- Jun 4, 2017
- 132
- 34
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Thanks for the heads up! Post #15 or #16 weren't up (on my screen) when I last posted...I thought Mark Kennedy had offered to debate in post#16
Upvote
0
Thanks for the heads up! Post #15 or #16 weren't up (on my screen) when I last posted...I thought Mark Kennedy had offered to debate in post#16
I claim nothing, and I certainly don't hand out unsupportable self-opinion. Read authenticated academic histories. They document the how, what & why of the KJV.I don't know what you think makes you qualified to critique the Geneva Bible or the King James but 85% are from the Tyndale Bible. There isn't a dimes worth of difference in the three.
Calvin's institutes were written in Latin. All his works were written in Latin or French. And the Latin rendition of scripture had been available to the literate masses (all the elite of society were Latin literate) for some 1300 years before Calvin was born. No none disputes these historical facts. So they are 100% true!!!What your arguing is simply false
Sure! But what evidence have you got that he was "hands on" in the translation? He wasn't involved in translation into his native vernacular, so... I've never heard of his participation other than he may have contributed to the notes, whereby his notes were translated to English. Like all the reformers, Calvin was fully supportive of rendering scriptures in the common vernacular... English was just another vernacular...ohn Calvin was one of the main people responsible for the Geneva Bible:
The KJV was based on Beza's Greek text. Compare 2 Peter 1:1 and note the difference to modern versions.The Geneva Bible followed the Great Bible of 1539, the first authorized Bible in English, which was the authorized Bible of the Church of England.
During the reign of Queen Mary I of England (1553–58), a number of Protestant scholars fled from England to Geneva, Switzerland, which was then ruled as a republic in which John Calvin and, later, Theodore Beza, provided the primary spiritual and theological leadership. (Geneva Bible Wikipedia)
Go read the histories in their context. Why was it necessary to replace the Bishop's Bible. Why was it that Tynsdale's English text was quickly discarded? See John 1:1-4.It had profound relevance, the Great Bible of 1539 and the Geneva Bible were both derived from the Tyndale and it turned the world upside down. Your on a roll, nothing you have said has been historically accurate yet.
I thought the teaching influence of scripture was God (?)Apparently he knew something about English as well, perhaps he was better educated then you think. At any rate he was the leading influence in producing the Geneva Bible and there can be no serious question about that
And you are still got your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet in protest without any independent substantiation. The point is: all of Calvin's original writings that we know about, are in Latin or French! Fact of evidentionary history!Your right I missed the whole point, starting to wonder if your actually trying to make one
Apart from the USA, Calvinism is virtually non existent...but Calvin's influence still permeates through various sects... Fact of religious sociology according to the secular academics...Calvin wrote his commentaries in Latin, it was later printed in his native French. Calvin isn't known for his exegetical work, he was a Lawyer and a Theologian. Calvin's theology was and is influential because it's a Biblical theology that emphasizes the sovereignty of God especially with regard to salvation.
If you agree to the following. Tell me when you have finished "Googling" and we can start...Whatever the case, if Karl.C is still interested in a formal debate I'm interested in taking up the challenge. With regard to Calvin and predestination being heresy I would have no hesitation to defend Calvin and Calvinism to any such accusations.
So, Karl.C, I await your proposal for the specific topics for the formal debate.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I don't think so, formal debate follow a pretty standard pattern. A typical formal debate would look something like this:If you agree to the following. Tell me when you have finished "Googling" and we can start...
If you want to change the rules of engagement, we can negotiate...
Topic:
Is Calvin's dogma of predestination (pre-ordination) heretical?
Rules of engagement:
All:
* The definition of what is taken as heretical is per the OP of this thread.
* Personal opinions, emotive rhetoric & deflection through personal attacks on your opponent are not permitted.
* All pro & con arguments must quote directly from the English translation of Calvin's actual writings. "x says Calvin said" arguments are not permitted.
* Minor commentary is permitted if it provides context to an argument and is necessary for prose styling and/or joining quotes.
Pro Calvin: (You?)
* You have to defend Calvin from Calvin's writings.alone. The only exception is where your opponent quotes Calvin and queries how he came to his conclusion. In which case you can either quote Calvin's explanation, commentaries or quote relevant scripture that supports Calvin.
* You have to demonstrate that Calvin's opinions are not reliant on selective verses in scripture, and cannot be contradicted by alternative scripture.
* You may appeal to 3rd party opinion by accredited academics, who quote Calvin in their dispositions defending Calvin.
Con Calvin: (me)
* You have to investigate Calvin from Calvin's writings.alone. The only exception is where your opponent quotes Calvin and queries what other conclusion could he have arrived at. In which case you can either quote a contemporary from Calvin's time period or any of the Orthodox fathers writing before the 16th century, or quote relevant scripture that presents an alternative.
* You have to demonstrate that an opinion of Calvin's can be contradicted by scripture taken in context.
* You may appeal to 3rd party opinion by accredited academics, who quote Calvin in their dispositions against Calvin.
Thanks for the heads up. I haven't been involved in a formal debate since the 6th year of primary school.I don't think so, formal debate follow a pretty standard pattern. A typical formal debate would look something like this:
Introductory Posts
Three Rounds, each round having a specific topic:
Closing Remarks
- Calvinism Socialization,
- Predestination
- Calvinism and Scripture
All posts are one page each and cannot exceed the normal limits for a post on CF, no two page responses. The initial post per round is the challenge, the second is a counter argument. The introduction and the closing remarks are whatever the poster wants them to be as long as it addresses the agreed upon topics. The closing remarks are intended to address the opponents arguments.
Source material has to be limited to three primary at the most, brief quotes can be inserted here and there but all citations must be quoted, named and linked. A core bibliography has to be cited before the debate begins, any other material requiring more then a sentence is considered core resource material.
All posts are the made at the discretion of the poster, the challenge post is made and the respondent posts as he sees fit. Any fallacious reasoning or misinformed discussion of source material is considered immaterial and an argument that never happened.
That's how you do a formal debate, your not going to decide for me what resource material I use and I will debate as I see fit. Additional rounds can be added, up to six total, by mutual agreement. At the end of the debate the thread will be closed, anyone else posting to the formal debate will result in a request to the moderator that it be deleted. The two participators agree to report any such intrusion without comment.
Be that as it may, I'm still interested in a formal debate. Calvin has his loose ends but he doesn't deserve to be dismissed as a heretic. If you still interested I'm up for a formal debate. My original terms stand and if you want, I'll post a new proposal. If not, all the best, but I won't be interested in pursuing this further.Thanks for the heads up. I haven't been involved in a formal debate since the 6th year of primary school.
Anyway, last night I was rereading Calvin's "A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God" in which, within the definition of "heresy" given in the OP of this thread, Calvin, by his own direct words makes admission of his heresy..
Calvin says in respect of his philosophies being contrary to the teaching of the ancient Church fathers that "...the authority of the ancient Church is, with much hatred, cast in my teeth..." and "I would rather wipe off with the words of Augustine than with my own".
A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin | Monergism
If you read the aforementioned work of Calvin you will note that he rarely appeals to scripture. However, this very lengthy diatribe quotes Augustine as the ultimate authority! Which is a problem.
Two hundred years before Calvin wrote, Augustine's works in their completeness were finally translated into Greek. The EOC henceforth determined that Augustine was "a theological writer who made too many mistakes to be included among the Church fathers". In the RCC, at least since the time of the Scholastics, Augustine has been in disrepute.
Augustine of Hippo - OrthodoxWiki
Given Calvin's self-witness, and the unsubtle inference that he rejected the Ecumenical Councils of the Church (the agreed faith), he admits to being a heretic So there is nothing to debate...
Post #24: The moderator has moved this thread to Soteriology. So if anyone want to continue discussing Calvin, see you there...
Be that as it may, I'm still interested in a formal debate. Calvin has his loose ends but he doesn't deserve to be dismissed as a heretic. If you still interested I'm up for a formal debate. My original terms stand and if you want, I'll post a new proposal. If not, all the best, but I won't be interested in pursuing this further.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I hope you don't mean what it sounds like you mean. You mean that Christ's will was just like ours, but he managed on his own to remain free of sin. And on that basis God made him the savior?Core to Calvin's teaching (and considered by his opponents to be amoungst his worst heresies) is predestination (pre-ordination). An idea that a Nicene Christian (Trinitarian) must view as a diminution of Jesus the Christ's sacrifice for us, and an attack on the sovereignty of Christ over us (cp. Phil 2:6=11; 1 Cor 15:24-28). That is: According to scripture, Christ's sovereignty over us is the result of his free obedience to his Father, and this sacrifice was the result of his free submission to his Father. Negate the freedom of personal will, you negate the salvation message and the reason the Logos was incarnated!
Thanks Mark, I intend to if the original poster can agree to terms.Mark,
Feel free to post a counter proposal in the Proposals area; this thread devolved into a discussion, so it was off topic there.
Thanks,
Mark
CF Admin.