Zero Degrees Calvin

John Calvin (1509–1564) was one of the most prominent figures in the Reformation that swept across Europe during the sixteenth century that brought about the Protestant split from the Roman Catholic Church. Born in France and originally trained as a lawyer, he broke away from the Catholic Church around 1530 and in the midst of religious conflict, fled to Switzerland where he ended up becoming a prominent minister in Geneva.

Ultimately, his writings became the backbone of much of Protestant theology, and today many mainstream denominations—including the Presbyterians and any denomination containing the word "Reformed"—are strongly influenced by what is generally referred to as Calvinism. The foundational teachings of Calvinism are often summarized into five main principles, and these points are easily recalled by the acronym TULIP.

Here is a quick summary of the five traditional principles that form the basic framework of Calvinism—the five petals of the TULIP, so to speak:

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

1. Total Depravity 

Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved. Ever since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, we have all been born with a sin nature that infects every aspect of our being. Note that most other Christian teaching shares the view that man has a sin nature, but the significant point of difference between Calvinism and other doctrines is that Calvinism teaches that this also extends to man's ability to make a free-will choice to seek God or respond to Him.

According to Calvinism, our sin nature has rendered us absolutely incapable of choosing to seek God or desiring to come to God on our own because our nature is hopelessly, utterly sinful. In other words, even our supposed "free will" has been so corrupted by sin that left to our own devices, we cannot even make the choice to come to God or respond to Him in any way. Thus, every one of us would ordinarily end up in hell were it not for the second point.

2. Unconditional Election 

As a result of God's grace and man's total depravity and inability to seek God by virtue of his own free-will choice, God simply took it upon Himself to choose some people to save. Before the creation of the world, God chose a group of people upon whom to bestow His free gift of salvation. It's not our choice at all, and according to Calvinists, to suppose that it is our choice in any way whatsoever would suggest that we have some innate goodness or superior quality that makes us capable of seeking God, which, according to the doctrine of total depravity, we don't.

(Yeah, I know—the graphic sort of gives me away.) Those people whom God has arbitrarily chosen are called the "elect." Of course, if you're not one of the elect, then you have effectively been chosen for eternal punishment. You may or may not have the stomach to think of it in those terms, but there it is. Dress it up any way you please. This is often referred to simply as the doctrine of election, or predestination. For the sake of clarity, however, I will stick to the term unconditional election in this article to refer to the belief that God chooses us for salvation with no regard for our free will.

3. Limited Atonement 

Well, since only the elect that God has sovereignly chosen will be saved, that means that Jesus Christ must have only died for the elect, not everybody as believed by those who disagree with Calvinism. Calvinists believe that the atonement for sin that Christ's death and resurrection accomplished was limited in the sense that it applied exclusively to the elect.

Most people who disagree with Calvinism maintain that Christ died for all men, and that it is our free-will choice to come to God in repentance and accept in faith God's free gift of salvation. If we do, we are saved. If we don't, we aren't. They agree that God does all the work, but maintain that our free will is involved in some way. In other words, God didn't create robots.

4. Irresistible Grace 

Calvinists believe that if any person is one of the elect, then that person will be saved, no matter what. At some point during that person's life, God will shed His grace upon that person's heart and render him capable of believing that Jesus died for his sins and coming to God in repentance because, after all, we can't choose to respond to God on our own...total depravity, remember?

Our individual salvation is all part of God's sovereign, unknowable plan. If you're one of the elect, God will absolutely draw you to Himself sooner or later. It's a done deal. And if you're not one of the elect, oh well. Tough luck.

5. Perseverance of the Saints 

Finally, if you are one of the elect who has been chosen to be saved by God's sovereign will, then after you respond to His irresistible grace, that's it. You're going to stay saved, no matter what. Your salvation is irrevocable. You will persevere in the faith, with God's help, and you will go to heaven when you die and nobody can change that. That's a done deal, too.

This is sometimes expressed as "Once Saved, Always Saved," or OSAS. It's also called "eternal security," and is so drop-dead easy to prove from Scripture that it is widely accepted and certainly not unique to the teachings of John Calvin.

That's Calvinism in a nutshell, and I need to say this before I go any further:

This is a doctrinal issue—it is not a salvation issue.

Some of the greatest preachers of the gospel that have ever stood behind a pulpit have subscribed to the views of Calvinism, and there are just as many of the same caliber who have not.

On both sides of this doctrinal fence, you will find multitudes of men who love nothing but God and hate nothing but sin. Neither acceptance nor rejection of the principles of Calvinism makes one a heretic, and I certainly do not mean to suggest otherwise, no matter how vigorously I may express my views—which are at odds with Calvinism on certain points.

People have been arguing over the principles of Calvinism ever since John Calvin formulated them in the sixteenth century, and the single biggest bone of contention centers around the relationship between the first two petals of the TULIP: total depravity and unconditional election.

The problem is that Calvinism makes the issue black and white: Either we are saved due to God's sovereign choice alone, or our free-will choice alone. It can't be both—it's gotta be one or the other. Calvinists think it's that first one.

After all, to the human intellect, these appear mutually exclusive. If we believe that God just chose all those who would be saved before Creation, then man's free will in the matter is for naught. How could it be otherwise?

"If God chose us, then logically we don't choose Him, right?"

As a result, whichever side of the argument you sign up for, it comes pre-packaged with the responsibility to negate the other side. If you subscribe to the doctrine of unconditional election, you're obligated to do your utmost to undermine and discredit the role of man's free will in salvation. Similarly, if you believe man's free will has a role in salvation, you have thrust upon you the task of doing the same in order to dismantle unconditional election.

The opposing view is typically associated with Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), a Dutch theologian who broke from the teachings of John Calvin, especially in regard to unconditional election. His views—normally referred to as Arminianism—endorse the idea that although God chose us to be saved, man's free will does play a role in it. This is often called conditional election.

However, note that many Arminians also believe that "if you can choose it, you can lose it." That is, they also reject the last petal on the TULIP: perseverance of the saints, or OSAS. (Personally, I believe the Bible clearly teaches OSAS, so I don't fully subscribe to either Calvinism or Arminianism.)

So there you have it. This set the stage for five hundred years of theological bickering, and two basic debate strategies emerged:

Calvinists: Argue that the Bible clearly teaches that God sovereignly chose us to be saved, and reinterpret all the verses that say our free will is involved in salvation to mean something different.

Arminians: Argue that the Bible clearly teaches that our free will is involved in salvation, and reinterpret all the verses that say that God sovereignly chose us to be saved to mean something different.

And the slugfest continues to this day. Few doctrinal arguments have caused more rancor and division within the Church than the "God's sovereignty vs man's free will" free-for-all that has raged since the sixteenth century.

Newcomers to an old doctrine

Up until recently, Calvinism had never been on my radar screen. I'd heard of it, but had no special interest in learning more about it. I was actually under the mistaken impression that it had died out at some point during the last five hundred years.

So I was slightly taken aback recently when a Christian blog I read regularly posted an article by someone ranting about how the doctrine of unconditional election is biblical. The author trotted out the usual verses and beat up the usual strawmen, but what really stuck with me was the last line of the article:

"[You might object to the fact that God simply chose to save some and not others...] That's fine, but don't say 'I don't believe in election,' say 'I don't believe the Bible.'"

Now, I hadn't seen much of Calvinism before, but this is certainly not the first time I have ever seen this type of doctrinal arrogance. I have on numerous occasions read things written by people who have the hubris to assume they have unearthed some stunning new truth that everyone else has somehow missed, while clutching a fistful of verses that seem to support their view.

In the comment section following the article, I noticed that the comments seemed to be split. Some comments were along the lines of...

"Wow, you mean God just chose us and it's not our choice at all? Cool!"

As if they had just learned that Facebook had simplified their security settings. Others took the author to task, arguing that the doctrine of unconditional election is just as unbiblical today as it was in the sixteenth century.

One thing I learned recently is that Calvinism has been making a roaring comeback in the last few decades. Who knew? I also learned that a lot of these neo-Calvinists who go running around showing off unconditional election as if it were a shiny new toy vehemently insist they are not Calvinists, as if it were a source of embarrassment. But whatever they wish to call themselves, they seem intent on arrogantly hammering people over the head with the same tired old refrain:

"God's sovereignty trumps man's free will...and we can prove it! Hmph."

But when they're done, I know in my gut something is wrong somewhere.

In this article, I want to share with you some of the reasons why I disagree with Calvinism, and also what I see as a potential problem lurking behind its current revival. There is a theological Trojan horse being wheeled in through the gates of the Church, and hardly anyone seems to notice.

But that's what it says: God's sovereignty

In the great debate over God's sovereignty vs man's free will, the strategy of the vast majority of people has been to side with one position, and then twist Scripture to make the other position appear wrong. After all, one side has to be right and the other has to be wrong, right?

I want to lay out a few verses to let you see that, despite heated accusations to the contrary, neither side in this debate is illiterate or delusional.

That is, there are verses that clearly support both of these seemingly mutually exclusive positions. For example, here are a handful of verses that Calvinists often reach for when arguing in favor of the doctrine of unconditional election:

In the book of Genesis, God sovereignly chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish people. Nehemiah refers to this event:

It clearly wasn't Abraham's choice—it was God's choice. Later in Genesis, God sovereignly chose Jacob over his brother Esau to be the one through whom He would continue the messianic line. Paul refers to this in Romans:

Note that people who disagree with Calvinism would argue (and rightly so in my view) that Israel and the Church are separate entities in God's economy, and so what applies to Israel doesn't necessarily apply to born-again believers during the Age of Grace.

There are other events in the Old Testament that show that God sovereignly chooses people, but what about the New Testament?

Jesus makes it pretty clear—He chose His disciples; they didn't choose Him.

You are chosen. Nothing unclear about that.

He chose us in His Son Jesus before the world was even created. This has "slam dunk" written all over it for the doctrine of unconditional election.

There are a number of other verses that are just as clear—this is just a taste. There's no honest way around it: There are verses that clearly teach that yes, God does choose us to be saved, and with no mention of our free will or any kind of choice or response on our part.

That's what it says. But hold onto your hats...

But that's what it says: man's free will

On the other hand, there are just as many verses that teach just as clearly that our free will does play a role in our salvation.

For example, one of the most oft-quoted verses in the entire Bible—one that encapsulates the message of the gospel—deftly plucks two of the petals off the TULIP: the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement:

Funny, but the author of that article proving the doctrine of unconditional election is biblical didn't mention this verse. Hmm...

I'm sorry, but how is this unclear? Are there some subtleties that I'm not picking up on? Am I missing some insights that would help me understand that what the Holy Spirit really meant to say was...

For God so loved a select group of people, that he gave his one and only Son for that group alone, that the select group that God decided to cause to believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Welcome to John Calvin 3:16. Now, I'm no theologian, but what kind of slippery theological constructs must one invent to make this verse say something other than what it clearly says? God loved the whole world. Jesus died for the whole world—not just the elect. Why? So that whoever believes in Him could live. Last time I checked, "the world" meant the world, and "whoever believes" meant whoever believes. If words mean anything at all, then what can this verse mean other than what it plainly says?

God loved everyone, Jesus died for everyone, and anyone can be saved, because everyone has the choice to believe.

There lies the raw, unvarnished essence of the gospel, and to read this verse any other way does damage to the basic functions of language. By the way, the doctrine of unconditional election was virtually unheard of until St. Augustine started teaching it in the fifth century, and I don't find that surprising in light of verses like this.

Let's look at a couple of others:

So we can choose to fear God. We can choose to serve God. We can choose to love God. We can choose to obey God. We can choose to cling to God. Again, one could argue that maybe that's just something that applies to Israel. OK, fine. Then let's move on to the New Testament:

Come to me. Well, if we can't come to Him, Jesus sounds like a real jerk.

Again, how is this unclear? The single, solitary thing God requires from us is belief in faith in what His Son did for us. Well, if God requires that from us, then the idea that we are utterly incapable of it is as cruel as it is absurd.

We believe in Him, we come to Him, we seek Him. How is this confusing?

Same deal. There's no honest way around it. The Bible clearly teaches that it's up to us to choose to love and fear God; that our free-will choice does indeed play a role in our salvation—that whoever believes in faith that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for their sins will be saved. Yes, that faith is a gift from God, but these verses clearly teach that our free will is involved. They clearly convey a sense of personal responsibility on our part.

That's what it says.

The mother of all Gordian knots

That brings us face to face with one of the gnarliest Gordian knots in all of Scripture, and the whole argument boils down to this:

There are a number of passages of Scripture that seem to clearly indicate that God chose us to be saved. In other words, there are several passages along the lines of the following:

In other words...

He chose us.

There are also a number of passages of Scripture that seem to clearly indicate that we have to choose to believe in Christ to be saved. In other words, there are several passages along the lines of the following:

In other words...

We choose Him.

And for the record, if God has to make us call on Him, then we're not exactly "calling on Him," OK? Can we agree on that? But how can we reconcile these two ideas that seem to be taught in Scripture that seem to contradict each other? No, I'm sorry...

Tilt: It's about as clear as it can be: These two ideas are taught in Scripture, and they do contradict each other!

One thing we have to keep in mind is that God cannot contradict Himself, so if we are going to be honest in our efforts to follow where God's Word leads, we can't just pick the side we like and sling mud at the other, which is exactly what the majority of people have been doing for the last five centuries.

John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California and founder of Grace To You Ministries, summed it up perfectly:

To some, this might sound like double talk; but this statement of his nails it, no matter what else he believes about the matter. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is precisely where the Bible leads us.

We may not understand it, but we should at least try. I think that's infinitely better than twisting God's Word to say things it doesn't say and viciously ripping apart the doctrine of others to bolster one's position of choice.

What was your first clue?

There are, however, verses such as the following that somehow seem to straddle the fence, and give us a clue if we're paying attention:

For whom He foreknew. In spite of fancy yet strained arguments put forth by Calvinists, "foreknow" means exactly what you think it means: to know something in advance, or before it happens, yet without determining it. I've checked trustworthy biblical resources, and that's exactly the primary meaning of the Greek word used here. There's nothing tricky about it.

But what did God know in advance?

In a word, everything. More specifically, God knew who would respond to Him. He knew who would believe in Him, and He knew it before Creation. God didn't choose us at random—God doesn't do random.

He chose us because He knew we would choose Him.

I can't say it any more clearly. Wanna have some fun? Say this to a Calvinist and watch his head explode. Here's the thing—and this is what makes Calvinists scream and howl. God is omniscient. That means He knows all events for all time. Everything that will ever happen—every possible outcome—exists simultaneously in the mind of God, as if it had already happened.

We cannot fathom how God experiences time, because in all probability He doesn't experience it at all. God is infinite. Everything about God is infinite. He exists outside the realm of time and space, which He created.

What this implies is that before the creation of the world, God knew every person who would ever live. He knew in advance every decision they would make, and as a result knew who would respond to Him, or choose to seek Him. As far as the Church is concerned, He knew every person who would respond to the gospel and come to Him in repentance and receive by grace through faith His free gift of salvation. He reserved a place in heaven for each of them, and then as their lives unfold in real time, He arranges the circumstances for them to receive the gift of faith to believe that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for their sins, and they are born of the Spirit.

According to Calvinists, if our free will is allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with our salvation, it means we did something to earn it. But that's like saying that if I gave you a check for a million dollars, and you made the decision to believe it was real and appreciatively chose to receive it and hurried to the bank to deposit it, then you did something to merit that money.

When confronted with verses that clearly teach that our free will plays a role in our salvation, Calvinists duck for cover behind Scriptures like these:

"How dare you! Who are you to question God's sovereign will, you puny little (non-elect) worm, you lowly (non-predestinated) lump of clay?"

Calvinists accuse those who refute the doctrine of total depravity of fancying that they have some superior quality that enables them to seek God that others don't have—a belief which elevates them and makes them worthy of God's grace in some way. Of course, Calvinists could just as easily be accused of believing that God chose them simply because He liked them better than others, or knew they were spiritually superior in some way. Neither of these could be further from the truth.

Believing that a loving God knew that I would make a free-will choice to respond to Him and, based on that foreknowledge, arranged for it to happen in no way enhances my view of myself or of my worthiness of His love. On the contrary. It enhances my view of God and His worthiness of my love. And it sure seems more in line with Scripture than believing God chose to save a handful of lucky people just because they're so darn special.

"Let there be light"

One thing is certain: None of us completely understands this. We can't. God does, however, give us a clue to the nature of this dilemma by introducing us to quantum theory.

"OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Bible Dude, that does it—now you've totally lost it! So just where is that in the Bible, huh? Somewhere between the chapters on differentiable manifolds and complex hyperspaces? Seriously."

Got a Bible? Good. Open it to page 1:

For the last five hundred years, the debate over God's sovereignty vs man's free will has been stuck at precisely the same point at which physicists found themselves at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In the early 1900s, the world's greatest scientific minds were confounded by experiments that proved light behaved like waves, and other experiments that proved light behaved like particles.

The experimental results were irrefutable—and contradictory. They all knew it couldn't possibly be both, and so the debate raged on.

Unlike their theological counterparts, however, who continue to tear each other down trying to prove each other wrong, these great men of science—men like Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Lois de Broglie, and Ernest Rutherford—were responsible for a flurry of brilliant, historic breakthroughs that led to the development of quantum theory.

Now, I'm not going to pretend like I actually understand quantum theory. I don't. What little I do know about it, however, is that at the subatomic level, all possible states of a particle exist simultaneously, superimposed on one another, with varying probabilities associated with them. When the particle is observed or measured, one state is manifested in the physical world.

Admittedly, this is a bit tricky for us humans, locked into our little three-dimensional time-space continuum the way we are. Our problem is that we have no choice but to think about time. It's all we know. It's all we've ever experienced, and we can't conceive of existence outside it or apart from it.

Not only that, but the only way we can think of time is linearly—as a straight line that extends backward into the "past" and forward into the "future." People have traditionally conceptualized this idea of God choosing us to be saved because He knew in advance we would choose Him as God "looking through the corridors of time" and seeing us choose to believe the gospel.

Although that is a workable construct that helps us understand the idea—and arguably the best we can do—in reality it is probably inaccurate. For one thing, it suggests God views time essentially the same way we do: linearly.

But God exists outside of time—after all, He created it and He exists outside of and separate from His creation. I think it unlikely that God experiences time at all—at least not in a way that we can comprehend. I believe all possible outcomes exist simultaneously in the mind of God, in a way much like what quantum theory teaches us about light—that it can behave like a particle or a wave, because at the quantum level it exists in both states simultaneously.

Wendy Wippel, a molecular biologist who used to be a regular contributor to the Omega Letter, responded to the sovereignty vs free will argument this way:

Quantum theory suggests that on some level God's sovereign election and our free-will choice exist simultaneously. But in our limited dimensionality and linear flow of time, it remains an impenetrable mystery to us.

So, when Calvinists smugly resort to the old "His ways are higher than our ways" line from Isaiah 55:9 to silence the heretics who deign to suppose our free will plays a role in salvation, actually they are right. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. W-a-a-y higher.

Much higher than Calvinists can even imagine.

Zero degrees Calvin

There is one aspect to the current resurgence of Calvinism, however, that most of these neo-Calvinists are unaware of. They don't see it coming, because they are too busy running around like a kid with a new toy, yammering about how they can prove the doctrine of unconditional election is biblical.

The Bible paints a picture of a holy, just, and loving God. He is trustworthy, and His promises are sure. The God of the Bible is personal—He loves us more than we can comprehend, and desires above all things to have a relationship with us. That's why He created us in the first place. He knows us intimately, and He wants us to know and enjoy Him for eternity.

But after man sinned and severed his relationship with Him, God extended His grace by sending a part of Himself into the world as a man, to die as the perfect sacrifice to satisfy His own perfect justice on our behalf. Then, if we acknowledge that we are sinners and come to Him in repentance, believing in faith in what Jesus accomplished for us, He will forgive our sins and impute His Son's righteousness to us.

Now, I don't mean to imply that those who espouse the principles of Calvinism believe what I'm about to say—I'm quite certain they don't. But I don't see any way around it. If you take Calvinism to its logical extreme, you end up with a God that is radically different from the God portrayed in the Bible.

• The God of Calvinism must be the author of all sin and evil, because He predestinated everything. You call that holy?

• The God of Calvinism arbitrarily chose to save a few lucky sinners and is content to allow multitudes of others to perish, in spite of the fact that none of them has the ability to respond to Him or seek Him. You call that just?

• The God of Calvinism presumably has the power to save everyone from eternal punishment, but simply chooses not to. You call that loving?

In fact, the Calvinist notion that God arbitrarily saves some and condemns others violates all three simultaneously—it's not holy, just or loving!

The God of Calvinism is impersonal, and only "loves" those He arbitrarily selected, whom He compels to "love" Him in return. He doesn't desire a real relationship with mankind, apparently because He is so far above us that it's out of the question.

The God of Calvinism is apparently little more than a cold, capricious monster, with an emotional temperature of zero degrees Kelvin—absolute zero. This God is so cold that He is not even capable of the crude facsimile of love shown by sinful humans for each other. He is aloof and unknowable, yet obviously possessed of great powers. A cosmic autistic savant—a celestial Rain Man with a mean streak, playing solitary games with the sentient beings He created like so many sock puppets.

But this does not describe Yahweh, the God of the Bible. Not even close.

It does, however, describe Allah, the god of the Qur'an. Pretty much nails him.

In the Qur'an, Allah is portrayed as capricious and unpredictable—the greatest of deceivers who neither extends grace to nor desires to have a real relationship with man because he exists so far above us that the idea of man having a personal relationship with him is actually offensive. The only thing devout Muslims can do is slavishly worship and submit to Allah in the desperate hope that he will smile upon them and show them favor. (Of course, a suicide bombing that takes out a few infidels goes a long way, too.)

Oh, and here's a telling little factoid for you:

Q. What major world religion also teaches unconditional election, and I mean plucked straight off the TULIP, exactly as espoused by Calvinists?

A. I'll give you a hint: They have a nasty habit of cutting people's heads off while shouting something about how their god is greater. Take your time.

Go ahead. Look me in the eyes and tell me it's a coincidence that the Qur'an teaches precisely the same thing about Allah (i.e., Satan in disguise) that Calvinism teaches about Yahweh.

After you run the God of the Bible through the wringer of Calvinism, He comes out looking disturbingly similar to the god of the Qur'an. Now, that alone is bad enough, but consider this:

The book of Revelation refers to a coming one-world religion that will force people to worship the Antichrist, and it is becoming increasingly clear to students of Bible prophecy that it will be some type of amalgam of religions (including Islam, probably with extraterrestrial elements thrown into the mix just for good measure), whose bottom line will be quite simple:

We all worship the same God, so let's
join hands and build a better world.

(What? You thought it was going to sound evil?)

Today, we have mainstream denominational churches promoting Chrislam, a nauseating attempt to unite Christianity with Islam in the misguided quest for "unity" and "brotherhood." In order to achieve this, of course, at least one side has to compromise some of its core teachings.

And no prizes for guessing which side is doing all the compromising.

Two decades ago, I couldn't have imagined that mainstream Christianity could stoop to that level of apostasy. But it's happening, and I know it will escalate.

The point I want to leave you with is that the current resurgence of Calvinism is playing right into Satan's hands, as he seduces large chunks of mainstream Christianity into believing the lie that gosh, maybe Christians and Muslims really do worship the same God—so let's join hands and build that better world everyone wants so desperately. The rise of Calvinism is a big step in this direction, but we're not quite there yet.

Which reminds me...I forgot to mention one thing about the god of the Qur'an:

Allah has no son.

In the push to unify Christianity and Islam—which highly esteems Jesus (Isa) as a great prophet (almost as great as Muhammad) and venerates Mary (Miriam) as well—the deity of Jesus Christ is the one major sticking point.

The fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and came into the world as God in the flesh is the last domino that has to fall before (apostate) Christianity can be subsumed into the coming one-world religion, which will help pave the way for the emergence of the charismatic world leader who will ultimately become the focus of its worship. And a significant part of mainstream Christianity appears increasingly ready and willing to blithely acquiesce.

Prophetic events are already coming together at an accelerating pace, and now we have a legion of neo-Calvinists unwittingly involved in a virtual promotional campaign to sell the idea that Yahweh is really the same as Allah.

And mark my words: The next thing you know, they'll be coming for Jesus.

But that's OK. Because the next thing you know, Jesus will be coming for us:

Comforting words indeed—words that keep me warm at night, even with temperatures outside getting down to zero degrees Calvin.

Greg Lauer — FEB '14

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 FEB '14 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit