I just now realized that I am a Calvinist!

[PrincetonGuy]

if the Holy Spirit is leading you, what more do you need than the Bible?

.
.
.

Originally Posted by Skala
The Council of Orange 529 AD (you know, about 1000 years prior to the reformation) firmly taught monergism (the core issue of Calvinism) and predestination.

well I just learned something

Not all spirits are the Holy Spirit, and it is not uncommon for a Christian to be deceived. A basic familiarity with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church would have prevented you from believing the false statement to which you gave a “thumbs up”.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Your argument is terrible Stephen.

If you dismissed the teaching of anyone with sin in their life, what you describe as "bad histories and guilts" then we'd have to dismiss every single bible teacher in all of history, as every man is a sinner, for example, the Apostle Paul, the chief himself. A mass murderer and persecutor of the church.

As an FYI, regarding Calvin and and the death of certain heretics such as Servetus, everyone should know that Calvin merely served as a witness in Servetus' trial. He was not judge, jury, or executioner. Servetus was already on the run from another country with a death sentence on his head. He was captured and held trial. Calvin's job was to simply serve as a witness in the trial to prove if the allegations against Servetus were true. Servetus was put on trial by Genevas Little Council of Twenty Five. It should be known that this Council was not friends of Calvin, but his enemies.

Servetus, also being enemies of Calvin, was arrogant and confident in the trial, since he figured the Council would side with him against Calvin. His arrogance led him to not give a substantial defense for himself, instead opting to lob insults at Calvin. However, Calvin's calm, cool reasoning and expert logic caused the Council to find Servetus guilty. Servetus was shocked and couldn't believe it. (Let it be known that four other cities also recommended a verdict of guilty)

Some other things you should know:

Calvin pleaded with the Council to issue a beheading rather than a burning at the stake, but his pleas were denied.

Servetus, too, believed heresy justified the death sentence. Death for heretics is not something Calvin invented but was part of the culture at the time.

Calvin had no political power, being a foreigner himself.

Calvin didn't want Servetus to die, but to recant of his errors. He spent time with him during and after the trial, trying to convince him to recant.

It wasn't Calvin's decision to burn Servetus at the stake, but Geneva's Council of Twenty Five.

The belief that denial of the Trinity justifies a death sentence is not something Calvin invented, but was rather simply a medieval inheritance that everyone believed, including Servetus.

We constantly see people using the Calvin and Servetus historical event as a blot against Calvin's reputation, which you can see isn't exactly a blot against him at all. Usually, synergists are just repeating what they heard other anti-Calvinists say. They aren't quoting things they learned by actually taking the time to sit down and study the issue themselves. They aren't concerned with accuracy or historical fact. As long as they can make Calvin look as bad as possible, they feel justified in dismissing him and the theology that bears his name. By bringing up this historical event, they think they gain a foothold against Calvinism itself. Ironically, Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, as it comes from the pages of the Bible, and not what Calvin taught.

Thus one can rightly conclude that this ad hominem attack against Calvin is a sure sign of desperation by anti-Calvinists.

To see more information, go here:

http://salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=113&local=11a

All of the men who condemned Servetus to death by burning at the stake were Calvinists. For a very detailed account of the role of Calvin in the execution of Servetus, see here:
https://archive.org/details/calvinservetusre00rill

Arminian Christians did not execute people for believing differently than they did.

 

[Hammster]

When Servetus is brought up, we win.

 

[Skala]

The Council of Orange that took place in 529 AD did NOT teach monergism

.

It absolutely did. Maybe you don't really know what "monergism" means if you don't find it in these words:


Canon 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).


Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

The true history is that Calvinism introduced into the Dutch Reformed Church new teaching that expressing contradicted the teaching of Christ and His apostles.

The reformers were reformers, not revolutionaries. They were interested in recapturing old doctrine (reform), not creating new doctrine. In fact, they despised new doctrine.

Although very extensive searches have been carried out by Calvinists searching for their five points in pre-reformation literature, they have found none.

The Bible is sufficient. Calvinism comes from the Bible first and foremost. When you ask a Calvinist what he believes, he doesn't say "Well you see, such and such reformer taught..." or "Calvin said..", instead, he says "The apostle Paul said.." and "Jesus said..."

The Five Points of Calvinism, regardless of what one may choose to call them, are NOT taught in the Bible

Them not being taught in the bible and you refusing to see that thy are taught in the Bible are two different things.

Just off the top of my head I know that election and predestination are taught extensively in Ephesians and Romans and John, Limited atonement is taught by Jesus himself in John 10, Effectual Calling in areas like 1 Corinthians and Romans 8.

and are not found in any literature prior to the reformation

Please familiarize yourself with the council of orange.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I read a lot of our Christian History, especially about John Calvin. The system made him look bad, yet I hold him to part of the guilt of killing heretics. I am not impressed with theologians. Christians are to live by their faith by following & obeying Jesus alone with the help of the Holy Spirit which is sufficient for us, bad histories and those who share in its blames & guilts should not be part of our faith.

Been waiting for that one. Typical thread-in-a-box, I say.

 

[Skala]

When Servetus is brought up, we win.

Servetus is what you bring up when you can't exegete the Bible to disprove the doctrines TULIP asserts.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

All of the men who condemned Servetus to death by burning at the stake were Calvinists...

Arminian Christians did not execute people for believing differently than they did.

You just pointed out that Roman Catholics believe in free will. What about the Inquisition?

Ah, never mind. I've been a Calvinist for years and haven't burned a heretic even once. Now you're telling me it's the thing for Calvinists do.

Now, see, I'm only a five point Calvinist. I hate to think I'm failing to live up to your expectations of what a good Calvinist is supposed to be.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

.

It absolutely did. Maybe you don't really know what "monergism" means if you don't find it in these words:


Canon 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).


Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them. Justification and salvation are necessary for one to have faith to believe the gospel.

Synergism is the Biblical and historical doctrine of the Church that man’s salvation takes place only when he cooperates with the ministry of the Holy Spirit by believing Gospel. Faith precedes justification and salvation.

Need I remind you that the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that water baptism is necessary for justification and salivation, and that water baptism may be applied to adults only upon their confession of faith? Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has always taught synergism rather than Monergism, although they do not use those terms. You have read and quoted from Roman Catholic writings and have incorrectly understood them to teach monergism. Likewise, you have read and quoted from the Bible and have incorrectly understood it to teach Calvinism. Some people read to defend what they believe to be true; but other people read to find out if their beliefs are correct.

The reformers were reformers, not revolutionaries. They were interested in recapturing old doctrine (reform), not creating new doctrine. In fact, they despised new doctrine.

The Reformers were so consumed with hatred toward the Roman Catholic Church that many of them lost sight of fundamental Christian doctrines and replaced them with the doctrines that are today known as “Calvinism.”

The Bible is sufficient. Calvinism comes from the Bible first and foremost.

The history of Christian doctrine proves that this is not the case. If there is anything that Calvinists hate more than the Roman Catholic Church, it is the history of Christian doctrine that proves them to be innovators rather than reformers.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You just pointed out that Roman Catholics believe in free will. What about the Inquisition?

All Arminian Christians believe in free will, but not all Christians who believe in freewill are Arminians.

Ah, never mind. I've been a Calvinist for years and haven't burned a heretic even once. Now you're telling me it's the thing for Calvinists do.

I have known only two Christians who really deserved to be called “Christians”. One of them was a staunch, five point Calvinist; the other was a Roman Catholic priest. And yes, that leave me out!

Thank you for your gracious contribution to this thread!

 

[Hammster]

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them. Justification and salvation are necessary for one to have faith to believe the gospel.

You post this, and we are supposed to believe that you know what you're talking about?

That's a terrible explanation. I'm almost at a loss for words. I'd say it's a straw man, but I think you actually believe what you wrote.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You post this, and we are supposed to believe that you know what you're talking about?
.

No, of course not! I never post anything unless I could back it up with very credible sources, but the reader typically has no way of knowing that. Therefore, if what I say is of interest to a reader, that reader should investigate the accuracy of my statements. In this particular case, however, I was simply posting what is common knowledge to anyone who has a basic understanding of monergism and synergism as the terms are used today by contemporary theologians. But, don’t take my word for it; pull off of your bookshelves five or six volumes on soteriology by authors known for their expertise on the doctrine of salvation, and checkout my definition.

 

[Hammster]

No, of course not! I never post anything unless I could back it up with very credible sources, but the reader typically has no way of knowing that. Therefore, if what I say is of interest to a reader, that reader should investigate the accuracy of my statements. In this particular case, however, I was simply posting what is common knowledge to anyone who has a basic understanding of monergism and synergism as the terms are used today by contemporary theologians. But, don’t take my word for it; pull off of your bookshelves five or six volumes on soteriology by authors known for their expertise on the doctrine of salvation, and checkout my definition.

Your definition was a mishmash of things that sounded good, have little basis in reality. If you think it's a good one, your sources are terrible. It made absolutely no sense.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Your definition was a mishmash of things that sounded good, have little basis in reality. If you think it's a good one, your sources are terrible. It made absolutely no sense.

I wrote,

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them. Justification and salvation are necessary for one to have faith to believe the gospel.​

I will rephrase for you benefit:

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them [the elect]. Because man is totally depraved, he is incapable of saving faith. Therefore, justification and salvation are necessary for one to have saving faith, and always precede saving faith. Man contributes nothing to his salvation, not even faith. Faith is a consequence of justification and salvation, rather than a contributing factor.

Monergism is derived From the Greek words monos meaning alone or single, and ergon meaning work.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Some people read to defend what they believe to be true; but other people read to find out if their beliefs are correct.

I grew up in a strictly Arminian household. Until last year, I attended only strictly Arminian churches. Until a few months ago, I had never personally met anyone who openly admitted to being a Calvinist (besides myself). I've been Calvinist for years. I didn't get that way by being led into it by another Calvinist. I got there by, as you say it, reading the Bible to see if what I believed was true. As it turned out, what I believed was not true. Now I'm a Calvinist.

Monergism:
We are saved through faith. (Ephesians 2:8)
People who do not have faith have neither the motivation nor the means to acquire faith.
Ergo, anyone who comes to the faith arrives at a faith that they could not have derived by their own effort. They are incapable of even exerting the effort.
Ergo, anyone who acquires faith only does so because God gives it to him (or her. I don't wish to sound sexist).
Ergo, faith comes as a gift from God, only. (Ephesians 2:8, again)
Ergo, salvation comes from God, only.

Incidentally, your arguments about what Calvin did or whom he burned are not going to be too effective with many of today's Calvinists. The typical non-Calvinist seldom realizes that many of us, if not all, are not actually followers of Calvin. Like I said, above, I came to faith in the doctrines of grace simply by reading the Bible. I can't trace my spiritual heritage back to Calvin or any of his followers, personally. You could flame him (pardon the choice of words) all day, and it would not impact me significantly. It's like me pointing to the Catholics, those great defenders of the idea of free will, and saying, "Look at them! They've killed way more people with their inquisition!" You say, "So, what? We don't identify with them!"

But, it makes a good excuse to post a few comics and have a good laugh. If you get invited by a Calvinist to a backyard barbecue, and you don't get sweaty and shaky with fear when you see him fire up the grill, then it can only mean one thing: you know full well that your comparison to the heretic-burners of centuries ago is completely irrelevant.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Your argument is terrible Stephen.

If you dismissed the teaching of anyone with sin in their life, what you describe as "bad histories and guilts" then we'd have to dismiss every single bible teacher in all of history, as every man is a sinner, for example, the Apostle Paul, the chief himself. A mass murderer and persecutor of the church.


Thus one can rightly conclude that this ad hominem attack against Calvin is a sure sign of desperation by anti-Calvinists.

To see more information, go here:

http://salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=113&local=11a

Thank you for your input. I remember reading some of what you have spoken. I am glad that the church is of a better mind than it was then: heretics are no longer killed or burned at the stake. In those days, like you have said, they were less guilty of such cruelty since it was just the way they did things to heretics. So, actually how many of the leaders of the churches back in those days actually obeyed Jesus' command "of being known by your love for one another (and to love your enemies)"? I stand with Jesus and his Gospel & sent Holy Spirit as sufficient (as stated in Scripture). I am concerned about the supporters of the church doctrines which is out from our sufficiency by Christ and his sent Holy Spirit within us. I love fellowship with many types of Christians, for I have raw faith through Jesus alone, the exact same faith as everyone is required to have before the add-ons and subtractions are made.

I agree the way that you speak of Apostle Paul, I think that he was always feeling humble and repentive towards his past. I am sure that John Calvin hated what happened and showed his innocence, but he was part of the system that was so evil and contrary to Jesus' beloved commands of being known by your love for one another and to love your enemies. Aren't we, even today, responsible to obey Jesus over any church or system, period? I don't fear being the way that the John Calvins of history were and even are today to some degree, for I am outside of the systems that conflict with each other and also conflict with the commands & teachings of Jesus, and unfortunately misled & mislead today churches. I have the sufficiency of God and the Gospel of Christ, raw faith, as the early believers had (true disciples of Jesus) and many throughout the world have today, in and out of all the churches. Our confidence is in the Rock. We stand upon what is unmovable and trust him alone with his comforter and helper living within us, the Holy Spirit.

Have a good day and thank you for listening.

 

[98cwitr]

.
.
.

Originally Posted by Skala
The Council of Orange 529 AD (you know, about 1000 years prior to the reformation) firmly taught monergism (the core issue of Calvinism) and predestination.


Not all spirits are the Holy Spirit, and it is not uncommon for a Christian to be deceived. A basic familiarity with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church would have prevented you from believing the false statement to which you gave a “thumbs up”.

Are you RC or Baptist? I will have nothing to do with the RCC, you want to talk about some misconstrued doctrines and having tradition trump Scripture...you just go visit a mass service a few times.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Are you RC or Baptist? I will have nothing to do with the RCC, you want to talk about some misconstrued doctrines and having tradition trump Scripture...you just go visit a mass service a few times.

Some of the finest preaching that I have ever heard came from the mouth of the late Raymond E. Brown. Indeed, he was such an excellent preacher that he was honored to be the guest preacher in some of our finest Baptist churches! He is not, however, known so well for his preaching as he is for his 1,370 page exegetical commentary of the Gospel According to John which is very frequently quoted by scholars of a very wide spectrum of theological opinion—including the very finest Baptist scholars! And what Baptist would attempt a serious study of the Gospel According to Luke without frequently opening the pages of the 1,704 page exegetical commentary on that gospel by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, the same Fitzmyer who authored the 827 page exegetical commentary on Romans that is today one of the most frequently cited commentaries on Romans. We should also mention the 508 page exegetical commentary on the First and Second Epistles to Timothy by Luke Timothy Johnson. We might also mention, if we had the time, the very many other works by these four Roman Catholic scholars that have been a blessing to Baptists around the world. I am still waiting for a Baptist scholar to write an exegetical commentary on the Gospel According to Luke and on the Gospel According to John that come even remotely close to those of Fitzmyer and Brown. Very few Baptist have written an exegetical commentary of any consequence on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The best one, to date, is the one by Thomas R. Schreiner in the Baker Exegetical Commentary Series. It, too, is lengthy (940 pages), and he cites Fitzmyer over 450 times! Our Baptist churches are still waiting for an exegetical commentary of consequence by a Baptist scholar on the Pastoral Epistles.

Baptists who dismiss some the finest biblical scholarship of all time simply because the scholar was a Roman Catholic are denying themselves of one of God’s most important gifts to the student of the Bible. However, a Roman Catholic mass is something that I have experienced only three or four times, and I do not plan on experiencing one again!

 

[Hammster]

I wrote,

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them. Justification and salvation are necessary for one to have faith to believe the gospel.​

I will rephrase for you benefit:

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them [the elect]. Because man is totally depraved, he is incapable of saving faith. Therefore, justification and salvation are necessary for one to have saving faith, and always precede saving faith. Man contributes nothing to his salvation, not even faith. Faith is a consequence of justification and salvation, rather than a contributing factor.

Monergism is derived From the Greek words monos meaning alone or single, and ergon meaning work.

Well, at least I know it wasn't a mistake. You really are ignorant of what monergism is.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You really are ignorant of what monergism is.

If you have studied monergism, you know that my definition is very accurate.

 

[Hammster]

I wrote,

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them.

Correct. You should have stopped there.

Justification and salvation are necessary for one to have faith to believe the gospel.

That doesn't even make sense.

I will rephrase for you benefit:

It won't help.

Monergism is the Calvinistic doctrine that God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, brings about the salvation of the elect without any cooperation from them [the elect]. Because man is totally depraved, he is incapable of saving faith.

Correct.

Therefore, justification and salvation are necessary for one to have saving faith, and always precede saving faith.

Incorrect. We are justified by faith.

Man contributes nothing to his salvation, not even faith. Faith is a consequence of justification and salvation, rather than a contributing factor.

We are justified by faith.

Monergism is derived From the Greek words monos meaning alone or single, and ergon meaning work.

Correct.

Hopefully I've shed some light on your errors.