EJ Hill: The Other Side of Hillside

E.J. Hill - Hillside

EJ Hill

EJ Hill: The Other Side of Hillside is not what you think…

What if “Christians” (among them staunch Calvinists – EJ Hill) who have always thought and believed they were treading the right path on the right side of the hill suddenly realized they were actually treading the wrong path on the wrong side of the hill?

Should we be shocked when someone suddenly comes out of his/her spiritual closet and announces with bravado, “I have turned my back on the God of the Bible and am now following a new, more enlightened god called ATHEISM” or as EJ Hill recently put it, “The Alpha and Omega of My Exodus from Christianity – The True Story of a Christian Theologian’s Exodus from Evangelical Christianity to Atheism”?

What if these so-called Christians have always been atheists but refused all along to face the music and candidly admit that they have always been anti-God under the cloak of “Christian” piousness called CALVINISM?

To answer these questions we first need to put on our Berean shoes to see what the God of the Bible has to say about these so-called ex-Christians (ex-Calvinists) who have become full-blown atheists.

EJ Hill’s conversion was to Christianity, not Christ

Hill writes:

My name is E.J. Hill. I converted to Christianity on the 6th of November 1993, at the age of 16. (Emphasis added).

The Bible never says that sinners should convert to Christianity. Yet, this is what EJ Hill claims to have done when he became a “Christian.”

A conversion to Christianity means absolutely nothing. Constantine who converted to Christianity and continued to offer sacrifices in pagan temples was a type of Antichrist who put an end to the persecution of Christians and made Christianity the official state religion of Rome. Since then the apostasy he set in motion has escalated exponentially to this day. Atheists are clearly anti-Christ despite their denial that God exists. 

The claim that you have converted to Christianity begs the questions – to what brand of Christianity? There are so many heretical brands of Christianity that most people will find it extremely difficult to identify Antichrist as a non-Christian when he eventually appears on the world political scene and lovingly accept him as a brother in Christ. That’s precisely what many so-called Christians had done when Constantine converted to Christianity.

EJ Hill’s had a form of godliness but denied the power thereof  (2 Timothy 3:5)

They look like ducks, quack like ducks and even swim like ducks but are not even remotely related to ducks.

This is the most dangerous feature of those who claim they had once converted to Christianity. It provides them an opportunity to destroy Christianity from within.

When Thomas Merton could no longer resist the mystic appeal, he intended to turn his back on Christianity. Guess who advised him to remain a “Christian?” No! You’re wrong. It was not a concerned Christian but a Hindu swami named Dr. Bramachari.

He assured Merton that he could find the very same mysticism within the ranks of the Christian mystics. (Henri J M Nouwen: Contemplative Critic).

Dr. Bramachari seems to be far better informed than most Christians of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians and seems to know that Merton could do more damage within the ranks of Christianity if he remained there in stead of becoming a converted Buddhist or Hindu.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:18-19).


Could it be that EJ Hill’s statement –

My deconversion came as a shock to most of my family and friends.

My wife’s first response was to threaten divorce. My mother burst into tears. My brother, in all his wisdom, just silently pondered this new turn of events. I have yet to witness my father’s.

Yet, I find comfort in the knowledge, that I am not alone. Apparently Christians are dropping like flies. (Emphasis added).

is an acknowledgment that Beelzebub, the god of the flies, was instrumental in his conversion to Christianity (not Christ) and his subsequent deconversion to Atheism?

Hill was an inflexibly staunch Calvinist who defended TULIP with all his might. I know because I have written quite a number of articles regarding his views on Calvinism and Annihilationism.

I have always maintained that Calvinism is not only one of the most dangerous heretical anti-Christian religions on the planet but also a veritable cesspool and breeding ground for protagonists who have given their lives to promote their serpentine apostasy. (Matthew 23:33). The irony is that God Himself had given them the mandate to continue and relish in their apostasy. (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12).

Why? Whoever shuns God’s way of salvation and replaces it with his own soteriology (aka Calvinism) is a perfect candidate for God’s terrifying indictment in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12. Anyone who does not tremble at his word may have already waded so far down the path of apostasy that a turning point may seem an impossibility.  Nevertheless, God who is merciful and full of compassion pleads with the apostates and begs them to:-

“Return, thou backsliding [apostate], saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, . . .  saith the LORD.” (Jeremiah 3:12-13).

EJ Hill deals with several questions he thinks his regular blog readers may want to ask him.

Where did you go wrong?

The primary mistake I made, was to adopt Christianity at the age of sixteen, without questioning the authority of it’s Scriptures.

IF you are going to live your life by some standard, and even more importantly, judge others by that standard, you better make sure it is infallible.

EJ Hill admits that the springboard which launched his Christianity (not his salvation) was false and highly questionable. I agree, because a lost and destitute orphan cannot adopt its parents or even their domestic rules and regulations in order to become their adopted child. The parents adopt the orphan. Adoption is an act of love, compassion and pity which only the parents are able to express, for it is the lost and destitute orphan who desperately needs love, compassion ad pity and not the parents.

Even so we, when we were children , were in bondage under the elements of the world [lost and destitute orphans]: But when the fulness of the time was come, God [who had compassion and pity on the destitute and the lost] sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:3-5).

The adoption unto son-ship is something God initiated by sending his Son, made of a woman, made under the curse of the law to redeem those who were/are under the curse of the law. The only thing God requires is faith – pure and simple faith or trust in his Son Jesus Christ to bestow His divinely ordained son-ship on lost and destitute orphans.

EJ Hilll ought to know that salvation (son-ship) is never granted by merely adopting Christianity. Salvation is not a choice between a huge variety of religions, including Christianity, and a decision to adopt one of them. Salvation, plain and simple, concerns the conviction of sins and transgressions (your lostness) and your desperate need of a Saviour, and only the Holy Spirit of God is able to do that.

And when he [the Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:8-11).

No one can be saved unless they realize – under the conviction of the Holy Spirit – that they are lost (on their way to hell). That’s why Jesus said:-

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. (Luke 5:31).

EJ Hill says: “IF you are going to live your life by some standard, and even more importantly, judge others by that standard, you better make sure it is infallible.” Here again he completely misses the boat. Christianity is not an attempt to live by some standard or to judge others by that standard. Christians are supposed to judge others’ doctrines and teaching and not the individuals themselves.

Indeed, there are Christian standards (commandments) but they were not given as a kind of yardstick to determine whether we are living by them or not. God penned down his standards (commandments) to show that we all have sinned against Him and fall short of His awesome glory and holiness. In fact, his exceptionally high standards are signposts pointing us to Jesus and the undisputed necessity to receive Him as our Saviour. (Romans 3:23; Galatians 3:24-25).

Jesus Christ said, “. . . without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5) which simply means that any attempt to live by his awesomely high standards – without Him living it out in and through his sons and daughters – are futile and nothing else than filthy, rotten [menstrual] rags (Galatians 2:20; Isaiah 64:6).

The next question he deals with is:

Why default to Atheism and not Deism?

At this point in my life, I simply have no good reason, sufficient philosophical or scientific evidence, to believe in the existence of ANY god.

By process of elimination, I have [over the past twenty odd years] managed to eliminate the alleged authority [holy books], and therefore the validity, of Judaism, Christianity [including the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Roman Catholicism], Islam, Mormonism, etc. – and can, with a fair amount of certainty say, that IF there is a God – and I am NOT saying there is – it is neither, Allah, nor Yahweh/Jehovah.

He who denies the existence of God is a fool (Psalm 14:1) and he who rejects the views on the existence of God of some of the most revered Atheists is even greater than a fool.

EJ Hill does not seem to deny there is a God. His convenient use of the word “if” exposes his doubts whether there is a God (note his use of a capitol “G”) and therefore he must contend that “if there is a God, it is neither Allah nor Yahweh/Jehovah.” What he says in effect, is the following, “If there is a God, it cannot be Allah or Yahweh/Jehovah but has to be any other god of your own choice.” So, as you can see he – like any other human being who was created to worship someone or something – chooses to worhip another god rather than Allah or Yahweh/Jeovah. Moreover, his deliberate effort to associate Yahweh/Jehovah with Allah speaks volumes.

Steven Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator? (1)

There is no proof that the universe has neither beginning nor end. The only alternative is that it had a beginning and therefore it must have a Designer.

Richard Dawkins vacillates between a non-existent God and One that exists by conveniently making a silly statement like this.

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist. (2)

William Lane Craig blasts Richard Dawkins’ inconsistent reasoning to smithereens with the slightest of efforts.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist” seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn’t follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist,” then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins’ cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist” does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified. (3).

Most of the present day learned scholars on the historicity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection agree on:

  1. Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea,
  2. the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers,
  3. the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and
  4. the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical.

Even neutral scholars like Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes, two Jewish scholars, defend the historicity of these four facts. Vermes writes, “When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that . . . the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb” (Jesus the Jew, p. 41).

Bart Ehrman, who claims to have been a Christian once, writes:

The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus’ burial. . . .

Some scholars have argued that it’s more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals (which also happened commonly for crucified persons in the Roman Empire). [Ehrman is clearly referring here to radical critics like  John Dominic Crossan, whose skepticism about the historicity of the burial has been widely rejected . . . . Ehrman will now reject it, too.-WmLC] But the accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened.

We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb (Bart Ehrman, From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Lecture 4: “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus” [The Teaching Company, 2003].) (4).

William Lane Craig affirms that,

Perhaps the most objective evidence for the current lay of the land in New Testament scholarship concerning these four facts would be a bibliographical survey of the relevant literature. Such a survey has, in fact, been conducted by Gary Habermas (“Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 288-97). In a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Habermas found that 75% of the scholars surveyed accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. Belief in the disciples’ experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus is virtually universal. (5).

Yet EJ Hill says:

“At this point in my life, I simply have no good reason, sufficient philosophical or scientific evidence, to believe in the existence of ANY god.” The only evidence he has is the very shaky testimony of a friend (enemy?) Jacques du Plessis, who played a leading role in his exodus from the miry clay of religion. His exodus, however, is not from the miry clay of religion but from the One who suffered and died for him on the cross.


Many more things could be said about EJ Hill’s deconversion to Atheism but the most heartrending and saddest irony is that he quotes the God of the Bible – whom he believes is non- existent – to substantiate and defend his deconversion. It proves that you can use the Bible, inspired by a non-existent God, to validate just tabout every heresy imaginable. In the apology section of his article he wrote:

As the book of Proverbs confirms, “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death” (Pr. 14v12, 16v25) – intellectual death, social death, and sometimes even physical death.

Be that as it may, rest assured “I was blind, but now I see”

The irony is  that he mentions all kinds of deaths (“intellectual death, social death and sometimes even physical death”) accept the death to which Solomon refers in this Proverb, which is eternal spiritual death (eternal separation from God).

If Jesus is the only Way to God the Father (John 14:6) then the way that appears to be right but in the end it leads to death, cannot be Jesus. It must be the way of someone or something else. It follows that all the other ways, including a false Christianity, are ways that seem to be right to those who have been deceived but in the end lead to eternal misery, punishment and agony in the lake of fire.

E J Hill says he was blind but now he sees. Jesus said:

And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:40-41).

I am not saddened by EJ Hill’s deconversion to Atheism because he never was a saved Christian in the first place. My concern is that he may never repent of his evil and receive Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord. Nevertheless, it is my most earnest plea that he may do so before it is too late.

See all articles on E.J.Hill here

(1) Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140-141

(2) Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion,” pp 157-158.

(3) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

4) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-scholarship-and-jesus-resurrection

5) Ibid.

Tom (Discerning the World)

Discerning the World is an internet Discernment ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa that was founded in 2008. Tom Lessing originally founded the website “Waak en Bid/Watch and Pray”. Tom Lessing joined Discerning the World in May 2013 and all his articles were moved across to DTW.

30 Responses

  1. Believe it or not, E J Hill has managed to respond to my article in the twinkling of an eye. I must give him some credit for his prompt response. Unfortunately, he did not thoroughly think through his own response with the result that he – as a new-born atheist – has again made some serious blunders. He writes:

    Regarding the Foolishness of My Atheism

    In response to my statement, that “I simply have no good reason, sufficient philosophical or scientific evidence, to believe in the existence of ANY god.”, Lessing says:

    EXTRACT: “He who denies the existence of God is a fool (Psalm 14:1) and he who rejects the views on the existence of God of some of the most revered Atheists is even greater than a fool.”

    Funny how Lessing, not long ago, condemned Grant Swart for calling people idiots [or fools], yet has no problem doing the same?!

    If EJ Hill had been a serious Bible scholar – as he claims he once was – he would have seen that it is not Tom Lessing who calls atheists fools but God Himself. The reason why he blames me is because he does not believe in the existence of God or a God and so it must be Tom Lessing who said atheists are fools OR it must be Tom lessing who inspired the Psalmist to write Psalm 14 and not the Holy Spirit.

    EJ Hill only needed to do the very slightest research to see that there are several words with different meanings used for the word ”fool.” Let’s look at them.

    Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mat 5:21-22)

    Here the word for “fool” is μωρός (mōros) from which the word “moron” is derived. Seen in the context Jesus used this word – i.e. murder – he was telling them that a hateful attitude in one’s heart was as equally sinful as committing the act of murder, making the guilty party eligible for hell.

    But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?: (Luk 12:20)

    Here the word for “fool” is ἄφρων aphrōn – that is, stupid, (by implication) ignorant, (specifically) egotistic, (practically) rash, or (morally) unbelieving: – fool (-ish), unwise. As you can see this connects well with Psalm 14:1 which refers to atheists as fools.

    The rest of his rebuttal to the points I raised in my article is equally childish. I will deal with them later.

  2. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Oh LOL, I knew he was going to pick up on that. But the speed at which he did it is incredible. You would think he sits watching DTW all day long. EJ Hill (the now Atheiest and ALWAYS WAS an Atheist) does not understand the different meanings of the word ‘fool’ in the bible.

  3. EJ Hill sorely laments most Christians’ ignorance of church history but fails to see his own appalling lack of knowledge. He claims to “know my Bible very well” but forgets that the poor souls who do not have God residing in their dead spirits (Matthew 8:22) cannot understand the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

    And this is precisely why he cannot understand the deep mystery of Christianity which relates to the making into one body of believing (saved) Jews and believing (saved) Gentiles.

    Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Eph 2:11-22).

    It is abundantly clear from this passage that Christianity could never have been in existence in the Old Testament, “being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

    And yet EJ Hill – the new-born Atheist – emphatically declares that Christianity (the reconciling of both Jews and Gentiles into one body by the cross) already existed in the Old Testament. He wrote:

    Unfortunately for Lessing, I happen to know my Bible very well – and contrary to his claim, the Bible DOES say that sinners should convert to Christianity, in both, the Old and New Testaments.

    How can you conduct a reasonable debate with a new-born Atheist who claims to know his Bible but doesn’t even understand the most basic doctrines of Christianity?

    To substantiate his claim that Christianity was already in existence in the Old Testament he quotes a single verse from the Old Testament.

    “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and CONVERT, and be healed” (Is. 6v10, KJV)

    Apart from the fact that the word “Christianity” is conspicuously absent from the verse, the disobedient and apostatizing Israelite would never have understood the prophet Isaiah if he exhorted them to return to Christianity. Huh? Duh! Whenever they sinned and disobeyed God they knew they had to return (convert) to Him – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and NOT Christianity.

    As if the Bible is not sufficient to substantiate his claims he resorts to Google to corroborate his claim that the Bible teaches us to convert to Christianity.

    A simple Google Search for “christian conversion” quickly confirms, that the generally accepted definition of “conversion to christianity is the religious conversion of a previously non-Christian person to some form of Christianity.”

    The “conversion of a previously non-Christian person to some form of Christianity” hardly represents biblical salvation. In fact, it proves what I had said in my original rebuttal that a conversion to Christianity means nothing because most people who convert to Christianity are of the opinion that they can convert to some form of Christianity and claim to be saved.

    Jesus never said “Come to Christianity and you will find rest for your soul.” He said:

    Come unto ME, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Mat 11:28).

    Paul never said “Call on the name of Christianity and you shall be saved.” He said:

    And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on THE NAME OF THE LORD shall be saved. (Act 2:21).

    Ah, and then EJ Hill thinks he has given my argument a fatal death blow when he calls in Dave Hunt as his witness.

    Nor am I alone in my assessment.

    According to Dave Hunt, one of Lessing’s favourite Christian authors, we are “to preach the gospel and CONVERT sinners”. He also referred to Juma Nuradin Kamil, as “a Christian CONVERT from Islam”.

    First of all, Dave Hunt never once refers to Christianity on his Facebook page – never once. A genuinely saved Christian – of whom Dave Hunt undoubtedly was one – would never advise a Muslim or any other non-Christian to convert to Christianity (Please read here). Turning from one religion to another is like a change of raiment. It may change your outward appearance but your inward appearance remains exactly the same.

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Mat 23:27-28)

    At any rate Jesus never said that sinners should adopt Christianity. He said you must be born again/born from above. (John 3:3, 7).

  4. EJ Hill doesn’t seem to realize that his defence of conditional security proves that he never really understood the Calvinist view of eternal security. He writes here:

    As a former Christian minister who adopted Atheism, I am often told, that “no ex-Christian was ever really a Christian”, and therefore, neither was I.

    The argument normally comes from Calvinistic Christians, who hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security, that is “Once Saved, Always Saved”.

    ➢ According to First John Chapter 2 Verse 19, “They went out from us: but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 Jn. 2v19, KJV, p.541)

    Yet, strangely enough, the same argument are also parroted by Arminian Christians, who reject the doctrine of Eternal Security, in favor of Conditional Security, whereby ‘true Christians’ CAN in fact ‘fall away’.

    Calvinism’s claim to believe in eternal security is at its best farcical. The “P” in the acronym TULIP as well as the many Calvinists (Puritans) who doubted their salvation on their deathbed reveal that their view of eternal security is downright ludicrous.

    The “P” (Perseverance of the saints) hardly spells security. To what end must an elect person who had been sovereignly and irrevocably chosen unto salvation, even before the foundation of the world, and is irreversibly bound for heaven – come hell or high water – persevere?

    Must they persevere to buttress their salvation they received through election or do they need to persevere in order to accomplish something else not yet fully packaged in their salvific security? If so, they are adding effort to God’s effortless sovereign election before the foundation of the world and making a mockery of their own reverence for God’s supreme sovereignty.

    The word “perseverance” implies that you must tenaciously hold on to something in order to accomplish whatever you are holding on to – in this case, salvation. As such, it contradicts TULIP in its entirety. Either God’s salvific security is solidly watertight so that nothing more is needed to secure it, or the elect’s perseverance is a necessary component of God’s salvific security in order to make it secure.

    Needless to say, this absolutely contradicts Calvinism absolutely because man who is allegedly completely dead in sins and transgressions (as dead as Lazarus was before his resurrection) is totally unable to contribute anything to his salvation – not even faith. And yet, they rely on their perseverance to endure and secure their irreversible/irrevocable salvation.

    Is there any proof from history confirming that Calvinists doubted their election? Many Puritans in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries doubted their election on their deathbeds because they were taught the infamous lie that saints need to persevere to the end.

    If, as Calvinists believe, their salvation is divinely guaranteed and they can never lose it because God’s election is irreversible, why do they need to persevere – to maintain their salvation? It was this paradox, lingering between the assurance of election and the burden of perseverance to make their election sure, that led most Puritans to doubt their election.

    They taught that assurance is not so much a gift of the Holy Spirit as it is the result of their own performance in persevering to the end. Hence their exhortation that believers ought to pray fervently, work arduously, and struggle heroically, often for many years, in order at last to obtain assurance. In addition, Puritans taught that God only gives assurance of election (salvation) to a very few of His children.

    Now though this full assurance is earnestly desired, and highly prized, and the want of it much lamented, and the enjoyment of it much endeavoured after by all saints, yet it is only obtained by a few. Assurance is a mercy too good for most men’s hearts, it is a crown too weighty for most men’s heads. Assurance is optimum maximum, the best and greatest mercy; and therefore God will only give it to his best and dearest friends.

    Augustus in his solemn feasts, gave trifles to some, but gold to others. Honor and riches, etc., are trifles that God gives to the worst of men; but assurance is that ‘tried gold,’ Rev. 3:18, that God only gives to tried friends. Among those few that have a share or portion in the special love and favor of God, there are but a very few that have an assurance of his love.

    It is one mercy for God to love the soul, and another mercy for God to assure the soul of his love. (Thomas Brooks, “Heaven on Earth: A Serious Discourse, Touching a Well-Grounded Assurance,” in The Works of Thomas Brooks, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, repr. 1980).

    Despite these irrefutable historical facts, EJ Hill maintains, “the only Christians who can make this claim, without hypocrisy and self-contradiction, are those of a Calvinistic persuasion.”

    EJ Hill not only exhibits a very limited knowledge of the Calvinistic view of eternal security but also a very poor knowledge of Arminius’ view of salvific security. The following excerpt from The Works of James Arminius, Vols. 1 & 2, Translated from the Latin by James Nichols, proves that no truly born-again saint can or will be plucked from the hand of God. (John 10:29).

    My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ….

    EJ Hill’s reason for believing that an apostate cannot be accused of having been a non-Christian all along, despite Scripture’s assertion in 1 John 2:19, is rather flimsy. He writes:

    It is fairly easy to make a similar case against ‘former atheists’. It could be said, that if any ‘former atheist’ really understood the philosophical arguments of Atheism, they would no doubt have remained atheists. Therefore, it is self-evident, that they were never “real atheists”.

    The result would be, that neither Christianity nor Islam, could lay any claim to the conversion of ‘former atheists’, like C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) – since they were never ‘real atheists’ to begin with.

    Firstly, there are no promises given in any atheistic document that an atheist will always remain an atheist. Similarly, there are no promises in the Qur’an or the Hadith declaring that a Muslim will always remain a Muslim.

    The Bible (Word of God) is the only book, which explicitly states that once you’ve been saved , you will always be saved – not because you are an elect but because God’s promises are eternal and irreversible. Neither an atheist nor a Muslim has this assurance.

    The only requirement for “once saved, always saved” to be true, is that the person who claims to be a Christian must be a genuinely saved sinner and not a reprobate who thought he had been regenerated but never was saved from the outset. (2 Corinthians 13:5). Said person will fall away, denounce God, and even try to prove that He does not exist. Therefore, said person was never a real Christian.

    My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. (John 10:27-30).

    Moreover, one of the strongest proofs that a genuinely saved sinner will never want to become an atheist or any other “ism”, is 2 Corinthians 7:10.

    For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:10).

    A genuinely saved sinner will never regret his/her salvation and turn away from God. Only a reprobate (one who had never been saved, despite them having believed they were saved) will regret their “Christianity” and fall away.

    As for Hill’s statement: “It is fairly easy to make a similar case against ‘former atheists’. It could be said, that if any ‘former atheist’ really understood the philosophical arguments of Atheism, they would no doubt have remained atheists. Therefore, it is self-evident, that they were never “real atheists”, the following.

    Indeed, there never was, is or ever shall be a real atheist. How do we know?

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18-19).

    Of course, EJ Hill will deny this because he does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. He has no proof that it is not the Word of God and therefore must suppress the truth in his own unrighteousness.

  5. To prove that he was a real Christian before he deconverted to atheism EJ Hill supplies the following answers to his own question, “What makes you a ‘real Christian’?”

    Should they say, “I believe in God”: I will reply, “So did I”.

    As an ex-Christian EJ Hill should know that to say “I believe in God” means absolutely nothing. (James 2:19).

    When Jesus confronted the demons in the two demon possessed Gadarenes, they cried out, “”What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” They knew and believed that He is the Son of God and verbally acknowledged Him as the Son of God, and knew that He had the authority to judge them. EJ Hill denies it.

    Should they say, “I pray every day”: I will reply, “So did I”.

    So what! Even demons pray. “So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. The word for “besought is “parakaleo” and means among other things “to entreat or to pray.”

    Should they say, “I study the Bible every day”: I will reply, “So did I. And I still do – more than you”.

    So what! Even the Pharisees read and studied the Bible and Jesus said to them, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40). Hill may have read and studied the Bible but has he ever come to Jesus Christ for his salvation? I think not.

    Should they say, “I go to church on Sunday”: I will reply, “So did I. Sometimes even during the week”.

    What does going to church have to do with salvation? “But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands . . .” Where does He dwell? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). Did the Spirit of God dwell in EJ Hill? I think not.

    Should they say, “I believe the truth”: I will ask, “What truth?”

    This is the ultimate proof that EJ Hill never was saved before he deconverted to Atheism. Had he known in his heart that Jesus Christ IS the Truth, the Way and the Life, he would never have asked the question “What truth?”

    I urge him to repent and turn to Jesus for his salvation and not Christianity.

  6. Have true Christians ever made a theological mistake?

    Should they say, “No”: I will point them to Matthew Chapter 16 Verse 23, where Jesus rebuked Peter; and Galatians Chapter 2 Verses 11 to 21, where the apostle Paul confronted Peter for Judaizing.
    Should they say, “Yes”: I will ask, “Were they ‘real Christians’ nonetheless?”
    Should they say, “No”: I will ask, “Why then believe anything Peter or Paul wrote?”
    Should they say, “Yes”: I will ask, “On what basis do you then reject our former faith?”

    The more EJ Hill tries to defend his claim that he was a real Christian before he de-converted to Atheism, the more evident it is that he never was a real Christian.

    The difference between Peter and EJ Hill is that Peter’s theological mistakes never motivated him to become an Atheist or to de-convert any other religion. Peter never doubted that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of the living God, whereas Hill now doubts whether there is ANY God.

    There was never a single instance in Peter’s life when he deliberately and suddenly no longer wanted to be a Christian because he doubted Jesus Christ’s deity and his teaching. He remained a Christian despite his many theological mishaps.

    In fact, his theological mistakes were to him a learning curve that strengthened his relationship with Jesus and brought him to a deeper knowledge of His divine mission to the earth. Nothing of the sort happened to EJ Hill.

    One of the most solid proofs that Jesus Christ is fully God while He is also fully man was his ability to predict things before it happened. Jesus predicted Peter’s theological mistakes (as EJ Hill calls them) well in advance.

    And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. (Luke 22:31-34).

    Note that Jesus said He would pray for Peter that his faith should not fail. He could only have prayed for Peter if his faith was a genuine biblical faith and not a false faith that put its trust in Christianity and not Christ.

    It is impossible to pray for someone when that person has no real faith in Christ Jesus. It is like praying for an atheist to retain his faith while there is not a hint of any kind of faith whatsoever alive and well in an Atheist. Peter’s faith was a genuine biblical faith in Jesus Christ and not merely a faith in an institution called Christianity.

  7. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    I actually feel very sorry for EJ Hill and the confused state he is in.

  8. Confusion is a natural trait of the natural man.

    But the natural [unsaved] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Co 2:14).

    The natural man abhors the cross of Christ.

    For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Co 1:18).

  9. Jess says:

    Excellent article. And yes, “converting to Christianity” is not the way to heaven.

    The way to heaven, is being convinced that Jesus Christ, God Himself, died on the cross as the full payment for our sins, and then Jesus rose from the dead, and that believing this means you will be in heaven, and refusing it means you will be in the lake of fire. Really that simple.

    Notice his run to unbiblical calivinism, but also to the mostly unbiblical so-called “church fathers”. What’s wrong with just reading and believing the Bible? That’s their problem. They never wanted that.

  10. Grant-53 says:

    Christians who embrace the doctrines of grace and understand John Calvin’s Institutes are regularly chastised as unbiblical. I suggest this comes from a lack of appreciation about the nature and power of God. It has become chic of late to put human reason as the measure of all things and judge God by what seems good for people. Humanism finds Calvinism repugnant since humanism is a form of idolatry-the worship of human kind.

  11. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    So are you saying that God chose EJ before time memorial to be Elect because he believed in the ‘doctrines of grace’ therefore he was Elect. I really do hope you think so. Because I would like you to explain why EJ is now an ‘elect atheist’. And I would like scripture from you to backup your ‘Elect ideas’.

  12. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    You said “Christians who embrace the doctrines of grace and understand John Calvin’s Institutes are regularly chastised as unbiblical. I suggest this comes from a lack of appreciation about the nature and power of God.”

    I don’t see the power of God in a murderer like John Calvin who murdered people who did not agree with him, what I do see is the father of all lies, a murderer from the beginning..

      John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Tell me, can you show me one instance in the bible where is says you must murder those who don’t agree with you? Did any disciple or apostle of Jesus Christ for that matter burn people at the stake for not agreeing with them?

    Is murdering someone biblical? Because you say “anyone that does not appreciate John Calvin’s Institutes lack of appreciation about the nature and power of God.”

    Are you saying that John Calvin had a Godly calling to murder people who did not agree with his Geneva plan?

    Tell me, are you pro Roman Catholic? John Calvin was (a freemason as well).

    Would you call Jesus Christ and the Apostles humanists because they would never in a million years follow a murderer like John Calvin?

    John MacArthur believes that John Calvin is his alter ego, what would you Grant-53, John McArthur and others have done back in the days of Geneva? Would you have helped John Calvin in his murderous escapades or would you have said, “no this is wrong!” Calvinism – What would these Pastors have done if they were there?

  13. Grant-53 says:

    To answer your questions, ‘No’ in each case. The way you form the questions is an indication of your assumptions and limited understanding of history. It is consistent with the Roman Catholic teaching of the seamless garment to equate capital punishment with other forms of killing. Humanism also considers capital punishment evil. As a Baptist and an American I firmly believe in liberty of conscience and the dangers of state religion. Did Calvin hate Servatus? Not according to the accounts I have read. Ezekiel tells us that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked. We are also warned about accusing someone of a crime. What I can tell you is that I do NOT participate in the character assassination of others saved or unsaved. To claim anyone who is associated with Calvinism approves of murder is absolutely false.

  14. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    You are a Calvinist, you believe in the ‘doctrines of grace’ aka TULIP and believe in the Institutes of a man called John Calvin a man who murdered people who did not believe in what he believed. It appears you actually believe Calvinists (John Calvin included) have the God given right to kill people in the name of Christianity. Strangely enough the Roman Catholic Church holds the same position.

    >> Did Calvin hate Servatus? Not according to the accounts I have read.

    Then you don’t read very well. Or you are only read what you want too.

    >> It is consistent with the Roman Catholic teaching of the seamless garment to equate capital punishment with other forms of killing.

    Oh wait you read the part where John Calvin said, “It wasn’t me, It wasn’t me, I just cunningly handed him over to the Geneva court and they dealt with him swiftly and I secretly applauded.”

    I like how you first claim that no where have you read that Calvin was a murderer (didn’t hate Servatus) then…you say, “To claim anyone who is associated with Calvinism approves of murder is absolutely false.” Errr… ok Grant, which is it now? He did or he didn’t?

    >> Ezekiel tells us that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked

    Do you believe in the lie that God kills people? That God gives people commands to kill the wicked, but He does not delight in their death, is that what you are saying?

    Firstly, show me one verse in the bible where God says you must physically eliminate (either by your hand or using another method like that of a court for instance like John Calvin did) for those who don’t hold your beliefs?

    Secondly, what do you think this verse means? Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” I would like an explanation.

    You take no part is what you call ‘character assassination’? Really, you come on here and say that non Calvinists are “Humanists” a “form of idolatry-the worship of human kind.” and “lack of appreciation about the nature and power of God” What is that Grant-53? I just love it when people pull the ‘character assassination card’ when they run out of things to say.

  15. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    You have not responded to my question regarding being an ‘Elect Atheist’.

  16. Grant-53 says:

    First we have a large time difference. Second you have no claim on me answer any of your hateful questions. Do want to learn or are you just out to beat down people you barely know to appear knowledgeable. You put false arguments in peoples’ mouth so you can justify your own version of hate and ignorance.

    >>Then you don’t read very well. Or you are only read what you want too.
    This offers no proof only an insult

    >>I like how you first claim that no where have you read that Calvin was a murderer (didn’t hate Servatus) then…you say, “To claim anyone who is associated with Calvinism approves of murder is absolutely false.” Errr… ok Grant, which is it now? He did or he didn’t?

    What I claim is that from my reading of the accounts, Calvin was reluctant to pursue the charge of heresy which at the time was a capital crime. In my experience with contemporary Christians whether Presbyterian, Reformed, or others NONE, NOT ONE would ever suggest any form of murder is acceptable. We are currently mourning the deaths of nine fellow Christians at an African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston SC by an alleged white racist.

    >>Do you believe in the lie that God kills people? That God gives people commands to kill the wicked, but He does not delight in their death, is that what you are saying?

    The Biblical records of God putting people to death directly and through the ordained legal systems are abundantly evident. Start with Genesis 6:5-8 and list them all through Revelation 21:7-8. It is in this very point that the Humanist justifies himself in rejecting God saying any God that allows pain and suffering is not worthy to be worshipped. Jesus made it clear God is perfectly just in condemning violent rebels as in Luke 19:11-28. He also makes it abundantly clear that God is enormously gracious in pardoning sinners and making them faithful children. It is to the praise of God that He overcame our evil with His goodness. Look at Ezekiel 33:11-20 and see what God does. Your claims hinge on proving John Calvin was a murderer. Produce two or more credible witnesses or suffer the penalty of a false witness. You claim it is a lie that God kills people yet the Scriptures clearly state otherwise. You are wrong in saying I claim all non-Calvinists are Humanists. I have made it clear but I will restate my convictions of liberty of conscience. Child, you do well to answer your own question about condemning those who do not share your beliefs. Do not mistake a Calvinist with an Islamic fatalist. My understanding of Ephesians 5:11 begins with listing the works of darkness in verses 3-5. To reprove is to correct something that is remiss.

    I do not know this E. F. Hill person so I will not speculate on his conversions. If you want a debate on double predestination, there are better people to ask. The primary text is Romans 9:6-24. It is almost midnight local time and this old man needs his rest. My wife and I raised five children so don’t think you can sass me missy;)

  17. Grant 53 wrote,

    >>Do you believe in the lie that God kills people? That God gives people commands to kill the wicked, but He does not delight in their death, is that what you are saying?

    The Biblical records of God putting people to death directly and through the ordained legal systems are abundantly evident. Start with Genesis 6:5-8 and list them all through Revelation 21:7-8. It is in this very point that the Humanist justifies himself in rejecting God saying any God that allows pain and suffering is not worthy to be worshipped. Jesus made it clear God is perfectly just in condemning violent rebels as in Luke 19:11-28. He also makes it abundantly clear that God is enormously gracious in pardoning sinners and making them faithful children. It is to the praise of God that He overcame our evil with His goodness. Look at Ezekiel 33:11-20 and see what God does. Your claims hinge on proving John Calvin was a murderer. Produce two or more credible witnesses or suffer the penalty of a false witness. You claim it is a lie that God kills people yet the Scriptures clearly state otherwise. You are wrong in saying I claim all non-Calvinists are Humanists. I have made it clear but I will restate my convictions of liberty of conscience. Child, you do well to answer your own question about condemning those who do not share your beliefs. Do not mistake a Calvinist with an Islamic fatalist. My understanding of Ephesians 5:11 begins with listing the works of darkness in verses 3-5. To reprove is to correct something that is remiss.

    Secular humanists love to blame God for everything. To them it is OK to fill your lungs with cancerous cigarette smoke, suffer the consequences and then blame God. You are doing the same with John Calvin. So, you want some evidence that John Calvin a was a murderer and a rogue who imprisoned people for no good reason? Eat your heart out:


    The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59 (translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy):

    “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 workingmen 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.” (See Pike, pp. 61-63).

    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.

    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. (See Pike, pp. 55,56).

    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).

    “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” James 3:11.

    And you dare to equate Calvin’s murders of people with Gods righteous judgments in the Bible?

    You conveniently forget that Pharaoh killed thousands of little boys before God judged him and his firstborn. You conveniently forget that the Canaanites murdered their own babies in hideous sacrifices to the God Molech before God righteously judged them. He gave them 430 years to repent but they refused. And yet you dare to blame God of murder by mentioning Him in the same breath as a murderer like Calvin? Are you crazy?

    And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. (Rev 16:5)
    For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. (Rev 19:2)

    God is going to avenge the blood John Calvin spilled and also those who love to love and follow a murderer.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isa 5:20)

  18. Grant 53 wrote,

    I do not know this E. F. White person so I will not speculate on his conversions. If you want a debate on double predestination, there are better people to ask. The primary text is Romans 9:6-24. It is almost midnight local time and this old man needs his rest. My wife and I raised five children so don’t think you can sass me missy;)

    Oh, how you Calvinists just love to quote Romans 9,

    As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom 9:13)

    Don’t you know that God commands you to HATE your wife and your children? In fact, if you refuse to hate your wife and your children you cannot be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Your refusal to hate them automatically disqualifies you from being a disciples of Jesus Christ.

    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)

    So, Mr. wiseguy, the hate spoken of in Luke cannot possibly be the kind of hate you are referring to. How can it be when God also commands you to love your wife even as Christ loved the church? (Ephesians 5:25). In Jewish culture the extreme opposite of a word is often used to express the gravity of what it wants to convey. In stead of saying “You must prefer God above your wife and children” it says you must hate them. In other words, your love and adoration for God must be so overwhelmingly great that your love for your wife and children must seem like hatred.

    In the same way, God preferred to choose (prefer) Jacob above Esau because He decided to bring his Messiah into the world through Jacob and his descendants instead of Esau and his descendants.

    As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pe 3:16)

    So, who is being sassy now? Those who wrest God’s word to give it meaning other than what He intended it to be, is being disrespectful to Him and his doctrines.

  19. Grant 53,

    He also makes it abundantly clear that God is enormously gracious in pardoning sinners and making them faithful children.

    Like all Calvinists you are downright dishonest. How on earth can you say God is enormously gracious in pardoning sinners and making them faithful children when you, like John MacArthur and the rest, believe that God is glorified by his choice to send most people (the reprobate, non-elect) to hell because it pleased Him to predestine them for hell before the foundation of the world? Do you call that being gracious and merciful?

  20. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    >> I do not know this E. J. Hill person so I will not speculate on his conversions.

    Speculation on his conversion? But he was not converted he was ‘Elect’ Grant before he was born.

    Double predestination? Yes, Grant this is the one of the most awful lies of Calvinism. Double predestination is the belief that God creates some people whose purpose in existence is to be sent to hell. You misunderstand Romans 9:6-24 (Read Thomas’s comment)

    Tell me Grant are you Elect? How do you know you are not part of the group selected to go to hell?

    Tell me Grant, where you once hopelessly lost and in need of Jesus Christ?

    Also please tell me, if you are a Calvinist what do you need to believe to know you are Elect? Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ and TULIP?

    I am so happy you have a wife a 5 kids, that must make you a real super dooper Calvinist.

  21. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    To the Calvinist in this article:

    I know you are reading this because you follow DTW like a hawk and I am sorry that we are chatting about you like this but maybe you can now see how ridiculous the doctrine of Calvinism is and come to know the real Jesus Christ of the bible. :)

  22. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Please see comment here from Grant-53 who can’t see anything wrong with Freemasonry etc. 2015/06/21 at 3:35 am

  23. Johan says:

    Dear Tom,
    Is there on your DTW blog an article that you have written on who and what the “elect” or ” election”, is, we read about in the Bible?
    Is it explained in a way to understand that?
    Must say it is a doctrine that is really confusing at times and I have also ordered the book by Dave Hunt,
    …” What love is this”… To get a grasp on this .

  24. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    Yes it is confusing and Calvinists love to confuse words in verses. That is why people get caught out by it and when the ‘idea’ that you are ‘Elect before you were born’ has grabbed hold of your brain for some terrible reason it’s almost impossible to get rid of it and know the truth. Calvinism is a horrible cult.

    Dave Hunt’s book is just fantastic but here is an article that I know will help you in the meantime understand what biblical election/predestination is all about. What it Really Means to be Elected, Chosen, and Predestinated – The Biblical Truth

  25. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    Yous said: “Your claims hinge on proving John Calvin was a murderer. Produce two or more credible witnesses or suffer the penalty of a false witness.”

    Ok…let us help you out with this:

    Witness One:

    Philip Schaff


    Taken from:

    § 157. Calvin’s Defence of the Death Penalty for Heretics.

    Calvin’s plea for the right and duty of the Christian magistrate to punish heresy by death, stands or falls with his theocratic theory and the binding authority of the Mosaic code. His arguments are chiefly drawn from the Jewish laws against idolatry and blasphemy, and from the examples of the pious kings of Israel. But his arguments from the New Testament are failures. He agrees with Augustin in the interpretation of the parabolic words: “Constrain them to come in” (Luke 14:23).1209 But this can only refer to moral and not to physical force, and would imply a forcible salvation, not destruction. The same parable was afterwards abused by the French bishops to justify the abominable dragoonades of Louis XIV. against the Huguenots. Calvin quotes the passages on the duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword against evil-doers (Rom. 13:4); the expulsion of the profane traffickers from the temple (Matt. 21:12); the judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1 sqq.); the striking of Elymas with blindness (13:11); and the delivery of Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20). He answers the objections from the parables of the tares and of the net (Matt. 13:30, 49), and from the wise counsel of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). But he cannot get over those passages which contradict his theory, as Christ’s rebuke to John and James for wishing to call down fire from heaven (Luke 9:54), and to Peter for drawing the sword (Matt. 26:52), his declaration that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and his whole spirit and aim, which is to save and not to destroy.

    In his juvenile work on Seneca and in earlier editions of his Institutes, Calvin had expressed noble sentiments on toleration;1210 even as Augustin did in his writings against the Manichaeans, among whom he himself had lived for nine years; but both changed their views for the worse in their zeal for orthodoxy.

    Witness Two:

    Did Calvin Murder Servetus?
    Stanford Rives


    Witness Three

    John Calvin said:
    “If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

    “We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. … I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him”

    “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

    “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.”


    Witness Four:

    Supporters of Calvin in Geneva

    …erected a simple stele in memory of Servetus in 1903, the main text of which served more as an apologetic for Calvin:
    Duteous and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience according to the true principles of his Reformation and gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. Oct. 27, 1903



    The penalty for murder:

    “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.” (Lev 24:17)

    This is what Calvin did, use the Law of Moses to ‘justify’ the murder of Servetus.

    John Calvin in subsequent commentaries on mosaic law defends killing heretics: p 133





    You said: “What I claim is that from my reading of the accounts, Calvin was reluctant to pursue the charge of heresy which at the time was a capital crime.”

    I think it is you Grant who is being a false witness.


    Here is a free Google book that can be downloaded. See Chapter 10.



    The Genevan Confession was credited to John Calvin in 1536 by Beza who said Calvin wrote it as a formula of Christian doctrine suited to the church at Geneva.
    XIX. Excommunication

    Because there are always some who hold God and his Word in contempt, who take account of neither injunction, exhortation nor remonstrance, thus requiring greater chastisement, we hold the discipline of excommunication to be a thing holy and salutary among the faithful, since truly it was instituted by our Lord with good reason. This is in order that the wicked would not by their damnable conduct corrupt the good and dishonor our Lord, and that though proud they may turn to penitence. Therefore we believe that it is expedient according to the ordinance of God that all manifest idolaters, blasphemers, murderers, thieves, lewd persons, false witnesses, sedition-mongers, quarrellers, those guilty of defamation or assault, drukards, dissolute livers, when they have been duly admonished and if they do not make amendment, be separated from the communion of the faithful until their repentance is known.


    So the maximum punishment for blasphemy was excommunication. Nothing about heresy.

    See Sid Calvin murder Servetus
    Chapter 12
    Geneva’s Laws p 167



    Thank you to an anonymous e-mailer who did all this research for Grant-53. Grant-53 stated to us that “The way you form the questions is an indication of your assumptions and limited understanding of history.”

    Really Grant? Really? LOL

    Stop reading John Calvin’s bible called the Institutes and read the HOLY BIBLE instead.

  26. Amanda says:


    You wrote: “Your claims hinge on proving John Calvin was a murderer. Produce two or more credible witnesses or suffer the penalty of a false witness.”

      If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deu 19:16-19)

    The penalty for murder and then also the penalty for falsely accusing someone [Calvin] of being a murderer:

      “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. (Lev 24:17)

    Grant, are you calling for Deborah to be put to death unless she produces two or more reliable witnesses? How exactly do you see this play out in South Africa where there is no death penalty? If not the state, then the church perhaps?

    I honestly did not know that American Baptists taught this.

  27. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    Thank you Amanda :)

    Just like all Calvinists, Grant-53 follows the Law, he is not under a new covenant, he is under the old that is why he (like the Roman Catholic church) can threaten people with death, like his idol and mentor John Calvin. The ‘spirit’ of John Calvin overtakes people who pridefully believe they are Elect by God before they were born and they end up not being able to think for themselves.

    >> I honestly did not know that American Baptists taught this.

    Apparently there is a difference now a days between Baptists and Independent Baptists (although some Independents are Calvinists as well). I think in the past (but not sure and up till what date I don’t know either) that Baptists were not Calvinist. They have been infiltrated and overtaken by Calvinists over the years. That is why there was a split to what is called the Independent Baptist. However I read that Calvinists are overtaking the Independents as well, fast and furiously…

    I read that Calvinist pastors join a Baptist church, get themselves on the Board, bring in other Calvinist pastors, let them join the Board and then fire the non Calvinist pastors. They then take over the church and the building for free. It’s theft of a church building and it’s doctrine in broad daylight. No kidding.

  28. Grant-53 says:

    [Deleted by DTW: You stated “Please don’t EVER bring your level of paranoia here, we have enough trouble with various hate groups as it is. No further correspondence” You were the one that threatened me with death Grant-53, not I, you are the one under an old covenant, not I. You are part of the hate group, not genuine born again Christians. You are the one that does not despise the satanism practiced in Freemasonry, in fact you love them, you don’t hate what is evil (Romans 12:2, 9; Isaiah 5:20-21; Proverbs 8:13; Psalm 97:10; Psalm 52:3). You and your ‘church’ will one day soon persecute Christians who don’t believe in the false god (of the Roman Catholic Church). Remember these words.]

  29. Amanda says:


    Don’t worry. The American Baptist certainly does not hate you. In the same way that Calvin did not hate Servetus. So, you’ll be okay as long as you don’t visit ‘Geneva’, he warned.

  30. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:


    Oh my, that was funny L O L.

Leave a Reply

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

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

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.


  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).
    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.



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!

%d bloggers like this: