Hi TarheelTraveler

Very good points you make. I have another article exposing John Calvin as a Jesuit Freemason, who got his teaching from St Augustine (hailed as father of the Roman Catholic church.)

[Edited by DTW- I’ve deleted the rest of your lost 10 tribes of Israel nonsense.]

John Calvin simply compared other men’s doctrines to his own doctrines instead of Christ’s doctrine (John 14:23,23 and 2John 1:9). Hence, Calvin exercised his sovereignty in ordering legions of men and women who disagreed with his Lawless doctrines to be burned at the stake. God says “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the son *OF God?” 1John 5:5…NOT the son *OF the Lawless One, Satan (2Thes 2:3) Calvin resembled the devil in word and deed.

Because the Calvinists is unable to judge men, to “try the spirits” as God commands, they are unable to discern who is a son of God and who is a son of his father the Devil (John 8:44…see also Matt 10:20 for who is speaking through you). As for love, it simply cannot be practiced by those that choose to hate. “Owe no man any thing, but to *love one another: for he that loveth another hath *fulfilled the law.” Rom 13:8 Christians love the truth, in word and person/Jesus, who defines love for him here → John 14:23,24

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]

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.

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.

Barabara Lefevre.

Well said and thank you.

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)

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.