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 (French: Jean 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. Instead 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 single-handedly 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 encyclopedias 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. () (Emphasis and parenthesis added).

Encyclopaedia Britannica

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 (ZurichBernBaselSchaffhausen.) 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)

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 encyclopedias 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 judgments 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 offenses 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 neighbor 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 offense, 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)


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-paedobaptist 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 bestowed on them, Poor Servetus, his plea for mercy must have fallen on deaf ears because he was not one of the elect.


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”,” “whosoever” 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.



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 creatures 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)


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.


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 (John Calvin)

Pread read all articles on Calvinism here.

Please share:

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Tom Lessing is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

49 Responses

  1. dkc says:

    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.

  2. John says:

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. Harry B. Murphy says:

    Calvinism is a cult that IS blinded by one man–John Calvin. Have you ever notice how Calvinists will NEVER say that John Calvin was WRONG ON ANYTHING. Not only does Calvin have many doctrinal errors (such as the Lord’s supper actually being the “corporeal presence” of Christ, which “secures the immortality of our flesh,” … see Calvin’s writings below), but he viciously attacked anyone who disagreed with him on doctrine.

    Calvin’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper:

    “To use the words of Augustine ‘this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner.” Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality,” (I. C. Religion 4:17, 14).

    And I could go on and on about Calvin’s errors in doctrine and in his behaviors which DEFINITELY kept him from being “above reproach.” But, the point being that Calvinists never say that Calvin was WRONG about anything. Did you notice in the video by John Piper, that he never said that Calvin was WRONG for putting Servetus to death. Mr. Piper dance all around the fact that Calvin was the central reason why Servetus was murdered. (Indeed, Mr. Piper somewhat excused Calvin by saying that Calvin was just “a part of the Seventus affair.”) Again, John Calvin was the main reason that Seventus was put to the flames. And Calvin did nothing of substance to stop it. But, Mr. Piper never said that Calvin was WRONG! Nor will followers of Calvin admit that Calvin was WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. That is a sure sign of a cult. Following a man, and being blinded to his errors which were not few in number, nor small in magnitude.

    thank you
    harry murphy

  5. Harry B. Murphy

    Thank you for he valuable information. Calvinism is indeed an offshoot of Roman Catholicism, whether they like it or not.

  6. Geald Fielder says:

    Many critical things can be said of Calvin and Calvinism, but the main problem with his philosophy is that it is a contradiction to the character of God as well as the Word of God. Verses like John 3:18, John 5:40, Matthew 23:37 imply very clearly that people are condemned because they will not believe, not because they are non elect. Jesus did not look down his telescope of time and see who could and who could not, but rather he saw who would and who would not believe. The message of the gospel is collective not selective. You could read the Bible 100 years and the bazaar teachings of men like John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell would never occur to you. This is the reason no one ever becomes a Calvinist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, etc. unless they fall under the influence of their teachings. I recommend Christians read their Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to do what Jesus said he would do and that is guide us into all truth. All these weird teachings come from outside the realm of Scripture. Some passages on Scripture are not easily understood, but they must be interpreted in light of the many that deal with same subject that are irrefutable. Sometimes it is necessary to ascertain what a passage does not mean first and then go from there.

  7. Redeverlasting says:

    I am a member on a Christian Facebook page for the past 5 years when the site owner says she now adheres to “secondary doctrines”/the teachings of John Calvin. Shes written a post about “reformed theology” and Im thinking the title in and of itself doesnt even sound right lol. There’s nothing to be reformed about theology. It doesnt matter that others have redacted, twisted, and cherry-picked their way through scripture for their own devices (Catholic Church, Calvin Etc). GODs word is the same and He has not changed. I thought, “Oh, here we go down the rabbit hole! Let’s see how much she changes!”

    Surely enough, within 6 months time, she starts going light on sin in the page’s posts whereas she used to make posts that confronted and rebuked sin and called all people to repent and glorify GOD. She also would state her (Calvin’s) beliefs of once saved always saved, one having no free will to choose life or death, and all those other concepts listed above (Im not familiar with their formal names). I would simply counter her falsehood with the gospel and scriptural references. She would immediately post threads that would say we shouldnt make sinners uncomfortable and the like as a sort of warning to me and other believers, I guess. Though she hasnt outright banned me from the page, she immediately deletes any time I post even when its just friendly biblical advice in response to someone’s post/question. Im fully aware its b/c I have dared to go against her beloved Calvin and his falsehood she cleaves to. Since Im no longer able to post responses, my work and fellowship there is done. She can continue to teach Calvinism in peace lol.

  8. Dear Redeverlasting

    Thank you for your comment. It’s sad to hear when someone gets sucked into the cult of Calvinism. Because to get out of it is very difficult. Once you believe you are Elect, boy oh boy…your pride takes over lock stock and barrel.

    You said “(Calvin’s) beliefs of once saved always saved”

    Actually just to clarify, Calvin/Calvinism does not believe in once saved always saved. They believe in “Perseverance of the Saints”. See difference here: The DIFFERENCE Between Assurance of Salvation and CALVINISM’S Perseverance of the Saints

  9. Richard Martinez says:

    But, alas, the entire building of American capitalism has been built upon the doctrines of Calvinism. Take a look at the pictures of Bill Gates or Mark Facebook: they convey the meaning that they are entitled to wealth by predestination. Or as I wrote in a poem, Calvin and Hitler are roasting in Hell.

  10. Richard Martinez says:

    Vincent Holloway, do you really not know any Calvinists? There are like 300 million here in the United States; course, they will be adamant about not being Calvinists; but in their actions if not words they act like self-righteous Calvinists.

  11. Timothy Meadows says:

    What crap! Calvin was part of putting people to death! Deal with it fool!

  12. Timothy Meadows.

    Yes, fools usually are blind to historical facts. Read history.

  13. Barbara LeFevre says:

    John wrote:

    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 ~ With all due respect, let me comment on your remark about those you view “to be in a constant rage against everyone they dont [sic] agree with.” I spent over 40 years in the LDS Church (Mormon) before being born again, and had the people during Joseph Smith’s time been “in a constant rage” against him and his claims, there wouldn’t be some 13 million people today on their way to an eternal, burning hell, not to mention all those who were deceived for the last (almost) 200 years who are now dead and condemned with no second chance (Heb. 9:27).

    When someone changes either the person or work of Jesus Christ, the results will be a false gospel, which is exactly what Reformed/Calvinists have done by teaching that only certain people were chosen for salvation and that Jesus died only for the elect against what Scripture plainly and repeatedly says (e.g. Lk. 2:10; Jn. 1:9, 3:16, 4:42, 12:46; II Cor. 5:14; I Jn. 2:2). Calvin’s TULIP, then, is not just a slightly different, yet acceptable, view on what Scripture says. It is a different gospel altogether, about which Paul did not mince words in Galatians 1:6-9.

    The fact is that we need more people who have the courage to stand and stand repeatedly against those who pervert the Word of God, which is exactly what is taught in Ephesians 5:11. We could use your help.

  14. Barabara Lefevre.

    Well said and thank you.

    Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6).

    In these last days we only need to love everyone to death (the second death). Sometimes I wonder whether those who are so lukewarm in their approach to God’s command to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) are really saved and just tiptoeing ever so gently along with Satan to see who they can devour with their hellish love.Phooey!!! I have no respect for anyone, including my own family members, who fosters this kind of hellish love.

    And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:36-39)

  15. Collin says:

    Not to dispute you, but how do we properly exegete Romans 9:13. I feel I ought know, but don’t. I am not a Calvinist. I have seen you ask others before and I understand why, but I take to the view of Paul that we oughtn’t claim titles like that. To say I am “of Paul” or “of Apollos” as was the case in Paul’s time. To say I am “of Calvin” is wrongful therefore. “Is Christ divided?” Is the question Paul asked. However I say the above to clarify that I have been afflicted by the Calvinists and I sometimes fear Calvinism is true, but I cannot commit to it because it seems untrue and this article is further evidence.

    In particular, the Limited Atonement is: unbiblical, cruel, and illogical. Total depravity though seems despairingly plausible. And I have had much, much, much issue with that exact verse. ( Romans 9:13 ) Not issue as in I want to strike it out, but it seems to heavily mean one thing – the thing Calvinism wants it to mean. However to the extent or perhaps in the matter that Calvinism believes Total Depravity, I do not believe. I do not believe the will is withheld and that we are automata of the Almighty. I believe that when we read the God hardens Pharoah’s heart it does not mean that Pharoah had no choice to let his people go or that he was thus incapable of doing anything but resisting it. However I do not fully understand either how it is meant that God hardened his heart and I am quite sure of the sovereignty of God, so as regards that I can be persuaded of the Calvinist argument a little while. It does not match my experience of God or his testimony by the prophets or his Christ. And whenever I return to those testimonies I find surprises of comfort and even joy. ( I recall when the prophet Zephaniah declares that God has said he will sing over his Jerusalem with joy. Zephaniah 3:7 I think? The god I fear from the words of the Calvinists could hardly sing at all, much less in joy. The testimony of Calvin’s life presented here proves it and were Calvin’s interpretation of God the true God then I would jump on the fire with Servetus anyway. I would rather believe a Jesus that accepts “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, Have Mercy on Me!” Calvin’s Geneva sounds like Babylon and Hell. ) I thank you for your explanations of the doctrine of Election, because it does seem as though it could mean what the Calvinist says. Irresistible Grace I can dismiss immediately not just biblically ( Israel resisted his grace even though they were the original “elect” and even then God hasn’t destroyed them completely or allowed Satan to ) but by personal experience. I have at some times resisted grace, but grace has exceeded my resistance, it seems. As per the other TULIP petals, I don’t know or care. Their idea of the Preservation you’ve already covered. And Unconditional Election I don’t believe either.

    The terrible thing about their doctrine is that if I gave my testimony, they would say that it more or less conforms. About paedobaptism, look into the Roman ( pagan ) practice of lusitration and similar European pagan practices which as far as I can tell predate the RCC’s take on paedobaptism and are its source. Revealing this may be another fruitful tact to expose that for what it is as you’ve done with greater boldness or clarity than I could’ve done.You may even already have. Pray for me indeed, because I am as foolish as the Galatians and have struggled much to trust.

  16. Collin says:

    Slight correction of my previous post. It was Zephaniah 3:17 , not Zephaniah 3:7

  17. Dear Collin, You wrote:

    Not to dispute you, but how do we properly exegete Romans 9:13. I feel I ought know, but don’t. I am not a Calvinist. I have seen you ask others before and I understand why, but I take to the view of Paul that we oughtn’t claim titles like that. To say I am “of Paul” or “of Apollos” as was the case in Paul’s time. To say I am “of Calvin” is wrongful therefore. “Is Christ divided?” Is the question Paul asked. However I say the above to clarify that I have been afflicted by the Calvinists and I sometimes fear Calvinism is true, but I cannot commit to it because it seems untrue and this article is further evidence.

    There never can be two or more opposing truths. When one is right, the other must be wrong. Calvinism is not the Gospel. Romans 9:13 is one of the Calvinists’ most quoted verses to validate their cult and one of their most prevalent reasons why they distort it is because they believe that God hates sinners (Psalm 5:5).

    It is always the good and proper thing not to focus on a single verse in Scripture and weave an entire doctrine around it. Such an exegesis leads to error and deception. The best way to exegete a verse is to search the Scriptures to see what the Bible says about God’s hatred. Consider the following:

    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

    If husbands were to hate their wives, Jesus would have been an impostor who commands one thing in one place and something else in another place.

    Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Ephesians 5:25).

    How do you reconcile these two apparently opposite commands? There is only one way to do it, and that is to know that God’s hatred is not the kind we usually associate with feelings of loathing, dislike, animosity, and revulsion. Its got more to do about preference above someone else or something else. In the Hebrew culture, two stringently opposite things are often used alongside one another to emphasize the gravity of a matter. In Romans 9:13 God sovereignly chose (allotted) Jacob instead of Esau to fulfill his promise of a coming Saviour. Remember, Jacob’s name was changed to Israel and Jesus Himself said that salvation is of the Jews (Israel) (John 4:22).

    So, to summarize. How can God, who is the essence of love, hate a fetus in his mother’s womb, and when as a little baby, never knew the meaning and consequences of sin? No! God did not hate Esau, as the Calvinists understand it, and sovereignly chooses whom He wants to save and whom He wants to eternally damn, just because it pleases Him.

  18. Andrew James Patton says:

    [Deleted by DTW – we must be heretics in your eyes as well, as infant baptism is not biblical and can not save.

    If you read the Two Babylon’s by A. Hislop you will understand that the Roman Catholic Church is the Old Babylonian pagan religion. The High priestess Semiramis bore a son called Nimrod who conquered many countries. She declared him a god called Baal. She then married him to be a goddess. The church has superimposed Mary and Jesus over these two. Nimrod was born on 25 December. The Pope’s fish hat is a tribute to Dragon the fish god which is why they ate fish on Fridays. Their idolatry of Mary is worship of Semiramis. Baby baptism originated from Baal whose giant statue was filled with fire. They sprinkled water over the babies heads and named them before throwing them into the fire as a sacrifice. Infant Christening means nothing to God. Be born again, and you will be saved. Jesus said that.
    He said I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through Me.

    I praise the Lord for every soul saved from this cult of Rome.

    The end]

  19. Michael says:

    Thank you for this site, this is a topic that sadly has increased in relevance as Rome regathers her children. It’s crazy that the “reformed church” has managed to get the truth reduced to the minority opinion when Google is searched. Basically any search about Michael Servetus yields a bunch of Calvinist propaganda and apologetics. Very sad how many great teachers have thrown their lot in with the bunch, such as John Barnette and John MacArthur. Requires me to one-line passages from his commentaries, passages that are simple to understand such as those in John referring to the apostles as elect… obviously they were elect, for a specific and epic job! At any rate thank you family, I’m proud to serve along side you all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *