Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scrolling through this thread, it is interesting that regardless of what one posts, your typical response is to ask a totally irrelevant question.
This is interesting. How about being courteous enough to actually engage other posters rather than just asking totally irrelevant questions which is an obvious dodging of the other poster's comments.
It wasn't irrelevant. He said something about God drawing. I asked what Jesus said happens to those who are drawn. That was relevant. And still unanswered.
But see, how do we know who is right? In fact, I do not trust man made history. Anything is possible. Calvin could have been completely innocent. I am wiling to entertain that possibility. But the fact of the matter is that there are documents that do say that he did have Michael killed. Whether it was true or not is besides the point. The point is why take the chance on associating with a man who could have potentially done a really horrible evil. Killing another man is not a mistake or an imperfection. Killing a man is a very serious sin. Besides, Paul addressed the problem of saying, I am of Paul, etc. So just because I may like what a famous man in history says, does not mean I should take on his name as a part of letting people of who I am in the faith. I am not of Paul, etc.Wow, the ad hominem against Calvin certainly came out of the blueYou're right though, I do like to study and quote Calvin as he is an excellent commentator (the best ever, in fact, according to some Dutch fellow named Jacobus Arminius
Did someone else quote something of Calvin's that you disagree with? If so, please point it out so I can read it.
Thanks
Just in case you're interested, here's part of what Arminius has to say about Calvin and his commentaries:
"The rumour about my advising the students to read the works of the Jesuits and of Coornhert I can call by no other name than a lie for never to any one either by request or spontaneously have I uttered a word on that subject. So far from this after the reading of Scripture which I strenuously inculcate and more than any other as the whole Academy yea the conscience of my colleagues will testify I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read whom I extol in higher terms than Helmichius himself as he owned to me ever did. For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures, Calvin is incomparable and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the Bibliotheca of the Fathers, so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy interpretation in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, yea above all" ~Arminius, Jacobus
Here's what he said:
But there are others who do call themselves Calvinists of whom you agree with. In fact, you made a cartoon in defense of the man. Again, Jesus said we will know false prophets by their fruit. So if Calvin's beliefs are highly praised by a certain group of men, they should be re-evaluted with the Scriptures by way of prayer with an objective eye because Calvin could potentially not be the saint that they are making him out to be. In fact, Paul tells us to not say, "I am of Paul", etc.
I don't know anyone who says the are of Calvin in the sense you are insinuating. What you are doing is a genetic fallacy. The cartoon wasn't in defense of the man. It was showing that brining up Servetus is a desperate measure to distract from the issue. You think bringing up Servetus proves Calvin wrong. If that's the case, then you should not listen to the man who identified as the chief among sinners.
When you say you are a Calvinist, you are saying, "I am of Calvin." I agree with Paul's writings does not mean I am saying, "I am of Paul." I believe the Holy Spirit had moved thru men to write the Scriptures. The point is that I would never say, I am a Paulinist, etc. (Even though I agree with what God had written thru him). It is also not a distraction away from the problem of Calvinism. As I said before, Jesus said you will know false prophets by their fruit.
Calvinist is just a term. I'm a Baptist, so there are Presbyterians who would say I'm not a Calvinist because I don't hold to infant baptism.
Again, if I say I am a Paulinist, that would mean I am saying, "I am of Paul." It is the same if you are saying you are a Calvinist. Paul did not want us to be saying I am of this guy or of that guy. But that is what you are saying when you say, "I am a Calvinist." The religion is based on Calvin. Hence, the name.
I can see where you'd think that. And it's possible. But that's not a problem with Calvinimsm. That's a problem with the human heart. I could say that your view leads one to boasting because you believe it's your actions and deeds that keep you in God's grace. If you believe you can sin your way out of salvation, then there must be something that you do to keep yourself saved. I doubt you look at it that way. So give us that same benefit.
I've explained it, and now you say I'm lying. So regardless of the truth, you'll continue to misrepresent. Hopefully you will not claim that God laid that on your heart.
Doesn't change the Word that says we are not to claim we are of this guy or that guy. The teachings from Calvin is why it is called Calvinism.
