The Bible or Calvinism

[Hammster]

That may be true. Nevertheless, I believe God desires and calls believers to search the scriptures seeking His perspective while testing the teachings of men. I really wasn't taught the Bible by anyone, except falsely by cults. Then I was delivered and born again and began seeing and studying it through brand new eyes and with the light of the Holy Spirit. When I first started hearing the Calvinist slant of "election" I knew something was wrong. That began an intense study of Calvinism or TULIP over a four year period and I earnestly sought God about it through the process. I have seen over and over again His faithfulness in answering and making things in scripture clear when the desire is to know His view first and foremost. I believe He led me to realize that the "doctrine of election" as taught by Calvinists is not even in the Bible at all, it is a man made doctrine, and is something totally different that the election of the Bible.

What is biblical election, then?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Is the gospel presented in the Bible the same as the message of Calvinism? The claim has been made numerous times by Calvinists that the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) or the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" is the biblical gospel. Is this true?

The title of your thread is priceless. It seems we choose one or the other.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Oh my goodness. I wish uninformed people would quit posting such drivel.

John Calvin did not persecute Servetus, the Council of Geneva did. That is a fact.

In the trial of Servetus, Calvin was supposed to be the prosecutor, and as such, when sentence was passed, he had nothing to do with that.

"Michael Servetus was the most renowned heretic in Europe of that day. He was captured by the Roman Catholic Church in France and sentenced to death but he managed to escape. One day, as Calvin is preaching at Geneva, who should walk into the palce of Worship, but Michael Servetus. And of course, Servetus was then arrested in Geneva, beause he was wanted throughout Europe as the most notorious heretic, for denying the Deity of Christ, and writing books arguing his beliefs. But Calvin far from is often depicted, being the cruel tyrant of Geneva and far from having anything to do with putting Michael Servetus to death, when Servetus was imprison while on trial, Calvin was a frequent visitor to Servetus in his prison cell, trying to win him for Christ. Calvin spent many hours, trying to win the most notorious heretic of Europe, for Christ!

When Servetus was put on trial, Calvin’s sole part in the whole affair was as an expert witness to testify against Servetus’ theology. He had to affirm that Servetus was indeed denying the Deity of Christ. And who better fitted for the job in Geneva than that of John Calvin? Calvin had no powers to make any decisions as far as law enforcements, or sentencing. He was a pastor not a magistrate or judge. Calvin himself was driven out of Geneva by the powers of Geneva, as Calvin was no a power at all, he had no authority in that way whatsoever,. The only other thing John Calvin had any hand in as far as Servetus, was to plead on Sevetus behalf, for a more humane way of Servetus being putting to death than the order of execution had sentenced. Again, he was not acting against Servetus but for him and with great compassion, no matter that Servetus was the most renowned heretic in Europe.


The day Servetus was to be executed. Calvin again visited him in his prison cell, and one last time tried to win him for Christ. But to no avail. But please before you tar John Calvin with the name of being the man who murdered Michael Servetus or had any hand in his fate apart from extending him great compassion and his pastors heart wanting to win him for Christ please make sure you have all the facts, as all the above is not beyond being researched and found out, Calvin’s letters is a good place to start, rather than settling for the anti John Calvin writings that are out there as the truth about the matter."

Source

John Calvin went several times and told him that he would recant what he said, everything would be ok. Did Servetus do it? NO!

Michael Servetus was warned not to come to Geneva or he would be persecuted. Did he listen? NO!

I really wish people would get their facts straight before saying stuff like this.

Another point, unless I'm mistaken, heresy, which Servetus was guilty of, is still to this day punishable in the United Kingdom.

"That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment."

Did John Calvin have a man executed for heresy?
Posted on March 1, 2015 by John Gideon Hartnett

God Bless

Till all are one.

I suppose it depends on whose perspective one chooses to accept. Before Servetus even arrived in Geneva, John Calvin seemed to already have premeditated his murder indicated in a letter he wrote to William Farel seven years prior:

Servetus lately wrote to me and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies and the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He takes it upon himself to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him depart alive provided my authority be of any avail.
Parker, p.118

I think there is a big problem when the church authorities, contrary to the scriptures, are aligned with the civil government authorities. It has always led to abusive and extremely unchristian power.

 

[RisenInJesus]

What is biblical election, then?

The word elect means to select or choose. We choose and elect mayors, governors, and the president of the United States and others to serve in certain positions and perform various jobs when we have elections.
As the Sovereign Creator God has chosen or elected certain individuals or entities to fulfill and accomplish His purposes. Foremost, the Son (Jesus Christ) was elect for the purpose of being the one and only Savior. The nation of Israel was elect for bringing forth the Savior to the world in the flesh. The church is elect for bringing the gospel to the world. Angels are elect to serve God and minister to mankind. The scriptures reveal numerous examples of God electing or choosing someone or something to accomplish His purposes. So the picture laid out in the scriptures is that election is about service and fulfilling a purpose for God. Nowhere do the scriptures connect election to the (Calvinistic) idea of God choosing or electing a person to salvation and eternal destiny of heaven.

 

[Hammster]

The word elect means to select or choose. We choose and elect mayors, governors, and the president of the United States and others to serve in certain positions and perform various jobs when we have elections.
As the Sovereign Creator God has chosen or elected certain individuals or entities to fulfill and accomplish His purposes. Foremost, the Son (Jesus Christ) was elect for the purpose of being the one and only Savior. The nation of Israel was elect for bringing forth the Savior to the world in the flesh. The church is elect for bringing the gospel to the world. Angels are elect to serve God and minister to mankind. The scriptures reveal numerous examples of God electing or choosing someone or something to accomplish His purposes. So the picture laid out in the scriptures is that election is about service and fulfilling a purpose for God. Nowhere do the scriptures connect election to the (Calvinistic) idea of God choosing or electing a person to salvation and eternal destiny of heaven.

Who is Jesus referring to here?

“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:31‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[RisenInJesus]

Who is Jesus referring to here?

“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:31‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Israel was the first to be called God’s elect (Is 45:4; 65:9. )Since Jesus is speaking to His disciples, who were Jewish believers, concerning the end of the age, I believe the elect referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:31 are Jews and their gathering by angels back to the land of Israel at the end of Armageddon in fulfillment of OT prophecies and God's promise to Israel to establish His kingdom on the earth with Messiah/Christ ruling from Jerusalem.

 

[Hammster]

Israel was the first to be called God’s elect (Is 45:4; 65:9. )Since Jesus is speaking to His disciples, who were Jewish believers, concerning the end of the age, I believe the elect referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:31 are Jews and their gathering by angels back to the land of Israel at the end of Armageddon in fulfillment of OT prophecies and God's promise to Israel to establish His kingdom on the earth with Messiah/Christ ruling from Jerusalem.

So He does have an elect people.

Thanks.

 

[DeaconDean]

I suppose it depends on whose perspective one chooses to accept. Before Servetus even arrived in Geneva, John Calvin seemed to already have premeditated his murder indicated in a letter he wrote to William Farel seven years prior:

Servetus lately wrote to me and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies and the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He takes it upon himself to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him depart alive provided my authority be of any avail.
Parker, p.118

I think there is a big problem when the church authorities, contrary to the scriptures, are aligned with the civil government authorities. It has always led to abusive and extremely unchristian power.

Here again, you and others, want to hang, kill, burn, crucify John Calvin for a "standard" that was nearly world-wide acceptable in the 1500's.

Today, in the 3rd millennia, Servetus would just be "run out of town" so to speak.

You people kill me.

You rant, rave, persecute one person, yet you never say one world about the thousands and thousands and thousands that were put to death by a certain church.

To put as plain as I can, you guys use a "double standard" just because you don't like a person.

Well, there is scripture for that too:

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." -Jas. 1:8 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Even today, even here on this forum, what Servetus taught would not be allowed:

"Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums."

Link

If he was alive today, he would be banned from this forum.

Does anybody here know what Servetus taught?

Servetus taught that every time God spoke, the words coming out of his mouth were Christ since Christ is referred to as "logos".

"CHRIST, the Son of man, who descended from heaven, was the Word by uttering which God created the world. "

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

"The eternally begotten Son was a spoken word by which God made himself known."

Ibid

And in essence, he even denied that Christ was God.

"The term Nature is appropriate only to God; the Word no longer exist; Person means a representation of another being; Christ incarnate, is the image of the Substance, but not of the Nature, of God."

Ibid

In the 16th century, it was perfectly acceptable for the church to burn, hang, quarter, drown, heretics.

Do that today and see where that gets you.

You absolutely must understand the Laws of the time era.

Who passed sentence on Servetus?

Was it John Calvin or the Council at Geneva?

"the majority of the Great Council were in favour of capital punishment, and so decided on the last day. Sentence of death by fire was given on October 26th, to be carried into effect on the following day."

I wish people would read, study beforehand.

One other sidenote: if this is going to turn into a bash John Calvin thread, let me know RIGHT now. That way I can bow out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Even today, even here on this forum, what Servetus taught would not be allowed:

"Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums."

WINNER!

 

[Albion]

Here again, you and others, want to hang, kill, burn, crucify John Calvin for a "standard" that was nearly world-wide acceptable in the 1500's.

Today, in the 3rd millennia, Servetus would just be "run out of town" so to speak.

You people kill me.

You rant, rave, persecute one person, yet you never say one world about the thousands and thousands and thousands that were put to death by a certain church.

Dean, it's because people are especially sensitive to the idea that they might not be the 'masters of all they survey.'

People simply resent the idea that they themselves might not hold all the decision-making in their own hands, especially as it concerns something as personal as their own eternal fate--not even if it means that it's God himself who is in charge.

They wouldn't admit that this is the cause of their opposition, and they probably don't think that it is. Nevertheless, the attitude you're speaking of is ultimately traceable to human pride.

 

[zippy2006]

Dean, it's because people are especially sensitive to the idea that they might not be the 'masters of all they survey.'

People simply resent the idea that they themselves might not hold all the decision-making in their own hands, especially as it concerns something as personal as their own eternal fate--not even if it means that it's God himself who is in charge.

They wouldn't admit that this is the cause of their opposition, and they probably don't think that it is. Nevertheless, the attitude you're speaking of is ultimately traceable to human pride.

Your strawman production rate is impressive!

 

[Albion]

Your strawman production rate is impressive!

Give it some thought and the truth of it may yet dawn. The fact is that just the mention of Calvin, who is known for teaching the Sovereignty of God, simply ignites all *free will* people, and there has to be some reason that it not just disagreement over Bible interpretation, etc. If it were, we would see similar anxiety and anger being manifested over a dozen other theological POVs. But we basically do not.

 

[zippy2006]

Give it some thought and the truth of it may yet dawn.

Right. Give it a thought and some modicum of rationality might dawn on you. Traditional Christians think it is unjust for God to eternally damn people for things they couldn't avoid doing. And they think this because of pride?! You may as well say that objection to extremist Muslim's beheading innocent Christians is due to pride. It makes as much sense.

I'll bet C. S. Lewis said this out of pride, too:

The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship. –C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
​

The fact is that just the mention of Calvin, who is known for teaching the Sovereignty of God, simply ignites all *free will* people, and there has to be some reason that it not just disagreement over Bible interpretation, etc. If it were, we would see similar anxiety and anger being manifested over a dozen other theological POVs. But we basically do not.

Other theological points of view do not blaspheme by making God evil.

 

[Albion]

Other theological points of view do not blaspheme by making God evil.

Neither does this one.

 

[Hammster]

Traditional Christians think it is unjust for God to eternally damn people for things they couldn't avoid doing.

Calvinists believe the same thing.

 

[zippy2006]

Neither does this one.

Supposing we set aside the vast reams of direct evidence to the contrary, there remains the indisputable fact that the Calvinistic god predestines the reprobate to eternal damnation without consideration of demerits. That is, he decides not to save some before considering the question of whether they deserve to be damned--before considering their sin.

 

[Hammster]

Supposing we set aside the vast reams of direct evidence to the contrary, there remains the indisputable fact that the Calvinistic god predestines the reprobate to eternal damnation without consideration of demerits. That is, he decides not to save some before considering the question of whether they deserve to be damned--before considering their sin.

That's cuz everyone deserves to be damned.

 

[zippy2006]

Calvinists believe the same thing.

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)​

See also the quotes here regarding free will. On Calvinism, no one could have acted differently then they did in fact act. Therefore they could not avoid acting as they did, and they are damned for things they couldn't avoid doing.

 

[Albion]

Supposing we set aside the vast reams of direct evidence to the contrary, there remains the indisputable fact that the Calvinistic god predestines the reprobate to eternal damnation without consideration of demerits. That is, he decides not to save some before considering the question of whether they deserve to be damned--before considering their sin.

There's your mistake. The reprobate--and you called him that--would be damned on his own merits, if there were no predestination.

Only if you think he lived a perfect life, completely sinless, keeping all the Commandments all the time, would he be able to stand before God and say that he deserves eternal life.

If you find such a person, let us know. In the meantime, it is grossly incorrect to contend that the reprobate would be righteous except that God decided to not allow him to be so.