Hating Calvinists?

[rnmomof7]

Recieved, your opinion is unscriptural, dude.
Our nature is fallen, we're born losers.
Only mercy will save us, justice won't.

But there are many like deceived that believe that some how in some way we can recommend ourselves to God.

If our destiny is contingent upon our belief, we are all lost, for none can know or even desire to know the things of the spirit. It is the work of God that we believe, not the work of ourselves. That's why it's oxymoronic to ask,"What must we DO to be saved?"

Of course you know that was asked in scripture?? That question is wrote by the Spirit of God .We know that without His Spirit no man even seeks God

Momo'7, I know Calvin himself tried to prevent the murder of Servetus.
I just find it interesting that most the people that point to him in an effort to equate the Inquisitors w/the Reformationists, don't know that the Catholics were tryin' to barbecue Servetus as well.

It is my opinion that when people have no spiritual response they revert to Geneva and Servetus.

As you know many lives were lost at the hand of Rome.
But nothing happens that is not the will of God.

We can see in some ways that Rome saved Europe from the muslim hordes
We can see that some of the individual deaths protected the church from falling into heresy.
God was sovereign over that time too IMHO. God uses martyrdom to grow His church .

I do not understand it, but i have faith in the justice of God and His plan.

I'm a big fan of Romans 1:20 & have pondered the fate of those who've lived conscientiously w/out ever hearing the gospel. I wonder if there ISn't enough of the gospel in creation to affect a conversion.
How did the magi know to come to Bethlehem?
They had the teachings of Daniel, but they had something more.
Did you know that all ancient cultures had the same 12 major constellations, each w/3 decans(sub-constellations)?
The Sphinx was the key. It told where to begin & end in the story told within the Mazzeroth, or Zodiac as it came to called. The head(begining) is Virgo(the virgin) & the tail(end) is the Lion(of Judah).
Genesis3:15 I will put enmity between thee & the woman, between her seed & thy seed. Thou shalt bruise his heel, but he shall crush your head."
Oops... how'd I turn the italics on?

Gods hand is all over creation,. and the common knowledge of theses peoples prove that.
I think making a judgment on the basis of Daniel is risky . Daniel was a hebrew that had knowledge of the law and of the promise .
So he could look foreword to the cross in faith for salvation .
There is also no doubt that other nations heard of the God of Israel so they too could operate on faith (look at Rahab)

The book of Enoch reveals this knowledge was given to him by archangels. This book is referenced in Jude 14,15 "Now Enoch, the 7th from Adam, prophesied about those men also, saying,"Behold, the Lord cometh w/10,000 of His saints."

Here's the bombshell:
"The heavens declare the glory of God, & the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, & night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. There line is gone out thru all the earth, & their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of heaven, and His circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." Psalm 19:1-6

"And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, & for seasons,& days, & years." Genesis 1:14,15

I've got a book called "A Voice Crying in the Heavens" by Robert Scott Wadsworth & Daniel G. Stockemer, and one called "The Witness of the Stars" by E.W.Bullinger

I am cautious about thing like seeing salvation in the stars.
But we know that men were saved by faith looking foreword to the promise.

We need to have faith that not one was lost that God desired to save.

 

[rnmomof7]

Actually, John Calvin took full credit for the murder of Servetus in a 1561 letter from him to Marquis Paet of Navarre.

-A

***It was this heretic, in the early days, who had first called on Calvin to debate the issues with him in France, which Calvin was pleased to do, though it was very dangerous at that time for him to have done so. For some reason, that was never made known, Servetus did not turn up for that debate. Years later, now calling himself de Villeneuve, Servetus started to write letters to Calvin at Geneva. What a fateful step that was! Calvin knew it was Servetus but in good faith he corresponded with him though Servetus' letters were full of the most extreme heresies. In fact the arrogance of Servetus was revealed by his margin corrections of Calvin's “Institutesâ€?, that Calvin had sent him in the hope that its truth might lead him away from his heresies. Those corrections were often derogatory. It seems incredible that Calvin could have kept up that correspondence so long, but in the end the heretic's letters became so full of invective and personal abuse that it had to end. The explanation for Calvin continuing this correspondence so long was that it was a publisher of Lyons, who was friendly to Calvin, who had acted as a go-between for the letters between them. I believe Calvin would have stopped writing to Servetus long before it ended so acrimoniously, if that publisher had not been involved in it.

***The judgment of historians on these remarkable men has undergone a great change. Calvin's course in the tragedy of Servetus was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is as fully condemned in the nineteenth century. Bishop Bossuet was able to affirm that all Christians were happily agreed in maintaining the rightfulness of the death penalty for obstinate heretics, as murderers of souls. A hundred years later the great historian Gibbon echoed the opposite public sentiment when he said: “I am more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed at auto-da-fés of Spain and Portugal

Calvin never changed his views or regretted his conduct towards Servetus. Nine years after his execution he justified it in self-defence against the reproaches of Baudouin (1562), saying: “Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.


***In one respect he was in advance of his times, by recommending to the Council of Geneva, though in vain, a mitigation of punishment and the substitution of the sword for the stake.

Let us give him credit for this comparative moderation in a semi-barbarous age when not only hosts of heretics, but even innocent women, as witches, were cruelly tortured and roasted to death. Let us remember also that it was not simply a case of fundamental heresy, but of horrid blasphemy, with which he had to deal. If he was mistaken, if he misunderstood the real opinions of Servetus, that was an error of judgment, and an error which all the Catholics and Protestants of that age shared. Nor should it be overlooked that Servetus was convicted of falsehood, that he overwhelmed Calvin with abuse, and that he made common cause with the Libertines, the bitter enemies of Calvin, who had a controlling influence in the Council of Geneva at that time, and hoped to overthrow him.

Introduction to Philip Schaff's account of Michael Servetus,


Does one repent for the defense of the gospel?
This was the way of that time among churches to defend against heretics.

Today is a different time, we not only suffer heretics but some time let them use our pulpits.

Calvin forewarned Servetus, but in spite of the fact of the potential danger he came with the hope of overthrowing Calvin and being the leader of Geneva*.

We have no idea how Calvin talked to God about this..But like all sinners he is saved by grace

 

[armothe]

It was this heretic, in the early days...

It truly intrigues me how every single Calvinist recites the same defense when Michael Severetus is mentioned. Not one single person has ever said, "Yes, what John Calvin participated in was wrong."

1) Point the blame to Servetus. He was a heretic! He was an insurrectionist! He wanted to overthrow Calvin! He was abusive to Calvin. Savage!

2) Blame society. That's the way things were done back then. It's not really considered murder.

3) The bleeding heart. Calvin tried to save Servetus!

Boy, you make it sound like poor John Calvin had absolutely no choice in the matter but to execute him. Let a tear be shed for the decision John Calvin had to make.

Thanks, but I much prefer the unbiased version of history.
(I've also read the garbage versions written by Armeneists)

-A

 

[rnmomof7]

It truly intrigues me how every single Calvinist recites the same defense when Michael Severetus is mentioned. Not one single person has ever said, "Yes, what John Calvin participated in was wrong."

1) Point the blame to Servetus. He was a heretic! He was an insurrectionist! He wanted to overthrow Calvin! He was abusive to Calvin. Savage!

2) Blame society. That's the way things were done back then. It's not really considered murder.

3) The bleeding heart. Calvin tried to save Servetus!

Boy, you make it sound like poor John Calvin had absolutely no choice in the matter but to execute him. Let a tear be shed for the decision John Calvin had to make.

Thanks, but I much prefer the unbiased version of history.
(I've also read the garbage versions written by Armeneists)

-A

Do you know who Schraff is?
He is a Church historian that is well respected..

Indeed Calvin did have a choice.He could have let the heretic take over Geneva .

At that time the Catholic church was seeking for him too (they too burned heretics.)

That being said the name of David appears in the Bible more than any name I believe over a thousand times,57 times in the NT.

Jesus came from the line of that murderous adulterer .

Paul the scholar of the NT stood by and watched Stephen stoned

You know what ? I still believe he was Gods chosen vessel.

Have you ever lied or taken the Lords name in vain? Then you have also committed Murder.

You need to worry more about your sin that Calvins.
His sin is covered in the blood of Christ..I hope your is

 

[john14_20]

But that is not what the bile says it says that every man is without excuse. Either the Bible is right or you are:>)


God purposed to reveal Himself to all men through creation.

Either the Bible is right or I am?

This is a grossly unfair statement. I started this dialogue with you, but since then others have entered into the discussion. If you go back and read all the posts you will see how we ended up here.

I keep asking the question, 'man is without excuse' for what?

I believe the Bible, OK?

But the fact remains that it appears you all are saying that man is without excuse for not acknowledging God, so they go to hell. But they can't complain because God revealed Himself to them through Creation.

If this is what you are saying the Bible says, I will agree with you. But then saving faith in God must be less that you claim it to be, ie. it can't be accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour and accepting He died for our sins.

If you demand that saving faith is indeed this previous description of accepting Jesus, then I will agree with you, but then the 'man is without excuse' passage must be talking about something other than Salvation.

You can't have it both ways. It is folly on multiple counts to suggest that someone without hearing the preached Word, could look at Creation and deduce not only the existence of a Creator (which would be possible) but then understand thier own sinfulness and deduce thier need for a Saviour - but wait there's more - and then deduce, from looking at a tree and some stars, that this Creator God sent His only Son to be that Saviour by dying for our sins. And all we need to do is accept that and we will be saved.

Like I said, it can't be both.

And by the way, to whomever it concerns - Calvin didn't try and stop the execution of Servetus. He tried to make the execution less painful, which he did do. It was customary to burn heretics with green or wet wood. The fire would burn not so hot, slower and longer. The agonizing death would last many, many hours. Calvin arranged for the wood to be nice and dry so Servetus would die quicker. This was a nice gesture but in no way does it excuse Calvin from being a murderer. He was the man behind the arrest and the sentence. I know it was the way things were done then, but that is pitiful. I excuse no-one. They were all murderers. People are smoking dope in alarming numbers now, it's just the way things are, but most of us know it is wrong in our hearts and so we avoid it.

An interesting side note is that at the time, if you brought a charge of heresy against someone, and had that man imprisoned, you also must be imprisoned until a verdict had been reached. This was to ensure people would not lay unfounded charges against others. Calvin arranged for one of his off-siders to lay the charges against Servetus, so he would be imprisoned alongside Servetus - and Calvin could stay out of jail.

I do not pick on nor excuse Calvin anymore than I pick on or excuse anyone. I am not a Calvinist, but I think Calvin made a wonderful contribution to theology.

What bothers me the most here is the necessity to blame the Catholics for what they have done, and then when faced with what the Protestants have done, some people here have found it necessary to examine the body counts!

This is a disgrace. It matters not how many deaths can be attributed to which group. What they all did was wrong - end of story.

If you feel the need to justify one side due to a smaller body count, I suggest you need to take a close look at yourself and why you find this necessary.

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[armothe]

Have you ever lied or taken the Lords name in vain? Then you have also committed Murder. You need to worry more about your sin that Calvins. His sin is covered in the blood of Christ..I hope your is

Ooops! I almost forgot step...

4) Shift the blame to your opponent. If you feel as though you are losing the argument be sure to point out the speck in your opponent's eye (by the way, this borders on breaking forum rules).

We aren't talking about me or you, or anyone else. The history in question is that of John Calvin. History proves (and yes, I have historical evidence) that John Calvin took responsibility for a m-u-r-d-e-r.

Frankly, I don't care what sins he may have committed, but for you to numb history down and paint Calvin as a saint, using biased quotes from Calvinist historians, is irresponsible.

Even I know John Calvin isn't considered a Calvinist by your standards, which is why I am blown away by the Calvinist's attempt to cover up any negativity surrounding him. Whatever intention it entails it reminds me of how members of the LDS church try to cover up Joseph Smith's sorted history with rose-colored glasses.

Swallow your pride and own up to history.
You have great logic and good arguments. Don't sabotage your credibility by trying to defend something that obviously happened, and was obviously wrong.

-A

 

[rnmomof7]

Either the Bible is right or I am?

This is a grossly unfair statement. I started this dialogue with you, but since then others have entered into the discussion. If you go back and read all the posts you will see how we ended up here.

I keep asking the question, 'man is without excuse' for what?

I believe the Bible, OK?

Good then we agree that wen man stands before the throne of God He will be without excuse. He will have nothing to say in his own defense.

Rom 1:17**
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.



Rom 1:18**
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

**
*
Rom 1:19**
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

**
*
Rom 1:20**
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

**
*
Rom 1:21**
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

But the fact remains that it appears you all are saying that man is without excuse for not acknowledging God, so they go to hell. But they can't complain because God revealed Himself to them through Creation.

If this is what you are saying the Bible says, I will agree with you. But then saving faith in God must be less that you claim it to be, ie. it can't be accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour and accepting He died for our sins.

Does not the Bible say that Christ brought salvation? Without Christ there is no salvation. Either that is true or it is not.If it is not true then there are more ways to heaven than Christ.

1 John 5:11-12
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."



Men Know God by the work of His hand, They know the law in their hearts..yet even with this knowledge men choose to sin.

They like Adam and Eve are judged for their rebellion against God .

Paul tells us in Romans 2:14-15 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience

If you demand that saving faith is indeed this previous description of accepting Jesus, then I will agree with you, but then the 'man is without excuse' passage must be talking about something other than Salvation.

Why?

Ignorance is no excuse ..no man can say I did not know about God or His laws . Without the Blood of Christ we too would stand before God on that day without excuse.


2Pe 1:3**
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Th 1:8**
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


If a person could be saved because of ignorance, then the gospel is not a gospel of salvation, it is a gospel of condemnation.

If an African tribesman who is isolated from the rest of the world and who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel can be saved because of his ignorance, then when the gospel is preached to him, it would bring condemnation rather than salvation if he did not respond to it favorably.

All men having a knowledge of God will be judged by their response to that knowledge. They will all stand without an excuse for their sin and without a savior to rescue them .

2 Peter 2:4
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

Men that come before God without the covering of Christ appear naked with their sin exposed. They have no excuse for their sin and no saviour to pay for it and to cover them. So they will stand judgment for their rebellion .

This does not seem to be that difficult a concept..without Christ ..without a saviour ..we stand judgment and have no excuse for our sin .

I do not pick on nor excuse Calvin anymore than I pick on or excuse anyone. I am not a Calvinist, but I think Calvin made a wonderful contribution to theology.

He was a scholar and a theologian , not God, not perfect a sinner like all of us .

 

[john14_20]

Hi rnmomof7.

No-one can come to the Father except through the Son

. I agree. But you and I will have different understandings of what that actually means.

Men that come before God without the covering of Christ appear naked with their sin exposed

I agree, it's just that I don't believe that anyone is without the covering of Christ. He came to take away the sin of the world - sin, singular!

without Christ ..without a saviour ..we stand judgment and have no excuse for our sin .

I agree, it's just that no-one is without a Saviour. He came into the world to save the world. He is with everyone.

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[rnmomof7]

Ooops! I almost forgot step...

4) Shift the blame to your opponent. If you feel as though you are losing the argument be sure to point out the speck in your opponent's eye (by the way, this borders on breaking forum rules).

We aren't talking about me or you, or anyone else. The history in question is that of John Calvin. History proves (and yes, I have historical evidence) that John Calvin took responsibility for a m-u-r-d-e-r.

You assume I have a dog in this fight..I do not.I do not worship Calvin or believe he is sinless.

My point is simply that we have to look at things in Historical context. That would be worthy scholarship.

It is common practice when one is wordless in a discussion of doctrine to divert the topic to Calvin.

Bait and switch may help , but then we all leave just as ignorant as we arrived.

Frankly, I don't care what sins he may have committed, but for you to numb history down and paint Calvin as a saint, using biased quotes from Calvinist historians, is irresponsible.

LOL of course you do ...you raised it and wallowed in it and used it as an opportunity not only to slander the doctrine that is NICKNAMED Calvinism..but also an attempt to drag me into your personal war with personal insults and to toss some mud at the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.

Your purpose is clear for any reader..your "I personally do not care" is easily seen through.

I do not play that game.

I cited a source that you took special effort to write off. This man is an acknowledged scholar.

From a Book site

This man has written many scholarly tomes on the church in history.You treated His scholarship as if it means nothing.

Philip Schaff (1819" 1893) wrote one of the finest histories of the church available. His eight-volume work, which covers Christian history from the apostles to the Swiss Reformation, incorporates discussion of ideas and ideals throughout the history of the church with the requisite facts and figures for each period of history. Each volume contains maps, charts, notes, bibliographies, and an index.

My bet is that if we traced YOUR sources they would be Arminan and very biased in an attempt to throw mud at the doctrine of Calvin.





Could you show me where I "painted " him as a saint?



BTW I do believe he is a saint in the Biblical sense..Saints are forgiven sinners.

Even I know John Calvin isn't considered a Calvinist by your standards, which is why I am blown away by the Calvinist's attempt to cover up any negativity surrounding him. Whatever intention it entails it reminds me of how members of the LDS church try to cover up Joseph Smith's sorted history with rose-colored glasses.

You are really threatened by Calvinism aren't you?

You are the one that brought up Calvin to detour the discussion.

Swallow your pride and own up to history.
You have great logic and good arguments. Don't sabotage your credibility by trying to defend something that obviously happened, and was obviously wrong.

-A

There is no pride to swallow.Calvin is demeaned not for what he did ..or we would have to judge popes and saints too.

The object of the hatred is the doctrine, not the man .

Truth is truth no matter who speaks it.

 

[john14_20]

If a person could be saved because of ignorance, then the gospel is not a gospel of salvation, it is a gospel of condemnation.

If an African tribesman who is isolated from the rest of the world and who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel can be saved because of his ignorance, then when the gospel is preached to him, it would bring condemnation rather than salvation if he did not respond to it favorably.

This does raise an interesting point, doesn't it?

If ignorance be his excuse, why bother to preach the Gospel - in fact he would be worse off for hearing it, for then he could reject it.

But on the other hand, if it is not then what about the millions of people living now in Communist Russia and Red China where the Gospel is suppressed? Those people did not choose to be born into these godless nations. Are they lost forever because they never heard the true message of God's love in Christ? Are they eternally doomed when they die? Will a just God and Saviour condemn to eternal damnation those people who died before the true Gospel was ever brought to them? Is God about to "shut the door" of mercy in their face?

You are welcome to worship a God who would do this, but I have chosen not to. I do this based not upon what one verse here or there says, but upon the entire thrust of Scripture and upon the face of Jesus Christ.

Blessings to all, Pete.

 

[rnmomof7]

Hi rnmomof7.

. I agree. But you and I will have different understandings of what that actually means.

I agree, it's just that I don't believe that anyone is without the covering of Christ. He came to take away the sin of the world - sin, singular!

Do you believe Dalmler had the covering of Christ as he ate his friends and neighbors and Hitler had the covering of Christ as he gassed the jews?

Do you believe men that hate Christ and blaspheme Him have the covering of Christ?

This is not nor has it ever been Christian understanding or doctrine.

It is unbiblical to say the least .

What you propose is universalism (A heresy)

Paul did not believe that

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


If what you propose was true these words of Paul would be false

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

Men are dead and not yet alive in Christ until they are saved.

I agree, it's just that no-one is without a Saviour. He came into the world to save the world. He is with everyone.

That is not scripture

If all men are in Christ what do they need to be saved from?

He came to save many not all.

You need to do a study on the word world .
In normal usage when the Jew spoke of the world he was speaking of the gentile nations . Jesus was telling them they no longer had an exclusive relationship with God, He was now coming to the gentiles to save them

kosmos {kos'-mos}

TDNT Reference
Root Word

TDNT - 3:868,459
probably from the base of 2865

Part of Speech

n m

Outline of Biblical Usage


1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19


This is clarified in the book of Revelation

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

(the "world")



See the number of times that Jesus said He came to save those the Father gave him.






Jesus will not dwell in an unregenerate man .

Can God dwell in an unrepentant heart?

Spiritual things an unsaved person cannot do:

1. HE CANNOT THINK AS GOD DOES:*

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

2. HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD:

". . . thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself . . ." (Psalm 50:21)*

"Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" (Job 11:7-8)

3. HE CANNOT SEE SPIRITUAL THINGS:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

4. HE CANNOT KNOW HIS OWN HEART:*

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

5. HE CANNOT PROPERLY DIRECT HIS OWN PATHS:

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jeremiah 10:23)*

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

6. HE CANNOT FREE HIMSELF FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Galatians 3:10)

7. HE CANNOT RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT:

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not . . ." (John 14:17)

8. HE CANNOT HEAR (receive & understand) GOD'S WORDS:

"He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

"But the natural (unsaved) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." (1Corinthians 2:14)

9. HE CANNOT BIRTH HIMSELF INTO THE FAMILY OF GOD:

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God." (John 1:13)

"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:15-16)

10. HE CANNOT PLEASE GOD:

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. . . . So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:5, 8, 9)

 

[rnmomof7]

This does raise an interesting point, doesn't it?

If ignorance be his excuse, why bother to preach the Gospel - in fact he would be worse off for hearing it, for then he could reject it.

But on the other hand, if it is not then what about the millions of people living now in Communist Russia and Red China where the Gospel is suppressed? Those people did not choose to be born into these godless nations. Are they lost forever because they never heard the true message of God's love in Christ? Are they eternally doomed when they die? Will a just God and Saviour condemn to eternal damnation those people who died before the true Gospel was ever brought to them? Is God about to "shut the door" of mercy in their face?

You somehow miss the import of this thought.

IF you were correct there would be no need to preach the gospel because all people are already in Christ and so they are saved by their ignorance.

Knowing the gospel is not important if one is saved by their ignorance of it.

You can not have it both ways.

You can not say that all men are In christ before they are saved. And then say that they need to hear the gospel

Yes those that do not hear the gospel are lost forever..WHY DO YOU THINK JESUS SAID TO GO AND TELL THE WORLD?

THINK
If you are right YOU condemn people by giving them the gospel if they refuse it

You are welcome to worship a God who would do this, but I have chosen not to. I do this based not upon what one verse here or there says, but upon the entire thrust of Scripture and upon the face of Jesus Christ.

Blessings to all, Pete.

I am not arguing Calvinism here (although I believe all of scripture supports it (as oposed the the proof texts you have used..but that is another story :>)

I am presenting traditional Protestant doctrine .
One can not be saved without Repenting and believing
That is the NT message.

.

If one does not need to hear the gospel to be saved the bible is a lie .
Jesus came for nothing as men could be saved without Him.The plan of Salvation laid from before the foundation of the world is totally unnecessary

Christ was redundant under your theology.

 

[john14_20]

Do you believe Dalmler had the covering of Christ as he ate his friends and neighbors and Hitler had the covering of Christ as he gassed the jews?

Do you believe men that hate Christ and blaspheme Him have the covering of Christ?

Jesus Christ is the One through Whom all things were made and have thier existence. He is the sustainer of all people. Not one person can be alive without the upholding of His Glorious hands. Even the atheist who blasphemes God does so with the very breath God giveth to him.

This is not nor has it ever been Christian understanding or doctrine.

Umm, actually it has been. Just because you have not been exposed to it does not mean it is not true, or at least possible. It was a very widely held doctrine in the first few hundred years of Christianity. You need to do more thorough research before making such statements.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

I love this Scripture. All that died in Adam will be made alive in Christ. Praise God!

It is unbiblical to say the least .

Only by your interpretation.

What you propose is universalism (A heresy)

Paul did not believe that

I am not suggesting universalism, and you are right - Paul did not either. But Paul did preach the universal reconcilliation of all to God. This is not the same thing as universalism. If you don't know the difference feel free to ask me or research it elsewhere.

He came to save many not all.

You need to do a study on the word world

This is the typical response of a Calvinist. I did do a word study. The word kosmos can mean anything you want it to. How do we know if Jesus (according to Jn 3:16) came to save the universe, or only just humanity, or only just a part of humanity? Nobody's theology is supported here.

Your long list of Scriptural quotes don't actually speak against what I am saying.

Blessings, Pete

 

[john14_20]

Pete I am worried about you. Your page says you are a theology student..you are a very poor bible scholar

Do not be worried about me for i am worried not about you. Why? Because we are saved by Jesus Christ and not by our theology.

As for calling me a very poor Bible scholar, well that's what I see people calling other people when they just don't agree. Because we disagree, I must be a poor scholar. Well, the fact is that I have researched my position thouroughly and I stand on firm ground.

Some very brilliant Bible scholars have decided that Calvinism is accurate, yet some equally brilliant scholars decided that Arminianism is accurate. Every Christian, regardless of what side of this fence the stand, is absolutely sure they are right and the others are wrong. And they have the Scriptures to prove it. Both sides say this! Doesn't this tell you something? Maybe they are both wrong, or at least, not completely right.

I have looked at both, and I say that Calvinism has some wonderful beauty in it, but it also has some flaws. I think the same about Arminianism.

It is really very poor of you to call me a poor scholar.

Jesus came for nothing as men could be saved without Him.The plan of Salvation laid from before the foundation of the world is totally unnecessary

Christ was redundant under your theology

No man can be saved without Christ! I have not said otherwise. My theology is so Christ-centred that I have been accused of making too much of Him! I love to ask, "Is that possible? Can I make the Son of God out to be too big or too beautiful?"

If you think that Christ is redundant under my theology, then my point is not clear or you have not understood it.

Blessings to you, Pete.

 

[frumanchu]

It truly intrigues me how every single Calvinist recites the same defense when Michael Severetus is mentioned. Not one single person has ever said, "Yes, what John Calvin participated in was wrong."
...
Boy, you make it sound like poor John Calvin had absolutely no choice in the matter but to execute him. Let a tear be shed for the decision John Calvin had to make.

Thanks, but I much prefer the unbiased version of history.
(I've also read the garbage versions written by Armeneists)

-A

I'm confused. You said every single Calvinist recites the same defense, then you give four different defenses.

Of course, while historically number 1 would be closest to being the truth, you really haven't presented the history of the event.

Regardless, I do think it's a funny little game Arminians/non-Calvinists play by attacking Calvin with this event. If we defend him, we're labelled as blind followers of a man. If we accept the revision of history, then we get an earful of how Calvin's theology can't possibly be correct because of what he supposedly did.

 

[armothe]

I'm confused. You said every single Calvinist recites the same defense, then you give four different defenses.

They represent four steps of the same defense.

Of course, while historically number 1 would be closest to being the truth, you really haven't presented the history of the event.

Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying: "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight." - Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Baker Book House, 1950), p. 371.

During Servetus' trial, Calvin wrote: "I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." - Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328. (return)

In a 1561 letter from Calvin to the marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, he says intolerantly: "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains: but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

"Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic. Convicted and burned to death."- The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary Of The Church, p. 366.

"Calvin had thus murdered his enemy, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented his crime. The next year he published a defence in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language." - Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr, p. 36.

Within six months of the condemnation of Servetus, Calvin wrote a book defending his actions. In his Defense of the Orthodox Trinity Against the Errors of Michael Servetus, Calvin defended the use of the civil sword to execute religious "heretics" and maintaned that "whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

The respected Lutheran historian, Mosheim (1694-1755), judged in favor of Servetus. The historian Gibbon remarked: "he was more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the Auto da Fes of Spain and Portugal. The zeal of Calvin seems to have been envenomed by personal malice, and perhaps envy."

Regardless, I do think it's a funny little game Arminians/non-Calvinists play by attacking Calvin with this event. If we defend him, we're labelled as blind followers of a man. If we accept the revision of history, then we get an earful of how Calvin's theology can't possibly be correct because of what he supposedly did.

After studying Calvinism it is my opinion that John Calvin wasn't even a Calvinist. Thus, there is no reason for the Calvinist to defend his actions. Instead of rewriting history, perhaps the Calvinist should admit Calvin was a sinning human, and was wrong to participate in the death of Servetus. Then go on to explain the merits of Calvinism through scripture. At least that is much more honest.

-A

 

[Received]

Recieved, your opinion is unscriptural, dude.
Our nature is fallen, we're born losers.
Only mercy will save us, justice won't.
If our destiny is contingent upon our belief, we are all lost, for none can know or even desire to know the things of the spirit. It is the work of God that we believe, not the work of ourselves. That's why it's oxymoronic to ask,"What must we DO to be saved?"
Our salvation is not our doing, but rewards in heaven will reflect our participation.
The only way to redeem the statement that anything is contingent upon our belief is to place it within the context of that belief being contingent upon God's salvific interference with our fallen wills.

Once again, Matthew 1:21 reveals that salvation is of sin; just as our eternal life is not explicitly durative, but of quality (John 17:3), so is our condemnation -- before the law.

And belief is clearly not an act:

"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness..." -- Romans 4:4,5 (NASB)

Blessings.

 

[Received]

But there are many like deceived that believe that some how in some way we can recommend ourselves to God.

Come on, mom -- these are precisely the ignoble arguments -- not directed towards me, but in reference of me without my knowledge -- that have caused the religious wars in previous threads. Could you please abstain from this?

 

[armothe]

It is common practice when one is wordless in a discussion of doctrine to divert the topic to Calvin. ...you raised it and wallowed in it and used it as an opportunity not only to slander the doctrine that is NICKNAMED Calvinism..but also an attempt to drag me into your personal war with personal insults and to toss some mud at the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. You are the one that brought up Calvin to detour the discussion.

Wrong person. It wasn't me who introduced Servetus into the discussion.
My first mention was in response to Rick Otto's responsea (post#58) to your claim (post#43) of historical events: a"I know Calvin himself tried to prevent the murder of Servetus." I felt that an accurate correction was needed.

My bet is that if we traced YOUR sources they would be Arminan and very biased in an attempt to throw mud at the doctrine of

You are really threatened by Calvinism aren't you?
There is no pride to swallow.Calvin is demeaned not for what he did ..or we would have to judge popes and saints too. The object of the hatred is the doctrine, not the man. Truth is truth no matter who speaks it.

You can read my sources and comments in my prior post.

-A

 

[CCWoody]

We need to have a clarification here:

Servetus was not murdered. He was executed by the lawful convening authority in Geneva for crimes against the state. Anyone with a shred of honesty must admit that.

Furthermore, I still don't know why those who hate us Calvinists and the Biblical truths we represent would want Servetus as their poster boy. He was a state insurrectionist hell bent upon the overthrow of the lawful state. It would be like being a defender of Sadaam or Bin Laden against the US for our attempts to actually kill without even a trail these men. And those defenders would actually be traitors under the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

So, please continue to trot out good ol' smokey. It tells us a lot about you.

Now, back to the open hostility and hatred for Biblical Calvinism....