John Calvin's Bodycount...

The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)...(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom. A. Execution1. Jacques Gruet(A)"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."(C)"Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet "for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances." (D)Quoting Stephan Zweig's "The Right to Heresy": "Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite." (E)"This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as 'Libertines', which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553)."(F)"Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin's control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers."(J)2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile(A)and(G)"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 twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded."(H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder?(A)(C)"Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin's house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin's accusation, for having "attacked the mystery of the Trinity," in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva."(E)(J)4. Raoul Monnet(E)(J)page 223 "This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as "Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city."5. Others(A)"Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545."(A)"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."(F)"A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake." NOTE: Probably ServetusB. Banishment (mere banishment!)1. Castellio(A)"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."(B)(K) Very full account of Castellio2. Bolsec(A)(B)(F)"Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished."(L)3. Others(A)"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."A. http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htmB. http://www.gospeltruth.net/heres..._chap5.htmC. http://www.worldwideschool.org/l...hap16.htmlD. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htmE. http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/HER...l047.shtmlF. http://www.churchlink.com.au/chu...alvin.htmlG. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htmH. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc...xv.xiv.htmI. http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.htmlJ. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press; K. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc....xv.ix.htm (different page from H)L. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc...v.viii.htm John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! 1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.The New Testament approach to false teachers is the precise opposite of what Calvin's modus operandi was:2 Tim 2:24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26 and they may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.As to the relationship of his doctrine to his practice, as he plainly taught that everything that happens is God's will (I can provide the quotes if you would like), then it necessarily follows that he considered everything he did as God's will, even having his detractors beheaded, burned at the stake, or banished. I'm saying that one's theology inevitably works out in one's practice, and this was all too apparent in the life of John Calvin. If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God? One's actions don't have any bearing on the authenticity of one's teaching? It seems to me that we should hold ANY theologian to the same moral standard as any other teacher in the body of Christ. john@revivaltheology.net

What end are you trying to achieve with this post? I'm just curious if you're taking the approach that Predestination is not a valid teaching because Calvin's moral character was lacking when it came to charity towards those who disagreed with him. While the perceived value of moral teaching can be stained with the failures of its teachers (King David comes to mind here when the Lord said that David had given God's enemies an occasion to blaspheme.), the teaching its self must be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. If this is not the case then we can discount the cross because of all the hypocrites throughout history who have preached it. You won't get much of a debate out of me on predestination, I lean towards Arminianism, so I would probably be accused of being Pelagian by men like R C Sproul. I'm just curious what end you are trying to achieve in this post and what point you are wanting to debate. Or are you simply providing us with historical information on John Calvin?In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

My point is found immediately following the historical information and links, where I begin to say:John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! One hears so many (even some here) talk about how godly Calvin was. And yet the facts of his life tell a very different story. As to predestination, the Bible plainly teaches predestination, just not the deterministic kind like Calvin and Calvinists teach. The Bible teaches conditional election, conditional predestination, and conditional security.This historical information is not widely known about Calvin; and yes, I am trying to spread these historical facts about the one whom so many in evangelicalism look to as such an esteemed spiritual leader.

Thank you so much for posting this. Although I have always clearly seen that the Bible is contrary to much Calvanist doctrine, and I always saw that 99% of Calvanists were people looking for excuses not to share their faith or obey Jesus last command, I was SHOCKED to read about these absolute historical facts about his life.I will now need to do more research on this fellow.Thank you for opening my eyes!I must say though, that a man's character DOES, to me, alter how much I will trust other areas of his life, especially in the way of doctrine.A modern-day example is Ian Paisley. His violent hate rhetoric towards the Church of Rome, which I agree is a cult, does him no favors. Others like Walter Martin (RIP) have produced Protestant/Anti-Catholic/Anti-Pope material that just simply makes Ian Paisley's material look like a bad junior-high essay compared to a Doctoral Thesis. Paisley wants to condemn, Martin wants to rescue. Paisley's open his mouth, Martin open the Bible and the truth and absolutely demolishes the Roman Catholic Church, rips its doctrines to shreds, yet in love, and in and effort to educate and rescue. I think Paisley just loves the sound of his own voice at times.Many people here like Paisley too. :(

Revivaltheology wrote: "This historical information is not widely known about Calvin; and yes, I am trying to spread these historical facts about the one whom so many in evangelicalism look to as such an esteemed spiritual leader."Reply: Thank you for clearing that up. I was thrown off because of the section of the forum that you posted this in. I was not sure what, if any, scriptures you were wanting to debate or discuss.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Several thoughts. First, in reading church history, we must keep in perspective by taking into account the historical and cultural distance between the historical figures and us (twenty-first century postmodern people). For instance, the notion of "human rights" in the form as we know it is a very recent one; we should not judge them in light of our present understanding. Zwingli, the other well-known great reformer, could also be accused of being intolerant and violent. It was also clear that regardless of how we see the morality behind his actions, Calvin saw his actions as being in obedience to God in executing the will of God.Second, some scholars would argue that the absolute form of the teaching attributed to John Calvin, that is, five-point Calvinism as we know it today, may not be what he had in mind, at least not in its extremest form.Third, to me, even a cursory reading of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion made it clear, even to magnificent masterpiece, unsurpassed by anyone to date. Moreover, I find that the man John Calvin is very different from the stereotype often attributed to later Calvinists--not only is his work a grand theological treatise, but I find it deeply devotional and bubbling with godly fervour. revivaltheology said: If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God?In summary, my main thrust is that just as we must be aware of the historical and cultural distance between the biblical world and us in our bible studies, we must also be sensitive to the distances between figures in church history and us. Any indepth historical study of people (even good people) who lived centuries ago will probably uncover some peculiarities in thoughts and behaviour that are quite out of grasp to the modern person, especially if he is trying to read his own world into the ancient world. That's why I think the quote above is rather problematic in this respect. (By the same logic, Zwingli, among many others, could be accused by the same charge...)

As Paris Reidhead said in "Ten Shekels and a Shirt," the religion of this age is based on humanism.(paraphrase) Also, I add to this frame of thought, religion today is based on rationalism. If we try to dismiss the faith of a man because we are not living in his same historical and cultural context we are basing it on the thoughts of men and not the leading of the Holy Spirit. In Christ Jesus, everything is the same. The fruit of His work in our life does not change because of history or culture. This is satan's world. Faith of a man will define who he followed. I submit that the fruit of John Calvin faith are thorns and dead works that will be burned by the righteousness of our Almighty God!

In regards to the original post and not in any way excusing him, how would this apply to the likes of Moses, David, Saul (Paul)?Appreciate the historical background, had never heard about this before.

In James 2:19-20, "So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God."By my prior post I am guilty. I was not slow to speak or slow to wrath. Forgive me. This verse also sheds light for the motivations of men's hearts. God did use Moses and David to execute His judgement on the wicked. The executor never brings about the righteousness of God. That is the work of Jesus bringing about a new life in each individual.Going back to the first post, the men that were executed by Calvin were not wicked as those who worshiped Baalam during the times of Moses and David. These men were all trying to know God. Also, the judgement of God is swift in its execution. The nature of Calvin's work is not. What was the motivation of Calvin's heart, was he truly used by God as His executioner, or was he trying to bring about God's righteousness? Bad fruit does not come from a good tree. In terms of Paul, prior to hearing the word of God, Jesus speaking to him, Paul followed his flesh. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Romans 8:7 Paul was forgiven of past sin. Jesus changed his nature. What was the fruit then? A good tree does not produce bad fruit.So the final question is this, did Calvin have a relationship with Jesus? I cannot judge if he was another servant of my Master. But reading of his thoughts in the Institutes of Calvin, he posessed a child like understanding of Scripture. He had a brilliant mind. He was trained as a lawyer. He would expound upon one Scripture for pages using his own thoughts. Just like the lawyers of today do. They create their own truth. One additional thought came to mind. In the times of Moses, Joshua, and David the presence of God was on the battle field. God opened up the Red Sea so that it could swallow up the army of Egypt. God brought down the walls of Jericho. God rained down hailstone and fire on the armies of Amalek. The Angel of the Lord destroyed the armies of the wicked. The stone pierced Golliath's skull.One more additional thought, Moses thought he was doing the work of the God of Israel when he killed the Egyptian in Exodus 2:12. At this point like Paul, God had not spoken to him. Forty years later, God speaks to Moses! God spoke to Joshua, march around Jericho. I would have to read up on David to find a similar parallel. David had Samuel and Nathan as God's spokesman.

One more additional thought, Moses thought he was doing the work of the God of Israel when he killed the Egyptian in Exodus 2:12. At this point like Paul, God had not spoken to him. Forty years later, God speaks to Moses! God spoke to Joshua, march around Jericho. I would have to read up on David to find a similar parallel. David had Samuel and Nathan as God's spokesmanThis was more along the lines I was thinking, David having Bathsheba's husband Uriah put to death, Moses and the Egyptian, Saul(Paul) persecuting the church. Actually wasn't a very good analogy in regards to character verses doctrine. I digress, and will blame it on this head cold :roll:

I understand your point crsschk.However, I considered the work that God did through David, not having time to research as I said I needed to. 1 Samuel 25:39, "So when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said,"Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and has kept His servant from evil! For the Lord has returned the wickedness of Nabal on his own head." Here the Lord executed His judgement supernaturally. We also learn that it was the Lord who kept David from evil. We also have the long story of King Saul and his efforts to kill David. What was his response to Saul, who David knew was anointed by God to be king? David waited on the Lord to bring about His solution. Yet saying this I also found that I stumbled just like the systematic theologians do. Everytime man thinks he can systematically identify how God worked in this or that event, God shows us how foolish we really are. I believe Scripture teaches us that, "My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are above your thoughts." (Paraphrase). I know that as we learn this lesson over and over again, that it only serves to point us to God. He reveals Himself as He chooses to do in each individual.

JeffMarshalek said: I submit that the fruit of John Calvin faith are thorns and dead works that will be burned by the righteousness of our Almighty God! This is a very strong statement, although I personally doubt it seriously. Nevertheless, John Calvin does not need anyone to vindicate him. We shall find out on the day of judgement.Elsewhere, it was implied that my views regarding church history are humanistic and rationalistic (though no explanation was given). I plainly fail to see why (and I find it unusual, as more often than not, I am accused of the opposite!).

I am sorry for declaring judgement in my own name. But there is a hatred that exists in me. "I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies." Psalm 139:22. You see God declared to satan, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Genesis 3:15. Those who follow Jesus, will like Jesus, begin to hate unrighteousness. Unlike Calvin, David prayed, "Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!"In terms of humanism, I was quick to judge you. I am sorry. I specifically was refering to your praise for the writings of Calvin. Jesus corrected the rich young ruler, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is God..." Matthew 19:17Man can only sow and water, it is God that gives the increase.When one seeks to take the edge off of something that seems inappropriate by distance of time and culture, again this is a warning to me. Please read my postings in the thread on predestination, and homosexuals in the church of England. To summarize in the briefest manner. The foundation on which 5 point calvinism stands is the doctrine of irresistible grace. Clearly focus on this point. Calvin teaches that we are saved by grace alone. The Scriptures teach that we are saved by grace through faith. As iron sharpens iron

As I have mentioned before, Calvin's own teachings on predestination should probably not be fully identified with the extreme forms of "Calvinism" as we know it today. If John Calvin were alive today, he might be surprised how some of the later "Calvinists" have expanded on his ideas. Therefore, rejection of the so-called "Five-Point Calvinism" does not necessarily entails dismissal of John Calvin himself.Your scripture-quoting is meaningless unless you have pre-judged John Calvin as God's enemy or even as the Devil himself. I tend to disagree with you--may God be the Judge.I see no connection between humanism and the appreciation of a believer's writings, especially when I have no intention of exalting any human's writings over the revelation of God. When one seeks to take the edge off of something that seems inappropriate by distance of time and culture, again this is a warning to me. Being aware of this distance is a basic hermeneutical rule in biblical and historical studies. Otherwise, we risk the danger of reading our own culture, thoughts, and ideals into the texts that are foreign to the author and original readers--that's how cults twist the scriptures.

Hi Agent 001As you can see, I have shared the condition of my heart in this matter. I see your point in terms of Calvin's teachings being distorted by others over the ages. Please bare with me just one more time. Does Calvin teach that grace is irresistilbe? I have not labored through his writings as thoroughly as I should. Based on his writings how would Calvin address this Scripture, Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Paul clearly teaches that all men are born dead. We are enemies of God. Paul also teaches that when we commit our life to our Savior we are made alive by the Spirit of God. Are these two precepts correct as how I have communicated it. If so, then Paul is clearly teaching to those who are born again. Paul is also teaching that a believer, one who is born again, must make a choice. The believer is given the option to continue to follow the old man or to follow the Spirit. We become what we place our faith in. Do you agree with this analysis?If so, do the writings of Calvin teach that a born again man can because of the choice he makes die spiritually. Is this what Paul is teaching?Did Calvin address this verse in his teaching. Romans 5:10, "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." The first thought, Paul teaches that we are reconciled to God through the death of His Son. The second thought, Paul teaches that, "much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." The second thought is what saves us from God's wrath. See verse 9. So salvation comes by living His life. The just shall live by faith. With this analysis are we saved by grace alone, or are we saved by grace through faith? Which doctrine does Calvin teach? As iron sharpens ironJeff

Inevitably, David, Paul, and other biblical figures are lifted up as murderers who found grace. A couple of things are important to note:1. David and Paul repented of their sins of murder.2. OT examples of God's people being commissioned to put the wicked Canaanites to death do not really speak to this issue, unless one assumes the Calvin was directly commanded by God to put Servetus and these others to death. Also, the New Covenant standard is "love thine enemy." Also, some seek to excuse Calvin's tyrannical rule of Geneva by "the times" in which Calvin lived. However, there were MANY peace-loving Anabaptists who did not resort to violence to advance the kingdom of God, and who were in turn put to death by both the Protestants and the Catholics of that day. Calvin had the same gospels to read and obey as we do today. The only thing Servetus was convicted of was being against baptizing babies and against the traditional doctrine of the trinity. These things deserve being burned at the stake, under ANY supposedly Christian government?

On Romans 5:10 -"This is an explanation of the former verse, amplified by introducing a comparison between life and death. We were enemies, he says, when Christ interposed for the purpose of propitiating the Father: through this reconciliation we are now friends; since this was effected by his death; much more influential and efficacious will be his life. (1) We hence have ample proofs to strengthen our hearts with confidence respecting our salvation. By saying that we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ, he means, that it was the sacrifice of expiation, by which God was pacified towards the world, as I have showed in the fourth chapter.""But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this -- that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed."(1) "By his life," the abstract for the concrete; it means, "through him being alive," being at God's right hand, having every power committed to him, and making intercession for us Romans 8:34. "Because I live, ye shall live also." John 14:19. -- Ed.On Romans 8:13 -"...It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith...""...however we may as yet be exposed to sins, he nevertheless promises life to us, provided we strive to mortify the flesh: for he does not strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every exertion to subdue its lusts..."All in John Calvin's own words -Calvin's Commentary

revivaltheology:I am not trying to excuse John Calvin from what he has done. We all now know as we look back at history that the persecution of others for any reason is wrong. I am merely pointing out that, Calvin apparently believed that he was doing the will of God. He earnestly believed that this was the way a Christian city should be run. And zealously he did so! (Unfortunately, zeal without true knowledge always ends up hindering God's work -- I think quite a number of Christians today are guilty of the same)In my opinion, what he did was definitely wrong. However, he could never be accused of hypocrisy. After all, he wholeheartedly acted upon what he wholeheartedly believed. I believe that had he known what he's doing is not pleasing in the eyes of God, he would not have wilfully commit the sin. He simply was not aware of it. (Take note that likewise, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. were unaware that their polygamy was a violation of God's original ordination of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.)One might say, "Why? It's so obviously wrong." And you might point out numerous bible verses to support your point. But the fact is, Calvin had such a different set of historical/cultural and theological presuppositions that he failed to see it. What is obvious today is not necessarily so obvious then.The same could be said of slavery. Everyone would condemn slavery today. But several centuries ago, it was not all that obvious -- some even try to justify slavery by citing scripture. Even so, I have no doubt that there were many Christians at that time, despite failing to see the error of slavery, who are genuine, pious, and godly. And I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from some of them spiritually and theologically. I would not say that because they had condoned slavery, therefore they were bad Christians and we could not possibly learn from their spiritual experiences and their biblical teachings.I did this in a hurry, I hope you understand what I mean.

This may be a little off topic but regarding the slavery issue and people supporting it, here is a link to an article written before the civil war; which if taken seriously by the many so called 'Christians' of that day, the civil war may have been avoided.http://www.truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Oberlin/Come-outism.html Also Zwingli, Calvin and Luther were all guilty of persecuting those who did not agree with them, Zwingli and Luther in paritcular 'backslid' from some of their reforms and started to persecute those who wanted the reformations to go further, all three of those (in my opinion) :) were more concerned in setting up a 'church' then they were a fellowship of believers. I realize that this is a little strong, however when you read the history of the anabaptists and others you will see that not all of their problems/persucution came from the Catholic church. A great deal of it came from those 'reformers' and others like them.A Work In ProgressLyndon

It must be tough for God to work in this world without using any sinners. All the Reformers had their problems - some quite significant. The Reformation was a very messy time involving much violence. Luther did have regrets for how people took his teaching. He was content to write scathing critiques, but he was shocked when people actually got out and started acting as people will act when provoked to revolt against an authority.One of many good things to come from this time was a revival of Augustinianism. Justification by faith alone. Truth comes from Scripture only. Two sacraments - not seven. Priesthood of believers. So many simple but important ideas were revived.I guess I mostly want to respond to the parts of this thread that have wandered (as they so often do) from the original topic. I'm not a "follower of Calvin" so much as a believer who sees election in Scripture and agrees with Calvin that Augustine was pretty much on the nose when refuting Pelagius. I don't even care when God elected us - pre-fall, post-fall, in seventy-four dimensions all orthogonal to ours none of which include time, whatever. I'm very tired of people who have never even scratched the surface of Calvinism giving ridiculous critiques of it. The basics of it are so simple and obviously scriptural!Scripture teaches that we are totally wicked and dead in sin from the fall. Therefore, we cannot bring ourselves up from the dead - God must do this. We have a will but without God's intervention it always goes the wrong way (none seeketh after God). So He has elected some to whom he gives the gift of faith and those people always respond by coming to Him in repentance and obedience. John 6 clearly teaches that all the Father has given to the Son will come to Him and that none can come to Him that the Father doesn't draw. How can this be refuted? I'm convinced that Arminians must have Bibles that are missing John 6 and Romans 9. No one can suddenly become spiritually alive just because they want to. As for the comment about just not wanting to evangelize - get serious. Just because you have decided to put a yoke upon yourself that isn't scriptural isn't the Calvinists' fault. We get the joy of preaching the Gospel and trusting God to do the rest. You get to sweat blood nightly worrying that people are being damned by your lack of craftiness and persuasion in "getting decisions." Not that I'm not concerned about the hellbound, but I trust that if I do my part God will do His. If you believe that people just "make decisions" without God's drawing them and don't sweat blood nightly about your insufficient witness you are a fool. I thank God that He didn't entrust the furthering of His church solely to us. He is building His church and I am glad to be a part of it. Show me where God said to be clever and persuasive to get "decisions" rather than preaching the Gospel with boldness. Maybe all this "persuasion" explains the people who have to "rededicate" 50 times because they were never saved in the first place! Arminians have ruined the harvest in many ways by getting everyone "saved." Now it is just that much harder to bring people to true repentance. "I already walked down the aisle and made a "decision for Jesus"- I have grace - I don't have to do anything." That faith doesn't save according to James. Now I'm far down the rabbit trail, aren't I?