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.

Please share:

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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

Name or Username
Privacy Policy

Editing Comments: After commenting you have 15 minutes to EDIT your comment. Click the gear icon at the bottom right corner of the comment box, then click EDIT.

Previous Comments: Please read all previous comment pages if there are any. Thank you.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deborah (Discerning the World)

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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

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


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.


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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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’.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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?


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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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


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;)

Deborah (Discerning the World)


>> 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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

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. :)

Deborah (Discerning the World)

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


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 .

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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

and another book


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 12Geneva’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.



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.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


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.


[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.]



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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x