The South Carolina Flag: IT IS NOT A HALF MOON!!!!!

I could not help but post this as I have recently heard so many people call the crescent emblem a half moon.

The crescent is actually a “gorget” an old historic piece of ceremonial armor worn below the neck to protect the throat. It is an ancient symbol of honor.

Asked by the Revolutionary Council of Safety in the fall of 1775 to design a flag for the use of South Carolina troops, Col. William Moultrie chose a blue which matched the color of their uniforms and a crescent which reproduced the silver emblem worn on the front of their caps. The palmetto tree was added later to represent Moultrie’s heroic defense of the palmetto-log fort on Sullivan’s Island against the attack of the British fleet on June 28, 1776.

Interestingly, the flag above is a period SC flag. Unfortunately, many modern reproductions are not historical SC flags but graphic designer attempts to create more definition in the palmetto leaves on the tree. Note the poor definition in this flag. It is the historical flag.

Also, for the Civil War buffs out there, this our current SC flag is a 100% Confederate flag. After the war, many states had to modify or alter their flags per order of the Federal government. Because of the Red Shirt Rebellion led by Wade Hampton, the Federal government left South Carolina alone and she kept her Confederate flag.

Though I am incredibly biased, I believe she is the most gorgeous state flag to date.

What is the SCV?

The “SCV” stands for “The Sons of Confederate Veterans.” It is a non-secret organization open to descendants of Confederate soldiers who served honorably until captured, killed or paroled. Our message is not one of racism, hate or violence, but of honoring our  noble ancestors and preserving the true history of the South for future generations.

I know many of those reading this are already against it, due to their upbringing or the overwhelming campaign of propaganda they have heard–saying that the Confederate cause was fought over slavery and the battle flag is a racist symbol. I understand why many might be against the South and its cause. The propaganda has been very effective–especially against African Americans, many of whose ancestors were brave Confederate soldiers fighting alongside white Confederates.

Both black and white Confederates fought for:

1. Their constitutional rights and those of their states.

2. Freedom from oppressive and crippling Northern tariffs. (The South bore 80% of the tax burden.)

3. The purity of their Christian values under attack by a Unitarian North.

SLAVERY WAS NOT THE ISSUE

Please know that I and those in the SCV are not “Yankee haters.” I myself hold no anger against anyone for simply being Northern. There were many brave and noble soldiers wearing blue.

One must also keep in mind that the South was invaded by an overwhelming army sent by the Federal government to impose its will on the Southern states. It is only natural for Southerners–especially Southern historians–to become angered over the numerous war crimes committed against Southern civilians. Many Southerners hated the fighting and never liked the idea of firing at other Americans, but did their duty of defending their homes, native states and their constitutional rights. One example is that of a robber who  breaks in, or invades your home. Regardless of your hesitance towards deadly force, any true man will defend his family and his home. There is no shame; there is noble honor in it.

Our relatives did not attack the North, They tried multiple measures of peace, but were ignored by the Lincoln administration. Fort Sumter was defensive action and Lincoln knew it was. Our Southern ancestors were thrust into a defensive war. They did what they had to and are noble for it.

We are in considerable disagreement and contention with those who would deliberately twist the truth of history and slander the Confederate soldier’s good name. The liberal media, groups such as the NAACP and sadly, many historians paint a picture of the South as a racist, white-supremacy fighting to keep blacks in bondage. They portray the Confederate battle flag as a racist symbol of slavery. (Although not one slave was ever brought into the country under Southern governments. All slaves since the nation’s founding were brought in under the Stars and Stripes–the American flag.) How can people call the Confederate battle flag racist? If any flag could be blamed, it is the American flag! But no one would make such an absurd charge against “Old Glory.”

I conclude this “plea for sensibility” with the following statement: The War Between the States is not over. Though the days of muskets and cannon are over, the battles are raging. They are different kinds of battles; battles for truth, history and the preservation of the noble men and women who gave everything that we might be free from tyrannic oppression.

If you come away with anything after reading this article, please remember the previous statement.

If you are interested in joining the SCV, please check out the following links.

http://scv.org/

http://www.scscv.com/

http://www.confederatemuseum.org/

http://www.scscv.com/publications/June%202011.pdf

http://scv.we-care.com/

The Importance of Studying History

This is an article I have wanted to write for some time now; it is something I strongly believe in, so I must ask you to pardon my passion.

For the many of my readers who do not know, I  was not always a History major at BJU. I started out in Bible and then Pastoral Studies for two and a half years. I had classes in the Old Testament, New Testament, evangelism, Bible Prophecy, Theology, Doctrines, preaching and various other Bible-related facets. I had always believed since early high school that God had called me to be a preacher or pastor of some kind and I therefore needed my undergraduate degree in Bible.

I know now that perhaps what a Christian student needs much more than additional Bible classes is a serious education in History. Now I am not at all seeking to undermine the Bible program, I do however feel that a young man having already received a Christian upbringing for 18 years will not benefit from the Bible program as much as would a new convert or someone from a difficult home situation.

Here is my reasoning for why History is so vital to a Christian student. I will state it in the form of a question. “How can a Christian student form his or her ideas and beliefs and convictions without knowing the history behind such doctrinal positions and ideas?” For example, how can a Christian college student decide if they are going to view certain men as heroes of the faith or check whether or not those men were even converts at all?

History is essential to one’s understanding of theology, especially Church History. Have you ever wondered why there are so many denominations and yet they all claim to be right and the divisions between still smolder today? I’m not even referring to the Mormons or the Roman Catholics, I mean denominations like the Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, the Presbyterians and the Lutherans. Where did they come from? Which is right? Which will you choose? If you have no education in History, then you are at the mercy of others and will be blindly making serious decisions as an uninformed person.

History is not always the same as truth. There are often great and sinister lies that are made to appear as History. For example. Most Christian children learn early on of “great reformers and champions of the faith” such as Martin Luther.” But did you know that Martin Luther may have never even been truly converted and probably misunderstood the concept of Justification according to the Bible. And it was Luther’s hatred of the Jews that led him to write his “Table Talk” essays venting out ideas how to hinder and persecute the Jews that Adolf Hitler used to implement the Nazi Holocaust. This is just an example of how crucial History can be to our understanding of who our heroes ought to or ought not to be.

It gets scarier. Would you be concerned if you knew an entire theological system that has permeated Fundamental churches was based on the mystical, neo-platonic views of a Roman Catholic who never truly converted and went to his grave believing his salvation was secured in his infant baptism? These things horrify me! And yet, without spending months in historical study, I would have been a part of that very system.

It is through History that I re-became a Baptist. Now I know why I am a Baptist and why I am not anything else. Oh yes, we can play word games and call ourselves “Christians” and refuse denominational  labels, but even the word “Christian” is not Historically a good term. There are those–learned and respected men–I have heard mock the concept of the Baptists originating at the Church in Antioch–but if they knew their History, they would not mock so quickly.

Oh, History is not only relevant for the spiritual, but for the political and morality in general. It is through History–real History, the politically incorrect History–that we learn of the true origins of freedom, democracy and the corruption of governments and the worldwide struggle to rebuild the fallen empire of Rome and engage in a one-world government once again.

We also see the abominable marring of true heroes and the praise of wicked men. We find that History is written by the powerful and the winners of battles–which means it is not always accurate or even  true. American “History” would have you believe that the South rebelled against the North and that the “traitor” Jefferson Davis led an evil rebellion against the Union, commanded by “Honest Abe.” But real History reveals that Lee was the greatest American patriot since George Washington; that Davis loved the Constitution more than Lincoln would–for Lincoln had no regard whatsoever for it, much like our current leader; and that the heart and soul of American freedom–as understood by our nation’s founders–was almost annihilated with Lincoln’s rape of the South; that the Civil War was actually the third war for American Independence and that the issue of significance was NOT slavery, and the Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of hate or racism–as many Northern historians and the NAACP would love us to believe.

These are just more prime examples of why an educated person and especially a Christian should know some History. If preachers were made to take more History classes, maybe, just maybe we would have to spend less time debating theological issues and have more informed congregations who knew what they believed and why and could spot error more easily therefore saving themselves and their pastor much grief.

I leave you with a great quote on the consequences of neglecting History:

“To be ignorant of the past is to know nothing of the future and to understand little of the present.”

Destined to Conflict

The following essay was my first test in “History of the South” this year. The question was to examine and explain the heritage and mindset of the South, contrast it with the North and explain why the two regions were destined to conflict.

Introduction

Even previous to the American Revolution, there has always been two very different heritages and mindsets of the North and the South. Let’s observe the heritage of each region and then move onto each region’s mindset. It is the thesis of this essay that these two region’s differences made future conflict, whether political or militarily inevitable.

The Northern Heritage

The North was essentially founded by Protestants (Puritans) who sought religious freedom and an opportunity to reform society with implementing laws, morals and priorities that focussed on godly living and a heavily Reformed religious backdrop. These Protestants made their priorities church, family and eventually education.

Before the first Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth, the establishment of a formal government was already heavily on their minds. The North has always seen itself as the political leader/region of the North American continent. Northerners have generally always held to Federalist political view–meaning they believed in compromise among colonies or states for the larger benefit of the nation . Often, the North has never made huge distinction between their region and the nation . Their leaders have always considered the North as the nation and not so much as a region of that nation.

Also important to note is that the North has always dominated in industry and mass production where the South has come nowhere near such large scale industry or production. This remains so in many senses even into the present day United States.

The Southern Heritage

The South, while now regarded as vastly more religiously influenced and receptive than the North, was not originally so. Jamestown, Virginia was not loaded with devout Christians seeking religious sanctuary; if one came to Jamestown, he was most likely interested in financial profit. The priorities of the South have historically been agriculture, local government and self interests. While Southerners have never lacked national patriotism–for the nation’s greatest patriots have been from the South–they felt an even stronger tie and dominating obligation to their local area or state.

The family and religion were not originally priorities. Family and church would not become key until after the Great Awakening. The first Southerners were mostly business-minded people and indentured servants. Slavery did not begin to take hold until the early days surrounding the Revolution. Slavery would evolve primarily by how economic it would prove to be for Southerners. Though many Northerners agreed with and participated in the slave trade, the South made slavery far more rewarding and institutionalized.

Note:  The vast differences, and I would feel comfortable calling them “polar opposites,” of the North and South almost guaranteed from the beginning an unavoidable conflict between Northern and Southern interests. While the North argued from strong, central government, the South cried “small government with severely limited power.  While the South argued for strict interpretation of the Constitution, the North was inclined to favor a more liberal and relative interpretation. Quite frankly, I am confounded about how the Civil War did not occur earlier than it did. It almost did occur between the Tariff dispute between president Andrew Jackson and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun. (Great for further reading on the South / North conflict.)

Contrasting Mindsets of the North and South

The precursory events leading up the Civil War are often blamed solely on slavery. While slavery cannot be ignored or minimized, there were much larger issues under the “iceberg tip” of slavery. While slavery is the thing most easily recognizable to the casual reader and student of American History, a deeper study will show the true battle to be the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution. The South believed that if the Federal government got rid of slavery–which the Constitution gave no power to do–they could then usurp any power they fancied. Also worth noting is that had slavery been abolished instantly, the Southern economy would have been completely devastated–almost without Northern sympathy. Southern livelihood depended on agriculture, which meant labor, which in turn meant slaves; remove the slaves, remove the labor and derail the economy. Even though many Southerners saw the evil of slavery and truly felt guilt over it, they could not find a solution to instantly abolish it without self-destructing the economy. The North was viewed much like another Great Britain and King George III, for the North repeatedly ignored Southern concerns and interests and passed legislation that continued to hurt the South while helping the North or “benefiting the nation.” The South never saw national compromise as part of their constitutional obligation and rightly so. Northern attempts to ban slavery in the South were seen as direct attacks on Southern economy and livelihood. Despite the moral dilemma of slavery, the South was completely right in perceiving the North as a threat to their livelihood and economy. The Civil war was simply the culmination of two conflicting mindsets. After many attempts by Southern politicians to appeal their case and beg the North to stop infringing on their rights and interests, the North only ignored them and tightened its grasp on the South. If the South did not take drastic action, her constitutionally guaranteed rights would only continue to slip away and the Constitution would be trampled over more and more. War was the last resort of the crisis; a crisis already fought with compromises, fiery speeches, literature and a growing Southern distrust of the North.

Conclusion

These polar opposites seemed destined for a great conflict in ideals–ultimately turning into a bloody Civil War; a war of ideals; a war of state’s rights; a war of Constitutional interpretation.

My Additional Remarks

From my study on this subject, I make the case that the central issue of American History has and always will be the interpretation of the United States Constitution. It was written by men who had fought against Great Britain for the right to have their own freedoms and liberties. No other document save the Holy Scriptures has been under more constant attack from within the United States. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, liberal politicians and presidents have tried to interpret it loosely or disregard it altogether. Though the president swears an oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution, that oath is nothing more than a formality today. Even the current leader of out nation has violated this document tremendously, for by it, he should not even be allowed to become our leader or remain it. Even now with the immigration controversy between Arizona and the Federal government, the theme of state’s rights and Constitutional interpretation rings loud and clear. The Civil War did not end the state’s rights issue, it only intensified it and demonstrated the necessity of free Americans to stand, unto death, against those who would trample, ignore or even attempt to dissolve the United States Constitution.

I leave you with a quote:

“I love the Union, but I would rather leave the Union with my Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

~Jefferson Davis.

My Experience With Calvinism

I would like to preface this article with two main statements: First, I desire to speak humbly and as a young man who is seeking the truth; secondly, I would like to say that I am in no way attempting to cause unnecessary strife or attack people who hold to Reformed theology, I am simply stating historical facts and my own personal experience.

John Calvin

My Initial Discontentment

I have wrote many times on this subject, over the last year or two; I truly was seriously distressed as a young college freshman. I saw a Fundamentalist church–in the broad sense–that was often shallow in the pulpit and in practical living. Discouraged by the lack of depth, I began to wonder if there was something deeper. It was during the climax of my discontentment with shallow doctrine and preaching that I found the Free Presbyterian Church. I had never had any experience with or true knowledge of the Presbyterian denomination, but was overwhelmingly taken by the Free Church’s deep preaching, deep doctrine and reverent worship. I began attending a local Free Presbyterian Church and fell in love with everything about it. Soon after beginning to attend there, I was introduced and immersed in the system of theology known as Calvinism.

The Appeal Of Reformed Theology

Even after coming out of Calvinism, I still vividly remember the intellectual and irresistible appeal of Calvinism. After all, Calvinism clearly and logically could explain the often ignored issues of election, and absolute sovereignty of God. I had not heard these things preached or discussed in such clarity and detail; I felt as if I had truly come to understand many hard things of Scripture I had never understood before.

On top of the intellectual appeal, I am also a great fan of history; it is only natural that I would love the association of Reformed theology with the Protestant Reformation. I became infatuated with Luther, Calvin, Geneva, Worms, reformation! I began to idolize these historic reformers.

Calvinism’s Effect On My Life

After genuinely believing I had been divinely introduced to a higher level of Biblical understanding, I began to struggle with feeling spiritually and intellectually superior to those who did not hold to Reformed theology. I began to interpret all of Scripture and life in general through the grid defined by the TULIP–the acronym for the five key points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

I found extreme difficulty in witnessing to the lost, primarily because I was taught that man’s salvation is predetermined before he is even born, and if someone is reprobated by God, there is no hope for salvation even amid the most fervent prayer and witness. On the other hand, if a man has been chosen as one of the elect, my failure to witness will not keep him from being called unto repentance. While Calvinists will argue that their system does not promote a lax  in their witness and prayer lives, the inevitable result is a failure to witness and pray to and for the lost. I remember going on a tract distribution in downtown Greenville; the people just stood around and waited for “one of the elect” to simply walk up and take a tract–which was one that simply presented the Gospel with the hope that an “elect” reader would be drawn by God’s irresistible Grace unto salvation. What’s my point? It is my firm opinion that the Calvinist system discourages one from witnessing with the same fervor one might if they believe that people are not eternally damned to Hell before birth. This entire concept of predestination has been proven to be heretical–both by Scripture and by close examination of Church History. (More on this later.)

Doubts and Struggles

Even while embracing Calvinism, promoting it and preaching it, there were many things that truly bothered  and vexed me on the deepest levels. Mainly, the issue of irreconcilable words of Scripture that conflicted with the doctrines of Calvinism. While Calvinism told me to believe that men are predestined to Heaven or Hell in eternity past and that Christ’s death was only for the elect, and not the whole world–verses kept coming up that bothered me. For example, I would read things in Scripture like “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Or ones like “Who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” How could God desire to save all but not send Christ to die for all?

I continued to doubt and struggle within my soul…until I turned to History.

Turning To History

I had taken a class on John Calvin at a Reformed Seminary here in town about one year ago; it was there that I had my first in depth education on John Calvin and his theology and life. I mention this fact because while in that class, the issue was addressed that some had accused John Calvin of brutality and murder of many people in Geneva, Switzerland. The professor brushed off those accusations and even said that Calvin had tried to save those lives and was simply unable to keep the mobs from killing those people.

When I read the history of Calvin and those killed in Geneva, I found that the truth was a far cry from what I had heard in that seminary classroom. It is documented (as I have shown in previous posts) that Calvin made sure that those who opposed him were either abused, exiled or killed. He burned people, beheaded children and had many people killed by encouraging the populace to do so. The seminary lecture had been a failed attempt to cover up for the murder of many at the hands of one whom historians call the “Pope of Geneva.”

I read more and more and became increasingly disturbed and mortified to know that I had  promoted the writings of one who was a fatalistic murder of those who disagreed with him.

What truly disturbed me was the fact that John Calvin’s hero was Augustine–the founding father of the Roman Catholic Church; Augustine believed one’s salvation lied not in Christ, but in his or her infant baptism. Augustine held on dearly to his infant baptism–as would John Calvin–and Augustine also made sure he received the “Last Rights” at his death. Augustine was clearly not a saved man; he was Calvin’s hero and model–and Calvin followed in Augustine’s footprints with great mimicry. Like Calvin, Augustine believed in using force to deal with those who disagreed with his teachings.

Even more disturbing was that I discovered that neither Augustine or Calvin ever truly converted from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine. While Calvin may have desired to purify the RCC, he formed his theology out of the cardinal doctrines he learned while in the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrines of predestination, infant baptism and allegorical interpretation of Scripture are neither protestant nor Biblical; they are doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church which Augustine taught and Calvin elaborated upon. Calvinists use the verse that speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau while they were still in the womb as evidence for divine election and reprobation. However, Genesis 25:23 says

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

We see from this verse that such a reference speaks not of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, but of two nations and the dominance of Israel over the other–because of God’s covenant with Abraham.

I am humbly telling what history records and Scripture confirms.

Determined to Preach Truth

Based upon the truth of Scripture and the record of history–religious and secular–Calvinism is not the gospel; it never was and never will be. It is a perversion of the gospel and according to Jude, should be opposed and exposed as such.

I regret with all my heart that I was so ignorant of the truth about this blasphemous, bloody cult.

I am sorry  if I have offended you, but Scripture and History hold Calvinism as such as I have described it; to excuse Calvinism or to embrace it is to go against Scripture and the record of History–both things I am not prepared to do.

It is my desperate hope and plea that people would go search the Scriptures and even history and see the truth about this horrible misrepresentation of Almighty God.

I am not interested in causing division or strife, but I cannot in good conscience, remain silent to proclaim what I have been most solemnly convinced of by God’s Word and history.

Why I Have Renounced Calvinism: Documents that Prove Calvin’s Error

This document is the cream of the crop–as far as my research goes–in proving through history and the Scriptures that Calvin was not the great Reformer I once believed he was; he was “The Pope of Geneva.”

I realize the potential uproar this post will cause amongst my dearest friends, yet I am broken that I ever claimed this man’s teachings or stigma. I am profoundly sorry and have confessed my sin to God and have literally burned all books I have that contain his heresies. I believe God allowed me to experience this first hand to be better equipped to warn God’s people about it and fight against it.

May God allow you to see the real truth as have I today. Amen.

False Doctrines of the “Pope” of Geneva
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance

One must first study the man, John Calvin, in order to understand the theology that has come to be called Calvinism. Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Picardy at Noyon, France, to devout Roman Catholic parents as Jean Chauvin and died at Geneva, May 27, 1564, at age 54. The family name, spelled in many ways, was Cauvin, latinized according to the custom of the age as Calvinus. For some unknown reason John is commonly called Maître Jean C. His mother, Jeanne Le Franc, born in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cambrai, is mentioned as “beautiful and devout.” She took her little son to various shrines and brought him up a good Catholic. John was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. On the father’s side, his ancestors were seafaring men. His grandfather settled at Pont l’Evêque near Paris and had two sons who became locksmiths. The third, Gerard, became procurator at Noyon and had four sons and two daughters. John Calvin’s father, Gerard, an attorney, had purchased the freedom of the City of Noyon where he practiced civil and canon law. Gerard’s four sons were made clerics and held benefices at a tender age. John was given one when a boy of twelve. He became Curé of Saint-Martin de Marteville in the Vermandois in 1527 and of Pont l’Eveque in 1529. Three of the boys attended the local Collège des Capettes, and there John proved himself an apt scholar.

Calvin’s formal education was complete in 1527 when he was eighteen. According to the Catholics, he drifted from his Roman Catholic faith to become a humanist and a reformer. The “sudden conversion” to a spiritual life in 1529 could possibly be interpreted as his becoming saved, but throughout his life he counted on his Roman Catholic infant baptism as the basis of his regeneration.

John Calvin studied the voluminous writings of Saint Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo (354-430 AD), much more so than those of Martin Luther, his contemporary. Calvin is continually praising Augustine’s work with numerous references and quotations. Augustine was greatly influenced by the Gnostics, an early Christian sect, whose doctrine was heretical. Gnostics believed that mankind was wholly evil, and some sects even renounced marriage and procreation. They also believed in two gods, one evil and one good. Their teachings are believed to have influenced Saint Augustine in the development of his theology of the “total depravity” of mankind and his concept of God. For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of “total depravity” and the claim that they were the “elect.” Augustine could not advance in his Manichaeism religion because of his sinful lifestyle. He had a reputation as a “womanizer” and a fornicator.

Manichaeism – Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Manichaeism – Catholic Encyclopedia

Manichaeism – MSN Encarta Encyclopedia

Augustine then turned to skepticism and was attracted to the philosophy of Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic and Christian teachings. Augustine’s prolific writings were more strongly biased by his previously-obtained theology than on his detailed study of the Christian Scriptures. He used Christian Scripture out of context when words or phrases could be adapted to match his theology. Augustine’s teachings were in turn passed on to John Calvin through his extensive study of Augustine’s writings, the most popular being his book, Confessions. It is very easy to follow the trail of John Calvin’s theology from the pagan religion of Mani in Babylonia to Saint Augustine and into his own writings in France and Geneva that distort the Word of God. Calvin’s false doctrine came directly from Augustine.

Calvin’s Book Supercedes the Bible

Calvin’s famous letter to King Francis I was dated August 23, 1535. It served as a prologue to his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which was written in March 1536, not in French but in Latin. Calvin’s apology for lecturing the king was displayed as placards posted all over the realm denouncing the Protestants as rebels. King Francis I did not read these pages, but if he had done so he would have discovered in them a plea not for toleration, which Calvin utterly scorned, but for doing away with Catholicism in favor of the new gospel. “There could be only one true Church; therefore, kings ought to make an utter end of popery,” said the young theologian. The second edition of Calvin’s Institutes was written in 1539; the first French translation in 1541; the final in Latin, as revised by its author, in 1559; but that in common use, dated 1560, has additions by his disciples.

We know little of Calvin’s previous activities, but because of a war between King Charles V and King Francis I, he settled his family affairs and reached Bale by way of Geneva in July, 1536. He persuaded two of his brothers and two sisters to accept the Reformed views he had adopted and took them with him. At Geneva the Swiss preacher, Fare, then looking for help with his propaganda, besought Calvin with such vehemence to stay and teach his theologies that, as Calvin himself relates, he was terrified into submission. As a student, reclusive and new to public responsibilities, he may well have hesitated before plunging into the troubled waters of Geneva, then at their stormiest period.

Calvin had not introduced the legislative articles of Geneva; however, it was mainly by his influence that in January, 1537, the articles were approved which insisted on communion four times a year, set spies on delinquents, established a moral censorship, and punished the unruly with excommunication. There was to be a children’s catechism, which he drew up. The articles caused a dispute, and the city became divided into “jurants” who swore an oath to the articles and “nonjurors” who would not accept them. Questions had arisen with Berne concerning the points of major dispute, but Calvin made the claim in Lausanne for the freedom of Geneva. Discourse ensued in Geneva, where the opposition became more obstinate. In 1538 the council exiled Farel, Calvin, and the blind evangelist, Couraud from Geneva.

Calvin complained of his poverty and ill health, but these did not prevent him from marrying Idelette de Bure, the widow of an Anabaptist whom he had converted. Nothing more is known of this lady except that she bore him a son who died almost at birth in 1542, and that her own death took place in 1549.

Calvin’s Reign of Terror

After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized “pastors, doctors, elders and deacons,” but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a “holy doctrine which no man might speak against.” Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet’s book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet’s death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec — moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin’s theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.

John Calvin – Wikipedia Encyclopedia

John Calvin – Catholic Encyclopedia

John Calvin – MSN Encarta Encyclopedia

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva, because that is what his theology teaches.

Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, was born in Villanova in 1511. He was credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood from the right chamber of the heart through the lungs and back to the left chamber of the heart. He was Calvin’s longtime friend in their earlier resistance against the Roman Catholic Church. Servetus, while living in Vienne (historic city in southeastern France), angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin’s writings, Institutes, with critical comments in the margins. Servetus was arrested by the Roman Catholic Authorities on April 4 but escaped on April 7, 1553. He traveled to Geneva where he attended Calvin’s Sunday preaching service on August 13. Calvin promptly had Servetus arrested and charged with heresy for his disagreement with Calvin’s theology. The thirty-eight official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus was correct in challenging Calvin’s false teaching about infant baptism for salvation, but he was heretical in his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus pleaded to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method. Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned but not executed. Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. John Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower. Servetus was screaming as he was literally baked alive from the feet upward and suffered the heat of the flames for 30 minutes before finally succumbing to one of the most painful and brutal death methods possible. Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which Calvin had strapped to the chest of Servetus. The flames from the burning book rose against Servetus’ face as he screamed in agony.

John Calvin celebrated and bragged of his killing of Servetus. Many theological and state leaders criticized Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus, but it fell on deaf ears as Calvin advised others to do the same. Calvin wrote much in following years in a continual attempt to justify his burning of Servetus. Some people claim Calvin favored beheading, but this does not fit charges of heresy for which the punishment, as written by Calvin earlier, was to be burning at the stake. Calvin had made a vow years earlier that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he were ever captured, and Calvin held true to his pledge. Truly John Calvin is burning in Hell for his heresy, blasphemy of God and murder of many.

Another victim of Calvin’s fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be incarcerated twice at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. John Calvin’s actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemned these blatant mass murders.

Puritanism.

The citizens of Geneva hated John Calvin as he clearly stated. In 1554 Calvin wrote “Dogs bark at me on all sides. Everywhere I am saluted with the name of ‘heretic,’ and all the calumnies that can possibly be invented are heaped upon me; in a word, the enemies among my own flock attack me with greater bitterness than my declared enemies among the papists.” Calvin, quoted in Schaff, History, volume 8, page 496. The history of John Calvin’s reign of terror in Geneva is undisputed. Calvin himself kept historical records that have survived to this day.

John Calvin had no love, compassion, patience or tolerance for those who did not believe his Institutes. Criticism of Calvin’s Institutes was considered heresy for which the sentence was death by burning at the stake. To his dying day Calvin preached and taught from his works. By no means an aged man, he was worn out in these frequent controversies. On April 25, 1564, he made his will, leaving 225 French crowns, of which he bequeathed ten to his college, ten to the poor, and the remainder to his nephews and nieces. His last letter was addressed to Farel. He was buried without pomp in a spot which is not now ascertainable. In the year 1900 a monument of expiation was erected to Servetus in the Place Champel. Geneva has long since ceased to be the center of Calvinism.

John Calvin’s murder of people who held different doctrinal views, his failure to acknowledge or repent from his sins, his incomplete gospel, his placing of his own writings above the Bible, his distortion of God and the Scriptures, and his dependence upon infant baptism places into question his salvation. In all of his writings is not found a clear declaration of his salvation by faith in the birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Calvin was a cruel, murderous tyrant who considered himself to be the pope of Geneva. The Bible never advocates harming an individual due to his unbelief or lack of understanding. Jesus taught to “turn the other cheek” instead. None of the Apostles taught action against unbelievers but instead taught the believer to seek them out and present the gospel in love.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

John Calvin showed no signs of being a regenerate man. He became more murderous and cruel during his rule in Geneva. He showed no inclination to be conformed to the image of Christ as described in Scripture for those who have been saved. Notice that Romans 8:29 below says we are “predestined to be conformed to His Son” and does not say we are predestined to be saved as taught by Calvin.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to] [be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

One should not have to study the works of John Calvin but should study his life first in order to arrive at the conclusion that he was an ungodly man who could only produce a distorted doctrine that opposes the true teachings of Scripture. Calvin’s actions were directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

Matthew 10:14 “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.”

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

1 John 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Calvin’s Margin Notes Supercede Scriptural Text

Calvin’s theology could not be ascertained by the typical student of the Bible without the external study of Calvin’s Institutes. Therefore, Calvin wrote commentary notes in the margin of the Bible to be used as the interpretation of the Scripture. A present-day review of these marginal notes shows they present doctrine that is not supported by the text. This commentary Bible with marginal notes came to be known as the Geneva Bible. Theodore de Beza (1519-1605) was the Protestant Reformer who succeeded John Calvin. Beza published the Geneva Bible in English between 1560 and 1611. William Whittingham, who was married to John Calvin’s sister, is believed to have assisted by translating most of the New Testament. He has been accused of having a theological bias and making other random changes in the translation. The source manuscripts for the work appear to have been the Textus Receptus and other Byzantine Greek manuscripts. The most disturbing feature of the Geneva Bible was the extensive commentary notes placed in the margins written by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza and Anthony Gilby. The marginal notes give an allegorical or philosophical explanation of Scripture rather than a literal explanation of the text. The Roman Catholic Church was enraged by the notes, because they deemed the act of confession of sin to men, the Catholic Bishops, as unjustified by Holy Scripture. Calvin can be congratulated for at least getting that doctrine correct.

The Geneva Bible and the doctrines of John Calvin spread across Europe as church leaders used the marginal notes as the basis for their lectures and preaching. King James I (1566-1625) was opposed to Calvinistic Presbyterianism and some claim he was infuriated by the Geneva Bible, because the marginal notes allowed disobedience to the King. This claim can be largely dismissed, because Calvin ruled as “King” of Geneva and allowed absolutely no disobedience. In the famous Hampton Court Conference, Dr. John Reynolds (a Puritan) requested that King James authorize the printing of a new Bible without the marginal notes. King James agreed. He authorized work to begin on the new Bible in 1604 with a team of fifty-four theologians and scholars, and it was printed in 1611. The Bible was to be a new translation from the Greek. The King James Version of the Bible was prepared from the Textus Receptus as well as many of the other 5,000 Greek manuscripts. It is known as the 1611 Authorized King James Version and held by many as the only “Inspired Word of God.”

The Dutch Church convened the Synod of Dordrecht in 1610 to resolve the dispute between Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius) and the Reformed Church (followers of John Calvin) concerning the correct interpretation of the Bible. In the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Jacob Arminius began to teach doctrines contrary to the Reformed faith. The Remonstrants drew up five statements of doctrine in which they set forth their own views. The Calvinists answered the Five Points of the Arminians with their own, which have come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism. The approval of the Calvinist position was sealed by a packed prejudiced Synod before it began, and the Calvinists relished the victory by murdering many of their opponents as they fled for their lives. This appeared to be a great victory for Calvinism at the time, but it has since been shown to have been the high point in their theological domination. Calvinism has continued to decline over the centuries, because John Calvin’s technique of terror is no longer allowed for the spread of his theology.

Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles raised a finger against those who disagreed with them, but Calvinists continued to use the sword, beheading axe and burning at the stake as methods to eliminate any opposition well after the passing of John Calvin. Charles I succeeded King James in England. The Calvinists gained control of the English Parliament and waged a civil war against the king. They abolished episcopacy, ejected two thousand royalist ministers, summoned the Westminister Assembly, executed Archbishop Laud, and eventually executed the King himself in 1649.

Calvin’s Sovereignty Doctrine Distorts the Attributes of God

Calvinists are proud to proclaim, “The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.” This doctrine allowed John Calvin to misinterpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God’s other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became irrelevant so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin’s extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism.

John Calvin falsely taught that God “elects” some people from eternity past to be saved while damning all of the others to an eternal Hell with no hope of being saved. This false doctrine is directly opposite to the Bible which teaches that God is “not willing that any should perish.” If salvation were entirely dependent on the sovereign God as taught by John Calvin then certainly none would perish, but salvation is dependent upon the free will of people to believe the true gospel by faith.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Certainly God is sovereign. However, John Calvin used sovereignty as an excuse to formulate doctrines which violated God’s other attributes. Calvin’s doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement predestine much of humanity to eternal torment in violation of God’s attributes of love, justice, mercy and grace. Doctrines which are correctly interpreted from Scripture will not violate any of God’s attributes.

Certainly God is sovereign according to the definition of sovereign in a dictionary. God is Number One — the Most High, but God does not control every event and action of mankind as if people were puppets, as claimed by John Calvin. The Scripture verses below clearly show that the unbelief of the Children of Israel in the wilderness “limited the Holy One of Israel.” According to the false doctrine of John Calvin, God cannot be limited. Scripture says He can be limited. God could not secure the entry of the Children of Israel into the promised land as He desired because they would not move forward. So God left them in the wilderness for 40 years because of their unbelief, arrogance and rebellion.

Psalms 78:37 For their heart was not steadfast with Him,  Nor were they faithful in His covenant.  38  But He, [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity,  And did not destroy [them].  Yes, many a time He turned His anger away,  And did not stir up all His wrath;  39  For He remembered that they [were] [but] flesh,  A breath that passes away and does not come again.  40  How often they provoked Him in the wilderness,  [And] grieved Him in the desert!  41  Yes, again and again they tempted God,  And limited the Holy One of Israel.

Calvinism has been called “the archenemy of soul-winning” and rightly so. John Calvin’s false doctrine declares that some people are predestined by God from eternity past to spend eternity with Him by His sovereign grace while others are predestined to eternal torment. This doctrine causes one to question the need for presenting the gospel. If Calvinism were true, why bother? Those who have been predestined to salvation will be regenerated by God’s unfailing sovereign will, and the others cannot be saved no matter how effectively the gospel is presented, because they are not the elect.

But soul winning is not the major tragedy of Calvinism. Failure to present the gospel of Christ is the real problem. One can easily notice that Calvinists discuss and present Calvinism with the notion that they are presenting the gospel. They quote the writings of Calvin and his followers and quote those Bible verses they feel are most supportive of Calvinism. The Bible is not taught directly and without bias. This is the reason John Calvin and his early followers prepared the Geneva Bible, which contained Calvin’s teachings written in the margins. Teaching was done from the marginal notes in lieu of the Scriptural text. We will see in our study of Limited Atonement that Calvinism presents a false gospel.

The god worshipped by Calvinists has different attributes from those of the Almighty Eternal God who “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4). The god of Calvinism is a false god who decides which people will spend eternity in hell by withholding faith from them. The god of Calvinism taunts the unbeliever with the verse “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9) all the while knowing that he (the god of Calvinism) has withheld the faith to do so. Calvinism presents a false gospel that neither offers eternal life nor allows salvation by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

As an example, Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) believe in a god and believe in a Jesus they say rose from the grave. However, Mormons are not born-again members of the Body of Christ. They are destined to spend eternity in hell. Calvinists will also spend eternity in hell. Calvinists believe in a false god and false Jesus with make-believe attributes much different from the true God and His Son, Jesus Christ, who took upon Himself the sins of the whole world.

Calvin’s Predestination Doctrine Distorts the Character of God

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination teaches that God in eternity past established the course of all future events from the molestation of a child to a rocket trip to the moon. Calvin taught that God has decided in eternity past those persons who would spend eternity with Him and those who would endure eternal torment. This doctrine was not derived from the Bible but from the philosophical concepts called the “immutability of God” (unchangeable) and the “impassability of God” (unaffectable).

The pagan philosopher, Aristotle, born in 384 BC, wrote a book he called, Metaphics. His reasoning concluded that “God can’t feel and can’t change.” This God must be unaffected by anything and unalterable. He is unchanging, for change to would be a weakness and change thus render Him less than the ultimate God. Aristotle’s God cannot love, cannot suffer and cannot be influenced. Saint Augustine incorporated this philosophy from Plato, Plotinus and Aristotle into his writings which were transferred to John Calvin. Thus Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was born.

We know from Scripture that God does change His mind. God does suffer. God is influenced by prayer. God can be sorrowful and God does love. God changes His intended purpose as He chooses in response to the actions of man. Calvin’s doctrine of predestination strips God of His character and is proven to be false by Scriptures that show God changing His mind in response to mankind’s prayer or repentance.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: `Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done [what] [was] good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, `Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The God of the Bible is certainly not the immutable, impassable God of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

All great Christian fathers from the Apostles to Martin Luther taught that the sovereign God placed free will in mankind to choose either good or evil. This free will is present and obvious in Scripture before the fall of Adam and thereafter. Calvin incorporated the heresies of Augustine into his doctrines. Was the Apostle Paul such a poor teacher that his followers didn’t understand his teachings? Certainly not. All of the writings of Church leaders that came after Paul and before Augustine taught that mankind had a free will to either choose the gospel or reject it. The truth was presented in a beautiful expression of free will and the supportive work of the Holy Spirit by John Chrysostom (347-407 AD).

“God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; He does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing.” (Homilies on Genesis, 19.1)

“All is in God’s power, but so that our free will is not lost. . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first chose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help. . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews Homily, 12)

John Calvin and his followers teach that God makes everything happen because of His sovereignty. This doctrine makes God the author of sin, which is blasphemy. God allows Satan and man to do things but does not make them do so. This is clearly presented in Scripture. God kept the Dispensation of Grace a mystery because Satan, his evil demons and people under his control (rulers of this age), would not have killed Jesus had they known about the Dispensation of Grace. In Jesus’ death we become victorious over sin. We can now come into the Throne of Grace and live forever with God. The Dispensation of Grace was kept a mystery hidden by God in order to give us a way of salvation.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Scripture Proves John Calvin Taught False Doctrines

John Calvin falsely taught that God draws only those to Himself whom He elects to be saved. Calvin taught that those chosen could not resist the call. According to John Calvin a person is elected by God, saved by God’s grace and given faith to believe as the final step. Calvin taught that this series of actions by Jesus Christ and God cannot be resisted by the elected person. On the other hand, Calvin taught that most people were not drawn by Jesus. Calvin taught that those not drawn by Jesus could not believe and could not be saved no matter what they did. Calvinists must twist Scripture, ignore the clear message given, and literally butcher the text in order to keep John Calvin’s chain of false doctrines from total collapse. Jesus clearly and directly spoke doctrines that refute these false doctrines of John Calvin.

John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all [peoples] to Myself.”

1 Timothy 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus does draw all people to Himself. Jesus said He will draw all people unto Himself if He were to be lifted up and crucified. God desires all mankind to be saved, but most people resist being drawn. John Calvin’s doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” is clearly shown to be incorrect by Jesus’ clear declaration.

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith based upon the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all mankind by His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead provides salvation to all who believe. All who receive the Lord Jesus Christ through faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become the children of God.

Calvinism encompasses many of the features which are characteristic of a Christian cult. Calvinists hold John Calvin in such high esteem that his writings and teachings are studied and quoted in preference to Scripture. His teachings are used by Calvinists to interpret Scripture rather than the sound doctrine of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. John Calvin defined important doctrinal Bible words differently than the orthodox and historic Christian interpretation. These erroneous definitions are needed to give logical support to Calvin’s blasphemous doctrines. This technique is typical of cults such as Mormons, who hold Joseph Smith in high esteem and base their doctrines on his writings. Calvinists are so indoctrinated with these false definitions that they cannot understand the opposition to their doctrines. Naturally Calvinists believe the false doctrines of John Calvin, because they believe the false definitions of major doctrinal words. The human brain is easily tricked when one does not search diligently for the truth. Calvinists have typically taught from the marginal notes in the Calvinist’s Geneva Bible in preference to the Scriptural text. King James ordered the King James Version translation of the English Bible to be printed in order to rid the church of Calvin’s marginal notes. John Calvin’s doctrines are an incomplete and inaccurate gospel which is not in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. This study of Calvinism will easily prove the doctrines of John Calvin to be unorthodox and contrary to the historic Christian Church.

History of the New Testament Scriptures.

Just as John Calvin “stole” Geneva to set up his personal kingdom with himself as “Pope,” modern Calvinists are stealing churches. Old Baptist churches in the United States are a prime target. A Calvinist will apply for an empty pastorship while keeping his belief in Calvinistic doctrine a secret. Upon being offered the position by unsuspecting church members he begins to bring in other undercover Calvinists who are promoted to ruling positions as deacons and elders. The undercover Calvinists quickly reach a majority in the ruling body of the church. The church appears to be prosperous and growing, because the undercover Calvinists recruit only other Calvinists as new members. The new members are all a part of the scheme. These wolves in sheep’s clothing make a power play after gaining a majority control. They force out the older non-Calvinist church members one at a time with rudeness, intimidation and insults. Slick scheme! The Calvinists have just stolen church property that could be worth $5 to $10 million or more. Calvinists rarely build a new church on their own. They may be proud of their success in stealing the church, but in reality they have only secured a ticket to the Lake of Fire.

Romans 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Five Points of Calvinism which form the acrostic T-U-L-I-P will be shown here to distort and blaspheme the true attributes of God, the true nature of man and the Holy Scriptures.

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

Pastors Who Preach Calvinism Have Responded

Many pastors have written directly from their church website with insulting, hate mail after reading the truths presented here. These pastors are obviously not born-again, Spirit-filled Christians. They are fake Christians. Calvinistic preachers are our modern-day Pharisees who put Jesus on the cross. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, preaching “another gospel” that the Apostle Paul warned us about. They are in the ministry for power, control and money. Their letters have revealed their corrupt hearts to the Holy Spirit.

Canons of Dort – Wikipedia.com

“The Canons of Dort, or Canons of Dordrecht, formally titled The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, is the judgment of the National Synod held in the Dutch city of Dordrecht in 1618 / 19. At the time, Dordrecht was often referred to in English as Dort.

Today, the Canons of Dort form one of the confessional standards of many of the Reformed churches around the world, including the Netherlands, Australia, and North America. Their continued use as a standard still forms an unbridgable problem preventing close cooperation between the followers of Arminius, the Remonstrants, and Dutch Reformed Churches.

These canons are in actuality a judicial decision on the doctrinal points in dispute from the Arminian controversy of that day. Following the death of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), his followers set forth a Remonstrance (published in 1610) in five articles formulating their points of departure from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession. The Canons are the judgment of the Synod against this Remonstrance. Regardless, Arminian theology later received official acceptance by the State and has since continued in various forms within Protestantism.

The Canons were not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of Reformed doctrine, but only an exposition on the five points of doctrine in dispute. These Canons set forth what is often referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism.”

The Decision of the Synod of Dort ruled in favor of the doctrines of Calvinism, because the Calvinist has “fixed” the outcome beforehand. After the decision was rendered, the Calvinists proceeded to murder the supporters of Arminius in true fashion to the mass murderer they followed, John Calvin. The un-Christlike actions of the Calvinists prove that at Dort they truly lost any hope of ever being representative of Christianity.

God sees your heart and hears your prayer. You will have eternal life with God when by faith you believe on Jesus Christ for salvation. No works! No doing! No one else! No judge! God judges the heart. You can trust Him.

Click here to say, “Yes, I want to pray to God.”

Click here to say, “I just prayed to confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.”

If you need help in understanding, select “A Bible Summary” and study it carefully.

You can contact the author by clicking the mailbox above.

Copyright © 2005 – 2009 by Kent R. Rieske and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is granted to copy this information in whole and without revision providing that full credit is given to the author. This information may not be copied in part and the information may not be included in any material that is offered for sale. You are encouraged to place a link to this article on your website page.

The Real Problem With Americans

I just wanted to take a few minutes and, well…….vent my frustration; enjoy.

I realize that liberals and political minds of the left, ie. the Obamas, have never been proud of our country, until it places them in the most powerful position a human being can reach–the White House, but some of us have always been proud of our country. I for one, have always been quite proud of my country, with the exceptions of abortion, alcoholism, total rejection of the One, true God, etc., but I will admit that we as a nation do have some issues. I would like to talk about the worst one we do have; we are the most powerful, wealthy, successful, creative, determined, enduring and overcoming nation on Earth, yet we are also the most willingly ignorant! And the Christian church is not scoring much higher in this area.

I can’t help but laugh to myself when people ask how our nation could possibly be so messed up, while they simultaneously look up and admire people like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others. Where has our knowledge of history gone? We look up to and admire people who are the antithesis of what American values promote. I will for example’s sake tell you about the great old chap we call “honest Abe.” Is it not romantic and ideal? A wonderful Illinois lawyer who never tells a lie and frees the slaves from the horrible Southerners and gave that tear-jerking address at Gettysburg Pennsylvania? Ah yes. It is so touching, but a horrible distortion of history. Being given the compliment of being like Honest Abe is not exactly a compliment. The man had virtually no regard for the U.S. Constitution. Hmm…….that sounds familiar to what I see on the news at night. He used the romantic idea of freeing the slaves–for whom he could not have cared less–as a means to encourage Northern men to feel a responsibility to “liberate” the captives.  (Check out Thomas Delorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln.”) He also refused to hear Confederate emissaries who  brought millions of dollars to pay for all Federal buildings and land in the South. He also deliberately ordered the replenishment of Fort Sumter just after being warned by Charleston, South Carolina’s Governor that any reinforcement of the fort would be considered an act of war. Lincoln fired the first “shots”, not the South. Abraham Lincoln did manage however to destroy many of our rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  The American Civil War was a high water mark for the beginning of a loss of personal and state freedom in the United States.  Every loss of freedom in the USA can be traced back to the first “moves” introduced by Abe Lincoln. On a side note, Maryland would have seceded as well, had Lincoln not suspended the right of Habeas Corpus and arrested those legislators who were going to vote for it.

I am not saying these things against Lincoln because I am a Southerner, I am saying them because I am a Historian.

This is just one of MANY examples of the American people believing propaganda and being sold a bill of goods. The truth is out there, but YOU have to find it. This is America; you have the right, at least for now, to be wrong and ignorant, or you can get in the books and WAKE UP.

My Opinion On the Iraq War

I would like to preface this article with the fact that I do believe the terrorists and radical Muslims should be contained and eradicated; they are threats to humanity and there is no other alternative but to kill them. I am proud of our Armed Forces and am for them.

Now, I believe the War on Terror and specifically, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go much deeper than our media and government would have us believe. As much as I have appreciated President Bush, I believe that much of the wars’ agenda has been more for his family and friend’s benefit than the commonly referred to terrorist networks. As important as neutralizing these groups is, I believe it was a convenient, yet legitimate excuse to seize the oil in the Middle East– which has greatly and will continue to greatly benefit the Bush family oil company.

At first, I was extremely skeptical of such a notion, but these last 6 weeks of research have led me to another conclusion. Now I am not trying to defend the Democratic party; I personally couldn’t care less for them or the Republican party. With the exception of one or two people, both parties are corrupt and simply power hungry.

I will go much deeper into my reasoning and arguments for this conclusion in a hopefully soon upcoming article on the 9/11 attacks. Please have patience as I am trying to choose what to say and what not to say. I guarantee you that it will be a shocking and mind-blowing article.

As far as for the Iraq War, I am for it, yet have leery concerns that we are in another Vietnam–and what I mean here is this: we are dealing with people who are not sociologically advanced enough to maintain a democracy; and the moment we leave, the “bad guys” will get right back in power and we will be right back where we started. I am not trying to be negative, just realistic and based upon the fact that the only lesson we learn from History is that we do not learn from History and are therefore doomed to repeat it.