Once Saved Always Saved?
Once saved always saved (OSAS) is also known as: The Perseverance of the Saints, but what does that mean? Is this theology taught in Scripture, or isn't it? Who started it? If this is not a biblical doctrine, then why not? I will examine these questions and more, since I'm sure I'm not the only one who has come across these questions and wrestled with them. All I ask is that you please read all of the information and consider it, you don't have to believe me, as I encourage you dear reader, to search these things to see if they are so, on your own. So brew a pot of your favorite coffee, or tea (Earl Grey for me thanks) to help you stay awake, and get comfy, but not too comfy. Here we go...
“This is how we know who the children of God are, and who the children of the Devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God.” 1 John 3:10 NKJV
“Not everyone who says to Me,” Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' and then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" “Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV
John Calvin Father of OSAS
Who is John Calvin, and how is he the father of OSAS? Well, let's start with the man first; I will eventually get to the OSAS connection a little later. John Calvin (or Jehan Cauvin) was born on July 10, 1509 in the town of Noyon, in the region of Picardy, in France and died in Geneva, Switzerland May 27, 1564. In my research, this is about as much as I could find concerning him, that those who have written about him, totally agree upon. Oh yeah, and that he ran his ministry out of Geneva, and that he was part of the Reformation movement in the latter Renaissance period of history, everyone can agree on those things too. Concerning all the things I have read about this man, I'm kinda amazed by how inconsistent the information is that surrounds him, of course, that may just be a testament to the lack of scholarship found on the Internet, as well as human bias at work.
Calvin's supporters make him out to be a reluctant reformer, who was forced into the Lord's service by threats from a fellow reformer, yet rose to the challenge and accomplished good for the cause of Christianity. Mean while his detractors make him out to be a brutal tyrant, who was hell bent on conforming the world into his sick and twisted idea of a Theocracy, all the while, being under the delusion of being God's appointed change agent. Either way, both of these views are not what I would call a genuine call to the ministry. I will try to sum up what I learned about him, and his theology. Oh yeah, Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) means you can never lose your salvation, even if you sin like there is no tomorrow - after accepting Jesus as your Savior. So according to this, er - "teaching", even if you commit, say, murder for instance, then you will still go to heaven, minus some benefits of course - again, I'll cover that later on.
Calvin's supporters make him out to be a reluctant reformer, who was forced into the Lord's service by threats from a fellow reformer, yet rose to the challenge and accomplished good for the cause of Christianity. Mean while his detractors make him out to be a brutal tyrant, who was hell bent on conforming the world into his sick and twisted idea of a Theocracy, all the while, being under the delusion of being God's appointed change agent. Either way, both of these views are not what I would call a genuine call to the ministry. I will try to sum up what I learned about him, and his theology. Oh yeah, Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) means you can never lose your salvation, even if you sin like there is no tomorrow - after accepting Jesus as your Savior. So according to this, er - "teaching", even if you commit, say, murder for instance, then you will still go to heaven, minus some benefits of course - again, I'll cover that later on.
Update!
I have since learned new information on this subject, so out of a desire for honesty, I'm going to leave what I originally wrote, because at the time it is what I learned and what I honestly believed to be true. However, I'm going to amend what I wrote in this fashion, with an Update! box to hopefully show that just when you think you know something, eh -- you probably don't.
I have since learned new information on this subject, so out of a desire for honesty, I'm going to leave what I originally wrote, because at the time it is what I learned and what I honestly believed to be true. However, I'm going to amend what I wrote in this fashion, with an Update! box to hopefully show that just when you think you know something, eh -- you probably don't.
Renaissance Days
John Calvin lived during the tail end of the Renaissance period. Ah yes, the Renaissance! Is there a period in history like it - where 10 centuries of supposed medieval spiritual and social "darkness" were once more covered by the thin and superficial masks of illuminated knowledge, humanistic ideals, and decadent beauty of the prior Classical Period? I think not. Yes these superficial masks once more hid the moral depravity that seethed beneath them. And since history repeats itself, that means that the schools of John Calvin's day, were of course, teaching the pagan philosophies of the previous classical period, that of: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Please keep in mind, that while the world was enamored by these titans of philosophical thought, the apostle Paul didn't think too highly of these men, or their vain philosophies, and neither did Jesus.
Anyway, John Calvin studied theology, as well as ecclesiastical, and civil Law while at school; his education was steeped in Catholicism, as well as the humanistic philosophy of the period, and he was an adept scholar, that much is certain. He later recounted his time back in his law school days between the years of 1530-31, and that is when his studies in law grew cold as he turned to the study of Scripture more than any other subject. That's a good thing right? Well it is, but let us consider this, he has been caught doing some boasting in the preface of his book Commentaries on the Psalms published in 1563 where he penned: “One year had not elapsed , before all those who desirous of the knowledge of purer doctrines, flocked to me for instruction, while as yet I was myself a mere beginner in that school.” That doesn't sound so bad, right? Well it is if you keep in mind that Calvin was apparently not converted from Catholicism until 1533/34ish - and now all the people should say-- “Uh oh! ”. Scripture is spiritually discerned, meaning if we don't have the Spirit of God residing in us, then we won't properly understand Scripture from His perspective, and we will twist it to meet our desires, without yielding to the Spirit of Truth for instruction, who is Jesus Christ- the head, and teacher of His church. So, in John Calvin, we have the proverbial "blind leading the blind' scenario at work, and if you know your Jesus quotes, that means there is a ditch waiting for them to fall into.
In particular, while at school, he was heavily influenced by Augustine's brand of humanistic philosophy, that being Neo-Platonism, and that my dear reader, is very bad indeed. You see dear reader, you simply can't mix Christian orthodoxy with Plato's humanistic philosophy, and Roman Catholicism, and hope to keep sound doctrine intact, it's just not going to happen. "Humanism" is a broad term, it's used to encompass the many branches of its philosophical tree, but one theme remains at its core, or center: human beings are the answer to all of life's ills. This is a belief system that is totally at odds with pure Christianity, in that Christ is at the core, or center of our faith, and He is the only answer to all of humanity's ills. Not Peter. Not Paul. And certainly not Mary, or any other human agent for that matter. Yes, Jesus has a human nature, but He has a divine nature too, and this is what makes Him unique (or one of a kind), and the only begotten Son of God. Our human nature is fallen, and is in need of His mercy, and grace. So, if we want to get out of this decaying mess we are in, and into eternity with God, then we have to accept salvation on His terms, we can't do it on our terms, or through a syncretic mixture of the two.
Anyway, John Calvin studied theology, as well as ecclesiastical, and civil Law while at school; his education was steeped in Catholicism, as well as the humanistic philosophy of the period, and he was an adept scholar, that much is certain. He later recounted his time back in his law school days between the years of 1530-31, and that is when his studies in law grew cold as he turned to the study of Scripture more than any other subject. That's a good thing right? Well it is, but let us consider this, he has been caught doing some boasting in the preface of his book Commentaries on the Psalms published in 1563 where he penned: “One year had not elapsed , before all those who desirous of the knowledge of purer doctrines, flocked to me for instruction, while as yet I was myself a mere beginner in that school.” That doesn't sound so bad, right? Well it is if you keep in mind that Calvin was apparently not converted from Catholicism until 1533/34ish - and now all the people should say-- “Uh oh! ”. Scripture is spiritually discerned, meaning if we don't have the Spirit of God residing in us, then we won't properly understand Scripture from His perspective, and we will twist it to meet our desires, without yielding to the Spirit of Truth for instruction, who is Jesus Christ- the head, and teacher of His church. So, in John Calvin, we have the proverbial "blind leading the blind' scenario at work, and if you know your Jesus quotes, that means there is a ditch waiting for them to fall into.
In particular, while at school, he was heavily influenced by Augustine's brand of humanistic philosophy, that being Neo-Platonism, and that my dear reader, is very bad indeed. You see dear reader, you simply can't mix Christian orthodoxy with Plato's humanistic philosophy, and Roman Catholicism, and hope to keep sound doctrine intact, it's just not going to happen. "Humanism" is a broad term, it's used to encompass the many branches of its philosophical tree, but one theme remains at its core, or center: human beings are the answer to all of life's ills. This is a belief system that is totally at odds with pure Christianity, in that Christ is at the core, or center of our faith, and He is the only answer to all of humanity's ills. Not Peter. Not Paul. And certainly not Mary, or any other human agent for that matter. Yes, Jesus has a human nature, but He has a divine nature too, and this is what makes Him unique (or one of a kind), and the only begotten Son of God. Our human nature is fallen, and is in need of His mercy, and grace. So, if we want to get out of this decaying mess we are in, and into eternity with God, then we have to accept salvation on His terms, we can't do it on our terms, or through a syncretic mixture of the two.
Catholicism is of course, the ancient Babylonian religion of Nimrod, that's been recycled, and repackaged, and then re-sold to humanity with a thin “pseudo-Christian ” veneer. To call the Catholic faith Christianity is to show ignorance of its roots, which are Babylonian in nature, and therefore pagan. It is a deceptive tree, displaying some Christian leaves, which have been sewn on just for show, while leaving its poisonous fruit intact, in order to entice the unsuspecting to eat from it. Therefore, if you want sound Biblical doctrine, then you must go to the one who is full of grace and truth, our Lord Jesus Christ, and to His word; not to pagan men like Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates, no matter how “beautiful ” their minds may seem to be. On a side note, when you read the thoughts and ponderings of philosophers, you begin to realize that they have dizzying intellects. They are forever chasing their philosophical tails, in an effort to catch "truth," yet it always seems to elude them. Jesus, and Paul, and other apostles spoke many words against these would be bringers of "truth", so we should not listen to what they have to say regarding what a man is, or isn't, because they don't really know what they are talking about, even though they sound and appear to be knowledgeable. That is why whenever I read that a certain minister reveres a Greek philosopher, right away, this is a red flag for me. The foundation of Calvin's schooling was based on the pagan philosophies of his day. The apostle Paul was brought up in the pharisaic schools, which is also based on Babylonian mystery religion. Is it any wonder then why Jesus was outright opposed to them? Jesus even went so far as to declare that they didn't know Scripture, and He was forever correcting their faulty reasoning of it. That is why when Paul was converted, he said that he gave up everything he learned as a Pharisee, because compared to what he learned about Christ (from Jesus Himself), Paul considered Pharisaical teaching as garbage, and it is. So anyone who reveres classical teachers, and their teachings, and then mixes their philosophies with the teachings of Jesus, then they should automatically be rejected by all who call themselves disciples of Jesus.
Not Trained In the Bible
For the dear souls who insist that John Calvin was trained in the Bible, there is no real evidence (that I can find anyway) where John Calvin was ever under the tutelage of a Protestant minister, bishop, deacon, or even layperson, for any significant amount of time. This is a very important issue since in 1 Timothy 3, Paul laid out for Timothy the qualifications for a bishop, and deacon to possess, before being allowed to serve, or teach in the Church body. John Calvin doesn't even meet the requirement in verse 6 for being a bishop, much less being an expert on the pure Christian faith, and so, he apparently fell victim to the consequence that Paul gave as a result ... "lest being puffed up with pride he [the new convert] fall into the same condemnation as the devil." ...who I might add, was a murderer from the beginning. Even before being a deacon in the Christian church, one had to be tested first, and the position of deacon had nearly the same requirements as a bishop. But being a bishop, or deacon in the Roman Catholic Church, doesn't count as a prerequisite for being a deacon, or bishop in Christ's true church. Any and all religious connections that John Calvin had, prior to and after his supposed conversion, were Catholic in nature.
He was of course acquainted with the work of other leading men of the Reformation movement, and admired them, but he was never their personally taught disciple per se, and he never even met, or conversed with Martin Luther, except for a 'suck up' letter he sent to him, regarding the transubstantiation doctrine. Apparently, Luther never even received Calvin's letter, since Melanchthon (a fellow reformer and aide to Luther) never gave it to Luther, because that kind of inquiry only aggravated him. I find this amazing - John Calvin never met is "father" in the faith - Martin Luther, nor did they directly corresponded with each other, how is this possible? Even Peter and Paul met, if only for 14 days - still they came together to make amends and to come into the unity of the faith. Sure, Paul recounted how at one time, he had to stand up in Peter's face and reprimand him for his hypocrisy in his Galatian epistle, but they worked it out, and later Peter even calls Paul "our beloved brother" in 2 Peter.
Jacob Lefevre is also given credit as being one of John Calvin's “instructors”, but this is just a fanciful claim really, since there is no evidence for it. There are only claims that John Calvin interviewed the aged Jacob Lefevre, but not that he was John Calvin's tutor. How can one receive quality instruction in Scriptural sound doctrine from interviews with a Roman Catholic man, even if he is the one who wrote the French translation of the New Testament? Also, Lefevre never sought to leave the Catholic faith himself, but only to reform it. Dear reader, that's like wanting to reform Satanism! What a waste of time; especially since God tells us to come out of Babylon, and not to renovate it.
He was of course acquainted with the work of other leading men of the Reformation movement, and admired them, but he was never their personally taught disciple per se, and he never even met, or conversed with Martin Luther, except for a 'suck up' letter he sent to him, regarding the transubstantiation doctrine. Apparently, Luther never even received Calvin's letter, since Melanchthon (a fellow reformer and aide to Luther) never gave it to Luther, because that kind of inquiry only aggravated him. I find this amazing - John Calvin never met is "father" in the faith - Martin Luther, nor did they directly corresponded with each other, how is this possible? Even Peter and Paul met, if only for 14 days - still they came together to make amends and to come into the unity of the faith. Sure, Paul recounted how at one time, he had to stand up in Peter's face and reprimand him for his hypocrisy in his Galatian epistle, but they worked it out, and later Peter even calls Paul "our beloved brother" in 2 Peter.
Jacob Lefevre is also given credit as being one of John Calvin's “instructors”, but this is just a fanciful claim really, since there is no evidence for it. There are only claims that John Calvin interviewed the aged Jacob Lefevre, but not that he was John Calvin's tutor. How can one receive quality instruction in Scriptural sound doctrine from interviews with a Roman Catholic man, even if he is the one who wrote the French translation of the New Testament? Also, Lefevre never sought to leave the Catholic faith himself, but only to reform it. Dear reader, that's like wanting to reform Satanism! What a waste of time; especially since God tells us to come out of Babylon, and not to renovate it.
Amazingly, John Calvin was given a Protestant pastorate without having been trained as a pastor, and he had little to no knowledge of the Bible from a godly orthodox perspective, but rather from an idolatrous Catholic perspective. Even more amazing is that he wrote an entire treatise [tree-tis] on the Christian Religion called “Institutes of the Christian Religion” early on in his Protestant career. A treatise (derives part of its meaning from the word 'treat') is a written exposition (interpretation, or explanation) that deals with, or treats, a specific subject. So the one writing the treatise had better be an expert on the subject. So one must ask themselves, “How could John Calvin at such a young age and so newly converted, and who had so little exposure to the Protestant, or better yet, a godly view of Scripture, with so little success on prior publications; be able to write a successful, and rather important work such as - 'Institutes' ?
The logical answer to that question is easy - he couldn't have. That would be like if I decided to write a book on the Muslim faith, when I have had absolutely no background, or instruction in it, and then it reached the New York Best Sellers list - it's not going to happen folks. The reality is that John Calvin had no business writing a book on the Christian religion, as an authority on it. Has anyone even considered the fact that the apostles of Jesus didn't write Scripture until well after they lived many years as Christians and ministers? Another interesting fact regarding Institutes is that he waited 1 year after its completion before having it published, why? No one seems to know. Personally, I think it was done so the co-writers in Rome could proof read it and give it their final stamp of approval before publishing. That is purely my conjecture that I developed while researching, which is yet to be proved, or disproved. Besides, let us not ignore the dates of 1530-31, when John Calvin of his own admission was tutoring others in the Christian faith, while he himself was not a convert to it until 1533-34. That would be like hearing Scripture taught by a Hindu, before they were saved by Jesus, wouldn't it?
Update!
In all fairness, John Calvin was at the mercy of what his teachers taught him in school, this is still the case today. Catholicism was the religion of his day. John Calvin was still a man, he had the same flaws we all do. I still think it was a mistake for him to write a treatise on the Christian religion even though he was a very adept scholar. While fleeing Paris he landed at the estate of Louise du Tillet, a well-to-do man who was sympathetic to the Reformation. Like most wealthy people, du Tillet had an extensive theological library, where Calvin read the Bible along with the writings of the Church Fathers, most notably Augustine. Yeah, I know, Augustine wasn't the best influence, and Calvin did have a weakness for classical literature. Nevertheless, we shouldn't look down upon a self-taught theologian, I mean it is possible to receive the truth when it's just you and God's word in your lap.
In all fairness, John Calvin was at the mercy of what his teachers taught him in school, this is still the case today. Catholicism was the religion of his day. John Calvin was still a man, he had the same flaws we all do. I still think it was a mistake for him to write a treatise on the Christian religion even though he was a very adept scholar. While fleeing Paris he landed at the estate of Louise du Tillet, a well-to-do man who was sympathetic to the Reformation. Like most wealthy people, du Tillet had an extensive theological library, where Calvin read the Bible along with the writings of the Church Fathers, most notably Augustine. Yeah, I know, Augustine wasn't the best influence, and Calvin did have a weakness for classical literature. Nevertheless, we shouldn't look down upon a self-taught theologian, I mean it is possible to receive the truth when it's just you and God's word in your lap.
Perilous Times
Another thing to consider regarding John Calvin's theology, is that he lived in a tumultuous time, one of great upheaval in the political and religious worlds. The iron grip of Catholicism was slowly being forced to loosen its gnarled fingers away from the necks of the weary souls caught in its clutches, thanks to the courageous men who came before John Calvin's time. They were non violent men, who risked their lives to bring others the word of God, written in their own languages, men like: John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale.
This was indeed a dangerous time to be alive for a Christian, especially if you were seeking to defeat so great an idolatrous giant with a few tiny pebbles of truth in your sling pouch. But then, this is what the quest for absolute truth does, it divides light and darkness, which of course causes violent clashes between those who willfully adhere to evil, and those who stubbornly cling to the truth, which in turn causes human casualties- or martyrs. So we see happening here, in this pivotal slice of time, where the political and religious alliances to the Catholic Church were being undermined by Protestants (or protesters), who then in turn wrongfully grasped for some of its dissipating religious and political power for themselves. Dear reader, this is not the way of Christ, so in my humble opinion, this is where the Protestant Reformation failed miserably and even makes me question the validity of it. Also many of the Reformers clung to Catholic dogma that was clearly not taught in the Scripture. The man-made doctrines that they supported as being true, such as: infant baptism, transubstantiation [communion elements becoming Jesus' actual body and blood - yuck!] and the Trinity - subjects to be addressed later in this article and in other upcoming articles, are not biblical.
When will Christ's little lambs realize that by using the world's ways to spread the Gospel, they will have to maintain what they gained by using the world's ways? Still, I am grateful to the faithful few of these men, for their zeal, and to God who helped them at every seemingly impossible turn, in their effort to bring us His word, so we could read it for ourselves. Because many of them knowingly and willfully gave up their lives to do so, I am now able to read my own Bible!
It is on that note that I want us to remember and understand that God always has a faithful remnant stashed away in hiding during every era of history, when idolatry is running rampant. Those like the obscure Waldenses and “Lollards” of John Wycliffe's day, Jan Hus, or the Anabaptists in the early 1500's. Each of these men and movements wouldn't bow their knees to “Baal”. They are testaments to this quiet sanctifying act of God. The Almighty keeps the light of His truth burning, even to the point of being an ember, until the time is right for Him to fan that little coal of truth, back into flame once more, shedding the light of His truth onto a world darkened by sin. Their sacrifice brought us many of our religious freedoms we enjoy today, that simply didn't exist at that time. But the "Harlot in Scarlet" would not let go of her vast power so easily, and she mercilessly hunted down anyone she perceived as being heretics to her dogma in order to keep her fleeting power, and she had a lot of help through informers, and moles within the ranks of the Reformers themselves, some of these moles belonged to the Jesuits. To deny this is to be ignorant of the Devil's ways, and anyway, many Scriptures reveal that Satan always has his double agents. We are told that he roams the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, and so, he has his agents join churches as wolves in sheep's clothing, where they can devour the sheep from within the fold, seemingly undetected! Satan is not out to frivolously destroy his own kind, but will do so in order to destroy the Lord's sheep.
We must not forget Satan works both sides of any moral conflict as well, to effect his victory, not only through 5th column tactics of infiltration, but also through the outer attacks of controlled opposition, and the discomfort brought on by two polar opposite views clashing. Through the wearying effect of inner and outer conflict, he is then able to offer middle ground, or compromise, as a solution to make peace between the two warring positions, and this tactic of producing lukewarm churches works very well. But Jesus doesn't like "lukewarm" churches, they make Him want to spew.
This was indeed a dangerous time to be alive for a Christian, especially if you were seeking to defeat so great an idolatrous giant with a few tiny pebbles of truth in your sling pouch. But then, this is what the quest for absolute truth does, it divides light and darkness, which of course causes violent clashes between those who willfully adhere to evil, and those who stubbornly cling to the truth, which in turn causes human casualties- or martyrs. So we see happening here, in this pivotal slice of time, where the political and religious alliances to the Catholic Church were being undermined by Protestants (or protesters), who then in turn wrongfully grasped for some of its dissipating religious and political power for themselves. Dear reader, this is not the way of Christ, so in my humble opinion, this is where the Protestant Reformation failed miserably and even makes me question the validity of it. Also many of the Reformers clung to Catholic dogma that was clearly not taught in the Scripture. The man-made doctrines that they supported as being true, such as: infant baptism, transubstantiation [communion elements becoming Jesus' actual body and blood - yuck!] and the Trinity - subjects to be addressed later in this article and in other upcoming articles, are not biblical.
When will Christ's little lambs realize that by using the world's ways to spread the Gospel, they will have to maintain what they gained by using the world's ways? Still, I am grateful to the faithful few of these men, for their zeal, and to God who helped them at every seemingly impossible turn, in their effort to bring us His word, so we could read it for ourselves. Because many of them knowingly and willfully gave up their lives to do so, I am now able to read my own Bible!
It is on that note that I want us to remember and understand that God always has a faithful remnant stashed away in hiding during every era of history, when idolatry is running rampant. Those like the obscure Waldenses and “Lollards” of John Wycliffe's day, Jan Hus, or the Anabaptists in the early 1500's. Each of these men and movements wouldn't bow their knees to “Baal”. They are testaments to this quiet sanctifying act of God. The Almighty keeps the light of His truth burning, even to the point of being an ember, until the time is right for Him to fan that little coal of truth, back into flame once more, shedding the light of His truth onto a world darkened by sin. Their sacrifice brought us many of our religious freedoms we enjoy today, that simply didn't exist at that time. But the "Harlot in Scarlet" would not let go of her vast power so easily, and she mercilessly hunted down anyone she perceived as being heretics to her dogma in order to keep her fleeting power, and she had a lot of help through informers, and moles within the ranks of the Reformers themselves, some of these moles belonged to the Jesuits. To deny this is to be ignorant of the Devil's ways, and anyway, many Scriptures reveal that Satan always has his double agents. We are told that he roams the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, and so, he has his agents join churches as wolves in sheep's clothing, where they can devour the sheep from within the fold, seemingly undetected! Satan is not out to frivolously destroy his own kind, but will do so in order to destroy the Lord's sheep.
We must not forget Satan works both sides of any moral conflict as well, to effect his victory, not only through 5th column tactics of infiltration, but also through the outer attacks of controlled opposition, and the discomfort brought on by two polar opposite views clashing. Through the wearying effect of inner and outer conflict, he is then able to offer middle ground, or compromise, as a solution to make peace between the two warring positions, and this tactic of producing lukewarm churches works very well. But Jesus doesn't like "lukewarm" churches, they make Him want to spew.
Personal Life
John Calvin eventually married an Anabaptist widow by the name of Idelette Stroder de Bure, in August 1540, when he was around 30 years old. John Calvin asked his friends to help him search for a woman who was: "chaste, obliging, not fastidious, economical, patient, and careful for his health". Martin Baucer recommended John to Idelette, and they were to be wed, but not before he converted her to his belief system, and she did indeed meet all his requirements. She had two children from her previous marriage, and also bore three children with John, that never made it passed infancy, and unfortunately she died as well, after a long illness in 1549. He sincerely grieved for his loss and he said of her that she was the best companion of his life, and was a great help to him in his ministry.
He himself also suffered poor health most of his life, do to asthma. I find it surprising that this is given as an excuse for any “perceived hostility” in his nature toward others, by one of his ardent supporters. To be fair, this sounds plausible, because I don't know about you dear reader, but I don't always feel very gracious and loving toward others when I am sick. BUT - - if that was indeed the case, then he should have been asked to step down from his position, before allowing his chronic infirmity to do damage to his reputation as a minister, and to the body of Christ.
He himself also suffered poor health most of his life, do to asthma. I find it surprising that this is given as an excuse for any “perceived hostility” in his nature toward others, by one of his ardent supporters. To be fair, this sounds plausible, because I don't know about you dear reader, but I don't always feel very gracious and loving toward others when I am sick. BUT - - if that was indeed the case, then he should have been asked to step down from his position, before allowing his chronic infirmity to do damage to his reputation as a minister, and to the body of Christ.
I was so pleased to read how he truly loved his wife and her children, how they gave him joy. That really speaks volumes to me about what kind of man he was. Why did she have to convert from being an Anabaptist? Well, as far as I'm concerned, most sects of what we call Christianity have both positive and negative aspects. When we leave the safe moorings of Scripture alone, and try to marry it with pagan thought and spirituality, that's when we get into trouble.
Who Influenced John Calvin?
Do we really understand just how important a role that the realm of influence plays in our life? Where and how we are raised, who we hang around, the things we see and listen to; all of these factors shape how we think and what we think about certain issues, and contribute to who we are. All of this is well known to us nowadays, right? My mother was always telling us (her children) this very thing. We had to be careful who our friends were, and she faithfully monitored what we saw on T.V. Why? Because these things could influence us to do good, or bad things: nowadays we call these things “peer pressure” and “indoctrination.” As women, we know the power of influence, because we are intuitively adept in that art. Our influence can be subtle, or it can be in your face, depending on the amount of power we have to wield within our sphere. If the wife runs the home, then she can be a tyrant of sorts, but if the husband is the tyrant, then she will be the subtle manipulator. This is how Satan and his agents operate as well. So let us look at one man who John Calvin admired in particular, that he was apparently influenced by the most– Augustine.
Augustine was a Latin philosopher, and a Catholic theologian. Right away, that should be send warning bells off in your head. Anyway, while living a life of sin as a youth, he became converted to Catholicism after hearing the story of Anthony the Great, who was a man credited with being the father of monks. Well, of course monasticism was nothing new, but what he did was help spread the gospel of monastery life. By his mimicking of Jesus' 40 day desert temptation, this apparently helped give Anthony some air of renown, and he was then able to influence others into his non-biblical lifestyle of forced celibacy and asceticism. At any rate, Augustine, instead of marrying his only true love of thirteen years, and the mother of his child, he dumped her and was about to marry someone his mommy approved of, when he finally broke off the engagement. The girl he was betrothed to was eleven years old at the time. He then ended up fighting his manly sexual urges most of his life, giving into his lust every now and then with various women, but he never reconciled with his true love and mother of his child- yeah, I just don't get that. Why didn't he ever read what Jesus and Paul had to say about this situation? Wouldn't their words regarding marriage and the gift of celibacy, which he obviously didn't possess, have solved all his problems? I think so.
Anyway, he believed in the Catholic sacraments as a means of getting closer to God, as well as praying to Mary, and child baptism (among other heresies) which are not taught in Scripture. Augustine was also a disciple of Neo-Platonism, which is a system of philosophical and theological doctrines (teachings) composed of elements of Platonism, and Aristotelianism and oriental mysticism; its most distinctive doctrine holds that the first principle and source of reality transcends being and thought, and is naturally unknowable. In other words, Almighty God is unknowable, but this is clearly against Scripture, because there are so many verses that show God's desire to be known by His creation. There are simply too many to list here, so you'll just have to search it out for yourself.
As for the subject of philosophy, oy vey, like I've said before, it makes my head spin! They (the philosophers) don't seem to be too interested in absolute truth, but only interested in discussing what truth might be, and they can spend hours talking about truth, but never come to any real conclusions. I am not unintelligent by any means, but I'm no candidate for Mensa either. All I know is that the Bible says God knows, has, and is, absolute truth. And anyone who desires to have wisdom and knowledge had better acknowledge that there is a God, and that he rewards those who diligently seek Him, and that He is to be feared, or reverenced. Therefore, anyone who doesn't acknowledge The Almighty, and has no reverence for Him, but then tries to teach knowledge and wisdom, according to Scripture, this person should be ignored, and so, I do just that. I am amazed at how many of the so-called “Church Fathers” learned and admired the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These men did not honor the God they claimed to serve, so why did they listen to them regarding spirituality? I understand the need to read their works to get a grasp on the language of the day in order to help translate Scripture, but you can ignore their teachings, and not assimilate them.
But instead, these "Father's of the Faith" were influenced by the vain philosophers and then incorporated their idolatrous way of thinking, into their theology, instead of solely leaning on Scripture, and letting it change their way of thinking. This is proof that their theology is tainted and fatally flawed. So why do many blindly follow the likes of John Calvin, who in-turn blindly followed other Reformers, who were inspired by pagan men and their idolatrous beliefs? Why lean on the half-truths of the Reformation, when God is perfectly capable of bringing His truth to light using mostly obscure and weak men of little or no means who sought no glory for themselves and who were willing to die for absolute truth, and often did? It's like Jesus said, they amass for themselves teachers that tell them what their itching ears want to hear, and are the blind leading the blind, and they will both fall into the ditch.
Augustine was a Latin philosopher, and a Catholic theologian. Right away, that should be send warning bells off in your head. Anyway, while living a life of sin as a youth, he became converted to Catholicism after hearing the story of Anthony the Great, who was a man credited with being the father of monks. Well, of course monasticism was nothing new, but what he did was help spread the gospel of monastery life. By his mimicking of Jesus' 40 day desert temptation, this apparently helped give Anthony some air of renown, and he was then able to influence others into his non-biblical lifestyle of forced celibacy and asceticism. At any rate, Augustine, instead of marrying his only true love of thirteen years, and the mother of his child, he dumped her and was about to marry someone his mommy approved of, when he finally broke off the engagement. The girl he was betrothed to was eleven years old at the time. He then ended up fighting his manly sexual urges most of his life, giving into his lust every now and then with various women, but he never reconciled with his true love and mother of his child- yeah, I just don't get that. Why didn't he ever read what Jesus and Paul had to say about this situation? Wouldn't their words regarding marriage and the gift of celibacy, which he obviously didn't possess, have solved all his problems? I think so.
Anyway, he believed in the Catholic sacraments as a means of getting closer to God, as well as praying to Mary, and child baptism (among other heresies) which are not taught in Scripture. Augustine was also a disciple of Neo-Platonism, which is a system of philosophical and theological doctrines (teachings) composed of elements of Platonism, and Aristotelianism and oriental mysticism; its most distinctive doctrine holds that the first principle and source of reality transcends being and thought, and is naturally unknowable. In other words, Almighty God is unknowable, but this is clearly against Scripture, because there are so many verses that show God's desire to be known by His creation. There are simply too many to list here, so you'll just have to search it out for yourself.
As for the subject of philosophy, oy vey, like I've said before, it makes my head spin! They (the philosophers) don't seem to be too interested in absolute truth, but only interested in discussing what truth might be, and they can spend hours talking about truth, but never come to any real conclusions. I am not unintelligent by any means, but I'm no candidate for Mensa either. All I know is that the Bible says God knows, has, and is, absolute truth. And anyone who desires to have wisdom and knowledge had better acknowledge that there is a God, and that he rewards those who diligently seek Him, and that He is to be feared, or reverenced. Therefore, anyone who doesn't acknowledge The Almighty, and has no reverence for Him, but then tries to teach knowledge and wisdom, according to Scripture, this person should be ignored, and so, I do just that. I am amazed at how many of the so-called “Church Fathers” learned and admired the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These men did not honor the God they claimed to serve, so why did they listen to them regarding spirituality? I understand the need to read their works to get a grasp on the language of the day in order to help translate Scripture, but you can ignore their teachings, and not assimilate them.
But instead, these "Father's of the Faith" were influenced by the vain philosophers and then incorporated their idolatrous way of thinking, into their theology, instead of solely leaning on Scripture, and letting it change their way of thinking. This is proof that their theology is tainted and fatally flawed. So why do many blindly follow the likes of John Calvin, who in-turn blindly followed other Reformers, who were inspired by pagan men and their idolatrous beliefs? Why lean on the half-truths of the Reformation, when God is perfectly capable of bringing His truth to light using mostly obscure and weak men of little or no means who sought no glory for themselves and who were willing to die for absolute truth, and often did? It's like Jesus said, they amass for themselves teachers that tell them what their itching ears want to hear, and are the blind leading the blind, and they will both fall into the ditch.
John Calvin-The Reluctant Protestant Reformer
When John Calvin landed in Geneva, after fleeing Paris prior to the Edict of Coucy, he wanted nothing more than to leave Geneva as soon as possible for somewhere safe. I can't say as I blame him. Strasbourg was his intended destination, some say Basel, France, where he could learn and study his faith without bothering anyone, or being a bother to anyone. However, this was not to be, because one William (Guillaume)Farel, an actual disciple of Jacob Lefevre [go figure], who was a militant Protestant minister in Geneva at the time John Calvin, was passing through on his way to Strasbourg. He came to visit John Calvin at a friend's residence. He soon became convinced that John Calvin was the man he needed to consolidate Geneva for the fledgling Reformation Movement, instead of relying on the Spirit to tell him if John Calvin was to be an ordained minister of the gospel, he threatened him with God's judgment, if he ignored "God's" leading in the matter. Nice huh?
And like any good Catholic would do, John Calvin buckled under the threat and reluctantly conceded to go. Then later on, rather than admitting to being bullied, he rationalized his earlier refusal as being the weakness of his flesh fighting the calling of God to be in ministry. So after two years ministering in Geneva, the dynamic duo, William Farel and John Calvin, were kicked out of Geneva, because they tried to enforce godliness on its lukewarm and sinning citizens, and by trying to found a "City of God" based on, of all things, the Old Testament model of law, instead of the New Testament model of grace. But in time, the political climate changed and before John Calvin knew it, he was back in business in Geneva - - well that is after John Calvin yet again surrendered to Protestant intimidation tactics, since he was understandably, reluctant to go back to Geneva.
Once back in Geneva, and with political ecclesiastical power slowly coming into his grasp, John Calvin thought it would be a good time to shut down all the taverns in Geneva, or at least, to have Scripture read to the liquored up patrons that occupied them. Can you imagine this? Seriously, get a picture of this in your mind - bar flies slurping down brewskies, and doing shots while Scripture, perhaps passages of The Song of Solomon are being read aloud - how ludicrous can you get? Isn't this what could be called casting pearls before swine? As you can imagine, that didn't last very long, John Calvin saw his folly, and many of the Taverns that had been shut down were re-opened and Scripture reading was once again relegated to home and church.
And like any good Catholic would do, John Calvin buckled under the threat and reluctantly conceded to go. Then later on, rather than admitting to being bullied, he rationalized his earlier refusal as being the weakness of his flesh fighting the calling of God to be in ministry. So after two years ministering in Geneva, the dynamic duo, William Farel and John Calvin, were kicked out of Geneva, because they tried to enforce godliness on its lukewarm and sinning citizens, and by trying to found a "City of God" based on, of all things, the Old Testament model of law, instead of the New Testament model of grace. But in time, the political climate changed and before John Calvin knew it, he was back in business in Geneva - - well that is after John Calvin yet again surrendered to Protestant intimidation tactics, since he was understandably, reluctant to go back to Geneva.
Once back in Geneva, and with political ecclesiastical power slowly coming into his grasp, John Calvin thought it would be a good time to shut down all the taverns in Geneva, or at least, to have Scripture read to the liquored up patrons that occupied them. Can you imagine this? Seriously, get a picture of this in your mind - bar flies slurping down brewskies, and doing shots while Scripture, perhaps passages of The Song of Solomon are being read aloud - how ludicrous can you get? Isn't this what could be called casting pearls before swine? As you can imagine, that didn't last very long, John Calvin saw his folly, and many of the Taverns that had been shut down were re-opened and Scripture reading was once again relegated to home and church.
Update!
John Calvin was reluctant to be a reformer, only because he didn't have the fiery temperament and physical stamina to handle the stress . I get that. He rather read, think and write quietly than fight for religious rights. Because of his expertise in law, the city of Geneva, which was in financial and administrative trouble after voting to leave the Catholic church and join the Reformation, really needed a man like him. So the skewed view of him being a cold black robed theocratic tyrant are unfounded, and I deeply regret ever falling for such baseless claims. I still think the bullying to get him to go to Geneva was unnecessary. And once there, I admire the fact that he forced those in the church to uphold righteousness, and refused to administer communion to the well off and open sinners. It got so bad, he had to leave Geneva. Now that's more like it! He did indeed flee to Strasbourg, where he was threatened yet again to be the pastor of nearly 500 French refugees. Why did the Protestants feel the need to threaten the man?
John Calvin was reluctant to be a reformer, only because he didn't have the fiery temperament and physical stamina to handle the stress . I get that. He rather read, think and write quietly than fight for religious rights. Because of his expertise in law, the city of Geneva, which was in financial and administrative trouble after voting to leave the Catholic church and join the Reformation, really needed a man like him. So the skewed view of him being a cold black robed theocratic tyrant are unfounded, and I deeply regret ever falling for such baseless claims. I still think the bullying to get him to go to Geneva was unnecessary. And once there, I admire the fact that he forced those in the church to uphold righteousness, and refused to administer communion to the well off and open sinners. It got so bad, he had to leave Geneva. Now that's more like it! He did indeed flee to Strasbourg, where he was threatened yet again to be the pastor of nearly 500 French refugees. Why did the Protestants feel the need to threaten the man?
John Calvin's Beliefs
Now that we know a bit about the man John Calvin, let's look at the aspects of T.U.L.I.P., because they reveal a great deal more about John Calvin's lack of Biblical understanding. I sure that you will see that all of these teachings fall short of proper biblical exegesis. It is true that John Calvin didn't teach from this acronym himself, but it was formulated by his ardent followers in response to Arminianism, nevertheless, they are his teachings. I will be using the definitions and explanations of this acronym from Chuck Smith, only because I received them on a paper given to me by a Once Saved Always Saved adherent, not that I think Chuck Smith teaches Calvinism, or OSAS. Chuck's summary will be in italics and my comments follow in regular type.
The T.U.L.I.P. acronym stands for:
T = Total Depravity
U= Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I= Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the saints
Total Depravity
According to John Calvin, we humans are totally depraved, meaning we are in absolute bondage to sin, and thus we are unable to exercise our own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God. Is this true? This is only half true, and like all half-truths, technically, that means they are also half lies. But I consider half-truths whole lies, it's just safer that way, since the truth is there only to get you to accept the lie. It is certainly true that we are in absolute bondage to sin, Scripture does teaches us this. However, we are not so depraved that we don't have the ability to exercise our own will, to know good from evil, or lack the ability to actually do good apart from God. Jesus himself tells us this, “if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, then how much more your Father in heaven knows how to give good gifts to those who ask of Him.” Matt.7:11. Is salvation not a good gift? Also, there are many secular organizations that provide humanitarian aid to people, which are not Christian based, and they are indeed “do-gooders.” As for needing God to “help” us accept Jesus, that's not entirely true either. When the gospel is preached, and Jesus is lifted up, it is He who draws, not drives people to Himself, but that doesn't mean He overrides their will and forces them to accept Him as their Savior either. God has given us all a measure of faith, which we can use to become saved. So again, God has given us all, everyone on the earth, this measure of faith, that is the ability to believe anything, we don't have this ability on our own. When the lawyer agreed with Jesus as to what the greatest commandments were, Jesus said that the man wasn't all that far from the Kingdom of God. If Jesus was interested in forcing the man into salvation, then why didn't he? What it does mean is that these people (who have all been given a measure of faith - Romans 12:3) have heard the truth of the Gospel, and their spirit is drawn to and bears witness to the Spirit of truth, and those who accept it, do so freely and gratefully.
Scripture also teaches God held out His hands to a rebellious people[i.e., the Children of Israel], who turned away from Him, every chance they got. God could have either forced them to obey, or killed all of them for not obeying. Instead, he gave them free choice, and changed His mind on several occasions regarding their annihilation, thanks in part to the intercession of His prophets, and the fact that he is faithful to his promises. God always gives us a (measure of faith) and a clear choice between doing good, or evil, so if we were not capable of willfully following Him by faith, or doing good, then we wouldn't be made in His image and likeness. Instead, we would be robots, and we wouldn't need to be given a clear choice. Unfortunately, due to the sin nature within our flesh, we tend to go toward the evil side, but we are still capable of doing good without being “saved.” Many false religions and cults are based on good works salvation, which they are able to preform for a while, but eventually, they too, fall hopelessly short of righteousness. That is because they are not using the faith in Jesus(that God provides us all), to lead them to salvation, and so His Spirit of Grace is not operating in them. His Holy Spirit does convict us of our sin, but He never forces Himself on a person to repent of sin, He just applies the needed prompting and pressure, usually through some sort of persecution. Even a saved person is still capable of sinning, but we have recourse though Jesus, who washes us from our confessed sins and cleanses us from our unrighteousness. Then we are able to go on, but not with the presumption that we can keep on sinning - no, we go on with the desire to sin less often.
Unconditional Election
John Calvin believed, and taught that foreknowledge is based upon the plan, and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the “free will” of the Creator alone. Here again, we have a half-truth. Foreknowledge is indeed based upon the plan and purpose of God. However, election is based upon the invitation God gives us, and the election of man, who uses his free-will to choose, or "elect" Jesus as his savior, by using the measure of faith God has given us all (Rom. 12:3) While the word "elect" in its noun form does mean “chosen” as in, an exclusive group of people, it also has a verb form, and is the act of choosing, or electing. Who is doing the electing then? Both of us. God first chose us, while we were yet sinners, and we then choose Him, or not. " For many are called but few are chosen." God called Moses to free the Israelites from Egypt. Did Moses immediately accept? No. God had to more or less convince and the command him to go. I mean, who was going to win that battle of wills? Moses wisely relented, as God knew he would. God always commands us to choose wisely, especially after He gives us clear choices, he even gives us the power of his grace. The implication is that we are able to make this decision on our own using His clearly given choices and that there is not only a wise choice, but a foolish one as well. Each choice having its own set of blessings, or curses attached to them. His prophets gave the Children of Israel a clear choice of which God they were to serve, yet many, despite all the wonderful things God did for them, made the foolish choice of running after pagan gods, and reveling in idolatry. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Hebrews 4:2. Why provide a choice if you don't intend to give people a choice?
Why do we choose (or elect) something, or someone over another? Because we decided we like something, or someone more than another, based on certain criteria, conditions, or expectations we have regarding the things we want, or need, right? Salvation is no different. God has certain criteria, conditions, or expectations of His “elect” concerning the aspect of salvation. The parable of the wedding feast, where the man didn't have on the required wedding garment [ the kittel in Hebrew] illustrates this. The guests, good and bad, were called, or invited, and gathered together in the banquet hall, but this certain man didn't meet the conditions that the feast required, that of having on a wedding garment. He must have willfully refused the one being offered by the host - the King, when the guests first came in through the door, meaning that the door man didn't force him to wear it, or the guest possibly snuck in past the door man, thinking no one would notice his noncompliance. To his chagrin, and not surprisingly, the King picked him out of the crowd immediately, and then questioned him as to why he didn't have on his kittel, or white wedding garment. True to form, the rebellious man had nothing to say. Why? Because he had deliberately chosen not to put on Christ, even though he had been called and then offered the garment of salvation, in other words, he was a party crasher. He clearly didn't want to meet the requirements. So, the King then had him (the spot in the love feast) thrown into outer darkness. Truly God first chose and loved us, by inviting us to His Son's wedding feast, so now we can chose to love Him by putting on Christ, or we can reject Him. This doesn't mean we earn our initial Salvation, but rather that we show evidence of God's Spirit working with in us, though our faith in Him, and obedience to Him. Covenant fellowship with God is never a one way street, and let us not forget that it takes two to tango , if you will.
Limited Atonement
John Calvin taught that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In his view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non-elect) will be lost. This statement seems to hinge upon which point of view the reader takes a stand on, regarding John 3:16, that being either John Calvin's, or God's. Well, John 3:16 clearly says that Jesus died for “the world." It clearly doesn't say “the elect” does it? So, this is God's view: many are called, and they are "the world," but the few "whosoever" that believe (follow Jesus), are chosen, and are then considered to be the "elect." Why? Because of the measure of faith God has given each of us. And Scripture also states that God doesn't desire that "any " (which includes the elect and non-elect) die in their sins, and He doesn't rejoice when a wicked man perishes either. Atonement is indeed limited on the basis of a person freely accepting Jesus as their savior, or their refusing Him, based on whether or not they mix the faith God gave them with the gospel they hear. It is not based upon God limiting it to a pre-selected few, that Calvin himself (or anyone) determined were worthy. Otherwise, why would Jesus tell His disciples to go and preach the gospel to every creature? Every creature has the opportunity to accept or refuse the gospel. Michael Servetus, John Calvin's greatest nemesis said: "God condemns no one who does not condemn himself through thought, word and deed." So who are "the elect" and what does it mean to be "the elect?" They are the ones who meet the requirements God lays out in His invitation, or call, and they are those who in turn, chose Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and are then obedient to the faith-they are the redeemed and the sanctified.
Irresistible Grace
John Calvin believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. He taught that the free will of man was so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible. I'm sorry, but did he say it would be, "impossible " for a depraved person to call on God? Well, John C. apparently admits we have a “free will” after all, but then he claims we can't use it to accept Jesus without being forced to? This is the double talk of a double minded man. Pick a lane, you can't save your cake, and eat it too! Free will is free will, and can be used freely on any and everything, otherwise they would call it something else. Not to mention the Holy Spirit will not indwell an unrighteous person before they accept Jesus as their Savior, this is called putting the cart before the horse, and is non-scriptural. But what does inhabit every one on the earth is the measure of faith God gave us all. That is the vehicle in which he connects to us. When we draw near to God, He draws near to us. When we seek Him, we find Him, when we repent of sin, He forgives us, that is Scripture. Yes, God loved us while we were unlovable and lost in sin, so that we can now love Him and be saved. But if grace worked like John Calvin taught, then these Scriptures would say something like this: “We can draw near to God only when He forces us to, or we can only find Him when He makes us look for him.”
God's grace when properly understood, should be irresistible to us in the way a big slice of chocolate cake is to a dieting chocoholic! His grace is also many faceted, that means there are many sides, or aspects to it, but forcing salvation on an unwilling evil person via the Holy Spirit, isn't one of those aspects. Let's read Luke 11:13 again: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Thanks for clearing that up for us Jesus – You're Awesome!
What's more, grace needs to be defined as it is in the Bible. Grace is not completely "unmerited favor." On the contrary, it is merited favor earned by Jesus who perfectly pleased the Father, and now, He freely gives it to us, as the power of God. This grace that belongs to (and is given by Jesus), helps us to will to do, what the truth demands of us. God's grace has exceeding value and it is precious. Just because God's Grace is freely given to ALL of us, that doesn't mean it was cheap to obtain on Jesus' part. So to give a blanket definition of "unmerited favor" being completely unmerited, that only cheapens it. Grace is also a higher standard of living than living by the law. So to go back to the law is to step backward to an inferior way of living. The law says, “You have heard it said of old, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery ', but Jesus who is full of GRACE and TRUTH says, "if you even look at a woman and lust after her, you have already committed adultery in your heart .” So again, according to Jesus (who is full of grace and truth), we only have to think about committing an act of sin, in order to be guilty of the actual crime - and that knowledge oughta turn your hair white! Who then can be saved? It is by the power of God! He gave each and every person a measure of faith, upon whom or what will you invest it? I recommend Jesus.
[SIDE NOTE- If you have ever heard of, or used the term: "God's Sovereign grace", then that is the same as saying "Irresistible grace", so if you believe in, or espouse this term, then that makes you a camper at Camp Calvinism. The word sovereign and sovereignty are man made words, which some paraphrase Bibles [such as the NLT & NASB]use to substitute the established Scriptural sound words: God [as in Yahweh, or Jehovah], kingdom, dominion, royalty, and reign. Please only use words that have been established in the Bible by versions that are literal translations, not paraphrased, or even by ones that use modern vernacular. Literal translations are as closes as possible to the actual Hebrew, or Greek we can get while making it understandable in our language - English. Some literal translations are the: King James version (KJV), New King James version (NKJV), Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and Geneva which is okay, provided you don't take Calvin's and the other so-called "Reformers" marginal notes as proper interpretation of Scripture.
Perseverance of the Saints
John Calvin believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere [i.e., never lose their salvation] because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun. This is another half-truth, and even an out right wrestling, or twisting of Scripture, and a possible mix-up of the words, persevere and preserve. Also, John Calvin doesn't seem to understand the nature of covenants. While the work of atonement in the salvation process is entirely the work of Jesus, man does have his part to play in walking out the salvation process, it's called obedience. God deals in Suzerainty covenants, which means that he, as the greater party, sets the terms and conditions for the covenant he cuts, and we (the lesser party) are to obey his terms and conditions. In other words, he has his part, and we have ours. As for the work that the Lord will finish, that is the consummation of His promises - in other words: He finishes what He starts. He won't leave us hanging in the balance with the all encompassing work of salvation undone, and I am referring to the resurrection, or our new body at His coming. Since Jesus got his new resurrection body, then we will get one too. Unlike John Calvin or other men who lie, Jesus will never deceive us by changing the terms of salvation. This is why Paul wrote to assure the Corinthians of the resurrection, because some false teachers had come into the church and were saying that there was no resurrection of the dead, or that they had missed it entirely. He assured them that there was indeed a resurrection to come, otherwise salvation was a lie, and he would be a false teacher, and Jesus would be still dead along with the dupes that already died who had followed Him.
This is of course false, because Jesus did rise from the dead, and He will come back for us like He said He would, and He will reign forever more, because He faithfully promised he would, and will make these things come to pass solely by his power, and He will finish the work of salvation He has begun which he pre-planned! This doesn't mean God will keep us saved even if we presumptuously sin against Him, or that we can sin all we want and still go to heaven because of "perseverance." God is indeed able to keep us from sinning, but the question is: are we willing to stay away from places of temptation and remain in obedient sanctification? Then why warn us to keep away from sin if we should just rely on God to keep us from sinning? The only way for God to make us stop sinning entirely is to kill us, which He has done in the past many times, but this is a last ditch effort on his part. And if the requirement of repentance is missing when the sinner dies, then he has died in his sins, and isn't eligible for entering heaven. Those are the rules; they don't change.
The word 'perseverance' is used several times in Scripture, and is translated with various English words. The actual Greek word is: hypomone and means patience, patiently waiting, enduring, patiently enduring, in English, and it is also understood to be a N.T. characteristic of a person who is not swerved from his deliberate purpose, or his loyalty to faith and piety by even the greatest trials, and sufferings. It is not to be confused with, and doesn't mean preserve, as in saving, canning, embalming or salting something against decay. Do you see the difference between persevere and preserve? This is where the assumption is made that you can't lose your salvation. Read Romans chapter 2, this alone should clear this mess up, with special attention paid to verses 7 and 8: “eternal life to those who by patient continuance (hypomone/i.e.,persevere) in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,”
This TULIP teaching is so far out of line with Scripture it makes one wonder if the people who believe and support it, actually read the Bible. As one who came from the Word of Faith heresy, I can attest to you that I read my Bible, but I only saw it, or understood it, from the Word of Faith perspective, and not from God's perspective. Dear reader, that is a dangerous place for anyone to be in. I'll say that again: When you read the Bible from anyone else's perspective, rather than God's perspective, then you are in grave spiritual danger.
One thing is for certain, if John Calvin was indeed a willful murderer, as some claim he was, then he is not a Christian no matter what he himself, or anyone else, says. According to Scripture, murder is punishable by death in several places, from Gen. 9- Exodus 20, and God makes that perfectly clear. In Hebrews 4:11-13 we read: Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (that of the Israelites in the wilderness). For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of the soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (motives). And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. That should scare the pants off anyone who claims to be a preacher! And murder is listed in several passages in the New Testament as a means of missing heaven. Can it be any clearer? The T.U.L.I.P. doctrine is not
God's doctrine, and therefore, once saved, always saved is dangerous wishful thinking at best, heresy at worst.
Predestination
A brief word [as if!] on "predestination". For some reason, this word is of high controversy. I guess it is because our finite minds have a hard time with the idea that God is omniscient, that is how he is able to tell the end from the beginning [Isa.46:10]. There are people who reason that if God already knows who will accept Jesus as their Savior, then why even bother preaching the gospel. Romans 10:12-17 answers this dilemma:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile [we are all sinners] - the same Lord is
Lord over all, and richly blesses all who call on him, for "Everyone who calls upon the name
of the Lord will be saved." How then, can they call on the one they haven't believed in?
And how can they believe in the one who they haven't heard, and how can they hear
without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it
is written,
"How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!". But not all the Israelites
accepted the good news, for Isaiah said, "Lord, who has believed our message?"
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through
the word of Christ. NIV
So we see that this is the way God planned it, He foreordained it, He pre-planned it, He pre-destined it this way. The gift of salvation is a call, or invitation to: whosoever, all, and everyone in the world, but there are only a few of those who will choose it by mixing the gospel that is preached to them with the measure of faith they have been given by God. If you hear the invitation through preaching, then you are the "called", and if you accept the terms of the contract, will/statemented, or covenant, then you are the chosen, or "elect". Still, others argue that God doesn't know who will be saved, because He bases His foreknowledge of someone, not on their works, but on who they are. I have no idea what that means, because who you are is closely related what you say and do, or what the Bible calls your word and deed.
For example: Pharaoh. To say he was obstinate toward God would be an understatement. Who made him that way? God did. Why? So God could show Israel, and all people who would come afterward, His might. Even though Pharaoh was obstinate, because God made him with that disposition, [don't forget that we all have a certain amount of this trait in us too; some have more than others] he still had the opportunity to repent. Was Pharaoh being forced to fight God, against his will? No. He was given many chances to relent to God's command, he was even counseled by his own ministers to relent, but he stubbornly refused. How is this "fair", or to be considered "free-will" then? Easy - God knows us all and how to place us where we need to be at any given moment in time, to do what He pleases and to accomplish what He pre-planned, based on His foreknowledge of how we will react to His leading. Does that make us puppets then? Not exactly, God is more like a strategist. Paul explained this very thing starting in Romans 9:19. Even though evil men are used by God, they still have the chance of being saved, they just might not take it. Look at King Manasseh That evil man ruled Judea the longest, and was its most wicked king, yet while in exile, he repented and turned back to God, and he even proved his repentance by taking steps to undo the mess he made when he was released, but the Israelites wouldn't take heed.
Predestination speaks of God's over all plan that He made before time began, to make mankind in His image and likeness, to give us a choice to obey, or disobey Him, and a choice between life, or death, blessing, or cursing. He even gives us a hint on which one to choose - that being life. Then, knowing our propensity toward desiring self-rule and disobedience, He planned on anointing, and sending Himself to earth disguised as a mortal man, (Jesus) to be our one and only Savior, so we can freely choose to accept His gift of Salvation. If we don't meet Jesus' requirements of discipleship, or worse yet, some will consider Jesus not worthy of their requirements for him to be their Savior, and thus refuse His free gift, then those people will be damned to the lake of fire for eternity, the choice is ours to make - so we should choose wisely.
The T.U.L.I.P. acronym stands for:
T = Total Depravity
U= Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I= Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the saints
Total Depravity
According to John Calvin, we humans are totally depraved, meaning we are in absolute bondage to sin, and thus we are unable to exercise our own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God. Is this true? This is only half true, and like all half-truths, technically, that means they are also half lies. But I consider half-truths whole lies, it's just safer that way, since the truth is there only to get you to accept the lie. It is certainly true that we are in absolute bondage to sin, Scripture does teaches us this. However, we are not so depraved that we don't have the ability to exercise our own will, to know good from evil, or lack the ability to actually do good apart from God. Jesus himself tells us this, “if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, then how much more your Father in heaven knows how to give good gifts to those who ask of Him.” Matt.7:11. Is salvation not a good gift? Also, there are many secular organizations that provide humanitarian aid to people, which are not Christian based, and they are indeed “do-gooders.” As for needing God to “help” us accept Jesus, that's not entirely true either. When the gospel is preached, and Jesus is lifted up, it is He who draws, not drives people to Himself, but that doesn't mean He overrides their will and forces them to accept Him as their Savior either. God has given us all a measure of faith, which we can use to become saved. So again, God has given us all, everyone on the earth, this measure of faith, that is the ability to believe anything, we don't have this ability on our own. When the lawyer agreed with Jesus as to what the greatest commandments were, Jesus said that the man wasn't all that far from the Kingdom of God. If Jesus was interested in forcing the man into salvation, then why didn't he? What it does mean is that these people (who have all been given a measure of faith - Romans 12:3) have heard the truth of the Gospel, and their spirit is drawn to and bears witness to the Spirit of truth, and those who accept it, do so freely and gratefully.
Scripture also teaches God held out His hands to a rebellious people[i.e., the Children of Israel], who turned away from Him, every chance they got. God could have either forced them to obey, or killed all of them for not obeying. Instead, he gave them free choice, and changed His mind on several occasions regarding their annihilation, thanks in part to the intercession of His prophets, and the fact that he is faithful to his promises. God always gives us a (measure of faith) and a clear choice between doing good, or evil, so if we were not capable of willfully following Him by faith, or doing good, then we wouldn't be made in His image and likeness. Instead, we would be robots, and we wouldn't need to be given a clear choice. Unfortunately, due to the sin nature within our flesh, we tend to go toward the evil side, but we are still capable of doing good without being “saved.” Many false religions and cults are based on good works salvation, which they are able to preform for a while, but eventually, they too, fall hopelessly short of righteousness. That is because they are not using the faith in Jesus(that God provides us all), to lead them to salvation, and so His Spirit of Grace is not operating in them. His Holy Spirit does convict us of our sin, but He never forces Himself on a person to repent of sin, He just applies the needed prompting and pressure, usually through some sort of persecution. Even a saved person is still capable of sinning, but we have recourse though Jesus, who washes us from our confessed sins and cleanses us from our unrighteousness. Then we are able to go on, but not with the presumption that we can keep on sinning - no, we go on with the desire to sin less often.
Unconditional Election
John Calvin believed, and taught that foreknowledge is based upon the plan, and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the “free will” of the Creator alone. Here again, we have a half-truth. Foreknowledge is indeed based upon the plan and purpose of God. However, election is based upon the invitation God gives us, and the election of man, who uses his free-will to choose, or "elect" Jesus as his savior, by using the measure of faith God has given us all (Rom. 12:3) While the word "elect" in its noun form does mean “chosen” as in, an exclusive group of people, it also has a verb form, and is the act of choosing, or electing. Who is doing the electing then? Both of us. God first chose us, while we were yet sinners, and we then choose Him, or not. " For many are called but few are chosen." God called Moses to free the Israelites from Egypt. Did Moses immediately accept? No. God had to more or less convince and the command him to go. I mean, who was going to win that battle of wills? Moses wisely relented, as God knew he would. God always commands us to choose wisely, especially after He gives us clear choices, he even gives us the power of his grace. The implication is that we are able to make this decision on our own using His clearly given choices and that there is not only a wise choice, but a foolish one as well. Each choice having its own set of blessings, or curses attached to them. His prophets gave the Children of Israel a clear choice of which God they were to serve, yet many, despite all the wonderful things God did for them, made the foolish choice of running after pagan gods, and reveling in idolatry. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Hebrews 4:2. Why provide a choice if you don't intend to give people a choice?
Why do we choose (or elect) something, or someone over another? Because we decided we like something, or someone more than another, based on certain criteria, conditions, or expectations we have regarding the things we want, or need, right? Salvation is no different. God has certain criteria, conditions, or expectations of His “elect” concerning the aspect of salvation. The parable of the wedding feast, where the man didn't have on the required wedding garment [ the kittel in Hebrew] illustrates this. The guests, good and bad, were called, or invited, and gathered together in the banquet hall, but this certain man didn't meet the conditions that the feast required, that of having on a wedding garment. He must have willfully refused the one being offered by the host - the King, when the guests first came in through the door, meaning that the door man didn't force him to wear it, or the guest possibly snuck in past the door man, thinking no one would notice his noncompliance. To his chagrin, and not surprisingly, the King picked him out of the crowd immediately, and then questioned him as to why he didn't have on his kittel, or white wedding garment. True to form, the rebellious man had nothing to say. Why? Because he had deliberately chosen not to put on Christ, even though he had been called and then offered the garment of salvation, in other words, he was a party crasher. He clearly didn't want to meet the requirements. So, the King then had him (the spot in the love feast) thrown into outer darkness. Truly God first chose and loved us, by inviting us to His Son's wedding feast, so now we can chose to love Him by putting on Christ, or we can reject Him. This doesn't mean we earn our initial Salvation, but rather that we show evidence of God's Spirit working with in us, though our faith in Him, and obedience to Him. Covenant fellowship with God is never a one way street, and let us not forget that it takes two to tango , if you will.
Limited Atonement
John Calvin taught that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In his view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non-elect) will be lost. This statement seems to hinge upon which point of view the reader takes a stand on, regarding John 3:16, that being either John Calvin's, or God's. Well, John 3:16 clearly says that Jesus died for “the world." It clearly doesn't say “the elect” does it? So, this is God's view: many are called, and they are "the world," but the few "whosoever" that believe (follow Jesus), are chosen, and are then considered to be the "elect." Why? Because of the measure of faith God has given each of us. And Scripture also states that God doesn't desire that "any " (which includes the elect and non-elect) die in their sins, and He doesn't rejoice when a wicked man perishes either. Atonement is indeed limited on the basis of a person freely accepting Jesus as their savior, or their refusing Him, based on whether or not they mix the faith God gave them with the gospel they hear. It is not based upon God limiting it to a pre-selected few, that Calvin himself (or anyone) determined were worthy. Otherwise, why would Jesus tell His disciples to go and preach the gospel to every creature? Every creature has the opportunity to accept or refuse the gospel. Michael Servetus, John Calvin's greatest nemesis said: "God condemns no one who does not condemn himself through thought, word and deed." So who are "the elect" and what does it mean to be "the elect?" They are the ones who meet the requirements God lays out in His invitation, or call, and they are those who in turn, chose Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and are then obedient to the faith-they are the redeemed and the sanctified.
Irresistible Grace
John Calvin believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. He taught that the free will of man was so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible. I'm sorry, but did he say it would be, "impossible " for a depraved person to call on God? Well, John C. apparently admits we have a “free will” after all, but then he claims we can't use it to accept Jesus without being forced to? This is the double talk of a double minded man. Pick a lane, you can't save your cake, and eat it too! Free will is free will, and can be used freely on any and everything, otherwise they would call it something else. Not to mention the Holy Spirit will not indwell an unrighteous person before they accept Jesus as their Savior, this is called putting the cart before the horse, and is non-scriptural. But what does inhabit every one on the earth is the measure of faith God gave us all. That is the vehicle in which he connects to us. When we draw near to God, He draws near to us. When we seek Him, we find Him, when we repent of sin, He forgives us, that is Scripture. Yes, God loved us while we were unlovable and lost in sin, so that we can now love Him and be saved. But if grace worked like John Calvin taught, then these Scriptures would say something like this: “We can draw near to God only when He forces us to, or we can only find Him when He makes us look for him.”
God's grace when properly understood, should be irresistible to us in the way a big slice of chocolate cake is to a dieting chocoholic! His grace is also many faceted, that means there are many sides, or aspects to it, but forcing salvation on an unwilling evil person via the Holy Spirit, isn't one of those aspects. Let's read Luke 11:13 again: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Thanks for clearing that up for us Jesus – You're Awesome!
What's more, grace needs to be defined as it is in the Bible. Grace is not completely "unmerited favor." On the contrary, it is merited favor earned by Jesus who perfectly pleased the Father, and now, He freely gives it to us, as the power of God. This grace that belongs to (and is given by Jesus), helps us to will to do, what the truth demands of us. God's grace has exceeding value and it is precious. Just because God's Grace is freely given to ALL of us, that doesn't mean it was cheap to obtain on Jesus' part. So to give a blanket definition of "unmerited favor" being completely unmerited, that only cheapens it. Grace is also a higher standard of living than living by the law. So to go back to the law is to step backward to an inferior way of living. The law says, “You have heard it said of old, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery ', but Jesus who is full of GRACE and TRUTH says, "if you even look at a woman and lust after her, you have already committed adultery in your heart .” So again, according to Jesus (who is full of grace and truth), we only have to think about committing an act of sin, in order to be guilty of the actual crime - and that knowledge oughta turn your hair white! Who then can be saved? It is by the power of God! He gave each and every person a measure of faith, upon whom or what will you invest it? I recommend Jesus.
[SIDE NOTE- If you have ever heard of, or used the term: "God's Sovereign grace", then that is the same as saying "Irresistible grace", so if you believe in, or espouse this term, then that makes you a camper at Camp Calvinism. The word sovereign and sovereignty are man made words, which some paraphrase Bibles [such as the NLT & NASB]use to substitute the established Scriptural sound words: God [as in Yahweh, or Jehovah], kingdom, dominion, royalty, and reign. Please only use words that have been established in the Bible by versions that are literal translations, not paraphrased, or even by ones that use modern vernacular. Literal translations are as closes as possible to the actual Hebrew, or Greek we can get while making it understandable in our language - English. Some literal translations are the: King James version (KJV), New King James version (NKJV), Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and Geneva which is okay, provided you don't take Calvin's and the other so-called "Reformers" marginal notes as proper interpretation of Scripture.
Perseverance of the Saints
John Calvin believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere [i.e., never lose their salvation] because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun. This is another half-truth, and even an out right wrestling, or twisting of Scripture, and a possible mix-up of the words, persevere and preserve. Also, John Calvin doesn't seem to understand the nature of covenants. While the work of atonement in the salvation process is entirely the work of Jesus, man does have his part to play in walking out the salvation process, it's called obedience. God deals in Suzerainty covenants, which means that he, as the greater party, sets the terms and conditions for the covenant he cuts, and we (the lesser party) are to obey his terms and conditions. In other words, he has his part, and we have ours. As for the work that the Lord will finish, that is the consummation of His promises - in other words: He finishes what He starts. He won't leave us hanging in the balance with the all encompassing work of salvation undone, and I am referring to the resurrection, or our new body at His coming. Since Jesus got his new resurrection body, then we will get one too. Unlike John Calvin or other men who lie, Jesus will never deceive us by changing the terms of salvation. This is why Paul wrote to assure the Corinthians of the resurrection, because some false teachers had come into the church and were saying that there was no resurrection of the dead, or that they had missed it entirely. He assured them that there was indeed a resurrection to come, otherwise salvation was a lie, and he would be a false teacher, and Jesus would be still dead along with the dupes that already died who had followed Him.
This is of course false, because Jesus did rise from the dead, and He will come back for us like He said He would, and He will reign forever more, because He faithfully promised he would, and will make these things come to pass solely by his power, and He will finish the work of salvation He has begun which he pre-planned! This doesn't mean God will keep us saved even if we presumptuously sin against Him, or that we can sin all we want and still go to heaven because of "perseverance." God is indeed able to keep us from sinning, but the question is: are we willing to stay away from places of temptation and remain in obedient sanctification? Then why warn us to keep away from sin if we should just rely on God to keep us from sinning? The only way for God to make us stop sinning entirely is to kill us, which He has done in the past many times, but this is a last ditch effort on his part. And if the requirement of repentance is missing when the sinner dies, then he has died in his sins, and isn't eligible for entering heaven. Those are the rules; they don't change.
The word 'perseverance' is used several times in Scripture, and is translated with various English words. The actual Greek word is: hypomone and means patience, patiently waiting, enduring, patiently enduring, in English, and it is also understood to be a N.T. characteristic of a person who is not swerved from his deliberate purpose, or his loyalty to faith and piety by even the greatest trials, and sufferings. It is not to be confused with, and doesn't mean preserve, as in saving, canning, embalming or salting something against decay. Do you see the difference between persevere and preserve? This is where the assumption is made that you can't lose your salvation. Read Romans chapter 2, this alone should clear this mess up, with special attention paid to verses 7 and 8: “eternal life to those who by patient continuance (hypomone/i.e.,persevere) in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,”
This TULIP teaching is so far out of line with Scripture it makes one wonder if the people who believe and support it, actually read the Bible. As one who came from the Word of Faith heresy, I can attest to you that I read my Bible, but I only saw it, or understood it, from the Word of Faith perspective, and not from God's perspective. Dear reader, that is a dangerous place for anyone to be in. I'll say that again: When you read the Bible from anyone else's perspective, rather than God's perspective, then you are in grave spiritual danger.
One thing is for certain, if John Calvin was indeed a willful murderer, as some claim he was, then he is not a Christian no matter what he himself, or anyone else, says. According to Scripture, murder is punishable by death in several places, from Gen. 9- Exodus 20, and God makes that perfectly clear. In Hebrews 4:11-13 we read: Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (that of the Israelites in the wilderness). For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of the soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (motives). And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. That should scare the pants off anyone who claims to be a preacher! And murder is listed in several passages in the New Testament as a means of missing heaven. Can it be any clearer? The T.U.L.I.P. doctrine is not
God's doctrine, and therefore, once saved, always saved is dangerous wishful thinking at best, heresy at worst.
Predestination
A brief word [as if!] on "predestination". For some reason, this word is of high controversy. I guess it is because our finite minds have a hard time with the idea that God is omniscient, that is how he is able to tell the end from the beginning [Isa.46:10]. There are people who reason that if God already knows who will accept Jesus as their Savior, then why even bother preaching the gospel. Romans 10:12-17 answers this dilemma:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile [we are all sinners] - the same Lord is
Lord over all, and richly blesses all who call on him, for "Everyone who calls upon the name
of the Lord will be saved." How then, can they call on the one they haven't believed in?
And how can they believe in the one who they haven't heard, and how can they hear
without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it
is written,
"How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!". But not all the Israelites
accepted the good news, for Isaiah said, "Lord, who has believed our message?"
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through
the word of Christ. NIV
So we see that this is the way God planned it, He foreordained it, He pre-planned it, He pre-destined it this way. The gift of salvation is a call, or invitation to: whosoever, all, and everyone in the world, but there are only a few of those who will choose it by mixing the gospel that is preached to them with the measure of faith they have been given by God. If you hear the invitation through preaching, then you are the "called", and if you accept the terms of the contract, will/statemented, or covenant, then you are the chosen, or "elect". Still, others argue that God doesn't know who will be saved, because He bases His foreknowledge of someone, not on their works, but on who they are. I have no idea what that means, because who you are is closely related what you say and do, or what the Bible calls your word and deed.
For example: Pharaoh. To say he was obstinate toward God would be an understatement. Who made him that way? God did. Why? So God could show Israel, and all people who would come afterward, His might. Even though Pharaoh was obstinate, because God made him with that disposition, [don't forget that we all have a certain amount of this trait in us too; some have more than others] he still had the opportunity to repent. Was Pharaoh being forced to fight God, against his will? No. He was given many chances to relent to God's command, he was even counseled by his own ministers to relent, but he stubbornly refused. How is this "fair", or to be considered "free-will" then? Easy - God knows us all and how to place us where we need to be at any given moment in time, to do what He pleases and to accomplish what He pre-planned, based on His foreknowledge of how we will react to His leading. Does that make us puppets then? Not exactly, God is more like a strategist. Paul explained this very thing starting in Romans 9:19. Even though evil men are used by God, they still have the chance of being saved, they just might not take it. Look at King Manasseh That evil man ruled Judea the longest, and was its most wicked king, yet while in exile, he repented and turned back to God, and he even proved his repentance by taking steps to undo the mess he made when he was released, but the Israelites wouldn't take heed.
Predestination speaks of God's over all plan that He made before time began, to make mankind in His image and likeness, to give us a choice to obey, or disobey Him, and a choice between life, or death, blessing, or cursing. He even gives us a hint on which one to choose - that being life. Then, knowing our propensity toward desiring self-rule and disobedience, He planned on anointing, and sending Himself to earth disguised as a mortal man, (Jesus) to be our one and only Savior, so we can freely choose to accept His gift of Salvation. If we don't meet Jesus' requirements of discipleship, or worse yet, some will consider Jesus not worthy of their requirements for him to be their Savior, and thus refuse His free gift, then those people will be damned to the lake of fire for eternity, the choice is ours to make - so we should choose wisely.
John Calvin's Ambition
What was John Calvin's ambition? It seems that John Calvin wanted to establish a theocracy here on planet earth before the return of our Lord, or a "City of God." Now there is nothing wrong with the church itself being a theocracy, for surly it is. However, I think he misunderstood that it is Jesus, and He alone, who will bring about, and set up His own kingdom on earth, and then rule over it as both King and High Priest. Not unlike the Dominionists of the New Apostolic Reformation (which his teachings spawned - not necessarily his fault), they too misunderstand this concept even to this day. Jesus will place His faithful saints at their posts throughout the world after His return, and He will lay down the laws by which the nations will be governed and He will enforce them with a rod of iron, and what a wonderful world that will be! John Calvin and others like him, are once again putting the cart before the horse, if they think they are the ones who will be setting up Christ's kingdom, or ruling and reigning before Christ appears. There is a tendency to be like the ones who Jesus warned us about, the evil servants that beat their fellow servants due to their master's delay in coming. In reality, those seeking to force the world to accept a pre-millennial theocracy are really setting up the kingdom of the anti-Christ according to Revelation (a.k.a. the New World Order), and not the kingdom of Jesus. Jesus gave us instructions before He left, that we are to proclaim the gospel to every creature (person) and lay hands on the sick, cast out demons by His name, and if we should happen to drink anything poisonous, or if a snake should so happen to bite us while on His errand, these things will not harm us. Jesus didn't mean that we are to be viper handlers and poison drinkers to prove we are His disciples. As usual, some take Jesus' words literally and go off into the deep end of the heresy pool.
My point is that no where in His instructions, did Jesus say we are to take over worldly governments and enforce righteousness upon the godless upon pain of death. Jesus didn't say that any and all heretics are to be hunted down and put to death unless they repent post haste, but this was John Calvin's policy toward the end of his days. These two directives sound demonic in nature and don't reflect Jesus “Modus Operandi”, really, any five year old child that has heard stories of Jesus can tell you that. The teachings Calvin produced, cultivated, and taught, may have seemed good at first, and he appeared to have good intentions, but good intentions are nothing more than a person's vain hopes, that are all dressed up with no where to go except for Failure Town. Ah, another proverb comes to mind: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Think about that the next time you hear someone say, “I never intended to hurt your feelings.”, but they did anyway. Or “I intend to lose weight this year.” but they most likely won't.
My point is that no where in His instructions, did Jesus say we are to take over worldly governments and enforce righteousness upon the godless upon pain of death. Jesus didn't say that any and all heretics are to be hunted down and put to death unless they repent post haste, but this was John Calvin's policy toward the end of his days. These two directives sound demonic in nature and don't reflect Jesus “Modus Operandi”, really, any five year old child that has heard stories of Jesus can tell you that. The teachings Calvin produced, cultivated, and taught, may have seemed good at first, and he appeared to have good intentions, but good intentions are nothing more than a person's vain hopes, that are all dressed up with no where to go except for Failure Town. Ah, another proverb comes to mind: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Think about that the next time you hear someone say, “I never intended to hurt your feelings.”, but they did anyway. Or “I intend to lose weight this year.” but they most likely won't.
Update!
Not only did John Calvin reluctantly relent to the policy of ridding the world of heretics via corporeal punishment, but it was also the entire European world's policy to do so. Remember, the Catholic church and even the Reformation was in the throws of a power struggle. The Old Testament did advocate the death of false prophets, but the New Testament, unless I'm missing something, doesn't advocate such a thing. But, in Calvin's defense, he wasn't too thrilled with the practice. But when the state is calling the shots in the church, what are you going to do? I get it. Change doesn't happen over night. At any rate, the Bible teaches that we are sheep for the slaughter. If we are persecuted for our faith, and the state wants to kill us for our faith, if we can't flee, then we are to understand that our life is forfeit. That is the way it is.
Not only did John Calvin reluctantly relent to the policy of ridding the world of heretics via corporeal punishment, but it was also the entire European world's policy to do so. Remember, the Catholic church and even the Reformation was in the throws of a power struggle. The Old Testament did advocate the death of false prophets, but the New Testament, unless I'm missing something, doesn't advocate such a thing. But, in Calvin's defense, he wasn't too thrilled with the practice. But when the state is calling the shots in the church, what are you going to do? I get it. Change doesn't happen over night. At any rate, the Bible teaches that we are sheep for the slaughter. If we are persecuted for our faith, and the state wants to kill us for our faith, if we can't flee, then we are to understand that our life is forfeit. That is the way it is.
God's Doctrine: According to John Calvin
Yes, John Calvin seems to have gotten a big head early in his religious career. We are warned in Scripture to not think too highly of our selves, and to be humble, and to be careful not to think of ourselves as immune to temptation, and not to measure our self, against others when is comes to righteousness. John Calvin didn't take heed to any of these warnings. Remember his boast in the preface of his book 'Commentaries on the Psalms', where he reminisces about his law school days: “One year had not elapsed , before all those who desirous of the knowledge of purer doctrines, flocked to me for instruction, while as yet I was myself a mere beginner in that school.” No where do we hear a valid testimony of his conversion and by that I mean, I haven't found where John Calvin totally turned from all Catholic teachings by means of an outside influence, such as a sermon he heard, or someone who had witnessed the Gospel to him, or if he read something in Scripture that showed him his error and he repented. He simply claimed his conversion was done by God. I don't buy this, especially since his fruit points to the god of his world, and not the God of heaven and earth. Besides, his "conversion" took place after (1533/34)he claimed to possess purer doctrines in 1530/31.
His publication of 'Institutes' was the subject of much debate by some people, Michael Servetus in particular, who called his theology of predestination into question. However, predestination was also shared by Luther and other reformers of his day, so it is not unique to John Calvin. Anyway, it was John Calvin's friend and colleague, either Farel or Maucer, that had "Institues" voted to be "God's Doctrine" by the city counsel of Geneva. That was so it would not be contested there ever again, and if anyone was so bold, or foolish to do so, then they would be physically persecuted as a heretic. It is interesting to note, that if you are so fortunate to get a copy of John Calvin's earliest publication of "Institutes" and compare it to a later publication, you will notice that there are many things missing and many things added. In an early copy He said of the Catholic Church that since it was murderous toward those who wanted the truth found in Scriptures, then any authority they had and the theology they put forth must be ignored, and disdained as a result of their actions. Amazing! So, later on, in order to justify his having Servetus killed as a heretic, an action he clearly condemned in his earlier work, John Calvin had to cover his tracks by amending his earlier work. I even read that he said that he never really wanted to convert heretics back to sound doctrine in a gentle manner, and that he always intended to have them burned as heretics. This sounds more in keeping with his suspected Jesuit training - even a Freudian slip perhaps?
Yes, I have heard accusations that John Calvin was an under cover Jesuit priest sent to the Christians to infiltrate and undermine the faith from the inside. This sounds so intriguing doesn't it? The Jesuit Order was founded by Ignacious Loyola, who was a contemporary of John Calvin, and it has been said that they went to the same school. This in itself is not proof of a corroboration, since Ignatius was entering the college as John Calvin was leaving it. However, Satan's playbook contains the same tricks, and is used by all his evil agents. At any rate, Loyola was a devout Catholic, converted only after suffering from a near fatal battle wound. So what was a recently crippled soldier, hell bent on world domination to do now? He decided to redirect his maniacal conquering desires into the religious world, where he found congruence with the Catholic motto “convert, or die” of course!
The Jesuits, under Loyola's orders, had a peculiar way of justifying their horrific black-ops tactics, and crimes against humanity. They used the ol' “the end justifies the means” diatribe, and they were instructed by Ignacious that God would not hold them accountable for doing His will, all they had to do was simply deny ever having done the crime, or claim immunity from them, because they were doing God's [really the Pope's] work. This is of course ludicrous to the student of sound doctrine and anyone with common sense and a conscience. Scripture states that evil people will kill God's people while considering it as a favor to him. So John Calvin and Ignacious Loyola did share the same beliefs, and methods to justify their murderous rampages. Calvin especially did this after the murder of Michael Servetus, something the earlier words of Calvin had condemned in his Institutes publication, his treatise on the Christian religion, one he had penned far too early in his “Christian” career, and which ironically is the smoking gun, revealing his hypocrisy. We will explore the possibility of John Calvin being a Jesuit later on.
His publication of 'Institutes' was the subject of much debate by some people, Michael Servetus in particular, who called his theology of predestination into question. However, predestination was also shared by Luther and other reformers of his day, so it is not unique to John Calvin. Anyway, it was John Calvin's friend and colleague, either Farel or Maucer, that had "Institues" voted to be "God's Doctrine" by the city counsel of Geneva. That was so it would not be contested there ever again, and if anyone was so bold, or foolish to do so, then they would be physically persecuted as a heretic. It is interesting to note, that if you are so fortunate to get a copy of John Calvin's earliest publication of "Institutes" and compare it to a later publication, you will notice that there are many things missing and many things added. In an early copy He said of the Catholic Church that since it was murderous toward those who wanted the truth found in Scriptures, then any authority they had and the theology they put forth must be ignored, and disdained as a result of their actions. Amazing! So, later on, in order to justify his having Servetus killed as a heretic, an action he clearly condemned in his earlier work, John Calvin had to cover his tracks by amending his earlier work. I even read that he said that he never really wanted to convert heretics back to sound doctrine in a gentle manner, and that he always intended to have them burned as heretics. This sounds more in keeping with his suspected Jesuit training - even a Freudian slip perhaps?
Yes, I have heard accusations that John Calvin was an under cover Jesuit priest sent to the Christians to infiltrate and undermine the faith from the inside. This sounds so intriguing doesn't it? The Jesuit Order was founded by Ignacious Loyola, who was a contemporary of John Calvin, and it has been said that they went to the same school. This in itself is not proof of a corroboration, since Ignatius was entering the college as John Calvin was leaving it. However, Satan's playbook contains the same tricks, and is used by all his evil agents. At any rate, Loyola was a devout Catholic, converted only after suffering from a near fatal battle wound. So what was a recently crippled soldier, hell bent on world domination to do now? He decided to redirect his maniacal conquering desires into the religious world, where he found congruence with the Catholic motto “convert, or die” of course!
The Jesuits, under Loyola's orders, had a peculiar way of justifying their horrific black-ops tactics, and crimes against humanity. They used the ol' “the end justifies the means” diatribe, and they were instructed by Ignacious that God would not hold them accountable for doing His will, all they had to do was simply deny ever having done the crime, or claim immunity from them, because they were doing God's [really the Pope's] work. This is of course ludicrous to the student of sound doctrine and anyone with common sense and a conscience. Scripture states that evil people will kill God's people while considering it as a favor to him. So John Calvin and Ignacious Loyola did share the same beliefs, and methods to justify their murderous rampages. Calvin especially did this after the murder of Michael Servetus, something the earlier words of Calvin had condemned in his Institutes publication, his treatise on the Christian religion, one he had penned far too early in his “Christian” career, and which ironically is the smoking gun, revealing his hypocrisy. We will explore the possibility of John Calvin being a Jesuit later on.
Update!
Which God Did Calvin Really Serve?
It can be said that mankind acts like the god he serves. Jesus Himself repeatedly told His disciples to emulate what He did, and Jesus Himself only did what the Father showed Him, and only said what the Father told Him to say. That is what it means to be a “Christian,” or to be “Christ-like”. Did Jesus imprison, torture, threaten, and excommunicate the Scribes and Pharisees? No. He told them the truth, that they were blind guides who perverted the Scriptures for their own gain, and that they were hypocrites who placed people into the bondage of their man made traditions. He told them if they didn't repent, then they were destined for the lake of fire, like their father the Devil. And how did they repay Jesus for all His loving words of truth? They bore false witness against Him, slandered Him, plotted His murder, and persecuted His disciples to the point of death. Sounds like they were doing the work of their father, the Devil, who is the accuser of the brethren, doesn't it?
John Calvin's god, when studied, is not the Almighty God of the Bible, but rather the Devil, just like what Jesus said of the Pharisees. How do I know this? Because, that is how John Calvin acted and lived his life, especially after the killing of Michael Servetus. So why do people still support John Calvin, if this is true? Because the Scriptures say people will, of the hardness of their hearts, heap up for themselves false teacher that will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. These with itching ears admire, and venerate John Calvin above God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in their deluded hearts, so that makes them idolaters. It is so ironic to me, that John Calvin supposedly spoke against Catholicism, but yet he is considered to be the “Pope” of Geneva. Even if he didn't take this title for himself, why was it given to him? It would appear that he became the very thing he denounced, and thus was a hypocrite, like the blind Pharisees.
Yes, for those who would want to justify violence in Christ, Jesus did use a whip (twice in fact) to chase out, not wallop on, some money changers and livestock from the temple. He even ravaged some tables laden down with money. But as the Son of God who performed miracles, as being God in the flesh, He had every right to do this, and besides, the law was on His side. But that was the extent of any “violence” Jesus exerted over animal, vegetable, or mineral during His earthly ministry.
John Calvin's god, when studied, is not the Almighty God of the Bible, but rather the Devil, just like what Jesus said of the Pharisees. How do I know this? Because, that is how John Calvin acted and lived his life, especially after the killing of Michael Servetus. So why do people still support John Calvin, if this is true? Because the Scriptures say people will, of the hardness of their hearts, heap up for themselves false teacher that will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. These with itching ears admire, and venerate John Calvin above God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in their deluded hearts, so that makes them idolaters. It is so ironic to me, that John Calvin supposedly spoke against Catholicism, but yet he is considered to be the “Pope” of Geneva. Even if he didn't take this title for himself, why was it given to him? It would appear that he became the very thing he denounced, and thus was a hypocrite, like the blind Pharisees.
Yes, for those who would want to justify violence in Christ, Jesus did use a whip (twice in fact) to chase out, not wallop on, some money changers and livestock from the temple. He even ravaged some tables laden down with money. But as the Son of God who performed miracles, as being God in the flesh, He had every right to do this, and besides, the law was on His side. But that was the extent of any “violence” Jesus exerted over animal, vegetable, or mineral during His earthly ministry.
Enter Michael Servetus
Michael Servetus was a very talented, and intelligent man, who was adept in many languages, became a doctor, a theologian who studied Scripture in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek) from the texts available to him at that time, and pursued many other studies, including astrology as related to the field of medicine at that time, and even humanism. He was born in September of 1509 in Villanueva de Sijena in Aragon Spain and was a contemporary of John Calvin, with Calvin being a few months older. They were brought into contact with each other through a common acquaintance, the printer Jean Ferllon, in 1546, and they began correspondence, in which he used his real name, Michael Servetus, while John Calvin used a pen name, Charles de Espeville. Servetus applied for, and received French citizenship in 1548-1549, and took the name Michael Villanueva as his alias, because by this time Michael Servetus had published many controversial works denouncing the Trinity as a false doctrine, saying it was not in keeping with Scripture. As well as publishing many other works related to his medical prowess, but under his real name Michael Servetus, so this is the apparent reason why he changed his name when he applied for French citizenship - to avoid being persecuted, imprisoned, and martyred by so-called "Christians."
In 1553, he published his Christianisimi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), which further expounded upon his anti-Trinitarian views, and sharply rejected Calvin's idea of predestination, which taught that God condemns souls to Hell regardless of their worth, or merit. In stark contrast, Servetus insisted that God will not condemn anyone who doesn't already condemn themselves through thought, word, or deed. Michael Servetus sent a copy of his work Christianisimi Restitutio to John Calvin. John Calvin naturally considered this to be a personal attack, because his teachings on predestination were refuted by Michael Servetus within those pages, and revealed that they were in fact John Calvin's ideas, and not Scriptural. In an effort to set Michael Servetus straight, John Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which Michael Servetus promptly sent back to Calvin with his critical annotations. Well, as you may have guessed, that didn't go over very well, so what happened next? John Calvin declared a holy war on Michael Servetus, especially after their correspondence got more heated, and since Calvin couldn't refute Serventus with sound doctrine, he ended the correspondence. But not before issuing Michael Servetus this statement: “I neither hate you, nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.”
To Servetus' credit, he sent John Calvin more letters, but Calvin only took offence to them, and this reveals a great deal about John Calvin's real character. He was not very humble, or very meek, but in fact a very prideful man, and he was a liar, because he did indeed despise Michael Servetus, and would indeed seek to persecute him. John Calvin made it appear that it wasn't so much the doctrines they disagreed about that angered John Calvin, but Michael's perceived tone, that Calvin considered to be offensive. I can't tell you how many ardent sinners confuse sincere Scriptural zeal, and conviction of truth in a person for a “holier than thou” attitude. John Calvin voiced his real feelings and murderous intentions regarding Michael Servetus to his crony William Farel: “Severus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." Wow, what benevolent and merciful restraint!
In 1553, he published his Christianisimi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), which further expounded upon his anti-Trinitarian views, and sharply rejected Calvin's idea of predestination, which taught that God condemns souls to Hell regardless of their worth, or merit. In stark contrast, Servetus insisted that God will not condemn anyone who doesn't already condemn themselves through thought, word, or deed. Michael Servetus sent a copy of his work Christianisimi Restitutio to John Calvin. John Calvin naturally considered this to be a personal attack, because his teachings on predestination were refuted by Michael Servetus within those pages, and revealed that they were in fact John Calvin's ideas, and not Scriptural. In an effort to set Michael Servetus straight, John Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which Michael Servetus promptly sent back to Calvin with his critical annotations. Well, as you may have guessed, that didn't go over very well, so what happened next? John Calvin declared a holy war on Michael Servetus, especially after their correspondence got more heated, and since Calvin couldn't refute Serventus with sound doctrine, he ended the correspondence. But not before issuing Michael Servetus this statement: “I neither hate you, nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.”
To Servetus' credit, he sent John Calvin more letters, but Calvin only took offence to them, and this reveals a great deal about John Calvin's real character. He was not very humble, or very meek, but in fact a very prideful man, and he was a liar, because he did indeed despise Michael Servetus, and would indeed seek to persecute him. John Calvin made it appear that it wasn't so much the doctrines they disagreed about that angered John Calvin, but Michael's perceived tone, that Calvin considered to be offensive. I can't tell you how many ardent sinners confuse sincere Scriptural zeal, and conviction of truth in a person for a “holier than thou” attitude. John Calvin voiced his real feelings and murderous intentions regarding Michael Servetus to his crony William Farel: “Severus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." Wow, what benevolent and merciful restraint!
Update!
Michael Servetus was not blameless in this relationship, if you want to call it that. Though he didn't believe in the Trinity as being Scriptural, he didn't believe in Jesus' deity either-- that is a huge problem. Though very intelligent, he wasn't very disciplined in his academic pursuits. I mean just look at the range, and to be honest, I found astrology to be a bit worrisome. Apparently, Calvin was trying to convert Servetus, and even risked his life to meet with him, one doesn't meet known heretics like Servetus when one wants to keep from being killed for the association. The guy didn't show for the meeting according to historians. Wow, not cool! I have been in tit-for-tat Scriptural arguments with people who just want to argue -- not fun. So I can see that if this was the case, why Calvin wanted nothing to do with Servetus and ignored his persistent attempt at communication. Historically speaking, Servetus was a pain in Europe's collective hiney, not just John Calvin's. But was that a reason to have him killed? Apparently.
Michael Servetus was not blameless in this relationship, if you want to call it that. Though he didn't believe in the Trinity as being Scriptural, he didn't believe in Jesus' deity either-- that is a huge problem. Though very intelligent, he wasn't very disciplined in his academic pursuits. I mean just look at the range, and to be honest, I found astrology to be a bit worrisome. Apparently, Calvin was trying to convert Servetus, and even risked his life to meet with him, one doesn't meet known heretics like Servetus when one wants to keep from being killed for the association. The guy didn't show for the meeting according to historians. Wow, not cool! I have been in tit-for-tat Scriptural arguments with people who just want to argue -- not fun. So I can see that if this was the case, why Calvin wanted nothing to do with Servetus and ignored his persistent attempt at communication. Historically speaking, Servetus was a pain in Europe's collective hiney, not just John Calvin's. But was that a reason to have him killed? Apparently.
The Set Up For Murder
After doing some reading on the subject, it is my belief that John Calvin set up Michael Servetus for murder, and this is how I believe it was done. For some strange reason, Guillaume de Trie, a rich merchant and very good friend of John Calvin, who had taken refuge in Geneva, sent a letter to his cousin, Antoine Arneys, on February 16, 1553, condemning Michael Servetus as a heretic. Michael Servetus was living in Vienne, France at the time this letter was written, under the assumed name of Michael Villanueva, and Antoine was living in Lyon, a relatively tolerant city. In turn Arneys put inquisitor Matthieu Ory onto Michael Servetus' trail. When Matthieu Ory called in Michael Servetus and Balthasard Arnollet, the printer of Christianisimi Restitutio to account, they denied all charges that were voiced against them, and since there was no proof of their alleged heresy, they were released.
Ory undeterred, asked Arneys for the proof he needed by writing to Guillaume de Trie, who had started the original accusation. De Trie then sent the personal letters Michael Servetus wrote to John Calvin along with some manuscript pages (carefully selected no doubt) of Christianisimi Restitutio to Lyon on March 26, 1553, a date so curiously close the the Ides of March (March 15), no? The letter proved that Michael Servetus was in deed Michael Villanueva. So, how on earth did Guillaume de Trie acquire personal letters from Michael Servetus that were written to John Calvin? Hmmmm. Me thinks evil is afoot.
On April 4, 1553 Michael Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities, and imprisoned in Vienne, France. He escaped 3 days later (don't you love it? - 3 days later!). In true Pharissee style, undeterred, they burned an effigy of him instead, with some of his books after being convicted of heresy against the Catholic dogmas of the Trinity and infant baptism on June 17, 1553. Thanks to the more than 17 letters they somehow acquired from Guillaume de Trie, who got them from Calvin himself no doubt. Meaning to flee to Italy, Michael Servetus went to Geneva for some unknown reason, and it is said that he attended a service being held by John Calvin at the time, when he was recognized and arrested after the service. Why- - this defies all common sense and belief! It seems to me that someone is trying to make Michael Servetus out to be an antagonist, because according to Michael, he was arrested at an Inn in Geneva, and not at Calvin's church.
If the official account is correct, then I have some questions, like: Who at the church 'recognized' him? Was it John Calvin himself who never physically met the man, or was it John Calvin's crony Martin Bucer, who personally knew Michael Servetus and had asked him to leave Geneva many years prior? What I really want to know is how Michael Servetus got lost on his way to Italy, because even I know that going to Switzerland on my way to Italy from France would definitely be considered as the long, or scenic route! I believe that either he went to Geneva to confront John Calvin for sending his letters to the Catholic authorities, which resulted in his imprisonment, or John Calvin lured him there under the false pretense of making amends. At any rate, John Calvin's shrewd move to set Michael Servetus up for heresy charges using his letters, got him what he wanted, Michael Servetus in prison and in his clutches in Geneva. However, apparently Calvin was blocked from killing Michael Servetus by his own law he had enacted in Genvea regarding heretics, which stated they were to be banished, and not executed. In the words of Marvin the Martian,”Delays, delays, delays!”
So Calvin then got his crony secretary, Nicholas de la Fontaine, to do his dirty work for him, because a person who levied charges against another, had to stay in prison until the trial. And since John Calvin was too physically weak to prosecute Michael Servetus himself, that meant Nicholas filed the charges and stayed in jail. Nicholas levied some 40 trumped up charges against Michael Servetus, charges that curiously contained information from the previous trial in Vienne, and Calvin also used the lex telionis (eye for an eye) law that was in effect in Rome, not Geneva, to do it. John Calvin was then able to persuade the laymen court of Petit Conseil to condemn Michael Servetus to death for his heresy in denying the Trinity and infant baptism, but to John Calvin, Michael Serveus was a blasphemer not against God, but against his "Institues" doctrine. It seems John Calvin either never learned, forgot, or ignored Jesus' Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. Hmm, wasn't Jesus also convicted on trumped up blasphemy charges too? Isn't that interesting?
Meanwhile, Michael Servetus was held in prison for quite some time, while all of this political maneuvering was going on between Calvin and the people in power who really didn't like Calvin or Servetus that much, the Libertines. Michael Servetus is quoted as saying of his imprisonment: “I beg you, shorten please these deliberations. It is clear that Calvin for his pleasure wished to make me rot in this prison. The lice eat me alive. My clothes are torn and I have nothing for a change, nor shirt, only a worn vest.” Servetus,1553
Then, just like Pilate and Herod did thousands of years before, Calvin and the Libertines finally came together to eliminate their common foe – the persecutor of their consciences and revealer of their false doctrines, Michael Servetus. In reality, Genevan officials had no right to keep him, since he was not a citizen of that country, and he had not done anything wrong in that country to warrant arrest in the first place. The French Inquisition officials wanted him extradited back to France to be executed, for real this time, for his crimes against the Catholic Church. Calvin wouldn't have it, because he promised himself he wouldn't let Michael Servetus leave Geneva alive, if he ever came there, if his authority was worth anything.
Finally, Michael Servetus was convicted of heresy by the court in Geneva on October 24, 1553, and was sentenced to burn at the stake on October 27, 1553 by Perrin (a Libertine). John Calvin petitioned the council to have Michael Servetus beheaded as a traitor as opposed to being burned as a heretic, what a humanitarian, eh? His petition was denied. Michael Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. His last words were: “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.”
Ory undeterred, asked Arneys for the proof he needed by writing to Guillaume de Trie, who had started the original accusation. De Trie then sent the personal letters Michael Servetus wrote to John Calvin along with some manuscript pages (carefully selected no doubt) of Christianisimi Restitutio to Lyon on March 26, 1553, a date so curiously close the the Ides of March (March 15), no? The letter proved that Michael Servetus was in deed Michael Villanueva. So, how on earth did Guillaume de Trie acquire personal letters from Michael Servetus that were written to John Calvin? Hmmmm. Me thinks evil is afoot.
On April 4, 1553 Michael Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities, and imprisoned in Vienne, France. He escaped 3 days later (don't you love it? - 3 days later!). In true Pharissee style, undeterred, they burned an effigy of him instead, with some of his books after being convicted of heresy against the Catholic dogmas of the Trinity and infant baptism on June 17, 1553. Thanks to the more than 17 letters they somehow acquired from Guillaume de Trie, who got them from Calvin himself no doubt. Meaning to flee to Italy, Michael Servetus went to Geneva for some unknown reason, and it is said that he attended a service being held by John Calvin at the time, when he was recognized and arrested after the service. Why- - this defies all common sense and belief! It seems to me that someone is trying to make Michael Servetus out to be an antagonist, because according to Michael, he was arrested at an Inn in Geneva, and not at Calvin's church.
If the official account is correct, then I have some questions, like: Who at the church 'recognized' him? Was it John Calvin himself who never physically met the man, or was it John Calvin's crony Martin Bucer, who personally knew Michael Servetus and had asked him to leave Geneva many years prior? What I really want to know is how Michael Servetus got lost on his way to Italy, because even I know that going to Switzerland on my way to Italy from France would definitely be considered as the long, or scenic route! I believe that either he went to Geneva to confront John Calvin for sending his letters to the Catholic authorities, which resulted in his imprisonment, or John Calvin lured him there under the false pretense of making amends. At any rate, John Calvin's shrewd move to set Michael Servetus up for heresy charges using his letters, got him what he wanted, Michael Servetus in prison and in his clutches in Geneva. However, apparently Calvin was blocked from killing Michael Servetus by his own law he had enacted in Genvea regarding heretics, which stated they were to be banished, and not executed. In the words of Marvin the Martian,”Delays, delays, delays!”
So Calvin then got his crony secretary, Nicholas de la Fontaine, to do his dirty work for him, because a person who levied charges against another, had to stay in prison until the trial. And since John Calvin was too physically weak to prosecute Michael Servetus himself, that meant Nicholas filed the charges and stayed in jail. Nicholas levied some 40 trumped up charges against Michael Servetus, charges that curiously contained information from the previous trial in Vienne, and Calvin also used the lex telionis (eye for an eye) law that was in effect in Rome, not Geneva, to do it. John Calvin was then able to persuade the laymen court of Petit Conseil to condemn Michael Servetus to death for his heresy in denying the Trinity and infant baptism, but to John Calvin, Michael Serveus was a blasphemer not against God, but against his "Institues" doctrine. It seems John Calvin either never learned, forgot, or ignored Jesus' Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. Hmm, wasn't Jesus also convicted on trumped up blasphemy charges too? Isn't that interesting?
Meanwhile, Michael Servetus was held in prison for quite some time, while all of this political maneuvering was going on between Calvin and the people in power who really didn't like Calvin or Servetus that much, the Libertines. Michael Servetus is quoted as saying of his imprisonment: “I beg you, shorten please these deliberations. It is clear that Calvin for his pleasure wished to make me rot in this prison. The lice eat me alive. My clothes are torn and I have nothing for a change, nor shirt, only a worn vest.” Servetus,1553
Then, just like Pilate and Herod did thousands of years before, Calvin and the Libertines finally came together to eliminate their common foe – the persecutor of their consciences and revealer of their false doctrines, Michael Servetus. In reality, Genevan officials had no right to keep him, since he was not a citizen of that country, and he had not done anything wrong in that country to warrant arrest in the first place. The French Inquisition officials wanted him extradited back to France to be executed, for real this time, for his crimes against the Catholic Church. Calvin wouldn't have it, because he promised himself he wouldn't let Michael Servetus leave Geneva alive, if he ever came there, if his authority was worth anything.
Finally, Michael Servetus was convicted of heresy by the court in Geneva on October 24, 1553, and was sentenced to burn at the stake on October 27, 1553 by Perrin (a Libertine). John Calvin petitioned the council to have Michael Servetus beheaded as a traitor as opposed to being burned as a heretic, what a humanitarian, eh? His petition was denied. Michael Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. His last words were: “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.”
Update!
I have since learned that Michael Servetus was set up for murder, but not willingly by John Calvin. The first three paragraphs are correct, however, Guillaume de Trie is the one who pressed John Calvin to release the letters to him. Surprisingly, he was reluctant to do so and had to be aggressively pressed by Guillaume de Trie. I do believe this. To be fair, he was historically documented as a quiet scholar, not a fiery heretic hunter by nature. Apparently Servetus was betting on the tension between Calvin and the city officials, who were actually prosecuting him -- not Calvin, to work in his favor. Well, as we can see, that didn't pan out. And even though Calvin couldn't get him freed from the heresy charges, he did try to get his sentence to be the more humane beheading, which was indeed very humane of him, forgive me of my misplaced sarcasm.
I have since learned that Michael Servetus was set up for murder, but not willingly by John Calvin. The first three paragraphs are correct, however, Guillaume de Trie is the one who pressed John Calvin to release the letters to him. Surprisingly, he was reluctant to do so and had to be aggressively pressed by Guillaume de Trie. I do believe this. To be fair, he was historically documented as a quiet scholar, not a fiery heretic hunter by nature. Apparently Servetus was betting on the tension between Calvin and the city officials, who were actually prosecuting him -- not Calvin, to work in his favor. Well, as we can see, that didn't pan out. And even though Calvin couldn't get him freed from the heresy charges, he did try to get his sentence to be the more humane beheading, which was indeed very humane of him, forgive me of my misplaced sarcasm.
John Calvin, The Unrepentant Murderer
Former Calvinist, Sebastian Castillo, and other former Calvinists, wrote to John Calvin, and pleaded with him to repent of the murder of Michael Servetus, of which he balked at and refused to do. Three years prior to his own death, John Calvin wrote in 1561, “Such monsters [i.e., Anabaptists] should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” That is rather incriminating. Around 1558 John Calvin spent a lot of time revising and adding to his 'Institues' expanding it from 21 chapters to a whopping 80 chapters and he considered it a new work entirely, well I guess so. He did this after a fever struck him, so he forced himself to complete his new treatise before he died. This is where he did his “cover up” and “back peddling” in the attempt to justify his murdering Michael Servetus and to perhaps alleviate his ailing conscience, which evidently bothered him despite all his probable Jesuit training. But this didn't deter Sebastian Castillo, who used John Calvin's own words against him time, and time again. Unfortunately Sebastian Castillo was driven to the point of death by John Calvin's incessant persecution through himself and others loyal to Calvin. Castillo died of illness in 1563 and was buried, only to be dug up by John Calvin's cronies and burnt, and then they scattered his ashes. This brings to my mind some Scriptures in Proverbs 10: 11;16-19:
11.The mouth of the righteous is a well of life, but violence covers ( is all over) the
mouth of the wicked.
16.The labor of the righteous leads to life, The wages of the wicked to sin.
17.He who keeps instruction is in the way of life, but he who refuses correction goes
astray.
18 Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.
19.In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise.
It is indeed true that if you compare his earlier publication of 'Institutes' with a later one, many things are missing, or have been altered in some way to justify the killing of heretics. He even manipulates Ezekiel 18 in an effort to illustrate that even though you are a murderer, you will still go to heaven. He even went so far to say that the murdering of heretics is laid out in the wheat and tares parable-amazing, but true. This same progression can be said of Mohammed, that is why the first part of the Koran is all love and peace, which is a testament to his early days of obscurity, but the later additions to the Koran are laced with venom and hatred, a testament to his later days of fame and wealth. Like I said earlier, Satan's agents when in a position of weakness act benevolent, until they are in a position of power, and then their real evil self comes out. Even on his death bed, John Calvin refused to ask forgiveness for his part in Micheal Servetus' murder, and even said that he never intended to be kind to heretics. That's not good folks. According to Scripture, this man is most likely in a place of darkness, where there is weeping, and gnashing of teeth, awaiting his final fate - the lake of fire, and in this I don't rejoice. Thanks to men like Sebastian Castillo, who stood up for what was right, and made many righteous pleas to those in error, some of the others who were involved in this crime did repent, thanks be unto God!
11.The mouth of the righteous is a well of life, but violence covers ( is all over) the
mouth of the wicked.
16.The labor of the righteous leads to life, The wages of the wicked to sin.
17.He who keeps instruction is in the way of life, but he who refuses correction goes
astray.
18 Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.
19.In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise.
It is indeed true that if you compare his earlier publication of 'Institutes' with a later one, many things are missing, or have been altered in some way to justify the killing of heretics. He even manipulates Ezekiel 18 in an effort to illustrate that even though you are a murderer, you will still go to heaven. He even went so far to say that the murdering of heretics is laid out in the wheat and tares parable-amazing, but true. This same progression can be said of Mohammed, that is why the first part of the Koran is all love and peace, which is a testament to his early days of obscurity, but the later additions to the Koran are laced with venom and hatred, a testament to his later days of fame and wealth. Like I said earlier, Satan's agents when in a position of weakness act benevolent, until they are in a position of power, and then their real evil self comes out. Even on his death bed, John Calvin refused to ask forgiveness for his part in Micheal Servetus' murder, and even said that he never intended to be kind to heretics. That's not good folks. According to Scripture, this man is most likely in a place of darkness, where there is weeping, and gnashing of teeth, awaiting his final fate - the lake of fire, and in this I don't rejoice. Thanks to men like Sebastian Castillo, who stood up for what was right, and made many righteous pleas to those in error, some of the others who were involved in this crime did repent, thanks be unto God!
Fallen From Grace, Hypocrite in Disguise, or Black Ops Agent?
There are those who take the position that John Calvin fell from grace, or that he fell victim to a kind of "legalistic" attitude that turned around and bit him. This would fit in nicely with Paul's expounding on the dangers of relying on the law to save you from sin, but is that really the case here? I don't think so. Thanks to the false teachings of Calvinism take on grace, his followers actually believe he is in heaven, because in their eyes, he was accused of, rather than a party to, the murder of Michael Servetus. But Has anyone even considered the possibility that John Calvin was at the very least a hypocrite, or at the most a Jesuit spy to begin with?
Let us consider the hypocrite senario. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing, but does the opposite, usually to gain something of value. The Pharisees were especially guilty of this crime, Jesus made that very clear. They taught the right way to live for the most part, that being according to the Law of Moses, but they themselves had no intention of obeying the law of Moses, but to only make it look like they did. An example is that of the law of Corban. They made it legal to cut your father and mother off from support, in order to give a gift from a vow, to the priest, or anyone else (the Pharisees), even to defraud on a debt that was owed to someone else. Corban was always to be given to God, not unto men, and was not acceptable if it violated any other law. For instance, you couldn't pledge your neighbor's ox in your vow, because you can't offer God stolen goods. Also it was implied that a curse would be put upon the person, or the promised item itself, if the vow was broken, or the gift not given as promised.
These Pharisees never intended to follow God's law, they hated it, so they added to it only to benefit themselves, all the while pretending to be holy men, which would give them both cash, prizes, and also the praises from the people too. This seems to fit John Calvin's motive for making up a false religion and murdering Micheal Servetis. Even though Calvin had his property seized practically the moment he was arrested in Geneva, I haven't found any indication that Servetus' property went to Calvin himself, and I don't think he was paid indulgences by the people, etc. Still, he does fit the hypocrite scenario, especially if he was really in league with Rome the whole time, a sort of controlled opposition agent.
Another option is that John Calvin was a black op Jesuit sent by the Catholic Church, which Jesuits are sworn to protect. They do this under the pretense of being a villain against it, but only at face value, in order to gain the trust of those they desire to destroy, namely the real Christians and their faith. Some will argue this point to explain the lengths he went to in order to commit and justify his crimes. For sure, this is black op conspiracy heaven folks! Please, consider again how Satan and his agents operate, especially when it comes to religious power. When in a position of weakness, they use flattery, and tell you what you want to hear, they slander your “common” enemy, etc. Then, when they are in power and their influence is achieved, that is when the real person (the murderous tyrant) comes out to play. But by then, most of the evil undercover agent's followers are under his power, and will do and say anything to keep from being killed by their leader. Worse yet, they might even succumb to pride and buckle under to do his bidding, rather than look like a fool for following him; so they will even defend him, that is to say, themselves really. I don't know if John Calvin was an actual Jesuit spy, because it seems to me, that order was set up after John Calvin began his career as a reformer of Catholicism, rather than a restorer of Christianity, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been a precursor to it, or he could have joined their ranks after it was set up.
Let us consider the hypocrite senario. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing, but does the opposite, usually to gain something of value. The Pharisees were especially guilty of this crime, Jesus made that very clear. They taught the right way to live for the most part, that being according to the Law of Moses, but they themselves had no intention of obeying the law of Moses, but to only make it look like they did. An example is that of the law of Corban. They made it legal to cut your father and mother off from support, in order to give a gift from a vow, to the priest, or anyone else (the Pharisees), even to defraud on a debt that was owed to someone else. Corban was always to be given to God, not unto men, and was not acceptable if it violated any other law. For instance, you couldn't pledge your neighbor's ox in your vow, because you can't offer God stolen goods. Also it was implied that a curse would be put upon the person, or the promised item itself, if the vow was broken, or the gift not given as promised.
These Pharisees never intended to follow God's law, they hated it, so they added to it only to benefit themselves, all the while pretending to be holy men, which would give them both cash, prizes, and also the praises from the people too. This seems to fit John Calvin's motive for making up a false religion and murdering Micheal Servetis. Even though Calvin had his property seized practically the moment he was arrested in Geneva, I haven't found any indication that Servetus' property went to Calvin himself, and I don't think he was paid indulgences by the people, etc. Still, he does fit the hypocrite scenario, especially if he was really in league with Rome the whole time, a sort of controlled opposition agent.
Another option is that John Calvin was a black op Jesuit sent by the Catholic Church, which Jesuits are sworn to protect. They do this under the pretense of being a villain against it, but only at face value, in order to gain the trust of those they desire to destroy, namely the real Christians and their faith. Some will argue this point to explain the lengths he went to in order to commit and justify his crimes. For sure, this is black op conspiracy heaven folks! Please, consider again how Satan and his agents operate, especially when it comes to religious power. When in a position of weakness, they use flattery, and tell you what you want to hear, they slander your “common” enemy, etc. Then, when they are in power and their influence is achieved, that is when the real person (the murderous tyrant) comes out to play. But by then, most of the evil undercover agent's followers are under his power, and will do and say anything to keep from being killed by their leader. Worse yet, they might even succumb to pride and buckle under to do his bidding, rather than look like a fool for following him; so they will even defend him, that is to say, themselves really. I don't know if John Calvin was an actual Jesuit spy, because it seems to me, that order was set up after John Calvin began his career as a reformer of Catholicism, rather than a restorer of Christianity, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have been a precursor to it, or he could have joined their ranks after it was set up.
Update!
Yeah, I'm pretty confident that John Calvin was not a party to the Jesuits, unless someone can produce any concrete proof, admittedly this is just conjecture on my part. But the Jesuits do operate as Satan's agents. So I no longer thing John Calvin was directly responsible for Michael Servetus' death. He was lawfully executed by the city of Geneva under their laws of heresy.
Yeah, I'm pretty confident that John Calvin was not a party to the Jesuits, unless someone can produce any concrete proof, admittedly this is just conjecture on my part. But the Jesuits do operate as Satan's agents. So I no longer thing John Calvin was directly responsible for Michael Servetus' death. He was lawfully executed by the city of Geneva under their laws of heresy.
Why The Need to Exonerate John Calvin of Murder Charges?
While researching for this article, I searched and hoped to find John Calvin's repentance and confession, but found only his repeated and incessant justifications of his crime – so sad. I also found many Calvinists who argue that John Calvin was not a murderer, simply because he didn't personally prosecute Michael Servetus' case, and he didn't directly pass sentence on Michael Servetus either. I'm sorry, but that is so lame on so many levels, it wreaks of what they love to call“ legalism,” or loophole law, or what the Bible rightly calls hypocrisy. Then they try to exonerate him by saying he petitioned for a lighter sentence, that of beheading instead of being burnt at the stake. Wow, what a relief, and here I thought a "Christian" like John Calvin would have petitioned for his total release, what was I thinking? So, why do Calvinists have this need to exonerate their esteemed leader of the crime of murder? Because they know, as anyone with a conscience knows, that if John Calvin was indeed a murderer, then his doctrine, Calvinism, which he claimed was God's doctrine, will crumble under their feet, like the dry rotted wood of an unstable foundation.
Update!
In light of historical evidence, this paragraph is no longer valid.
In light of historical evidence, this paragraph is no longer valid.
Ex-Murderer and Follower of Jesus Christ - The Apostle Paul
Don't all preachers and teachers aspire to be like the apostle Paul? He was blessed with a lot of revelations, and wrote most of the NT in the form of epistles to the churches in the ancient lands of Asia Minor and Europe. However, they all seem to forget that he was a murderous wretch that hunted down Christians, thinking he was doing God a favor. They also forget that once he was converted from Judasim, how much he physically, and emotionally suffered for the gospel of Jesus Christ at the hands of powerful evil men. Men who hated the truth of the Gospel, and ruthlessly persecuted him even unto death, as an enemy of the pagan Roman State, and Judaism, just as he once had done to others. The Apostle Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin (a Hebrew), circumcised and raised in the law as a Pharisee, in fact a Pharisee of Pharisees according to Paul. That is a significant statement, and I encourage you dear reader, to research what it takes to be a Pharisee in the law.
When Paul was converted to the Gospel of Jesus, as a result of his Damascus Road experience, he learned the Gospel from Jesus Himself. Paul then counted all the other things he had learned and stood to gain as a Pharisee, as garbage, or dung- -as in poo poo. Did Paul then want to reform Judaism, or incorporate all the Pharisaical teachings and philosophies he had learned as a young man into the Gospel of Jesus Christ? No! He was always fighting against the men who insisted that Gentiles had to be converted to (and learn) Judaism before they could be truly saved.
When you research the Pharisees, you will see that they still exist in our day, and are the sect known as "Orthodox Jews", and their text book, the Talmud, is indeed what Paul described as “dung,” compared to the gospel of Jesus. Paul taught something opposed to and foreign to his Pharisee background, grace through faith in Jesus Christ, as the means of salvation, instead of strict adherence to the law and the traditions of the men – i.e., the Scribes and Pharisees. He was sorely persecuted for it too, by them, and the Gentiles, who considered the Gospel of Jesus foolishness compared to their learned philosophers. Was his time spent in that system of error a waste? Not entirely. It made him an effective witness to his former Pharisaical brethren and even allowed him to shrewdly use their weaknesses against them when necessary, like he did when he divided the Pharisees against he Sadducees via the subject of the resurrection to distract them from trying to have him killed through a court of law! His Roman citizenship also played a key role in aiding his ministry.
Did Paul ever advocate the murder of heretics in the Church? No, but Saul did. That was before he was saved and became Paul that is. So does Scripture record when God gave him the Holy Spirit before Paul accepted Jesus as his Savior? No, but Jesus rebuked Saul by saying: “Saul, Saul, it is hard for you to kick against the goads.” This "goads" term is a reference to “yada” which is defined as "teachings" in Hebrew [Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew] - and yada is equated with a shepherd's crook, or a goad used for prodding sheep. Jesus was in essence telling Saul (a learned Pharisee) that he was fighting against shepherd Jesus' teachings. I think it is significant to note that Paul says of the encounter that God had mercy on him, because what he did, he did in ignorance, and then God gave him His grace to preach the gospel. Mercy before grace, and God knew Paul was in need of some re-education too.
Paul was only saved after Ananias came to him and prayed for him to receive his sight. It took losing his natural sight to get his attention, and to get him to seek God with spiritual fervor and prayer, but God didn't force His grace upon Paul. God's wrath and godly sorrow brought on by proper chastisement, produces good fruit, namely the riddance of evil and sincere repentance, but it is the wrath of men that brings destruction. This applies to most of the Reformers who resorted to murdering their dissenters. In turn, Paul's instructions to the church, on how to handle offenders, was to first privately, and then publicly confront, rebuke and reprove them with Scripture, and to shun obstinate offenders as an erring brother, not as an enemy, until they repented. But if they didn't repent, then they were to be avoided, not killed. Paul explains in Galatians 4, that it is always the bond servant, or slave to sin, that persecutes the free person. We read in verses 28-31: Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.” So then brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. " Was Hagar and Ishmael killed by Abraham, Sarah, or Isaac? No, they were thrown out, and were not even persecuted by them.
When Paul was converted to the Gospel of Jesus, as a result of his Damascus Road experience, he learned the Gospel from Jesus Himself. Paul then counted all the other things he had learned and stood to gain as a Pharisee, as garbage, or dung- -as in poo poo. Did Paul then want to reform Judaism, or incorporate all the Pharisaical teachings and philosophies he had learned as a young man into the Gospel of Jesus Christ? No! He was always fighting against the men who insisted that Gentiles had to be converted to (and learn) Judaism before they could be truly saved.
When you research the Pharisees, you will see that they still exist in our day, and are the sect known as "Orthodox Jews", and their text book, the Talmud, is indeed what Paul described as “dung,” compared to the gospel of Jesus. Paul taught something opposed to and foreign to his Pharisee background, grace through faith in Jesus Christ, as the means of salvation, instead of strict adherence to the law and the traditions of the men – i.e., the Scribes and Pharisees. He was sorely persecuted for it too, by them, and the Gentiles, who considered the Gospel of Jesus foolishness compared to their learned philosophers. Was his time spent in that system of error a waste? Not entirely. It made him an effective witness to his former Pharisaical brethren and even allowed him to shrewdly use their weaknesses against them when necessary, like he did when he divided the Pharisees against he Sadducees via the subject of the resurrection to distract them from trying to have him killed through a court of law! His Roman citizenship also played a key role in aiding his ministry.
Did Paul ever advocate the murder of heretics in the Church? No, but Saul did. That was before he was saved and became Paul that is. So does Scripture record when God gave him the Holy Spirit before Paul accepted Jesus as his Savior? No, but Jesus rebuked Saul by saying: “Saul, Saul, it is hard for you to kick against the goads.” This "goads" term is a reference to “yada” which is defined as "teachings" in Hebrew [Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew] - and yada is equated with a shepherd's crook, or a goad used for prodding sheep. Jesus was in essence telling Saul (a learned Pharisee) that he was fighting against shepherd Jesus' teachings. I think it is significant to note that Paul says of the encounter that God had mercy on him, because what he did, he did in ignorance, and then God gave him His grace to preach the gospel. Mercy before grace, and God knew Paul was in need of some re-education too.
Paul was only saved after Ananias came to him and prayed for him to receive his sight. It took losing his natural sight to get his attention, and to get him to seek God with spiritual fervor and prayer, but God didn't force His grace upon Paul. God's wrath and godly sorrow brought on by proper chastisement, produces good fruit, namely the riddance of evil and sincere repentance, but it is the wrath of men that brings destruction. This applies to most of the Reformers who resorted to murdering their dissenters. In turn, Paul's instructions to the church, on how to handle offenders, was to first privately, and then publicly confront, rebuke and reprove them with Scripture, and to shun obstinate offenders as an erring brother, not as an enemy, until they repented. But if they didn't repent, then they were to be avoided, not killed. Paul explains in Galatians 4, that it is always the bond servant, or slave to sin, that persecutes the free person. We read in verses 28-31: Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.” So then brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. " Was Hagar and Ishmael killed by Abraham, Sarah, or Isaac? No, they were thrown out, and were not even persecuted by them.
Update!
The only valid point I make here is that the New Testament doesn't advocate the killing of heretics.
The only valid point I make here is that the New Testament doesn't advocate the killing of heretics.
The Persecuted
Who persecuted whom in the case of John Calvin vs. Michael Servetus and Sebastian Castillo? John Calvin persecuted both men until they were martyred or died from illness due to the incessant persecution. Is it possible that John Calvin feigned to be a Reformer against the Catholic Church, yet was an effective agent for it? I now consider this to be a great possibility, because the fruit bears witness to the tree it came from - the Reformation was really all about giving a 'house of whores' a coat of whitewash. It was not about taking a house back from a thief, and restoring it back to its rightful owner. John Calvin's legacy, still bears much bad fruit such as : lawlessness, sin, shelter for false theology, and hinders the spread of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. It also fosters haughtiness, hatred and murder - none of which are Christian in nature. Forgive me for my complete lack of objectivity at this point, because I lost it while researching both camps for and against John Calvin, who is in my estimation, after finding overwhelming evidence, is a man most pitiable. As important as sound doctrine is (and it is very important), at the end of time, it will be the deeds of men that Jesus judges. Why? Because your deeds prove your words, they either show you to be a true believer, or a hypocrite.
So it comes to this dear reader, I beg you, if you are a Calvinist, then in truth you are not a true Christian. As you feel your heart race and your cheeks flush, please don't take murderous offense to what you have just read, that is if you have even gotten this far. I beg you with tears, don't follow this man, or any of his half-truth and completely false teachings anymore. I beg you with all sincerity - humbly repent. It is okay to admit you were duped, after all, no one is completely immune to falsehood, and Jesus still loves you, and He wants to save you. He wants to shed the light of His truth upon the darkness of the false light of Calvinism, and put you on His true path of righteousness. At the very least I beg you to do your own honest research, and ask Jesus to help you see the truth from the lies. That's what I did when I was searching for the truth after losing my mom to breast cancer, and Jesus was so gracious to me. He showed me the truth, that the Word of Faith teaching (that I was so fanatical about) are heretical and designed for pastors to obtain a following and a safe harbor for greedy people to fleece the Lord's sheep, who in turn share in their sin of greed and covetousness. The process was excruciatingly painful, and even humiliating, but I lived through it, and as a result of His gentle instruction and discipline, I was set free, and whom the Son sets free, is free indeed! Amen!
So it comes to this dear reader, I beg you, if you are a Calvinist, then in truth you are not a true Christian. As you feel your heart race and your cheeks flush, please don't take murderous offense to what you have just read, that is if you have even gotten this far. I beg you with tears, don't follow this man, or any of his half-truth and completely false teachings anymore. I beg you with all sincerity - humbly repent. It is okay to admit you were duped, after all, no one is completely immune to falsehood, and Jesus still loves you, and He wants to save you. He wants to shed the light of His truth upon the darkness of the false light of Calvinism, and put you on His true path of righteousness. At the very least I beg you to do your own honest research, and ask Jesus to help you see the truth from the lies. That's what I did when I was searching for the truth after losing my mom to breast cancer, and Jesus was so gracious to me. He showed me the truth, that the Word of Faith teaching (that I was so fanatical about) are heretical and designed for pastors to obtain a following and a safe harbor for greedy people to fleece the Lord's sheep, who in turn share in their sin of greed and covetousness. The process was excruciatingly painful, and even humiliating, but I lived through it, and as a result of His gentle instruction and discipline, I was set free, and whom the Son sets free, is free indeed! Amen!
Update!
I'm humbled by gaining a better understanding of John Calvin, and I even admire him for his abilities as a scholar and administrator; it still saddens me that his theological teachings are used for the mishandling of grace, and that he believed in the Trinity, which are not taught in Scripture. I blame his love of classical philosophers, and Augustine's influence for that. Even though he was sincere in his faith, it is amazing to me how easily we, the sincere, can miss the mark of orthodoxy. Well, as for now, that is what I've learned, things can change if I run across any new information. I shall strive to be more thorough, and unbiased in my research, and consider the source of the information I gather.
I'm humbled by gaining a better understanding of John Calvin, and I even admire him for his abilities as a scholar and administrator; it still saddens me that his theological teachings are used for the mishandling of grace, and that he believed in the Trinity, which are not taught in Scripture. I blame his love of classical philosophers, and Augustine's influence for that. Even though he was sincere in his faith, it is amazing to me how easily we, the sincere, can miss the mark of orthodoxy. Well, as for now, that is what I've learned, things can change if I run across any new information. I shall strive to be more thorough, and unbiased in my research, and consider the source of the information I gather.
Comments? Click the button below and leave your comment on my guest book page, but don't forget to mention the article you are commenting on. Thanks!