be surprised to find that you do in fact know some Calvinists. They don’t come right out with their beliefs right away.
    You should still familiarize yourself with the doctrine because you are sure to meet one sooner than later. This false belief has gained a lot of traction in recent years as sound doctrine has become quite rare. Are you familiar with the teachings of John MacArthur? If so, you might be surprised to find that he is a Calvinist. Many people appreciate Paul Washer’s enthusiasm. Washer is a Calvinist. There are many others, including some in the discernment “community” who are Calvinist. They routinely stand up against Roman Catholicism. But if one examines their doctrine, it is not sound.

  • Thomas Lessing

    Matin Horan wrote:

    “Hmm. So Calvin was a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone, as the gentleman on the top clip maintains. So what’s happened to his regeneration first then? Doesn’t Tulip now apply to him? That’s news to me.
    And Michael Servetus really deserved to be executed for spreading heresy because that was the done thing at the time. (Well, it was by Catholics and Calvinists.) So that makes it alright then, does it?
    Really?”

    Hi,

    Very few readers may have noticed this. Nicely done. I can see that you are a knee-bending, firmly-on-your-feet-standing and thinking Christian. The tragedy with most Calvinists is that they don’t realize they are repudiating their own doctrines when saying things like the guy in the video clip above.

  • Sharon

    Here are both “Salvation” professions of the unrepentant murderer. (Calvin had the authority to stop the murders) Any way, here is his “salvation” professions.

    During the autumn of 1533 Calvin experienced a religious conversion. In his later life, John Calvin wrote two different accounts of his conversion that differ in significant ways. In the first account he portrays his conversion as a sudden change of mind, brought about by God. This account can be found in his Commentary on the Book of Psalms:

    1.God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, yet I pursued them with less ardor.

    (my comments) No mention of repentance or sorrow over sin. No receiving Jesus Christ by Grace through Faith. This is the man that many have trusted what he says in his writings. This man and his false teachings have wreaked havoc in the lives of many well-meaning people. But the damage done to Baptist Churches is SIN! Why a Baptist Church would give any heed to the teachings of an unrepentant murderer is beyond my understanding. God is love and yet Calvinism makes God the author of all evil. That is Blasphemy! (Definition of BLASPHEMY: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God)

    2. In his second account he speaks of a long process of inner turmoil, followed by spiritual and psychological anguish. Being exceedingly alarmed at the misery into which I had fallen, and much more at that which threatened me in view of eternal death, I, duty bound, made it my first business to betake myself to your way, condemning my past life, not without groans and tears. And now, O Lord, what remains to a wretch like me, but instead of defense, earnestly to supplicate you not to judge that fearful abandonment of your Word according to its deserts, from which in your wondrous goodness you have at last delivered me.

    (my comments) As with his first statement, there is no confession of sin. There is no receiving Jesus Christ as Savior. There’s no mention of Jesus Christ at all! Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

    I will never say the man was lost as only he and God know that. Just read his statement and think upon the time you cried out for forgiveness and received Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

  • Redeemed

    Jean wrote:

    Before I respond, let me make one thing very clear: Most modern-day Calvinists, like myself, do NOT support Calvin in all he believed and did. We simply agree with five of his confessions, namely Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.
    In other words, we have no problem ‘disowning’ Calvin, while still agreeing with much of what he said – in very much the same way, as we would condemn the atrocities of King David, King Saul, and Moses, to name but a few, while not tearing Exodus, First and Second Chronicles and First and Second Kings from our Bibles.
    http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/05/14/calvinists-justify-the-known-murderer-john-calvin/
    Please inform yourself before writing things like this.

    Jean, with all due respect, you are the one who needs to be informed.

    If you compare your belief in what is referred to as TULIP (for brevity) and the Word of God you will find it is false teaching of the worst kind.

    You are elevating Calvin with the Apostle Paul? And yet you are willing to toss Calvin under the bus and discount him except for the beliefs he embraced?

    I implore you to take an honest look at your list of beliefs. For example: Limited Atonement
    You believe that our Lord Jesus only died for a certain select number of souls. In other words, you believe that God actually knits in the womb some whom He has already marked for eternal damnation! Their fate is sealed from the womb and they will live a life with no hope of being saved because the Lord Jesus did not atone for their sins? Yes, He knows by His foreknowledge who will receive Him and who will not, but that does not negate man’s free will to make that choice. And no, I am not Arminian and I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God. He chose to give us free will.

    I hope that you will come to realize that is an affront to our Lord and His sacrifice and an insult to His character. And that addresses only one of the doctrines of Calvin.

    I was once in a place where I sincerely believed what was wrong and I am grateful that someone cared enough to enlighten me. Jean, that is my heart.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    The Apostle Paul was a murderer of Christians before he was saved, then he met Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus and repented of his evil ways, never to lift a finger to anyone and became the greatest Apostle of them all, as God used him to write most of the New Testament.

    John Calvin claimed he was a Christian, yet never repented of his evil ways and lifted his fingers and had people murdered, he wrote a doctrine that God despises but is loved by many followers who are full of pride. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit is not evident in John Calvin, and therefore it is impossible for a man who does not have the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture to be Godly.

    Calvinists who claim they don’t agree with John Calvin but agree with His doctines of grace need to re-exam the Biblical teaching on the wicked heart.

    Matthew 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    Calvin did not yield heart allegiance to God. His worship which he professed to give to God was empty, for instead of obeying the Word of God he substituted the commandments of men and thereby has a horde of followers who like their ears to be tickled with false teaching of being ‘Elect’ and all sorts of nonsense.

  • Sharon

    To say that Calvin, the Popes, Hitler and Stalin didn’t kill one single person is just plain wrong. That is the argument Calvinists make. Did Calvin light the fire, chop off the heads? No. But he was complicit in the murders. He vowed Servetus would never leave Geneva alive. The Popes never murdered. Complicity is murder. Hitler and Stalin never murdered? They gave the orders so they were complicit, guilty of murder. Tell God on judgment day that Hitler didn’t kill any Jews.

    How sweet of John Calvin to ask that Servetus be beheaded instead of burned. Calvin ordered “green wood” to be place on the fire and when done so Servetus took over 30 minutes to die. According to you, Calvin didn’t murder anyone, then that would make it Servetus’ fault for taking so long to die. Hmmmmmm

    Matin Horan wrote:

    Calvin didn’t kill a singe person. That’s right. Just as none of the popes, Hiter or Stalin did. Same difference! Maybe if Calvinists could get more fired up about following Jesus Christ than a fallible man, they’d be worth taking seriously.

    Hmm. So Calvin was a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone, as the gentleman on the top clip maintains. So what’s happened to his regeneration first then? Doesn’t Tulip now apply to him? That’s news to me.
    And Michael Servetus really deserved to be executed for spreading heresy because that was the done thing at the time. (Well, it was by Catholics and Calvinists.) So that makes it alright then, does it?
    Really?

    The Bible tells us that God never changes [Mal 3:6]. It also tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever [Heb 13:8]. Where then do Calvinists get the authority to to adopt the attitude that it is okay to do evil things in certain times because it’s what the world does? Don’t they know that Satan is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11] and that we are not to be of this world [15:19] because God has chosen us out of it [ibid] and that we are not to love the things of this world for the things of the world are not of the Father [1 John 12:15-16]?

    If Calvinists think they can pick and choose when we can and can not do things the world’s way–as they have done in the past–how do we know they won’t pick and choose to do that if they get the opportunity? Actually, we don’t know.

    The fact is: Christians do not have any authority to lean to our own understanding at any time [Prov 3:5].

    We go to the Word of God to conform our minds to it not to read into it what fits a paradigm that suits what we’d like to believe [1 Thess 5:21 & 1 John 4:1].

    This attitude that it wasn’t Calvin who killed Servetus but the civil authorities was the old Catholic trick: “Well folks, it’s not us who’s burning heretics at the stake, it’s really the civil authorities.”
    Yeah, right. And when the Inquisition handed their victims over to the civil authorities those authorities had to obey them just as the civil authorities in Geneva had to obey their relgious arbiters.

    Calvin hung onto his Catholic casuistry (as much as he did his Catholic Augustinianism and child baptism and belief that it is efficacious) when he reasoned thus. One thing is for sure, that is what his disciples are claiming by their defence of his virtual killing of Servetus: that he did reason thus.

    If it was okay for Calvin to kill Servetus which he did by his siding with the civil authorites–as surely as the High Priest killed Jesus by handing him over to the Romans [John 19:11]–then Calvin ought to have felt it was okay for his enemies to do the same to him.

    (While Calvin did not want Servetus burnt at the stake as a heretic but rather beheaded as a traitor, he still did want him killed.)

    After all, we are to love our neighbours as ourselves, bless those who curse us and pray for those who despitefully use us. Plainly, we are to love our enemies and do unto others as we’d have them do unto us. So if we do these things, and think it is okay to have our enemies put to the stake, we should think it is okay for them to do the same to us. Otherwise we are hypocrites. The same applies to Calvin.

    He was a human being and Calvinists ought to remember that when they put him on a pedestal. What is the difference between them putting him on a pedestal from Catholics virtually deifying their popes or Moslems deifying Mohammad? There is no difference. Whatever we put above–or even on a par wit–God becomes our God. As the Reformer Thomas Erskine stated, “A man who makes a god of his relgion won’t have God in his religion.” It is the same if we make a god of a man.

    Catholics could carry out their atrocities because they had their Unam Sanctum. Calvinists carried out theirs because they had their similar doctrine that they believe that God has ordained the overwhelming majority of humans to eternal hell.

    Faith to them is a consequence or result of regeneration. John 1:12-13 tells us that faith is the precondition of requirement for regeneration.
    Election to Calvinists is without regard to faith in Christ. John 3:16-17 tells us that it is in accordance with faith in Christ.
    According to Calvinists, Christ only died for the elect. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Christ died for all the lost.

    According to Calvinists, God only appears to offer salvation to all (that is, He is devious) and the elect can’t help but be saved and the unelect can’t help but be damned. Romans 1:6 tells us that salvation is offered to everyone on the condition they receive and believe in Jesus Christ. The nature of the offer of salvation, and the capacity to believe it, through the provision of the cross, is a free gift. Those ultimately lost have themselves to blame.

    According to Calvinists, those who persevere in holiness to the end of their lives prove they are among the elect. Those who do not persevere in these things till the end have proved they were never saved and therefore not among the elect. John 15:1-14 tells us that we should persevere in the same things to prove our love for the Lord. Failng to do so, shows a lack of love for the Lord and it means they lose felloship with Him in this life and lose rewards in the next.

    Who should we believe: Calvin, a cruel and fallible man, or the infallible Word of God?
    Calvinists make it plain where they stand. So should we who put our faith in Christ alone.

  • Sharon

    The sins of David are not overlooked at all. The difference between King David and John Calvin, David was quick to repent. When Nathan told David, “Thou art the man.” Did David do a song and dance? Did David make excuses? Did David order Nathan to be burned? No, No and No. David was smitten with guilt and acknowledged his sin. He repented to God and received forgiveness. This is why David was called, “A man after God’s own heart.” David was a sinner, big time sinner. David was also a big time Child of the Most High God. Saul sought repentance but God had already taken the kingdom from him because he constantly didn’t do exactly what God told him to do. He also made excuses and blamed others when he was found out. Sorry he got caught rather than repentant over what he had done. So, God removed the kingdom and his life. Moses, yes a sinner, a repentant sinner. He acknowledge his sin and received forgiveness. Calvin never repented of the murder of Servetus. I posted Calvin’s two “salvation” professions. Perhaps you should read them.

    Jean wrote:

    Before I respond, let me make one thing very clear: Most modern-day Calvinists, like myself, do NOT support Calvin in all he believed and did. We simply agree with five of his confessions, namely Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.

    In other words, we have no problem ‘disowning’ Calvin, while still agreeing with much of what he said – in very much the same way, as we would condemn the atrocities of King David, King Saul, and Moses, to name but a few, while not tearing Exodus, First and Second Chronicles and First and Second Kings from our Bibles.
    http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/05/14/calvinists-justify-the-known-murderer-john-calvin/

    Please inform yourself before writing things like this.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sharon

    You are mis-reading what Martin is saying…

  • Sharon

    Ok. Guess he was being “sarcastic” then. I told you I wasn’t sane. :o)

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Sharon

    You are mis-reading what Martin is saying…

  • Sheugnet

    Michael Servetus was hoofsaaklik doodgemaak omdat hy die drie-eenheid van God, wat algemeen aanvaar was daardie dae soos ook vandag, teegestaan het. Hy het die Woord van God verstaan en aanvaar dat God een is en nie die populere drie in een leer nie. Maak dit van Calvyn ‘n moordenaar? Ek dink nie so nie. Dit is my mening dat skrywe soos die een hierbo onnodige skeuring bring. Die een glo immers so en daai een glo sus. Ons is almal op ‘n pad van groei en God openbaar Homself aan ons in fases. Laat ons net aanhou om die koninkryk en geregtigheid te soek. In die proses sal ons uiteraard van mekaar verskil, en van tyd tot tyd mekaar moet reghelp, maar ek dink Calvyn is die minste van die koninkryk se bekommernis.

    [Edited by DTW Google Translate:

    Michael Servetus killed mainly because he was the trinity of God, which was generally accepted that days like today, opposed. He understood the Word of God and accept that God is one and not the popular three in one study. Calvin a murderer? Calvin a murderer? I do not think so. It is my opinion that letter like the one above unnecessary schism bring. Believe, after all, so that one believes Jesus. We are all on a path of growth and God reveals Himself to us in stages. Let us continue to seek the kingdom and righteousness. In the process, we will obviously differ from one another, and from time to time correct each other, but I think Calvin is the least of the kingdom’s concern.]

  • Sheugnet wrote:

    Michael Servetus was hoofsaaklik doodgemaak omdat hy die drie-eenheid van God, wat algemeen aanvaar was daardie dae soos ook vandag, teegestaan het. Hy het die Woord van God verstaan en aanvaar dat God een is en nie die populere drie in een leer nie. Maak dit van Calvyn ‘n moordenaar? Ek dink nie so nie. Dit is my mening dat skrywe soos die een hierbo onnodige skeuring bring. Die een glo immers so en daai een glo sus. Ons is almal op ‘n pad van groei en God openbaar Homself aan ons in fases. Laat ons net aanhou om die koninkryk en geregtigheid te soek. In die proses sal ons uiteraard van mekaar verskil, en van tyd tot tyd mekaar moet reghelp, maar ek dink Calvyn is die minste van die koninkryk se bekommernis.

    Ek hou van jou opmerking “Laat ons net aanhou om die koninkryk en geregtigheid te soek” Dit sluit mooi aan by wat die skrywer gesê het:

    “Geliefdes, terwyl ek alle ywer aanwend om aan julle oor ons gemeenskaplike saligheid te skrywe, het ek die noodsaaklikheid gevoel om julle deur my skrywe te vermaan om kragtig te stry vir die geloof wat eenmaal aan die heiliges oorgelewer is.” (Judas 1:3)

    Waarom moet ons so hard stry? Omdat daar nie verskillende weë is waarop die een sus en die ander so glo nie. As jy nie glo soos die Skrifte sê nie, is jy op ‘n verkeerde pad. (Spreuke 14:12). Die leringe van Calvyn is een van daardie weë wat besig is om miljoene der miljoene mense te mislei en na die verderf te sleep en jy sê ons moenie mense daarteen waarsku nie?

    Natuurlik is daar uiteraard dinge waaroor ons verskil maar ons mag onder geen omstandighede verskil oor hoe om gered te word nie. Sodra ons oor hierdie een ding – hoe om gered te word – verskil, dan speel on met vuur.

    Dis ‘n ou laai van die Calviniste om Calvyn onskuldig te verklaar omdat hy kwansuis binne die regsprosedures van sy tyd ‘n godslasteraar laat ombring het. Wat hulle dus eintlik sê is dat Calvyn God ‘n guns gedoen het om Servetus te vermoor. Jesus en sy apostels asook Paulus het nooit links en regs mense dood laat maak omdat hulle nie soos hulle geglo het nie. Toe die spostels vuur uit die hemel wou laat neerkom op die Samaritane wat Jesus verbied het om in hulle stad te kom, het hy gesê:

    “Maar Hy draai Hom om en bestraf hulle en sê: Julle weet nie van hoedanige gees julle is nie; want die Seun van die mens het nie gekom om die mense se lewe te verderf nie, maar te red. En hulle het na ‘n ander dorp vertrek.” (Lukas 9:55-56)

    Die gees waarvan Jesus hier gepraat het, was dieselfde gees wat in Calvyn was – ‘n moordgees. Calvyn is in die hel, my vriend.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sheugnet

    Do you believe killing someone is wrong? Whether the person physically did it with his own hands or orchestrated the killing to take place via the courts and therefor it was a killing by proxy, do you believe that killing for ANY REASON is wrong?

  • Andrew

    Sheugnet, het jy geweet dat die “God in drie persone” konsep deur ‘n songod aanbidder met die naam van Konstantyn ‘n Romeinse Keiser, geproklameer en bekragtig is?
    Wil jy liewer glo wat hy en sy trawante wat miljoene Christene wat nie hul knie voor Baal wou buig, nie op die wreedste manier denkbaar vermoor het? Wat lees ons in Deut.6:4 Hoor Israel die HERE onse GOD is ‘n enige HERE. In Engels Hear oh Israel the LORD our GOD is One LORD. Dan aan die einde, met Sy wederkoms lees ons in Sagaria 14:5+9 “Dan sal die HERE my God kom, al die heiliges met u. (9) En die HERE sal Koning wees oor die hele aarde; in die dag sal die HERE een wees, en sy Naam een.” Verder sê Jesus in Joh.17:3 “En dit is die ewige lewe, dat hulle U ken, Die einige waaragtige God, en Jesus Christus wat U gestuur het.” Om saam te vat Calvyn was indirek verantwoordelik vir die dood van digby ‘n honderd persone, kom ons laat hom oor aan God se oordeel.

  • Andrew

    Hello Deborah,in future I’ll remember to greet you first, it’s only good manners!
    What I wanted to say is that I’ve read the document by: New World Encyclopedia, on the life of Michael Servetus. He realy proved to be a very intellegent and vibrant person, being trained as a qualified medical Doctor and Pharmacist. In fact he published several books on medicine and even Geography, which shows that he had a wide scope of interest.
    He was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation, although it was not widely recognized at the time, for a few reasons, one was that it appeared in a theological treatise, Christianismi Restitutio. This fact were recognised about sixty years after his untimely death. All I can say, what a great loss it must have been for his fellow humans to lose such a man.
    Concerning this subject my case is closed.
    Thank you for the privilege, Deborah, God bless

  • Andrew

    Hello Deborah, I am sorry for being to harhs
    in my reply to Sheugnet concerning Calvin, Who am I to judge?
    I thank you and may God Bless you!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Hi Andrew

    Thanks you, but don’t worry about greeting me :)

    Regarding Servetus, it boggles the mind that people can condone killing someone in any way, and it boggles the mind that Calvinists actually get all upset about it and argue with you over it and try find new meaning to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’. But then they are a cult and cults find new meanings to all sorts of things like
    “world” = elect
    “all” = Calvinsts only
    “Thou shalt not kill” = Unless you are a Calvinist then you can.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Andrew

    >> in my reply to Sheugnet concerning Calvin, Who am I to judge?

    Actually you have every right to judge, if we have no right to point out the truth then all the disciples and apostles were wrong as well, and the bible is wrong as well when it tells us to to test and weight what we are told. No, we judge righteously using the Word of God as our plumb-line :)

  • Andrew on Calvin versus Servetus

    Hi Deborah, I’ll leave the “Debs” for my cousin Robbie. Anyway thanks for your comments, I guess I was overreacting a bit after being reprimanded for my harshness earlier, I guess we all need it sometime other. Now to serious business; Like old Job I want to say I know my Redeemer livith!
    Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” ( And the Name is JESUS our LORD)

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Andrew

    Yes, I have been told ;P And it’s taken you this long to comment. But I am glad you are here :)

    Who reprimanded you? lol I didn’t see that, but then my Afrikaans is actually very bad and I might have missed something somewhere.

  • Andrew on Jesus Baptism

    Good Evening Deborah, I’m sorry but I do’nt know why my reply needs moderation.
    If I have been too rude, Iam sorry,
    but you’ll have to point it out to me.
    Someone could have been rude to me, but I wo’nt complaint.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Andrew

    All replies, ‘Await moderation’. When you comment, the comment goes and sits in an inbox and waits there for us to read them and then we approve them or delete them. We gave approved all your comments.

  • Sheugnet

    I find it amazing that you have a problem with the killing of a person, but go right ahead and post articles that state that we should no longer keep the Sabbath.

  • Sheugnet

    No one said you shouldn’t keep the Sabbath. If you don’t know what the difference is between the killing of a person and a day like the Sabbath, then you have enough reason to continue in you madness.

  • Sheugnet

    What are you – a Calvinist or an SDA or an SDA Calvinist? Wow! What next?

  • caucazhin

    are the Puritans and Jonathan Edwards any different ???
    no theyre all from the same bad tree !!!

  • dkc

    Please do not write anything against the listed statements.
    – Total Depravity
    – Unconditional Election
    – Limited Atonement
    – Irresistible Grace
    – Perseverance of the Saints.

    I’ve real life experience meeting with people who believe in these Calvinistic beliefs and trust me they are very brutal people.

    The presbyterians and others with Calvinistic people believe that the chosen would enter heaven regardless of their sins and are real killers and pyschopaths who would be willing to do anything to make your life miserble and if they is no law and order in the country these Presbyterians and other Calvinists are fully capable of committing mass genocide.

  • John

    Wow, I am the last person you would think would defend Calvin but this website is just crazy. I see a lot of these. What is it that draw someone who professes love for Christ to be in a constant rage against everyone they dont agree with.
    If you lived in Calvins time you probably are the precise personality that would start loppin heads off. Goodness gracious get over yourself oh Job’s friend of unsurpassing wisdom. Sorry, but this is the behavior of someone with a personality disorder. I know you must have been told this before by people in your life. Doctor, heal thyself. You even named your website after your own deficiency which is so common in psychology to be the accuser of your own disorder. Listen to yourself.

  • John,

    You don’t seem to know what the difference is between rage and contending for the faith that was once delivered to us by the apostles. Rage equals Calvin’s murder of his opponents; contending for the faith equals the exposure of Calvin who was nothing but an unbeliever masquerading as an apostle of Christ.

    The contention that the lopping off of heads in Calvin’s time was part and parcel of their culture is a stupid argument. Jesus and his disciples lived and worked under more difficult and horrendous circumstances than Calvin. Yet they never lopped off heads. Try to present us with a more mature argument than the one of “lopping off of heads” and we might just listen to you.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

Calvinists Justify the Known Murderer, John Calvin.

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!