ST. John Calvin

John Calvin Made Me Catholic
By Donald Jacob Uitvlugt
link:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203dr.asp

Catholic Christian said:

Can you show me one authoritative source that refers to him as St John Calvin? An encyclopedia, a dictionary, or something?

Click to expand...

Do you consider him a believer?

How about the Bible's definition of who a saint is?


No need for official vote of the pope and his friends.

Rick Otto said:

Do you consider him a believer?

Click to expand...

I consider him a heretic.

I do not know if he is in heaven or not. If he is not, then he certainly is not a saint. Have you spoken to him lately? Do you know where he is?

mont974x4 said:

How about the Bible's definition of who a saint is?


No need for official vote of the pope and his friends.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. There are many people who say they believe, but end up in hell. The Bible is clear on THAT. Do YOU know whare Calvin is now?

aww yes, the Bible being called ridiculous.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

Catholic Christian said:

Ridiculous. There are many people who say they believe, but end up in hell. The Bible is clear on THAT. Do YOU know whare Calvin is now?

Click to expand...

True, so how can we know where ANYone 'ends'?

sunlover1 said:

True, so how can we know where ANYone 'ends'?

Click to expand...

I'd better not answer that: You will not like it

Catholic Christian said:

I consider him a heretic.

I do not know if he is in heaven or not. If he is not, then he certainly is not a saint. Have you spoken to him lately? Do you know where he is?

Click to expand...

So then you believe it's possible for heretics to go to heaven.
I would then by force of reason conclude you consider that it is at least a possibility that he was a believer. Did I make a valid conclusion?

Rick Otto said:

So then you believe it's possible for heretics to go to heaven.
I would then by force of reason conclude you consider that it is at least a possibility that he was a believer. Did I make a valid conclusion?

Click to expand...

Lets see:

I believe anything is possible with God. I have said in many posts that we may be surprised at who is in heaven and who isn't. ( I recently got blasted when I said I'm sure there would be little Muslim & Buddhist girls and boys in heaven.)

And, yes it is possible he was a believer. He certainly professed the Christian faith, but I don't know what was in his heart.

Fair enough?

Catholic Christian said:

Lets see:

I believe anything is possible with God. I have said in many posts that we may be surprised at who is in heaven and who isn't. ( I recently got blasted when I said I'm sure there would be little Muslim & Buddhist girls and boys in heaven.)

And, yes it is possible he was a believer. He certainly professed the Christian faith, but I don't know what was in his heart.

Fair enough?

Click to expand...

It's a start. It is far more fair than asking for what you would consider "one authoritative source that refers to him as St John Calvin" ("An encyclopedia, a dictionary, or something")

I say that because the one source I think of as authoritative in the ultimate sense, refers to believers as saints.
So I'm afraid it is only possible for me to show you that he might have been & is, a saint.
In fact by your own standard, I can't see how would an encyclopedia, or a dictionary be any more authoritative than a profession of belief by the man himself?
I'm tempted to believe you might be trying to send me on a fool's errand.

Rick Otto said:

It's a start. It is far more fair than asking for what you would consider "one authoritative source that refers to him as St John Calvin" ("An encyclopedia, a dictionary, or something")

I say that because the one source I think of as authoritative in the ultimate sense, refers to believers as saints.
So I'm afraid it is only possible for me to show you that he might have been & is, a saint.
In fact by your own standard, I can't see how would an encyclopedia, or a dictionary be any more authoritative than a profession of belief by the man himself?
I'm tempted to believe you might be trying to send me on a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

I'll never forget the time my dad and his buddies
sat on the porch watching me go to the neighbors
to borrow divots for them.

simonthezealot said:

John Calvin (July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564) was a French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation and was a central developer of the system of Christian theology called Calvinism or Reformed theology. In Geneva, he rejected Papal authority, established a new scheme of civic and ecclesiastical governance, and created a central hub from which Reformed theology was propagated.

Click to expand...

I read thru a few of his commentarites some years back and thought his knowledge of the Hebrew was very good. As far as being a Saint, he was in Christ wasn't he?

His exchanges with the Jewish Rabbis on the Scriptures were sometimes rather "amusing" with a few name-calling thrown in LOL.

I am studying on the Hebrew myself as I believe more Christians should.
Anyway here is a link to his commentary for those interested.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_index.htm

Rick Otto said:

It's a start. It is far more fair than asking for what you would consider "one authoritative source that refers to him as St John Calvin" ("An encyclopedia, a dictionary, or something")

I say that because the one source I think of as authoritative in the ultimate sense, refers to believers as saints.
So I'm afraid it is only possible for me to show you that he might have been & is, a saint.
In fact by your own standard, I can't see how would an encyclopedia, or a dictionary be any more authoritative than a profession of belief by the man himself?
I'm tempted to believe you might be trying to send me on a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't think of such a thing.

I think it was the phrase that cuaght me off guard: "St John Calvin" is not a term you will likely see in any publication.

When I think of saints, I think of "canonized" saints.

LittleLambofJesus said:

...As far as being a Saint, he was in Christ wasn't he?...

Click to expand...

Interesting that you should follow that with a question mark....

Catholic Christian said:

Interesting that you should follow that with a question mark....

Click to expand...

It twas wasn't it.

I don't think very highly of Calvin's theologies. I like Wesley much better. One should read his works. I know a lot of people that believe in Calvinism believe by blind faith. They take a verse out of context, show it to a christian and say "do you deny that the bible says it" type of thing. Here's a explanation from my point of view of Roman's 9

Romans 9

God's Sovereign Choice

1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

First Paul establishes that he speaking of Israel. That is the subject.

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

He's saying that God did save those that were the real Israel.

7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

The real Israel and Abraham's children are those that are "of the promise." What promise was he speaking of? The promise of the messiah and Christ Jesus, God amoung us who would save us. In other words, those who did not reject Him.


9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

Israel's election was by birth. Those who were the "elect" were called so because they were "born into" it. Same with inheritance, it was granted to the first born and had nothing to do with faith, merit, or love of the parent. God is demonstrating here that he's is going to take the "birthrite" out of the hands of the one's that he hates (those that reject him) who were natually born into it and give it (election) instead to the one he loves (those that chose him).

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f]

Yes, it is His decision on who becomes the elect, not some rule of the location of one's birth. He can take their "birthrite" if he so choses. God CAN have mercy on whom he wants to have mercy on. And as the scriptures say, he CHOSES to have mercy on those that chose him (Christ).

16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

This basically says that without God's mercy, no amount of man's effort and goodness could possibly save him. It is because he GIVES mercy at all that anyone is saved.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g]

Pharaoh is a good example to those that do not believe and chose to be God's enemy. It was not that Pharaoh was God's enemy because God created him that way, but because Pharaoh chose to be. God raised him up finanically, making his empire very great, then hardened his heart so that he would continue his stubbornness and so that God could show the objects of love his glory and the objects of his wrath what kind of punishment his enemies (those that chose to be so) will recieve.

18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

God could have just left pharaoh a commoner, a common king, but instead, by raising him up and hardening his heart to do things he normally wouldn't do, he was made for a "noble" purpose to be used by God.

The same with hardening the Jews who rejected Christ, he hardened their hearts so that they would no only reject Christ, but they would crucify Him as well, serving a purpose of salvation for all people, which is a noble purpose.

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Who are the objects of his wrath? those that reject Him as God and savior. Who are the objects of his mercy? Those that choose Him and obey Him.

25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

He is speaking of the gentiles that will come into salvation.


27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.

Was there a remnant that believed and were saved from Irsael?

28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."[l]

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

righteousness by faith instead of by works. It is God that justifies the faithful. All men are sinful, so that no one can be righteous by obeying the law, they need a righteousness that is From God and is given to those that believe.

it continues on into chapter 10 and 11 like this, speaking of Irsael. Calvinism has come about through a lack of understanding.

I don't think very highly of Calvin's theologies. I like Wesley much better. One should read his works. I know a lot of people that believe in Calvinism believe by blind faith. They take a verse out of context, show it to a christian and say "do you deny that the bible says it" type of thing. Here's a explanation from my point of view of Roman's 9

Click to expand...

I do not agree with much of his or the Calvinists theologies, I was more entertained by his debate against the Jewish Rabbis more than anything.
Here is an Ultra Calvinist forum I was on a few years back and they all but look upon the Book of James as of "satan.
You will have to click the first link to the main forum, then go to Free Archive to see the thread on "James Exposed".

http://www.predestinarian.net/forum/index.php
Forum Index

http://www.predestinarian.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28
Free Archive

http://www.predestinarian.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4263

James Exposed

Part Three

The Apostle Paul
on
Justification by Faith Alone

Do you see Peter getting lumped in with James, in the context of Gal. 2 as a "positive thing"? Paul rebukes him severely for his hypocrisy and is not "happy" that even Barnabas was carried away in such filth......something completely out of step with the purity of the whole gospel. With these issues being so great a cause of strife in these years of the advance of the gospel.......where do we find anything written by James that shows he also repented of such hypocrisy? Where did he make any effort at all to make it plain to all the new gentile assemblies that he made a mistake?

To summarize the application of the terms of these two writers we find:

Rick Otto said:

It's a start. It is far more fair than asking for what you would consider "one authoritative source that refers to him as St John Calvin" ("An encyclopedia, a dictionary, or something")

I say that because the one source I think of as authoritative in the ultimate sense, refers to believers as saints.
So I'm afraid it is only possible for me to show you that he might have been & is, a saint.
In fact by your own standard, I can't see how would an encyclopedia, or a dictionary be any more authoritative than a profession of belief by the man himself?
I'm tempted to believe you might be trying to send me on a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

We are fools for YHWH's Christ.

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already being poured out, and the time of the my up-loosing/analusewV <359> is come.
7 The noble contest, have I contested, the race, have I finished, the faith, have I kept:
8 Henceforth, lieth by for me--the crown, of righteousness, which the Lord will render unto me in that, day,--The righteous judge,--Ye, not alone unto me, but unto all them also who have loved his forthshining.