The Best Calvinist Proof-Text In the Bible

God From HeavenThe theological perspective often called “Calvinism” can be summarized as the view that God is completely sovereign or in control of EVERYTHING that happens. That God doesn’t just “allow” things to happen, but He actually DECREES, WILLS, or DECLARES them to happen…yes even the things we consider bad or evil. This view of God is based on several texts but perhaps the main one would be Isaiah 46:9-10 which reads:

Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

But this ISN’T the text that I consider the best Calvinist proof-text in the Bible. If you have ever interacted with a Christian who holds to the Calvinistic/Reformed view, you may have seen them using verses like Romans 9:10-23 wherein the account is related that God loves Jacob over Esau even before they were born & had done good or evil & that God is like a potter who has every right to form clay into vessels (cups, bowls) He intends to use for honor & ones he intends to use for other purposes…but all for His own purposes. Yet, this is also not the text I consider the best Calvinistic proof-text.

Further, you may have heard Calvinist Christians citing the many verses that talk about predestination & election, showing that God chooses people BEFORE they are even born & have done any good or evil. (see references) Yet, not even these verses should be considered the best proof-text for Calvinism.

The account I’m thinking of is one where God basically makes a bet with the Devil that one of God’s faithful will not curse God no matter what happens to him. Of course I speak of the Jobian account, which after introducing us to Job himself, reads:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:6-12 NKJV)

This is the classic situation people use when they question the idea of God being in control of everything. They claim like Satan here, that when bad things happen a person will blame/curse God or even give up their faith…especially if it is considered that God actually “allows” those bad things to happen let alone actually DECLARING those things to happen. Look again at the text above. Satan says for God to “stretch out His hand” against Job. God isn’t just “allowing” Satan to torment Job, but even so, by God “allowing” Satan to torment Job, some would find God at “fault”. After all, Job didn’t deserve this did he?

Over the course of this torment, Job loses all of his family members & his all of his possessions (Job 1:13-20). Note how he loses them. Does Satan have the power to send down “fire of God” or “great winds”? Yet in Job 1:22 we see Job does NOT curse/blame God. Wow! A lot more faith then most of us.

Well, Satan comes to up the ante & we read in Job 2:3-6

Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”

So, Satan is given leave & begins to torment Job with boils all over his body (a plague). But notice again how Job 2:3-6 is worded. God says Satan incited God against Job…so again we see these things that are happening to Job are at God’s hand. After all, if Satan had the ability to torment Job on his own, why is he coming before God to get the deed done? Now, even Job’s wife thinks he should curse God for what is happening yet Job does not. (Job 2:9-10)

Job’s “friends” come to “comfort” him in his grief but you can tell they really think he must have done something to deserve all of this wrathi. Job begins to feel sorry for himself. (Job 2:11-13, Job 3) As a matter of fact, it looks like his “friends” are kind of playing a gottcha game with Job – since Job had a reputation as an upright man & now it appears he is getting his due, as if he is suffering from secret sin that deserves to be corrected. (Job 4-5) This back & forth between Job & his friends continues for several chapters until a young observer named Elihu chimes in:

So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. (Job 32:1-3)

Notice what’s happening. Job was “righteous in his own eyes” – this means Job thought it was unfair for God to “allow” all these things to be happening to him. Elihu is also depicted as being upset with Job’s “friends” because they were missing the point of what this was all about. Elihu wants to deal with the OVER-ARCHING PREMISE of God’s nature instead of Job’s individual experience. After all, Job’s “friends” were using “logical” arguments…but for all the “logic” is ignored the OVER-ARCHING PREMISE of God’s nature.

In Job 33:8-12, Elihu recounts Job’s argument/complaint & then Elihu begins his answer which reads:

“Surely you have spoken in my hearing, And I have heard the sound of your words, saying, ‘I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me. Yet He finds occasions against me, He counts me as His enemy; He puts my feet in the stocks, He watches all my paths.’ “Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, For God is greater than man.

So, Elihu correctly relates that Job’s problem is that he thinks it is unfair that God “finds occasions against” him & then Elihu tells Job he is not righteous to be thinking this say & that the issue is that God is greater than man. Elihu spends the next few chapters laying out the case that God as the Creator can do what He wants with His creation AND it is still “fair”. Elihu sums up his case by saying:

Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost, Because his answers are like those of wicked men! (Job 34:35) Moreover Elihu answered and said: “Do you think this is right? Do you say, ‘My righteousness is more than God’s’? For you say, ‘What advantage will it be to You?  What profit shall I have, more than if I had sinned?’ (Job 35:1-3)

What??? Poor Job was minding his own business & had his entire family wiped out, his possessions destroyed or taken, & is suffering from boils from head to feet & yet Elihu is so cold (might we say “mean” & “hurtful”, or “unChrist-like” -- comments like this against Elihu we would often hear even from the mouths of so-called Christians) that he is saying that Job is behaving like a wicked man in his answers. How could Elihu be so insensitive?

Then God comes into the picture & basically backs up everything Elihu had been telling Job. In Job 38-40 God makes the distinction that He is God the Creator & we are mere creatures. Then God asks Job to answer:

Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said: “Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it.” Then Job answered the LORD and said: “ Behold, I am vile; What shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth. Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.” Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: “ Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified? (Job 40:1-8)

Notice how Job finally realizes the OVER-ARCHING PREMISE of God’s nature – that God is God & we are not. God then asks Job if man’s judgment should be put in place of God’s judgment so that man can decide what is & isn’t just/fair.

God continues to make the case that He is the Creator & can do what He wants with His creation & by the time we get to Job 42, Job now understands & repents. God goes on to correct Job’s friends for not speaking “what is right” of God. Then God restores & even increases Job’s possessions & gives him new sons & daughters. But even had God NOT restored Job’s possessions & family, God would STILL be righteous & just.

To conclude, this is the best proof-text in the Bible for relating God’s sovereignty & complete control. It answers every objection coming either from a non-believer or a believer concerning God’s nature. Even so, some believers will have a difficult time worshiping a God like the one depicted in Job. They instead want to envision some grandfatherly God that would never impose His will upon His creation. People who will not accept the God depicted in Job are like Job who was “justifying himself when he should have been justifying God” (Job 32:2)

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Heresy consideration

Hello; thanks for the brisk discussion. For your consideration please read this article prompted by your discussion: http://thekingdomcome.com/heretics

P.S. John Calvin wasn't even alive when the so-called "5 points" were drawn up, but had been dead over 50 years and they were not originally called by the label. See Council of Dort. The 5-points were in response to Arminians "5-remonstrants". The reality was, that to be Protestant at the time was synonymous with being Reformed.

Very interesting, thank you.

Many things worth comment (and I probably will) in both your Heretics piece and the Church Discipline essay it links to. But my first half-humorous thought was that if Scott will think of us as Contra-Remonstrants instead of Calvinists, he might be able to un-fixate from a single man and put his mind where it should be--on fundamental Bible doctrine.

If your Calvin-phobia has inured your mind & heart to anything from his pen, Scott, my best advice is to get a copy of Robert Haldane's incomparable 1835 Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans.

(You should find Haldane's personal life beyond reproach :o) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Haldane

John Calvin's murderous past

One poster is already done with me, so I would like to know if anyone else on this blog finds it eye-opening that John Calvin was a ruthless tyrant who murdered, among others, Michael Servetus and never repented of this sin.

Your judgmentalism reeks of distortion

Get your facts straight. Calvin did not "murder" Serveteus by any stretch of a rational imagination. Serveteus was convicted under the laws of the Geneva at the time. Serveteus was a convict who received a sentence imposed on him by the city of Geneva NOT Calvin (his subsequent convictions led to banishment from Geneva but he violated that by returning quite foolishly). You may debate wether the 17th century laws of Geneva were just (for condemning a three time convict of heresy and public disturbance). Serveteus remained obstinate to the end in his denial of the Biblical teaching of the Trinityi and was wanted for capital crimes in every major city in Europe in which he tried to reside (Spain in particular from whence he came). Serveteus was "persona non grata" everywhere he went, not just Geneva. To the day of his final execution, Calvin went to his cell repeatedly on personal visits imploring Serveteus to recant of his Anti-Trinitarian stance and to return to faithful teaching of Christianity or simply refrain from teaching. Serveteus refused either course. This is all well documented history and you need to do your research before slandering Calvin.

And Calvin never repented. Guess he wasn't a Christian.

http://learntheology.com/the-trial-and-burning-of-michael-servetus-by-jo...
http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Murder-Servetus-Stanford-Rives/dp/1439208689
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

And the quotes from the Calvin himself

7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident
Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.
"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After the incident:
"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

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

Calvin the killer!!!

Michael Servetus was not the only one Calvin had killed.
Jacques Gruet. a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested and TORTURED twice a day for a month. Then, on July 16, 1547, he was tied to a stake his feet were nailed to it, and he was beheaded. Calvin wrote, 'With God and His sacred Scriptures before our eyes we say, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen...We condemn you, Jacques Gruet, to be taken to Champel and there have your body attached to a stake and burned to ashes and so you shall finish your days to give an example to others who would commit the Like" (July 26, 1547. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.

Five days into the trial of Sevetus Calvin wrote, "I hope the death sentence will at least be passed upon him."

Sorry not the spirit of Christ (Gal 5:22), but a false spirit.
Chris

Old Arab proverb, Scott.

"Examine what is said, not him who speaks."

You are a first in my many years of reading & talking to Arminians, trying very hard to understand how rational professing Christians can so misread what the Bible so clearly & unapologetically says.

Your tactic of attacking Calvin rather than his soteriologyi is probably prudent. If you can't turn them off him before they actually study the five canons his name is still known for, you'll lose them--at least the ones who know the Bible.

You're also a first in another category. I am trying to recall a professing Christian relative/friend/acquaintance of my long life who ever--in my hearing--declared another professing Christian "not a Christian". No matter how stunned or grieved or outraged by un-Christian behavior or lifestyle, never to the extent of presuming to know what can be known only to God.

You do your theology no credit--which is fine with me. It deserves none.

So murderers who never repent can be saved?

You still haven't admitted that Calvin was a murderer. I am sure you have read your Bible and know what it has to say about murderers. Of course, God forgives sin (I don't get any credit for at least that part of my theology?)--but we are talking about a man who was proud of his crime. Did you even read my post? Why do you defend Calvin. Could it possibly be that it is because he gave you TULIP? I am bored. Adolph Hitler professed to be a Christian--he was not a Christian. Barak Obama claims to be a Christian. He is not a Christian. The health and wealth pastors of Nigeria who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year preaching health and wealth at the expense of their poor congregations...well, you get the point. Actually you probably don't because no matter what evidence I show you about Calvin, you won't, it seems, ever concede that the man was a murderer. If you found out your pastor was murdering people in his spare time, would you continue to attend his church. Oh well. Goodbye. I don't want to debate this anymore if you won't acknowledge the facts.

Deut 13

Hi Scott, should the people who followed the instruction in Deut 13:1-18 have repented? Are they "murderers"?
Please read http://thekingdomcome.com/heretics and especially look at the section about Calvin and Servetus. I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks

No, they did not need to

No, they did not need to repent. They received direct instruction from the Lord. Do you think that this instruction applies to us today, that we are to incorporate the death penalty as a part of church discipline? I will take a look at the link when I have some time. Also, are you defending Calvin with this point? Thanks.

Okay, so I looked at the

Okay, so I looked at the link, and it certainly appears that you have defended Calvin with your points. You don't mention the heresy of infant baptism (I assume you believe this was a heresy) that Calvin taught and that Servetus spoke out against. By the same rationale, both Servetus and Calvin should have been put to death because they were both heretics. I would caution against trying to shift the blame to the Roman Catholic authorities, as they did not have jurisdiction in Geneva and it was Calvin that presented much, if not all of the necessary evidence to prove that Servetus was a heretic. Calvin knew the law. Yes, he goes on record as asking for a "merciful" beheading, but it was a moot point given that he was being tried as a heretic. And does it really matter (other than the severity of the pain) the method of execution? You also record the first quote by Calvin regarding the killing of Servetus, but please consider the other quotes that I have listed above. I do not see any evidence of this form of church discipline in the New Testament. "Avoid" is completely different than "execute." "Do not even eat with such a person" is entirely different than "kill." Church discipline is spelled out. Calvin took revenge upon Servetus, and it is clear (at least to me) that he did not repent of what I believe to be a cold-blooded murder.

Scott, how old are you?

I'm finding the patience to respond to your pig-headed, off-topic, utterly -irrelevant-to-meaningful-discussion-of-Calvinisti/Arminian-soteriologyi rants only because I suspect you are either very young or you have been pre-programmed to read the Scriptures only through the Arminian prism.

I'm thoroughly confused, BTW, by your repeated conflating of the TULIP and infant baptism. Are you under the impression that one can't believe the first and utterly reject the second? I happen to be a Southern Baptist who's now (because I now live in the NE) a member of an American Baptist church. Both denominations, I can assure you (those in the pews, at least), are massively "Calvinist" and exclusively "Believers' Baptism".

Infant baptism, like amill/post-mill eschatology and replacement-theology, is part of the retained Roman Catholic baggage that Jesus warns the ("Reformed") church at Sardis about in Rev. 3: "...I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God."

Does it not give you pause that the RCC is the world's oldest, largest, still most insistent defender of both infant baptism and Arminian soteriology?

Linnea

I refuse to respond to your rude comments. If you can't debate without trying to insult your opponent, don't debate.

Debate? Who's debating?

Certainly not you. And certainly not Roderick or me. We've been informed that no debate is possible until we agree with your opinion of John Calvin.

Sunday: "I would gladly move on to other points in this argument, but you don't seem to want to concede the fact that John Calvin was not a Christian."

Today: "I don't want to debate this anymore if you won't acknowledge the facts."

Goodbye.

Goodbye.

Best Calvinist Proof Text

Excellent. Soon after I (in my mid-40s) decided to take another look at the Bible I'd ignored so long and read it carefully through, someone asked me to put the message of the Bible in one sentence. I thought a minute and replied, "I'm God and you are not".

I can only conclude that Arminians are a bit ashamed of God and want to smooth some of His rough edges.

Does God lie when he says

Does God lie when he says that Job is perfect and upright? It isn't Job who refers to himself as such.

Job's friends want him to lie and admit to error in order to justify the Judaic world view at the moment. Job refuses to lie. What else can he do?

And if folks contend that Job can't possibly be "perfect and upright" let them take it up with the guy who said it.

Job-sovereignty!

I really appreciate this read! Blessings, Betty

As an Arminian, I am not

As an Arminian, I am not ashamed of God at all. In fact, I fear God, as we are commanded to in scripture. What I am ashamed of is the fact that we have a church today that readily accepts the doctrines of John Calvin, a man who was not even a Christian. A ruthless tyrant, also known as the protestant pope, Calvin never repented of his murderous crimes, including the well-documented burning of Michael Servetus. He was proud of it. Research it. And whether or not you believe that God determines every event in history and man does not have the free will to choose God, please STOP calling yourselves Calvinists!

Scott Gilmour:

I'm not certain that the name Calvinisti was even of our choosing. Maybe--like "fundamentalist"--it was intended as an insult. (As most of the world intends it today.) But if God can love & honor David after he murdered a fine man to steal that man's wife, we can love & honor John Calvin for the theological discernment that gave us his TULIP.

Thank you Linnea for your

Thank you Linnea for your kind response. The difference between Calvin and David is that David repented, in tears, for his sin. There is no question that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, but what if one never repents? According to Calvinisti teaching, this would prove that this person was never a Christian to begin with. And this would be tragic irony given that Calvin did not repent of his murders yet gave us TULIP (which I do not believe is taught in Scripture). I look forward to your response!

Scott Gilmour:

Several things:

(1) To charge Calvin with "murders" is a gross oversimplification of a murky era in church history. It was the RCC Inquisitors who ordered Servetus' arrest and the RCC that sentenced him to burning alive. (Which Calvin protested, asking that he be beheaded instead; the Catholics refused.)
(2) You have no way of knowing whether or not Calvin repented.
(3) I believe every letter of the TULIP is clearly taught in Scripture.
(4) I disagree, BTW, with Roderick's "Best Calvinisti Proof-Text". I'd say the best proof-text accompanied Christ to earth in the holy angels' announcement of his birth: (Luke 2:14)

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace TO MEN ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS".

(And if you think the NIV translation is an outlier:
http://bible.cc/luke/2-14.htm

Calvin was not a Christian

Where are you getting your information? The roman catholic church had no authority in Geneva. Calvin was the authority. I have heard similar responses from other calvinists, and I am sorry, but it is a sad response to say that a "murky" period in history excuses murder. There is no question that John Calvin had Servetus (among others) executed by burning at the stake, and as far as repentance is concerned, please see the quote below by Calvin himself...

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

I would gladly move on to other points in this argument, but you don't seem to want to concede the fact that John Calvin was not a Christian. It was very helpful to me (a former calvinist) to see that the man behind the false teaching was a ruthless tyrant who likewise taught the heresy of infant baptism. My question is...why are you so intent on defending the man?

O for crying out loud....

You don't want to discuss the topic; all you want to do is sling ad hominems and present your opinions as "facts". I never met John Calvin, I am not interested in John Calvin, I certainly don't have that peculiarly Arminian gift of divining who's saved & unsaved.

Here is why I am content to be called a Calvinisti:

"The central assertion of these canons [T.U.L.I.P.] is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy, and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or inability of humans.

*Total depravity: This doctrine, also called "total inability" and "radical corruption", asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)

*Unconditional election: Also called "sovereign election", this doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrathi that is warranted for their sins against God.

*Limited atonement: Also called "particular redemptioni" or "definite atonement", this doctrine asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.

*Irresistible grace:This doctrine, also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."

*Perseverance of the saints: Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word "saints" is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communioni with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return."
__________________________________________

And I'll end my conversation with you with the one Bible verse that I wouldn't make it though many days without:
"...being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will [HIMSELF!] perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ..."
Philippians 1:6

I think we are getting somewhere

Please don't act like it doesn't matter that the man who gave you TULIP was not a Christian. This is not a mere "ad hominem" attack, but one based upon reliable historical facts. Are you telling me that despite the fact that John Calvin had people burned at the stake or banished from their homes, did not repent, and taught infant baptism, he was still capable of writing a systematic theology through which you and other calvinists interpret God's Word? So this "Oh for crying out loud, I am so exasperated with you" attitude doesn't really answer the question, does it? Please do your homework and research the man behind the doctrine. If you are not willing to at least concede the point that Calvin was a murderous, criminal tyrant, I don't see you listening to any of my other arguments, as I would gladly show you, point by point, that TULIP is false teaching.

I'm done, Scott. As some

I'm done, Scott. As some very wise person has said, "When your opponent is making himself look sillier than you ever could, leave him alone".

Again, my question is evaded

This, Linnea, is by definition an ad hominem attack, of which you wrongly accused me earlier. You lose the argument, so you then attack your opponent's character using zero evidence to support your condescending remark. I, on the other hand, have given you historical facts that you at first tried unsuccessfully to address (because you had bad information) and then ignored entirely because, I suppose, you think the information is irrelevant. You cannot answer the question, and you say that I am making myself look silly? You have a real problem on your hands that you are unwilling to address. Again I state the simple fact that the man who gave you TULIP was a murderous tyrant who never repented of his unjust crimes. Can you explain to me what is silly about this, or are you going to resort to more ad hominem attacks?

It seems to me that all the

It seems to me that all the great christian leaders have sinned one time or another in there life. If not they would not have needed Jesus. I believe the Bible somewhere says anyone who say's he has no sin decieves himself, I think that goes to all Christians. Be carefull saying people who baptised children can not have correct theology, For up till the eighteen hundreds all the great christian leaders were baptised by water as an infant. Menno, Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, all anabaptist, it was later in there walk they decided to stop the practice. Stop trying to be right , and try saving souls. God Bless

Duplicate. Please delete.

Why are my posts posting twice? Please add a delete option to "Edit".

duplicate comments

I don't see any duplicate comments. Is the issue resolved now? I might be able to enable the delete comment feature but I wanted to test to make sure it won't delete the threads below it. Thanks.

Duplicates

Two of my comments double-posted. I edited the first one to give the Wiki source of the summary of the canons, edited the second to say "Duplicate: please delete". I've posted several times since with no duplicates, so it was prob. my (or my computer's) fault.
Thanks.

Reply to Scott Gilmour

What is enclosed in quotation marks above is from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism