"Bible believing," how many times have you heard that? Who are the ones who use the expression the most? Fundamentalists do, the ones who also use the expression, "biblical inerrancy."

Let me digress. I don't hold with Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession for the simple reason that they deviated so much from Jesus's teachings and exemplary life that any succession that there ever was (and I don't think there was any) was broken. I don't hold with the tradition of that church. I don't hold with their dogma. I don't follow their Popes for the reason stated. They called for war, and war is Hell. That was not the method by which Jesus divides the goats from the sheep. The war bringers are the goats.

Now, the Fundamentalists make fundamental errors too even as they too reject the Popes. What is their error? They say they believe in the Bible and that it is not in error. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture."

Some Fundamentalists hold that only the King James Version (Textus Receptus) is reliable (was protected directly by God from editing errors).

Okay, that's all extremely simplified. What's the point? Well, the Protestant Fundamentalists rejected Rome; however, do they follow their own preaching?

How can anyone claim to believe but turn around and preach the opposite of what Jesus said? Even removing all the versus and words that are argued over, the Fundamentalists still preach at odds with Jesus' admonitions. The Calvinists are particularly conspicuous.

I just gave the following response to a comment:

Hello Christian,

Why are you defending, excusing, apologizing for Calvin? Why aren't you using Jesus's standard rather than lowering yourself to Calvin's level?

As for Predestination, the issue is with its application claiming that the poor are poor because they aren't saved – that mammon is (at least in some cases) an outward manifestation of the work ethic from faith and grace and in that sense, a facilitator of capitalism versus Acts 2:44-45, etc., and the logical conclusion that is Christian communism as with the Christian Commons Project?

Calvin was not a magistrate in the sense you have used the term, but he was the chief priest, as it were, who did not resign and did not severely rebuke the magistrates for grievously erring. Where does Jesus tell you to kill people?

"Let us then that have riches . . . consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren." That though falls far short because in the first place, it supports the means by which some have more than others do. Was Calvin saying to all the rich to give it all, as Jesus did? Who owns the means? Calvin, by falling short in his own teaching, and Calvinists, for following that shortfall, left and still leave the door open for Marx and his violent atheists.

Damning the poor can be too subtle to one not on the lookout for hypocrisy; otherwise, Calvin stands in stark contrast. Where did Calvin draw the line concerning excess? He didn't draw it where Jesus did.

Raise your standard. Stop being a Calvinist. Be better than that. Wherever Calvin doesn't jibe with Jesus, reject Calvin's teachings. Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Is ego concerning your current Calvinism going to block you?

If Calvin was a Christian, meaning an Acts-communist, why aren't all Calvinists Acts-communists or more so holders of the very Earth in common?


Published by Tom Usher

Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.