Hey neo calvinist

[Hammster]

Sure, but not all of our thinking, or not much (or any) of it, arises in a vacuum. Prescriptive religious systems give people a package deal, something they learn, not a way into understanding and a personal faith in what that system provides a gloss for.

And He gave some as pastors and teachers.

 

[Tom 1]

I think in the novice states one has to learn many things by rote from faithful mentors. But by maturity and experience one comes to the point where they are able to discern for themselves what is appropriate or not. The Scripture for that is:
"But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14).

Maybe. In reality though most people just get more and more entrenched in the system, which becomes a substitute for real thought.

 

[Tom 1]

And He gave some as pastors and teachers.

Ah but the nature of the teaching, and pasturing, is all important. There’s guidance, and then there’s dogma.

 

[Hammster]

Ah but the nature of the teaching, and pasturing, is all important. There’s guidance, and then there’s dogma.

There’s teaching of doctrine. But you have to believe that there’s absolute truth.

 

[Clare73]

Ah but the nature of the teaching, and pasturing, is all important.
There’s guidance, and then there’s dogma.

You are leaving out the operation of the Holy Spirit in the born again, thinking they are always nothing more than passive agents.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Maybe. In reality though most people just get more and more entrenched in the system, which becomes a substitute for real thought.

From what I am reading of Calvin's own work, it is obvious to me that he carefully thought through all options when examining a passage of Scripture. He showed a very comprehensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and discusses the different shades of meaning of the different words. He discusses what possible interpretations of a passage are viable, what he thinks is far fetched, and what he prefers. He doesn't appear to show prejudice for any personal dogmatic stance, but considers all the shades of meaning in a passage and comes to his own conclusions. Often he might have a slight disagreement about a possible meaning but he says that he is not going to be contentious about it if others want to stick to it.

So, if someone is so well versed in his knowledge of Old and New Testament Scripture, and has a comprehensive knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, then his writing is worth serious and careful consideration.

 

[renniks]

He's put me off getting anyone to pray the sinner's prayer as part of receiving Christ, after he said that more people have ended up in hell through that prayer than anything else!

So instead we just wait for God to zap us with faith?

 

[Tom 1]

From what I am reading of Calvin's own work, it is obvious to me that he carefully thought through all options when examining a passage of Scripture. He showed a very comprehensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and discusses the different shades of meaning of the different words. He discusses what possible interpretations of a passage are viable, what he thinks is far fetched, and what he prefers. He doesn't appear to show prejudice for any personal dogmatic stance, but considers all the shades of meaning in a passage and comes to his own conclusions. Often he might have a slight disagreement about a possible meaning but he says that he is not going to be contentious about it if others want to stick to it.

So, if someone is so well versed in his knowledge of Old and New Testament Scripture, and has a comprehensive knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, then his writing is worth serious and careful consideration.

By your fruit you will know them - anyone who kills and terrorises in God’s name can’t be trusted, that is self evident, or should be. You must be aware how Jesus responded to ‘experts in the law’.
“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,”
‭‭John‬ ‭5:39‬ ‭NIV‬‬
It’s not simply the fact they rejected Christ, but why they rejected him. Jesus wouldn’t have been welcome in Calvin’s Geneva. I’m sure Calvin would have had an earnest discussion with him before regrettably concluding he would need to be put to death, for the good of the faith. Words are very fine, but ultimately it’s all a matter of the heart.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So instead we just wait for God to zap us with faith?

Because faith comes by hearing the Word of God, then the proper way is to read the Bible where it gives instruction about repentance and long-term commitment to Christ as the way to salvation.

 

[renniks]

Because faith comes by hearing the Word of God, then the proper way is to read the Bible where it gives instruction about repentance and long-term commitment to Christ as the way to salvation.

But don't pray for God to save you? Why not?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

By your fruit you will know them - anyone who kills and terrorises in God’s name can’t be trusted, that is self evident, or should be. You must be aware how Jesus responded to ‘experts in the law’.
“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,”
‭‭John‬ ‭5:39‬ ‭NIV‬‬
It’s not simply the fact they rejected Christ, but why they rejected him. Jesus wouldn’t have been welcome in Calvin’s Geneva. I’m sure Calvin would have had an earnest discussion with him before regrettably concluding he would need to be put to death, for the good of the faith. Words are very fine, but ultimately it’s all a matter of the heart.

Calvin never put anyone to death. The local magistrates did according to the law of the time. There were very strict laws against heresy, and it was a capital offence at the time.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But don't pray for God to save you? Why not?

Because just uttering a prayer without following it up with action doesn't save anyone. James says that when he asks, "Do you say you have faith? Then show it by your works." In other words, anyone who says he has faith needs to demonstrate it by what he does. So if a person prays, "I repent of my sins" should follow it up by actual repentance. So it is not the prayer that brings salvation, it is keeping the promise by definite action.

 

[renniks]

Because just uttering a prayer without following it up with action doesn't save anyone. James says that when he asks, "Do you say you have faith? Then show it by your works." In other words, anyone who says he has faith needs to demonstrate it by what he does. So if a person prays, "I repent of my sins" should follow it up by actual repentance. So it is not the prayer that brings salvation, it is keeping the promise by definite action.

That sounds like Catholic thought, works religion, not Calvinism.
Of course if you don't actually believe nothing happens. But faith is the only requirement for initial salvation. Faith will produce change. If it's not genuine faith, nothing changes. You still have to pray to accept Jesus and repent in your heart.

 

[Tom 1]

Calvin never put anyone to death. The local magistrates did according to the law of the time. There were very strict laws against heresy, and it was a capital offence at the time.

Calvin was fully involved in each capital decision involving anyone of note, and ultimately responsible for all murder and torture under his regime. All totalitarian regimes have a judiciary, installed by the regime’s leaders. They don’t just set up some private club on their own and start knocking people off. The whole grotesquery would never have existed in the first place without Calvin. Quibbling over whether someone should be beheaded or slow roasted to death over some petty doctrinal dispute was about the extent of his compassion. When it came to dealing with anyone who disagreed with his ideas he was treacherous, deceitful and murderous. Considering him a representative of Christ is insane.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That sounds like Catholic thought, works religion, not Calvinism.
Of course if you don't actually believe nothing happens. But faith is the only requirement for initial salvation. Faith will produce change. If it's not genuine faith, nothing changes. You still have to pray to accept Jesus and repent in your heart.

Just praying a promise to repent and commit to Jesus is not enough. Following the prayer through with actual repentance and commitment to Christ is.

What's the point of making a promise to God and then going right back into the same sins as before. That's not conversion to Christ. The Calvinist Puritans taught that one had to seek God with all their heart until the Holy Spirit actually did the transformation of heart and life that is the basis of genuine conversion to Christ. The sinner's prayer does not convert a person to Christ. All it does is to indicate to God that the sinner is prepared to repent, seek Him earnestly for true conversion. When he shows he means business with God, then conversion takes place.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Calvin was fully involved in each capital decision involving anyone of note, and ultimately responsible for all murder and torture under his regime. All totalitarian regimes have a judiciary, installed by the regime’s leaders. They don’t just set up some private club on their own and start knocking people off. The whole grotesquery would never have existed in the first place without Calvin. Quibbling over whether someone should be beheaded or slow roasted to death over some petty doctrinal dispute was about the extent of his compassion. When it came to dealing with anyone who disagreed with his ideas he was treacherous, deceitful and murderous. Considering him a representative of Christ is insane.

I have read the historical background to Calvin's work in Geneva. The one heretic burned at the stake (the official form of execution at the time), was not over a minor doctrinal point. It was because of serious heretical subversion of the Gospel and of sound doctrine. Servetus was convicted after many warnings and attempts by Calvin and others to change his views. In fact, Calvin advocated against the death penalty for Servetus, but the magistrates overruled him.

 

[renniks]

Just praying a promise to repent and commit to Jesus is not enough. Following the prayer through with actual repentance and commitment to Christ is.

Well, duh! I just said that it has to be real faith.

 

[renniks]

Just praying a promise to repent and commit to Jesus is not enough. Following the prayer through with actual repentance and commitment to Christ is.

What's the point of making a promise to God and then going right back into the same sins as before. That's not conversion to Christ. The Calvinist Puritans taught that one had to seek God with all their heart until the Holy Spirit actually did the transformation of heart and life that is the basis of genuine conversion to Christ. The sinner's prayer does not convert a person to Christ. All it does is to indicate to God that the sinner is prepared to repent, seek Him earnestly for true conversion. When he shows he means business with God, then conversion takes place.

So why are you against the sinners prayer then? Everyone has to start somewhere

 

[renniks]

I have read the historical background to Calvin's work in Geneva. The one heretic burned at the stake (the official form of execution at the time), was not over a minor doctrinal point. It was because of serious heretical subversion of the Gospel and of sound doctrine. Servetus was convicted after many warnings and attempts by Calvin and others to change his views. In fact, Calvin advocated against the death penalty for Servetus, but the magistrates overruled him.

And then crowed about Servetus being cooked. Yes sounds like he was all broken up about it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And then crowed about Servetus being cooked. Yes sounds like he was all broken up about it.

Would you like to quote that from the actual historical document?