For Your Information - Hunt Exposes Calvinism

[drstevej]

Another hit piece.

Four men who disagreed with Calvin on who should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper were beheaded, quartered, and their body parts hung in strategic locations in Geneva as a warning to others. He burned Michael Servetus (for rejecting infant baptism and for denying Christ’s deity)

Please document. And citing David Cloud's assertions is not documentation.

 

[Hammster]

And once again, what do these alleged acts by Calvin have to do with refuting reformed theology?

 

[Benefactor]

Another hit piece.



Please document. And citing David Cloud's assertions is not documentation.

I was wondering if you or anyone had heard or read anything about his assertions.

 

[drstevej]

I was wondering if you or anyone had heard or read anything about his assertions.

They are bogus.

 

[Hammster]

They are bogus.

...and have nothing to do with Reformed Theology. They act like if John Calvin can be maligned and marginalized, then all of the Scripture that we use to support our view just goes out the window. It seems to be a sad attempt when all other arguments have failed.

 

[nobdysfool]

It's the classic ad hominem fallacy. They can't refute the doctrines, so they try to destroy the man, for the purpose of claiming that a man that bad cannot possibly be teaching truth. It's a fallacious, illogical argument, born out of desperation.

 

[nobdysfool]

Came across this today on the WEB:


5. It Is Not Wise To Follow John Calvin; He Was Unsound At The Very Foundation

Of The Christian Faith:

Calvin never gave a testimony of the new birth; rather he identified with his Catholic infant baptism. Note the following quotes from his Institutes:

“At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life” (Institutes, IV).

“By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism” (Institutes, IV).

Calvin was vicious toward his enemies, acting more like a devouring wolf than a harmless sheep. Historian William Jones observed that “that most hateful feature of popery adhered to Calvin through life, the spirit of persecution.” Note how he described his theological opponents: “...all that filth and villainy...mad dogs who vomit their filth against the majesty of God and want to pervert all religion. Must they be spared ?” (Oct. 16, 1555).

Calvin hated the Anabaptists, though they were miles closer to the Scriptural pattern for the New Testament church than he was. He called them “henchmen of Satan.” Four men who disagreed with Calvin on who should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper were beheaded, quartered, and their body parts hung in strategic locations in Geneva as a warning to others. He burned Michael Servetus (for rejecting infant baptism and for denying Christ’s deity). Calvin wrote about Servetus, “One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.”

David Cloud; http://www.greatpreachers.org/calvinism.html ; 6/22/2009

Color and under line mine - Benefactor. C



Can anyone refute these accounts as they are given by David Cloud?

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Or just those things that agree with what you already have decided, or feed into your irrational attitude toward Calvin and Calvinists?

You obviously cannot answer the theology, so now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks, to deflect from the bankruptcy of your theology, as we have clearly shown.

 

[CmRoddy]

It's the classic ad hominem fallacy. They can't refute the doctrines, so they try to destroy the man, for the purpose of claiming that a man that bad cannot possibly be teaching truth. It's a fallacious, illogical argument, born out of desperation.

What's worse is that it is historically proven that Calvin did not kill Servetus and claiming such is to willfully ignore tons of historical facts about the event...

 

[MamaZ]

The fact that people think we follow after Calvin instead of the scripture also baffles me LOL.. For many that put the label on reformed theology and predestination as calvanists don't understand that it is the scripture that shows predestination.

 

[nobdysfool]

The fact that people think we follow after Calvin instead of the scripture also baffles me LOL.. For many that put the label on reformed theology and predestination as calvanists don't understand that it is the scripture that shows predestination.

It is a manifestation of the original rebellion. They don't want to accept that God is Sovereign even over their rebelliousness. They rebel against the Word of God, and God Himself.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Came across this today on the WEB:


5. It Is Not Wise To Follow John Calvin; He Was Unsound At The Very Foundation Of The Christian Faith:

Calvin never gave a testimony of the new birth; rather he identified with his Catholic infant baptism. Note the following quotes from his Institutes:

“At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life” (Institutes, IV).

“By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism” (Institutes, IV).

Calvin was vicious toward his enemies, acting more like a devouring wolf than a harmless sheep. Historian William Jones observed that “that most hateful feature of popery adhered to Calvin through life, the spirit of persecution.” Note how he described his theological opponents: “...all that filth and villainy...mad dogs who vomit their filth against the majesty of God and want to pervert all religion. Must they be spared?” (Oct. 16, 1555).

Calvin hated the Anabaptists, though they were miles closer to the Scriptural pattern for the New Testament church than he was. He called them “henchmen of Satan.” Four men who disagreed with Calvin on who should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper were beheaded, quartered, and their body parts hung in strategic locations in Geneva as a warning to others. He burned Michael Servetus (for rejecting infant baptism and for denying Christ’s deity). Calvin wrote about Servetus, “One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.”

David Cloud; http://www.greatpreachers.org/calvinism.html ; 6/22/2009

Color and under line mine - Benefactor. C



Can anyone refute these accounts as they are given by David Cloud?

Not sure where all of this came from, I am reading the institutes here. He starts off by saying

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church. Baptism contributes to our faith... a sign and evidence of our purification, or it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed.

What is written onward in chapter 15 of Book IV ought to be interpreted in light of this base he sets.

I looked through chapter 15 and couldn't even find your quote. Please provide the direct quotation (section number).

 

[Hismessenger]

It seems that many have issues with the God of their creation and don't want to let God be the sovereign God of His own creation even though they can't change one thing by their choices or opinions. Bottom line is God has set everything in motion for a purpose which we will only learn if we are given the right to eternal life. Those who have that right have already been determined;

Deu 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Who can argue with what is written? Did Calvin write It?

hismessenger

 

[davec375]

Calvinism is too AntiGospel for my tastes. And John Calvin himself was no great example of Brotherly Christian Love.

If Calvinism is correct then why does Bible write:

1 John 2:2 "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

In fact, 1 John 2:1-6 presents an awesome argument against Calvinism.

Or what about John 1:29 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

Why doesn't author write "the sin of the elect.".

And once again 1 John 3:10 "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither him that loveth not his brother."

I simply can not stomache the "Pope of Geneva", the "Dictator of Geneva", etc..

<staff edit>

 

[student ad x]

Calvinism is too AntiGospel for my tastes. And John Calvin himself was no great example of Brotherly Christian Love.

Welcome to CF dave

 

[davec375]

Welcome to CF dave

Thanks!

Though I feel I have now tripped upon Christian ninjutsu.

 

[student ad x]

Thanks!

Though I feel I have now tripped upon Christian ninjutsu.

...............

 

[Robert Pate]

Number 1
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 1/9)
Number 2
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 2/9)
Number 3
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 3/9)
Number 4
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 4/9)
Number 5
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 5/9)
Number 6
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 6/9)
Number 7
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 7/9)
Number 8
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 8/9)
Number 9
YouTube - What Love is This? (Pt. 9/9)

Excellent! I highly recommend it to all who want to know the truth about Calvinism

 

[drstevej]

Tomorrow is Calvin's 500th Birthday. Wonder if 500 years from now anyone will celebrate Dave Hunt?

 

[CmRoddy]

Excellent! I highly recommend it to all who want to know the truth about Calvinism

Great. You watched the side you agree with. But did you do the intellectually honest thing and watch what the other side has to say in response to the many misrepresentations and misunderstandings put forth by Dave Hunt?

I doubt it.

 

[Benefactor]

Great. You watched the side you agree with. But did you do the intellectually honest thing and watch what the other side has to say in response to the many misrepresentations and misunderstandings put forth by Dave Hunt?

I doubt it.

CmRoddy, my friend, would you be so kind as to specifically point out one or maybe two things you disagree with in Dr. Hunts information?​

When you get a chance would you kindly and graciously answer the following:
CmRoddy, the truth of this matter is simply this: You as a RT / Calvinist must hold to your view or your theology crumbles. For those of us who are not followers of ACRT as you are don't have to redefine Biblical words to make our case.

Foreknowledge is just what it says, knowing something before / prescience. Election according to foreknowledge is a selecting process based upon something.


Corporate Election or Plan Lapsarianiam is where all are elected in Christ.

Foreknowledge sees the lost in Christ who freely believed. Foreknowledge sees or knows all who will believe and be in Christ and thus are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world


4. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Us being holy and without blame can only be IN Him: God sees us in Him in this respect and foreknew that we would believe thus be In Him.

5. having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6. to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

Adoption is by Jesus Christ and how is this possible? It is made possible / accepted in the Beloved. The thrust of this statement puts all relationships, conditions, and result in Christ. This is corporate election or plan lapsarianism. We are not accepted out of Christ but are in Christ. foreknowledge saw this, knew this and expressed it in written form.

7. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8. which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9. having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10. that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth in Him, 11. in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Don't miss the next verse:

12. that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Peter tells us that all this (Election) is according to foreknowledge. God has absolute knowledge and He knows all who will receive Christ. All who believe and are saved are "IN CHRIST". Being in Christ we are chosen. As it states we are chosen IN HIM

4. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Do you deny that God did not see the time in which a sinner would believe?

Do you deny that God determined that Christ would die for the sins of the world?

Do you deny that believers are chosen IN CHRIST?

Do you deny that election is according to foreknowledge / knowing something before / prescience?

Do you deny that Jesus and the Father are one?

Do you deny that the lost are saved by believing in Christ?

Do you deny that God's Absolute knowledege / to us foreknowledge did not see all sinners who believed and will believe before they believed?

Do you deny that Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the world, all mankind? 2. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Do you deny that Christ desires all men to be saved? 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Do you deny that we are "saved by faith" that faith saves us.

Do you deny the following verse: 9. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Do you deny the following: 8. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9. who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10. but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Do you deny that we are saved throught the gospel and that election is IN CHRIST.