For Your Information - Hunt Exposes Calvinism

[Ormly]

That is why I am here.

Where is here?

How do I know that you have a proper understanding of Reformed theology? You haven't yet demonstrated that you know what we are talking about.

Because I understand and embrace the antithesis of it, as being a more complete message of Jesus Christ and the intention of God. given us to understand as being His purpose from the foundation of the worlds.

Are we talking salvation, or sanctification? Salvation requires no effort on man's part. Sanctification does.

I repeat, Redemption is the only monergistic element in this. Salvation requires acceptance of it. That part reveals synergism of it all..Need more scripture?

Are you saying that you don't sit under anyone's teaching? You came up with this all by yourself?

Nope. I believe I listed my mentors, citing Chambers as my favorite.

Does not the bible say that some are given as teachers? Isnt' this what you want to do...teach us?

Yes, I can't deny that.

Kind of a double standard, isn't it? (BTW..i have never read Calvin)

where is the double standard you see in this? Calvin says nothing I need to hear.

Again, that statement right there shows that you do not understand what you say you are against. I, nor anyone that I am aware of, would say that you need to understand and agree with Calvinism to be saved.

You don't pay attention very well. I told you I have heard the salvation message am saved and born again. I have been baptised by Jesus Christ and have entered into the process of son-ship. Calvinistic theology takes one no further, leaves one at redemption and salvation. I know there is more. Being repeatedly told one is a sinner saved by grace instead of being told they were one but now are saints, is a spiritual crime in my estimation.

BTW where are those sermons you spoke of that can only be laced with self-help ideas?

 

[Hammster]

Where is here?

In this discussion, as it is, with you.

Because I understand and embrace the antithesis of it, as being a more complete message of Jesus Christ and the intention of God. given us to understand as being His purpose from the foundation of the worlds.

How are you embracing the antithesis of that which you don't understand? That is like saying that black is the opposite of white, when you don't even know what black looks like.

I repeat, Redemption is the only monergistic element in this. Salvation requires acceptance of it. That part reveals synergism of it all..Need more scripture?

Any scripture would be fine, yes.

Nope. I believe I listed my mentors, citing Chambers as my favorite.

Sorry....didn't realize you were that old.

Yes, I can't deny that.

So I should listen to you as a teacher, trust that you are handling the word of God correctly, but I shouldn't trust others. Is that correct?

where is the double standard you see in this? Calvin says nothing I need to hear.

The double standard is that you say I should only trust an old version of the bible, but also trust you.

You don't pay attention very well. I told you I have heard the salvation message am saved and born again. I have been baptised by Jesus Christ and have entered into the process of son-ship. Calvinistic theology takes one no further, leaves one at redemption and salvation. I know there is more. Being repeatedly told one is a sinner saved by grace instead of being told they were one but now are saints, is a spiritual crime in my estimation.

Again, you don't understand Reformed theology very well if you think that we believe that one must embrace it to be saved. Just because you don't believe it (I think, since you have yet to show any credible knowledge of Calvinism), doesn't mean you aren't saved. I was save while believing in Arminian theology.

BTW where are those sermons you spoke of that can only be laced with self-help ideas?

I don't know of any that are only laced with self-help ideas. If you want, I can find some from Reformed preachers that speak of sanctification. A lot of them. But, you must be willing to open your mind and learn. I wouldn't want to waste your time otherwise.

 

[Ormly]

In this discussion, as it is, with you.

You are playing with me and I am ready leave you to yourself.

How are you embracing the antithesis of that which you don't understand? That is like saying that black is the opposite of white, when you don't even know what black looks like.
Any scripture would be fine, yes.

What is it you believe I don't understand. Speak of it.

Sorry....didn't realize you were that old.
So I should listen to you as a teacher, trust that you are handling the word of God correctly, but I shouldn't trust others. Is that correct?

Do as you will. That is what choice is all about. If it smells bad it is usually rotten.

The double standard is that you say I should only trust an old version of the bible, but also trust you.

Trust as you will.

Again, you don't understand Reformed theology very well if you think that we believe that one must embrace it to be saved. Just because you don't believe it (I think, since you have yet to show any credible knowledge of Calvinism), doesn't mean you aren't saved. I was save while believing in Arminian theology.

Yes, yes. I understand. I haven't shown you anything. Too bad for me.

I don't know of any that are only laced with self-help ideas. If you want, I can find some from Reformed preachers that speak of sanctification. A lot of them. But, you must be willing to open your mind and learn. I wouldn't want to waste your time otherwise.

Please don't bother. . . .fine

 

[Hismessenger]

Did God ordain the death of His Son long before He ever walked the earth. And once he was made manifest in the earth, those around him did the things of which the scripture had foretold, years before. Their "CHOICES" were a mere formality but they made the choices which took Christ to the cross as planned. God is in control and all your rhetoric about whether or not Calvin had it right is moot for the scriptures show in no uncertain terms that if God has ordained it, what we choose is only going to bring about what God ordained. We can't cause a change in God's plan because it is His plan and we are just the players on the stage of life which He has set in motion for His purpose. Not ours. It make God no less God because he knows what it's all about. WE DON"T. It makes His love no less love because He knows what He is about and we don't. The end will be better than the beginning.

hismessenger

 

[heymikey80]

And if you remember we were telling you that based on this interpretation, first of all (says the Scripture) God wants you to pray for all humanity without exception.

Why? Well, because that's what the Scripture must say in Zeller's (and thus I conclude, your?) interpretation:

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men 1 Tim 2:1
​

And if I remember we were awaiting you to finish the prayer list of every person without exception. Not generally, but without exception. Because to do less would be to neglect Scripture's "first of all", and "for all men" without exception. In your interpretation, of course. Not in ours.

We Calvinists, we realize that "all men" is meant generally, not specifically or individually, not to each and every person without exception. Why? Well, it makes nonsense of 1 Tim 2:1, of course. But it also rips the verse out of its moorings.

As for your proffered interpretation of how Calvinists view this verse, no dice. Too many errors to count.

What's this about characterizing "Extreme Calvinists", anyway? I could of course point out numerous dispensationalists with utterly wacky views of verses, and attempt to tar you with them. You "Extreme Dispensationalists" are quite vulnerable to the charge, leaping to eschatology to throw people out of the church.

But what's that?

An ad hominem attack. It's simply poor thinking.

And I'm annoyed with people trying to paint me this way probably as much as you'd be annoyed with people trying to paint you that way.

The doctrine of Calvinism is false teaching, it does not agree with the Scripture, therefore it is false.

On the contrary, it's this viewpoint you're advocating that has been demonstrated invalid by an impossible exegesis.

We can either await your praying exhaustively for each and every one of the 10 billion, first of all (as the Apostle said). Or we can await your changing your position, which may take less time. The Calvinist's position is that this is meant generally. It is easily as exegetically valid; and in practice it's really the only alternative I'm aware of.

If you really have nothing more to say than to blindly flail at the position by hurling accusations of falsehood, I'd just conclude my position holds better than the incredible one. A demonstrated inconsistent position claiming that an undemonstrated inconsistency invalidates that position, would invalidate itself.

 

[Ormly]

Did God ordain the death of His Son long before He ever walked the earth. And once he was made manifest in the earth, those around him did the things of which the scripture had foretold, years before. Their "CHOICES" were a mere formality but they made the choices which took Christ to the cross as planned. God is in control and all your rhetoric about whether or not Calvin had it right is moot for the scriptures show in no uncertain terms that if God has ordained it, what we choose is only going to bring about what God ordained. We can't cause a change in God's plan because it is His plan and we are just the players on the stage of life which He has set in motion for His purpose. Not ours. It make God no less God because he knows what it's all about. WE DON"T. It makes His love no less love because He knows what He is about and we don't. The end will be better than the beginning.

hismessenger

Obviously you don't believe repentance has any value; God can't change his mind. That is interesting.

 

[CmRoddy]

Obviously you don't believe repentance has any value; God can't change his mind. That is interesting.

Um... how do you get "you don't believe repentance has any value" from what he said?

And secondly, how are you going to build an argument against something the Bible confirms? 1 Sam. 15:29 says "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." This is also confirmed in Num. 23:19.

Also, you forget that he, hismessenger, is absolutely right. God accomplishes everything that He wants to accomplish. Why? For several reasons. First of all, His plans are eternal (2 Tim. 1:9; Psa. 33:11; Is. 37:26; Is. 46:9-10; 2 Thess; 2:13; Matt. 25:34; 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 31:3; Acts 15:18; Ps. 139:16). Secondly, His plans are unchangeable (James 1:17; Is. 14:24; Is. 46:10-11; Nu. 23:19; Mal. 3:6). Thirdly, the divine plan includes the future acts of men (Dan. 2:28; John 6:64; Matt. 20:18-19 and all other passages of prophecy). Fourthly, the divine plan includes the fortuitous events or "chance" happenings (Prov. 16:33; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:24, 26; Job 36:32; 1 Ki. 22:28, 34; Job 5:6; Mark 14:30). Fithly, some events are recorded as fixed or inevitably certain (Luke 22:22; John 8:20; Matt. 24:36; Gen. 41:32; Hab. 2:3; Luke 21:24; Jer. 15:2; Job 14:5; Jer. 27:7). Lastly, even the sinful acts of men are included in the plan and are overruled for good (Gen. 50:20; Is. 45:7; Amos 3:6; Acts 3:18; Matt. 21:42; Rom. 8:28).

Since God's plans are eternal and without contingency on humans, they will come to pass.

 

[Ormly]

Um... how do you get "you don't believe repentance has any value" from what he said?

And secondly, how are you going to build an argument against something the Bible confirms? 1 Sam. 15:29 says "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." This is also confirmed in Num. 23:19.

Also, you forget that he, hismessenger, is absolutely right. God accomplishes everything that He wants to accomplish. Why? For several reasons. First of all, His plans are eternal (2 Tim. 1:9; Psa. 33:11; Is. 37:26; Is. 46:9-10; 2 Thess; 2:13; Matt. 25:34; 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 31:3; Acts 15:18; Ps. 139:16). Secondly, His plans are unchangeable (James 1:17; Is. 14:24; Is. 46:10-11; Nu. 23:19; Mal. 3:6). Thirdly, the divine plan includes the future acts of men (Dan. 2:28; John 6:64; Matt. 20:18-19 and all other passages of prophecy). Fourthly, the divine plan includes the fortuitous events or "chance" happenings (Prov. 16:33; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:24, 26; Job 36:32; 1 Ki. 22:28, 34; Job 5:6; Mark 14:30). Fithly, some events are recorded as fixed or inevitably certain (Luke 22:22; John 8:20; Matt. 24:36; Gen. 41:32; Hab. 2:3; Luke 21:24; Jer. 15:2; Job 14:5; Jer. 27:7). Lastly, even the sinful acts of men are included in the plan and are overruled for good (Gen. 50:20; Is. 45:7; Amos 3:6; Acts 3:18; Matt. 21:42; Rom. 8:28).

Since God's plans are eternal and without contingency on humans, they will come to pass.

I am not going to attempt to build any argument to entertain you, son. You are just a novice in this and have need to learn rather than argue.

 

[Benefactor]

Did God ordain the death of His Son long before He ever walked the earth. And once he was made manifest in the earth, those around him did the things of which the scripture had foretold, years before. Their "CHOICES" were a mere formality but they made the choices which took Christ to the cross as planned. God is in control and all your rhetoric about whether or not Calvin had it right is moot for the scriptures show in no uncertain terms that if God has ordained it, what we choose is only going to bring about what God ordained. We can't cause a change in God's plan because it is His plan and we are just the players on the stage of life which He has set in motion for His purpose. Not ours. It make God no less God because he knows what it's all about. WE DON"T. It makes His love no less love because He knows what He is about and we don't. The end will be better than the beginning.

hismessenger

Those of us on the other side of the approach you take also see God as in full control. The difference is in the definition of God's plan. Those that are like me and Conservative Arminians do not cast away the sovereignty of God and the fact that God has a plan. We do, however, firmly disagree with your interpretation of the truth.

Because God has Absolute Knowledge and because Absolute Knowledge must be in order for power and will to be effective then we can say and know for sure that what God thought before he acted was in accordance to his full understanding. God knew that man would sin before he created and before he decreed. If you say God did not know before he decreed and created then you deny God, because God can not - not know all that is to be known before he "conceived it" designed it and implemented it. We expresses it in sequence but in our futile attempt to understand, which we can't, we try to construct the mind and actions of God according to our limited capacity. Therefore, using what we have to work with our limited capability we acknowledge that a being without knowledge is nothing short of something that can do nothing constructive but only out of chance and that to is impossible. An absolute power without something to direct it, utilize it, channel it, etc is nothing but undefinable existence. In essence a perceived existence of an entity that is absolute power without knowledge and will is basically nothing, an impossibility.
.

Your side, in my opinion and many others, is in error because you place God’s power over God's Absolute Knowledge. Here is where that approach fails: Take away Absolute Knowledge and what do you have? The force, the power but no will because you have no knowledge. In the absence of knowledge you are without a plan, a cause, a purpose, a solution. What is all power where there is no knowledge and therefore will? If an absolute power existed that is separate form absolute knowledge what is its purpose, or can we say it actually exist in that to do so acknowledges a possibility that can’t be because if knowledge does not exist Absolute power can not be considered. See how foolish such a concept that Absolute power and a position that a decreed is not the result of Absolute knowledge is? It is impossible.


Introduce Absolute Knowledge and now God is able to plan a plan that defies our logic, a plan that demonstrates His loves, and one that is just.

The Sovereignty of God, which we affirm and hold to with deep and abiding convictions in nothing if God does not have absolute knowledge.

In human terms we call it foreknowledge because we are confined to space and time, God is not.

Lets use a simple example:

A person conceives an idea, because he has the capacity to think and will.

This person conceives a possibility within his power and ability.

This person looks at it in theory pondering all the actual and possible outcomes and their results.

This person, limited as he is, comes to a point where he has decided he knows relatively speaking the actual and possible uses of his creation, both good and bad.

This person, now, physically creates the conceived idea making it a reality.

This person, upon finishing his creative acts to make his idea / plan reality, now gets to see it function and he knows exactly what it can and can not do.

So it is that God planned his plan, but the difference between a machine and man is our design is in God's image and we have limited knowledge, will, emotions, and limited power to do things. We have what the machine does not have the ability to alter our plan within the allowance of the design and we don’t need an outside source to do it for us, God has given us that realm of responsibility. When God thought of a plan, planed it and implemented it - it took into consideration the actual and possible and provided for alternatives and solutions. The decree is that it should be not what it is. God planned then decreed, not the other way around. When we read that what God’s desires he accomplishes is not a robotic approach but the outcome of a plan that accomplishes his desire that permits freedom within limits.

 

[Hammster]

I am not going to attempt to build any argument to entertain you, son. You are just a novice in this and have need to learn rather than argue.

.. ignore switch turned back on

Since this is a forum, I would be interested in your response. I am still trying to figure out what you DO believe. I only know for sure that you don't like Calvinism, for whatever reason.

 

[Ormly]

Since this is a forum, I would be interested in your response. I am still trying to figure out what you DO believe. I only know for sure that you don't like Calvinism, for whatever reason.

I gave sufficient reasons that a 10yr old child could understand.

Enough.

 

[MamaZ]

He believes man has the sovereign rule over his own destiny..

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Since this is a forum, I would be interested in your response. I am still trying to figure out what you DO believe. I only know for sure that you don't like Calvinism, for whatever reason.

He believes that there are certain ones who are redeemed, yet all of those who are redeemed are not sons. He would probably say all of us Calvinists are not sons, because we don't have this "special knowledge" that he has, which he won't ever share. He can't ever tell you what the knowledge is, and yet he says the knowledge is easy enough for a 10 year old to understand. He constantly posts abiguously so that you are left guessing what he is trying to say, and once you guess wrong, you have "misrepresented him".

 

[CmRoddy]

Ormly, do you enjoy insulting people when they back you into a corner? I'm sorry to see that you don't want to interact with my post and the passages presented.

 

[Hismessenger]

Has God ever made a mistake where he had to go back and change anything which He purposed? A perfect God knew from the beginning what the end was going to be and never second guessed himself on anything. Many will say that God repented of making man, but that was said for our understanding. Not what was truly being done but still fulfilling the plan he set forth from day one until the end. No changes, errors, redos or any of the things which man suffers in his planning. For God is perfect In all His ways. There is no way perfection can ever be in error in God. Because of His knowledge which goes eons above what we can think or imagine. He wrought a plan in Himself and carries it out with perfect ease and grace. He is God all by Himself and doesn't need us for anything other than what he has purposed us for. To Give Him Love and Glory.

hismessenger

 

[Benefactor]

Has God ever made a mistake where he had to go back and change anything which He purposed? A perfect God knew from the beginning what the end was going to be and never second guessed himself on anything. Many will say that God repented of making man, but that was said for our understanding. Not what was truly being done but still fulfilling the plan he set forth from day one until the end. No changes, errors, redos or any of the things which man suffers in his planning. For God is perfect In all His ways. There is no way perfection can ever be in error in God. Because of His knowledge which goes eons above what we can think or imagine. He wrought a plan in Himself and carries it out with perfect ease and grace. He is God all by Himself and doesn't need us for anything other than what he has purposed us for. To Give Him Love and Glory.

hismessenger

The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.

 

[CmRoddy]

Has God ever made a mistake where he had to go back and change anything which He purposed? A perfect God knew from the beginning what the end was going to be and never second guessed himself on anything. Many will say that God repented of making man, but that was said for our understanding. Not what was truly being done but still fulfilling the plan he set forth from day one until the end. No changes, errors, redos or any of the things which man suffers in his planning. For God is perfect In all His ways. There is no way perfection can ever be in error in God. Because of His knowledge which goes eons above what we can think or imagine. He wrought a plan in Himself and carries it out with perfect ease and grace. He is God all by Himself and doesn't need us for anything other than what he has purposed us for. To Give Him Love and Glory.

hismessenger

Exactly. God accomplishes everything that He wants to accomplish. Why? For several reasons. First of all, His plans are eternal (2 Tim. 1:9; Psa. 33:11; Is. 37:26; Is. 46:9-10; 2 Thess; 2:13; Matt. 25:34; 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 31:3; Acts 15:18; Ps. 139:16). Secondly, His plans are unchangeable (James 1:17; Is. 14:24; Is. 46:10-11; Nu. 23:19; Mal. 3:6). Thirdly, the divine plan includes the future acts of men (Dan. 2:28; John 6:64; Matt. 20:18-19 and all other passages of prophecy). Fourhtly, the divine plan inlcudes the foruitous events or "chance" happenings (Prov. 16:33; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:24, 26; Job 36:32; 1 Ki. 22:28, 34; Job 5:6; Mark 14:30). Fithly, some events are recorded as fixed or inevitably certain (Luke 22:22; John 8:20; Matt. 24:36; Gen. 41:32; Hab. 2:3; Luke 21:24; Jer. 15:2; Job 14:5; Jer. 27:7). Lastly, even the sinful acts of men are included in the plan and are overruled for good (Gen. 50:20; Is. 45:7; Amos 3:6; Acts 3:18; Matt. 21:42; Rom. 8:28).

Source: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner

As you can see, nothing catches God by surprise and everything that happens is according to His eternal plan and purpose.

 

[Benefactor]

Another set of doctrines that is dramatically effected by interpretation of time, space, and eternity is that of predestination. Although the term, "predestination" is usually tied to the issue of salvation, it can refer to the broader issue of God’s plan for all of history.15 If we limit God to our time experience, God’s knowledge of the future can only be seen as omniscient prediction or total sovereign control. This issue divided the church early in the reformation when John Calvin taught a theology that all events that take place in creation are providentially planned. God’s forordination of the events of history is so absolute that those whom He has planned for election cannot resist the gospel. Shortly after Calvin’s death, Jacobus Arminius countered Calvin’s deterministic position with the teaching that every person is free to accept or reject God’s grace. This position created so much conflict in the early church that it is thought to have contributed to his declined health. 16
When taken to the extreme, Calvin’s position has been used to argue against the responsibility of Christians to share the gospel. Their belief is that if God has preordained a soul’s salvation, there is no need for a missionary effort. This also implies that if a person is ordained to be lost, no amount of evangelism can make a difference. It is interesting that people could place their doctrine under such a veil when the documented New Testament experience is almost entirely missionary-based. Such a position is inspired by a misunderstanding of God’s eternity, and is damaging to the propagation of the gospel by discouraging evangelism, the very essence and commission of God’s purpose for the temporal Christian experience.
​

When taken to a greater extreme, a fatalistic viewpoint arises that absolves mankind of all responsibility for their actions. "If all that transpires in this world is God’s will, and I kill you, then Praise God, it was His will that you die. I am only God’s obedient hand." This argument has been used to justify tyranny, terrorism, and violence.

Rev. John W. (Jack) Carter ; 6-7-09; The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.
​

 

[heymikey80]

To be honest, omnitemporal feedback is just a roundabout way of denying what Scripture says explicitly. When an explanation explains a position to the point of denying its plain meaning, it's not a solution to the meaning of the text.

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Romans 9

As for the complaints about taking to extremes, #1, Calvin himself reasoned against those extremes. He was fully aware they existed, and they pre-existed him in Greek philosophy. So that's truly a red herring.

had you only been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how offensive to me is the profane term "fate"; not only that, you would have learned in reading my writings that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by the malice and hatred of the wicked and the worthless of his day; and you would also have discovered in my writings that these objections were replied to by that holy father and godly teacher in a manner which would fully answer every purpose of my own cause and defense upon the present occasion. John Calvin, "Hidden Providence", Preface.

Even if it weren't a red herring, the charge is equally levelled against this position. Taken to extremes "omnitemporality" -- let's face it, the argument's really simply "prescience" in heaven -- contributes nothing to the argument. It's not a new way of looking at things. And its reasoning simply either deprives Scripture of the meaning it's communicating to people, or it's embracing that God's choice is based on God's mercy, and nothing else. The arguments continue on this grounds. It's not a new solution. It's simply another battlefield.

 

[Benefactor]

Came across this today on the WEB:


5. It Is Not Wise To Follow John Calvin; He Was Unsound At The Very Foundation Of The Christian Faith:

Calvin never gave a testimony of the new birth; rather he identified with his Catholic infant baptism. Note the following quotes from his Institutes:

“At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life” (Institutes, IV).

“By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism” (Institutes, IV).

Calvin was vicious toward his enemies, acting more like a devouring wolf than a harmless sheep. Historian William Jones observed that “that most hateful feature of popery adhered to Calvin through life, the spirit of persecution.” Note how he described his theological opponents: “...all that filth and villainy...mad dogs who vomit their filth against the majesty of God and want to pervert all religion. Must they be spared?” (Oct. 16, 1555).

Calvin hated the Anabaptists, though they were miles closer to the Scriptural pattern for the New Testament church than he was. He called them “henchmen of Satan.” Four men who disagreed with Calvin on who should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper were beheaded, quartered, and their body parts hung in strategic locations in Geneva as a warning to others. He burned Michael Servetus (for rejecting infant baptism and for denying Christ’s deity). Calvin wrote about Servetus, “One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.”

David Cloud; http://www.greatpreachers.org/calvinism.html ; 6/22/2009

Color and under line mine - Benefactor. C



Can anyone refute these accounts as they are given by David Cloud?