John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

I’m a lawyer, but I also have an M.A. in history.

Well it certainly doesn't show.

To state that Calvin is among the greatest liberators in human history shows an utter lack of knowledge of Calvin's police state in Geneva

and then the statement with both theological and political oppression. shows an utter lack of knowledge of the Calvinist Hohenzollerns who forced the Lutherans in Prussia to submit to Calvinist ways.

Any good M.A. in history would know that. Well, not an M.A. in Eskimo studies or "history of Mars chocolate"...

I’ve studied Tyndale extensively. The impact of his work cannot be denied. More than 80% of the text of the King James came straight from Tyndale’s translation and his translation was the major influence on the Geneva Bible, which was the Bible used by the American Puritans and the Pilgrims.

Wow, an MA in eskimo studies doesn't prepare one for any real debate, does it?

Tyndale's translation is from Erasmus' and from Luther's and from the Vulgate. So, buddy boy, you think that Erasmus is the father of the American Revolution? Or perhaps since a lot is from the Vulgate, St. Jerome is actually the father? Sheesh, MA in history indeed...

That theology was believed, taught, and loved by many for centuries before John Calvin took his first breath.

Err.. no, Mr. MA in history, that isn't correct

Limited Atonement was not "loved" -- it negates the Bible which says that Christ was the savior of the world (John 4:42) 1 John 2:2 Christ is "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." and 1 Timothy 4:10 "Jesus is the Savior of all men"

So, no, the limited atonement belief is a new innovation, almost brahmanic in origin

That theology was believed, taught, and loved by many for centuries before John Calvin took his first breath.

Err.. no, Mr. MA in history, that isn't correct

Irresistable was not "loved" -- it negates the Bible statements -- Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

So, no, the calvinist idea of a brahmanic Karma is false.

I have long said that Martin Luther was one of the founders.

The reason is there are parallels between the political climate and the religious sphere.

As far as I understand it, which probably isn’t that far, under classical Catholicism, one HAD to go to the Church for salvation. Commoners we banned from owning the bible. Redemption and indulgences were granted by the church.

Protestantism threw that out. It emphasized a man having a DIRECT relationship with God.

The political parallels are that in a Monarchy, one looks to the King. One is ALWAYS subject to and favored or disfavored by the King. One never solves problems by themselves, they solve problems with the approval and agreement of the King.

In our Republic, which is rapidly dissolving into chaos, it was originally hoped that we would have SELF GOVERNMENT!!!

SELF GOVERNMENT!!!

It is NOT YOUR JOB to govern someone else!
It is SOLELY YOUR JOB to govern yourself!!

Now I hope no Catholics take exception to what I said, because to me it’s history, but doesn’t reflect bad on anyones faith now.

I think that you have made a fair analysis.

I can’t find the links easily from my droid, but just do a search for monarchists and see how many Catholics think we should have a king. Of course that king should be Catholic.

The problem is that the founding fathers based the new nation on the early roman republic (before Caesar) -- very consciously, right down to names -- like the Senate.

I don't think you can bring the parallels of the reformation with democracy v/s monarchy

For instance note that Luther was pro-Princes against the rising of the serfs (and I state that without talking about his religious aspect at all) and Lutheranism was used pretty much until the Weimar Republic as a department of the state in German states and in the German Empire (in the German Empire this was accelerated by the Kaiser's forcing the union of the Calvinist and Lutheran Churchs thereby making this a fixed department of the state).

Also note that Calvinism attached itself to another state which was not quite democratic -- the Dutch. Of course theDutch were more democratic than France or Spain, but not quite USA levels. This also tied in to historical reasons -- the Dutch and Belgians were part of the Spanish Netherlands, separated from Spain by France and so pretty much independent unlike their compatriots in Spain or France

The truest republics until the time of American indepence were in Italy -- Genoa, Venica, etc. etc. because they were small.

Anyway, I diverge

After Luther there was no increase in personal liberties or rights in Europe. On the contrary, things went the other way -- after the 30 years war, serfdom was imposed in much of Germany and the French King became an autocrat.

The only country which had something resembling a democracy besides the small states of Italy was the Polish-Lithuania republic which elected its kings. That was NOT due to the Poles being Catholic, but to pragmatism in a multi-cultural state

Under Cromwell, Britain was not democratic, Cromwell forcibly dismissed parliament in 1653 and became dictator

Religious plurality disappeared under Cromwell in England, disappeared in France, never was there in Spain after 1492, not in Muscowy nor in Scandanavia and was not there in each individual German state

Religious plurality was to some extent there in the Italian states and in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and surprisingly in much of Ottoman Europe it was there at times.

Presbyterianism aligned itself with the establishment. The Baptists, Unitarians etc. were the ones completely against the establishment

You continue to pester and insult, why should I bother trying to teach you anything or even reply?

That said, have you ever heard Don Carson say, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” This verse cannot be used to prove your assertion.

The defenders of universal atonement often throwout 1 Timothy 4:10 as a key proof text for their position. 1 Timothy 4:10, like any other verse, must be read in context and in light of all of Scripture. That starts by stating the entire verse. I noted you left out the crucial second half of the verse.

The verse reads as follows: “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” (KJV)

Now, let’s analyze the possible meanings.

I. SOTERIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS.

A. Universal Salvation.

If one were to suggest that God is the Savior of all man in the sense that ultimately He actually saves each and every human being who has lived or will on the earth.

Objection. This view is contrary to all biblical teaching. Not all men are saved in the full, spiritual sense. Moreover, if this were true, why would Paul have added, “specially of those who believe”? The last phrase of this verse would make no sense.

B. Free Will Salvation.

1. God wants (desires) all men without exception by their own free will to be saved. However, in the case of some, His will can be and is effectually resisted through obstinate unbelief, because man has a free will and God will not force His will upon man. As a result, God’s foreknowledge is understood to mean foresight; that is, God foresees who will believe and chooses them to be saved.

2. Objection. The text in I Timothy 4:10 does not say that God wants (desires) to save, but that He actually saves: He is actually the Savior (in some sense) of all men. Also, resisting the divine will — in the absolute sense — is impossible. Likewise, it is impossible for God’s foreknowledge to be limited (even voluntarily or by man’s faith). Otherwise God would not be God! (Cf. Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:11; 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29.) Furthermore, the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge,” when used of God, does not mean mere foresight, but an everlasting, intimate relationship stemming from an eternal electing love (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:4-5; I Pet. 1:2).

C. Modified Free Will Salvation.

1. God is able (has provided) salvation for all men without exception upon the condition of faith. But all can not (will not) be saved, only those who exercise faith; that is, only the elect are actually saved: the non-elect are only provisionally or hypothetically saved (placed in a salvable position) but are never actually saved.

2. Objection. While it is true that only those who believe will be saved, this interpretation of the text dodges the issue. The verse does not say that the living God is able to save, but has provided salvation for all men without exception. It says, “He is the Savior of all men.” But “all men have not faith” (II Thess. 3:2) because saving faith is a gift from God; is it not (Phil. 1:29; II Thess. 2:13)? If faith is a gift from God, why does not God give saving faith to all men without exception? Does one’s ability to believe lie within his own will (cf. John 1:13; 6:44; Jas. 1:18), or solely within the sovereign grace and good pleasure of God? (Cf. Matt. 11:25-27; John 6:63; Eph. 1:11; II Tim. 1:9.)

D. Distributive Salvation.

1. God actually bestows salvation — in the full, evangelical sense of the term — on all kinds (classes) of men. He gives to all of them everlasting life; that is, He gives everlasting life to all kinds (classes) of men. “All” is a relative rather than an absolute term.

2. Objection. Although It is true that God does desire that prayers be made on behalf of the salvation of all kinds (classes) of people (cf. Rom. 9:24; 1Tim. 2:1-2, 4; Rev. 5:9; 7:9), this truth does not fit the context here because of the final phrase, “specially of those that believe.”

II. NONSOTERIOLOGlCAL-SOTERlOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION (FREE GRACE SALVATION).

A. This is the correct interpretation. It is found by making a thorough study of the term “Savior” (in both its noun and verb forms) in the context of the chapter, the epistle, the New Testament and the Old Testament. The final phrase “specially of those that believe” clearly Indicates that the term is here given a twofold application. Of all men God is the Savior, but of some men, namely, believers, He is the Savior in a deeper, more glorious sense than He is of others.

This clearly implies that when He Is called the Savior of all men, this cannot mean that He imparts to all everlasting life, as He does to believers. The term “Savior,” then, must have a meaning which we today generally do not immediately attach to it. And that is exactly the cause of the difficulty. Often In the Old Testament, the term meant “to deliver — (verbal form) or deliverer (nominal form)” — both with reference to men and God (cf. Judg. 3:9; II Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Ps. 25:5; 106:21). Also, in the New Testament, reference is made to the Old Testament where God delivered Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh for He had been the Savior of all, but especially those who believed. With the latter, and with them alone, He was “well pleased” (I Cor. 10:5). All leave Egypt; not all enter Canaan.” POINT: In both the Old and New Testaments the term “Savior” is often used to speak of God’s providential preservation or deliverance which extends to all men without exception. (Cf. Ps. 36:6; 145:9; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35; Acts 17:25, 28.) Moreover, God also causes His gospel of salvation to be earnestly proclaimed to all men without distinction; that is, to men from every race and nation (Matt. 28:19). Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all. But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith.

B. Conclusion. A paraphrase of what Paul is teaching in I Timothy 4:10 is this: “We have our hope set on the living God, and in this hope we shall not be disappointed, for not only is He a kind God, hence the Savior (i.e., preserver or deliverer in a providential, non-soteriological sense) of all men, showering blessings upon them, but He is, in a very special sense, the Savior (in a soteriological sense) of those who by faith embrace Him and His promise, for to them He imparts salvation, everlasting life in all its fullness.

THE LIVING GOD IS THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVER OF ALL MEN; BUT HE IS ESPECIALLY SO FOR BELIEVERS, FOR HE NOT ONLY PHYSICALLY AND TEMPORALLY DELIVERS THEM, BUT HE ALSO SPIRITUALLY AND ETERNALLY SAVES THEM.

Here is a more thorough scholarly treatment, heavy on analysis of the Greek.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/WTJ-NT/Baugh-1Tim4SaviorAll-WTJ.pdf

As Rush always says, “words mean things.” In this instance, the words “irresistible grace” don’t mean what you seem to believe they mean. The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible. That’s a big difference.

In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did.” And Paul speaks of grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). God gives many entreaties and promptings which are resisted. In fact the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament is one protracted story of resistance, as the parable of the wicked tenants shows (Matthew 21:33-43; cf. Romans 10:21).

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. “He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!” (Daniel 4:35). “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” To which Paul answers: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me thus?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?” (Romans 9:20).

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.

Someone may say, “Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing.” Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be “unable to submit to God.” If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures.

In John 6:44 Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, “He draws all men, not just some.” But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father’s “drawing” is why some believe and not others.

Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, “’But there are some of you that do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’”

Notice two things.

First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is “given” to some and not to others.

Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why “there are some who do not believe.” We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth.”

Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God “irresistible grace”.

NOTE: It should be obvious from this that irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. That would even be a contradiction in terms. On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their best interests.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Notice the two kinds of “calls” implied in this text.

First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.

But then, secondly, Paul refers to another kind of call. He says that among those who hear there are some who are “called” in such a way that they no longer regard the cross as foolishness but as the wisdom and power of God. What else can this call be but the irresistible call of God out of darkness into the light of God? If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith. This is irresistible grace.

It is further explained in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, “The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God...It is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

Since men are blinded to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, “Let there be light.” It is in fact a new creation, or a new birth. This is what is meant by the effectual call in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness but as the power and the wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed. This is irresistible grace.

Another example of it is in Acts 16:14, where Lydia is listening to the preaching of Paul. Luke says, “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul.” Unless God opens our hearts, we will not heed the message of the gospel. This heart-opening is what we mean by irresistible grace.

Another way to describe it is “new birth” or being born again. We believe that new birth is a miraculous creation of God that enables a formerly “dead” person to receive Christ and so be saved. We do not think that faith precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has begotten us anew. “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1).

When John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God, but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man.

Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the new-born child is faith. Thus new birth is the effect of irresistible grace, because it is an act of sovereign creation — “not of the will of man but of God.”

Sorry, your long text doesn't meet the fact that Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

So, Irresistable Grace was not "loved" or even known -- it negates the Bible statement above

Irresistable was not "loved" -- it negates the Bible statements

Sorry, your long text doesn't meet the fact that Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

So, Irresistable Grace was not "loved" or even known -- it negates the Bible statement above

None of your statements prove it. In fact you quote In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did.” --> no statement that you WILL always resist. it says you resist.

did the MA also include lessons in English?

Sorry, your long text doesn't meet the fact that Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

So, Irresistable Grace was not "loved" or even known -- it negates the Bible statement above

None of your statements prove it. In fact you quote In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did.” --> no statement that you WILL always resist. it says you resist.

did the MA also include lessons in English?

The Lord Jesus promised His disciples in John 16:8 that the Holy Spirit would come to reprove the world of [i.e., about] sin, righteousness, and judgment: the same world that "God so loved" (John 3:16), and the same world into which God sent His Son "that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). So what does it mean that the Holy Spirit would reprove the world (not just the elect) about sin, righteousness, and judgment? This point is so important that it is well worth spending some time considering the breadth of meaning of the word. The relevant Greek word is elegchos which literally means "to bring to light." Among the possibilities offered for its English rendering are from Strong (Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon): "convict, convince, tell a fault, rebuke, reprove." From J. N. Darby (New Translation): "to bring demonstration"; the English Revised Version "convict"; Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871): "convince" (note our English word convict comes from the Latin word "convincere" which literally means to convince), while other renderings include "to expose."

This idea of Karma Negates the importance of man’s obedience. This doctrine would have people believe that the grace of God to salvation is given to the obedient and disobedient alikeprovided they have been elected. According to Calvinism, God, in His own time, arbitrarily sends the Spirit upon whomsoever He will, while totally disregarding (a) the kind of lives these people live, and (b) the desire (or lack of it) that these people have for His grace. Such a doctrine can only do one thing: consign obedience to the realm of the “non-essential.” And when Calvinism does this, it is in complete contradition. with the Bible. The Bible teaches that man’s obedience is essential to his salvation. Jesus stated: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21

When the Bible teaches the essentiality of obedience, it does not imply that man’s obedience earns salvation. On the contrary, our active obedience to God’s will indicates that we cannot save ourselves, and thus makes us openly admit that we must submit to Him to be saved. Of course, this would not be the case if we were to try to be saved by obeying our will. We read in Acts 10:34-35: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Paul states the case well by contrasting the works of God with the works of man in Eph. 2:8-10: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Neither does the Bible imply that man’s obedience displaces God’s grace. The Bible teaches that God’s grace, coupled with man’s obedience, produces the promised blessing Heb. 11: “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet (grace), moved with fear, prepared an ark (obedience) to the saving of his house (promised blessing)” (v. 7); “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place (grace), which he should after receive for an inheritance (promised blessing), obeyed (obedience)” (v. 8); “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed (grace), and was delivered of a child when she was past age (promised blessing), because she judged him faithful who had promised (obedience).” (v. 11) This same principle is true today, as is shown by the statement found in Heb. 5:9: “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” “Eternal salvation” is the promised blessing. Through the grace of God, Jesus shed his blood (“became the author”), which purchased the church and put into effect God’s will. Man’s obedience, though, must be coupled to God’s grace, as is shown in the last clause: “unto all them that obey him.” Hence, if obedience is essential to salvation, “irresistible grace” cannot be possible.

Your calvinistic philosophy denies the true nature of grace. Paul explains the nature of grace in Eph. 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of’ God.” Grace is a gift. A gift necessarily involves two ideas: (a) the will of the giver to give; and (b) the consent of the receiver to receive. If either of these conditions is missing, the item given is not a gift. The word “irresistible” means “impossible to successfully resist” (Webster). Therefore, to state that God’s grace is “irresistible” is to say that the “consent of the receiver” is not necessarily involved in the giving of grace. Hence, this would deny that the grace of God is a gift. Such is the sad consequence of believing Calvinistic theory!

My emphasis is on the history of the South, not eskimo studies or the early church.

Yes, I believe that without the Reformers as a group (and certain key pre-reformers) there would have been no American Revolution, at least not a revolution that looked as ours did. When the Colonies declared their independence, King George supposedly said something along the lines of “I’m afraid they’ve followed after a Scottish cleric,” referring to John Knox. He knew where the source of their courage and revolutionary zeal. It was the same source that caused the reformers to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church. I found the quote in a biography of Knox. Were it not on loan I would look it up and quote it properly.

No one can doubt that without the Reformers there would have been no Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield, ergo no First Great Awakening. And many historians have written of the importance of the First Great Awakening as a precurser to the American Revolution. Even Wikipedia delves into that discussion. At one time every American studied that in high school.

I’m not going to change you and no one is going to change me, so this is an unprofitable discussion. Consider this my last response to you, whether public or private. My prayer is that someone else will one day be edified by something I’ve posted.

"The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted."

If Grace can be resisted it therefore can be cooperated with. You have affirmed Catholic teaching.

Peace be with you

Now, go read up about Karma and Sanatana Dharma and see how your calvinism is taken from this. The concept of no free will and utter slaves to faith are pure Hindu karma. In fact worse as the robot slaves that are created in this calvinistic vision only follow their programming nothing else

the ones that the calvingod programmed to do evil have it worst of all -- calvingod programs them to do evil then at the end of their life says "ha! ha! I programmed you to be evil and you were evil, now get tortured for all eternity"

Nope, that's not a Christian God.

My emphasis is on the history of the South, not eskimo studies or the early church.

So then your entire I also have an M.A. in history is useless and explains your statements thatCalvin is among the greatest liberators in human history which shows an utter lack of knowledge of Calvin's police state in Geneva

and no wonder your statement with both theological and political oppression which shows an utter lack of knowledge of the Calvinist Hohenzollerns who forced the Lutherans in Prussia to submit to Calvinist ways.

Yes, I believe that without the Reformers as a group (and certain key pre-reformers) there would have been no American Revolution now it is "I believe" -- sorry, your facts are incorrect and have to be relegated to guesses. No, the American revolution is not just due to Calvinists

without the Reformers as a group (and certain key pre-reformers) there would have been no American Revolution,

need to get a real MA in real history -- do you know that we, the USA got our independence from a Protestant country -- that of England? The same England that was stridently anti-Catholic. Your statement falls flat

The followers of Calvin say that they are the elect (i.e. Brahmin robots chosen to go to heaven and programmed to do good) and the non-elect (untouchable robots chosen to go to hell and programmed to do so by Calvingod) -- and at the end whatever the nonelect do, calvingod laughs and sends them to heck

Calvinism believes that everything's already pre-willed by the great robot-maker in the sky, who has already pre-programmed every robot (us) to do good or evil and who has already marked each robot to go to everlasting torment or to heaven.

The robot can't do anything but this program (no free will) and at the end of time, the robot maker laughs at the robot who was programmed to do evil and says "you did the evil I programmed you to do, now burn, burn for all time"

-The Catholic Church was established in Florida decades and decades before the Pilgrims came to America.

I KNEW it! Catholicism could only have started in Florida... (Sorry, had to, but I don’t care who you are, that is funny.)

Actually the first diocese was in Maryland. (Was also accepted by the Pilgrims and the Puritans who basically persecuted the Catholics.)

Florida is so logical, because those who discovered the new world soon had priests evangelizing the area. Not surprising at all.