The Advent of Heresy: Calvin Investigated

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
..."As will certain believers....(SENTENCED at the Great White Throne)

OP: ...Calvin Investigated...

Karl.C...Why do you persist in being off point and asking irrelevent questions and espousing your unsupported theology?
Read the OP (post #1). The discussion is about Calvin and his writings, not your penchant for exceptionalism & exemption. If you are incapable of contributing to the Op's focus and just want to put forward your own opinions on Christianity then stop trolling this threads and open your own.

Christ-followers will NOT be judged as to their SPIRITUAL POSITION in the Body of Christ. Only their "WORKS" will be JUDGED.
According to Calvin & his writings regarding predestination, such is only true if God has predetermined the fate of the individual. The Orthodox teaching is that God foreknows the outcome of the group.

2 Corinthians 5: 1-15 (NIV) + 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (NIV)[
Your rants are noted. I trust everyone here has read the NT, and holds to the hope of our salvation.

If you are as pious as you would have us believe, you would be well familiar with Philippians 3 where A.Paul attests his own salvation was not assured. Note particularly vs12.

...being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope...
Romans 5:1-3

Throughout A.Paul's writings "the hope of eternal life" is the message. Never in his writings does he suggest that "eternal life" (Titus 3:7) is assured just because you decide to believe, get born into a believing family or anything else that accords with your own will.

This is a point that Orthodox Christianity & Calvin agree upon. Where they depart...

Calvin advocates that salvation is imposed on those that God has predetermined individually for salvation; and God denies salvation to those he has individually predetermined for damnation.

Orthodox Christianity appeals to scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:4 ; 2 Cor 5:15; Rom 6:23 etc and point out that whereas salvation is a free gift of God, it is upto us to accept it! We participate in our own salvation and are responsible for preserving it by inviting God into our lives!!! Imu, he won't come without an invitation.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
I think there is something you are misunderstanding in Gesenius. Can you provide a reference?
If you followed the link to Gesenius' definition you would have your reference to my understanding.

Possibly you are unfamiliar with BLB (?). You will probably need to scroll down the page a bit to access the scan of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and then expand the segment by clicking, where it says "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry".

Here is the link again.
Lexicon :: Strong's H6680 - tsavah (KJV)



Note: the root צוה is the primary verb used to communicate the idea of "command" and the noun from this verb מצוה is the primary word used for "commandment."
Gen 2:16 is noted in Gesenius' second definition = "2) to charge, command followed by acc. of pers. (like the Latin jussit aliquem). Gen 26:11; more rarely followed by [*] Gen 2:16..."

nb: [*] I couldn't get the Hebrew characters to insert here, so here they are צַו֙

In Strong, tsâvâh, tsaw-vaw' is variously defined as; a primitive root; (intensively) to constitute, enjoin:—appoint, (for-) bid, (give a) charge, (give a, give in, send with) command(-er, -ment), send a messenger, put, (set) in order.

Both are used in the following verse:
So why have you not kept the LORD's oath and the command that I gave you?"
(1 Ki. 2:43 HCSB)

‎ וְאֶת־הַמִּצְוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוִּ֥יתִי עָלֶֽיךָ (1 Ki. 2:43 BHS)
lit. and the command (הַמִּצְוָ֖ה) which I commanded (צִוִּ֥יתִי) on you.
Whilst I couldn't confirm the above from Gesenius, Gesenius in a seperate paragraph does give your meaning to Lev 8:35 & Ez 12:7.

As I said before: if not for Genesis 1:27-28 & particularly 2:15 the English translation wouldn't matter. Imu, "to give charge over" is Gesenius primary meaning of the term. And, I accept that amounts to a "command". The question is was such motivated by benevolence or a need to assert one's authority.

Of interest: The vulgate renders Gen 2:16 as
praecepitque ei dicens ex omni ligno paradisi comede

"praecepitque" is usually translated "instructed"...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
A postsscript to my previous post (#52)...

Would you agree that the following ekklesia are representative of mainstream Protestantism in the English Speaking World (USA intentionally excluded)?

* The Baptist Union of Great Britain & Ireland
* The Church of England
* The Church of Scotland
* The Congregational Church in England and Wales
* The Council of Churches in Wales
* The Irish Council of Churches
* The Society of Friends (London)
* The Methodist Church of Great Britain
* The Presbyterian Church of England
* The British & Foreign Bible Society
* The National Bible Society of Scotland

If so, what do you make of the following translation of Genesis 2:15-17 authorised by these groups?

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and care for it. He told the man, 'You may eat eat from every tree in the garden, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the the day day that you eat from it, you will certainly die'. (NEB)​

Here are two RCC editions from relatively recent years for comparison...

NJB "Then Yahweh God gave the man this command, 'You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die'

NABRE "The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gen 2:16 is noted in Gesenius' second definition = "2) to charge, command followed by acc. of pers. (like the Latin jussit aliquem). Gen 26:11; more rarely followed by [*] Gen 2:16..."

As you have correctly noted, Gen. 2:16 is specifically referenced in the 2nd definition. i.e. "to charge, to command"

Note: You had originally said:
Have a read of the Hebrew (via the lexicons) for Genesis 2:16-17. God didn't "command" Adam but made him responsible for administering the garden (cp vs15). Young in his translation renders "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat. and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die.'

And then responded with:

Note Gesenius's detailing of the word. The word has the primary connotation of "to constitute, to appoint - anyone over anything". It also has the meaning to "to charge, to command".

After looking at the full definition, it is clear that you had misunderstood Gesenius. First, the Lexicon doesn't list the definitions in order of primary, secondary. It lists them according to grammatical structure; descriptions and examples of the grammatical structure are given in each definition. The 2nd definition has far more examples and varieties of grammatical structures because it is by far the most prevalent definition. Let's take a look at the example verses from these two definitions:

Definition 1 :
‎וַיְצַוֵּ֙הוּ יְהוָ֤ה לְנָגִיד֙ עַל־עַמּ֔וֹ (1 Sam. 13:14)
"YHWH appointed him to a leader over his people"

‎וְצִוְּךָ֥ לְנָגִ֖יד עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל (1 Sam. 25:30)
"and he appointed you to a leader over Israel"

‎בָּֽחַר־בִּ֤י מֵֽאָבִיךְ֙ וּמִכָּל־בֵּית֔וֹ לְצַוֹּ֙ת אֹתִ֥י נָגִ֛יד עַל־עַ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל (2 Sam. 6:21)
"He choose me over your father and all his house to command me a leader over the people of YHWH, over Israel"​

NOTE: In every one of these examples, צוה is used with a sense of appointing to be a leader(נגיד).

Definition 2:
וַיְצַו֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר (Gen. 2:16)
"and YHWH God commanded on the man saying..."

‎וַיְצַ֣ו אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ אֶת־כָּל־הָעָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר (Gen. 26:11)
"and Abimelech commanded call the people saying..."

Note: In these examples, they are not being commanded/appointed to be something (i.e. a leader), they are simply being commanded. Additionally, in these examples the command is explained with the designation "saying...." Something noted by Gesenius in the definition he provided.

===========================================

Gesenius provides clear grammatical descriptions for deciding which meaning should be chosen and provides reference verses that provided examples of his grammatical descriptions. One of his reference verses, as you have noted, was Gen. 2:16. IN GEN. 2:16 THE CORRECT MEANING IS "COMMANDED" NOT "APPOINTED;"YOU CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE REFERENCE GRAMMAR AND CHOSE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION!
 
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
As you have correctly noted, Gen. 2:16 is specifically referenced in the 2nd definition. i.e. "to charge, to command"

Note: You had originally said:


And then responded with:



After looking at the full definition, it is clear that you had misunderstood Gesenius. First, the Lexicon doesn't list the definitions in order of primary, secondary. It lists them according to grammatical structure; descriptions and examples of the grammatical structure are given in each definition. The 2nd definition has far more examples and varieties of grammatical structures because it is by far the most prevalent definition. Let's take a look at the example verses from these two definitions:

Definition 1 :
‎וַיְצַוֵּ֙הוּ יְהוָ֤ה לְנָגִיד֙ עַל־עַמּ֔וֹ (1 Sam. 13:14)
"YHWH appointed him to a leader over his people"

‎וְצִוְּךָ֥ לְנָגִ֖יד עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל (1 Sam. 25:30)
"and he appointed you to a leader over Israel"

‎בָּֽחַר־בִּ֤י מֵֽאָבִיךְ֙ וּמִכָּל־בֵּית֔וֹ לְצַוֹּ֙ת אֹתִ֥י נָגִ֛יד עַל־עַ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל (2 Sam. 6:21)
"He choose me over your father and all his house to command me a leader over the people of YHWH, over Israel"​

NOTE: In every one of these examples, צוה is used with a sense of appointing to be a leader(נגיד).

Definition 2:
וַיְצַו֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר (Gen. 2:16)
"and YHWH God commanded on the man saying..."

‎וַיְצַ֣ו אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ אֶת־כָּל־הָעָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר (Gen. 26:11)
"and Abimelech commanded call the people saying..."

Note: In these examples, they are not being commanded/appointed to be something (i.e. a leader), they are simply being commanded. Additionally, in these examples the command is explained with the designation "saying...." Something noted by Gesenius in the definition he provided.

===========================================

Gesenius provides clear grammatical descriptions for deciding which meaning should be chosen and provides reference verses that provided examples of his grammatical descriptions. One of his reference verses, as you have noted, was Gen. 2:16. IN GEN. 2:16 THE CORRECT MEANING IS "COMMANDED" NOT "APPOINTED;"YOU CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE REFERENCE GRAMMAR AND CHOSE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION!
Okay! I unreservaably accept your correction. Though it is perculiar that the majority of English speaking protestant assemblies (presumbly in the worldwide British Commonwealth) ratified the translation "He told" in the NEB (as noted previously).

My point was simply to highlight the common idea (as far as I know, common to the majority of conservative commentators & theologians) that God entrusted the ordinance into Adam's care, and it was Adam's responsibility not simply to convey the message to Eve, but to ensure her safety, by ensuring she did not eat from the tree. His failure is deemed (as far as I know, by the majority of conservative commentators & theologians) as a abregation of a duty of care. Which explains why sin comes via the man and not the woman!

My point being , in the context of the doctrine of "Total Depravity" after the fall, was that Adam with this & his offences revealed in Gen 3, displayed "Total Depravity", as defined by Calvin, before he ate of the fruit...
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Marvin Knox said:

Calvinism teaches the direct opposite of the doctrine that man has no free will.

In which case your "Calvinism" isn't Calvinism according to the teaching of Calvin.
Calvin wrote extensively on the subject denying the free will of mankind. According to Calvin, mankind has no choice (predestination) and is 100% reliant on the grace of God.
Read him for yourself...
A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin
Marvin Knox said:

Again - show me the section where he says that men have no will at all if that's what
Heh! I thought you are a Calvinist! If so you should know what Calvin wrote!!!
The Institutes, chapter 2 is headed "MAN NOW DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF WILL, AND MISERABLY ENSLAVED"
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
I have taken the time to read both of the long articles you posted from Calvin's writings. I won't be taking that kind of time again - so save your links please.

I think we have a basic problem in how we approach this idea.

I am talking about the will of man in the general sense and you and Calvin are talking about it in a more limited sense - regarding his ability to believe on Christ for salvation.

In that respect - I also see that Calvin absolutely taught against free will. But he was talking about whether or not the free will of men could obtain salvation without the special intervention of God.

He said no and you say yes.

I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin on that subject.

But Calvin does not teach that men have no will at all (notice the part where I highlighted the words above) because of God's election and predestination. In that respect Calvin agrees with the WCF which teaches that predestination and the decrees of God do not negate the will of men. I also agree with that Calvinist oriented confession.

Fallen men make their choice according to Calvin (and me) and that choice is always negative unless influenced by a special act of God because of His electing grace.

Both unregenerate men and regenerate men make choices for which they will be held responsible.

But the later makes his choice out of a new nature and therefore is able to choose rightly and the former out of his fleshly nature wherein he is only able to choose wrongly.

God is not to be faulted because He chose to enlighten some and pass others by and leave them in their sins. That was Calvin's position and it is my position as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sdowney717
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Marvin Knox said:

Calvinism teaches the direct opposite of the doctrine that man has no free will.
If you read Calvin you will note that he advocates that man has no free will of his own because of Adam's fall. Man's free-will has become, since the fall, entirely entrapped by Satan the Devil. According to Calvin, this entrapment can only be resisteded by the direct intervention of God.

I don't have to make this stuff up. Read Calvin for yourself...

Marvin Knox said:

Again - show me the section where he says that men have no will at all if that's what
As I said, the work in its entirety is a diatribe refuting those that advocated that man has free will = one can approach God of one's own accord = one does not need to be called = albeit one needs the Spirit's assistance to progress (see Romans 8:26-27).

I have taken the time to read both of the long articles you posted from Calvin's writings.
Plus points! Most proclaiming Calvinists have never read Calvin! So have no clue about what Calvin actually taught!!!

To correct your misrepresentaion: I did not post any long articles of my own volition, merely links to the actual English translations of Calvin's exacting words!!!

So, if you have any complaints, blame Calvin. He does tend to be very long winded in saying very little of import.

I won't be taking that kind of time again - so save your links please
Pity for you. So you hated reading Calvin because of what he actually said? Most "Calvinists" seem to have that reaction when they actually read Calvin, instead of their sanitized pulpit pamplets.


I think we have a basic problem in how we approach this idea.

I am talking about the will of man in the general sense and you and Calvin are talking about it in a more limited sense - regarding his ability to believe on Christ for salvation.
I'm critiquing Calvin, so I predominately present Calvin's opinion then the defects of that opinion as the Ecumenical Church/es see it! I suspect you & I have more in common than you and Calvin.

In that respect - I also see that Calvin absolutely taught against free will. But he was talking about whether or not the free will of men could obtain salvation without the special intervention of God.
Not "whether or not" his conclusion is an absolute "not" = Satan controls our motivations, we have no will of our own!

He said no and you say yes.
I don't say "yes" absolutely. Calvin said "no" absolutely. I say that the first approach towards salvation is the NT witness of Jesus:

1. that he did not come of his own volition, but was sent by his Father (cp. John 7:28).
2. It is our decision to accept & have faith in Jesus as the Christ (cp. Mt 15:22-28)
3. We progress through the intervention of the Father & the Spirit (cp. Jn 6:44; Rom 8:26)
4. Satan the Devil, only has power over us, if we choose to allow it!

Items 2 & 4 is where, imu, the Orthodox Christian Church/es differ from Calvin's pessimism. A.Paul's admonishment to the Romans at 1:20 makes it plain that mankind, if it opens its eyes, has a God consciousness - mankind, imo, chooses to suppress it or expand upon it. Calvin has it, oppression or expansion, is the starting point, the perogative of second parties = Satan to maintain suppression, God to overcome Satan's influence to draw us to him. Its the pure dualism of Augustine & his perchant towards the Manichaeism heresy from which he sprang. If you indeed have read Calvin, you will note that his appeal to scripture is rare, his appeal to Augustine is overwelming. Then again, what else would you expect of an ordained Augustinian monk = Calvin!

I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin on that subject.
Please quote from Calvin, using his words, what you agreed with. I doubt you can find me a quote that agrees with your desire to sanisatize Calvin.

But Calvin does not teach that men have no will at all (notice the part where I highlighted the words above) because of God's election and predestination.
Because of Calvin's idea of "God's election and predestination" man's personal desires must be presumed to be overridden by God, according to Calvinism = Sin all you want, it is gauranteed to be forgiven. You are especial!!!


In that respect Calvin agrees with the WCF which teaches that predestination and the decrees of God do not negate the will of men.
Go read Calvin! The old Calvinist saying works towards his teaching = "As God wills it, you are damned into Satan's hands". The presumption being "I'm saved, but you might not be!". This contrast with the Mainstream Christian Churches that advocate 1 Timothy 2:4 = the first step is upto you (cp. Mt 7:7; Rev 3:20)

I also agree with that Calvinist oriented confession.
Which one? There are numerous versions.


Fallen men make their choice according to Calvin (and me)
Not according to Calvin! Read Calvin!!! According to Calvin, Adam had a choice, through his fall we lost ours!!!!

and that choice is always negative unless influenced by a special act of God because of His electing grace.
According to Calvin we have relinquished our freedom of choice to Satan. We can only do evil! Our only choice is the extent of that evil!!! According to Calvin, only God can resolve this impasse!!!!

Don't believe me. Read Calvin!

Both unregenerate men and regenerate men make choices for which they will be held responsible.
If so, then there is no predestination=predeterminism=preordination.


But the later makes his choice out of a new nature and therefore is able to choose rightly and the former out of his fleshly nature wherein he is only able to choose wrongly.
In Conservative Orthodox Christianity we say: that in imitation of Christ, "we have surrendered ourselves to the will of God our Father" (cp. Phil 2:8). This is where Calvin comes close to Orthodoxy. Albeit, we say: we choose to surrender our personal will = an act of free will as opposed to Calvin's imposition.

God is not to be faulted because He chose to enlighten some and pass others by and leave them in their sins. That was Calvin's position and it is my position as well.
Read Ezekiel 18:25 then read verse 24....

I notice you and most self-proclaimed Calvinist are big on personal opinion (pulpit pamphleteering) and non-existant in quoting Calvin and/or Scripture. My assumption is you haven't studied either...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟66,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you read Calvin you will note that he advocates that man has no free will of his own because of Adam's fall. Man's free-will has become, since the fall, entirely entrapped by Satan the Devil. According to Calvin, this entrapment can only be resisteded by the direct intervention of God.

Karl, if you keep pestering Marvin and his beliefs, he will soon leave, and maybe call you a heretic, apostate, and even say you are lost. If you are saved, his belief of eternal security goes by the wayside.

Unfortunately, many do not know the inner workings of Calvinism. I have seen it firsthand on this forum. It is not nice. If one adamantly disagrees with them, they device pernicious ways to get back at these 'unbelievers'.
 
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Karl, if you keep pestering Marvin and his beliefs, he will soon leave, and maybe call you a heretic, apostate, and even say you are lost. If you are saved, his belief of eternal security goes by the wayside
I can't (won't) believe, that any "self professing Calvanist" would be so self deceived, that anything covered during an intellectual discussion concerning, the writings of Calvin would have an effect on their convictions. Imu "Calvinists" advocate "sola scriptura" and if so, their convictions would not be based on such a self-evident dismal in character as Calvin....

Unfortunately, many do not know the inner workings of Calvinism. I have seen it firsthand on this forum. It is not nice. If one adamantly disagrees with them, they device pernicious ways to get back at these 'unbelievers'.
I plead ignorance of "the inner workings of Calvinism". It never caught on here in Oz.

Original Wesleyians, Methodists & Lutherans have a presence especially in the remote aborigine communites but that is as close as you get here abouts.

Presbyterians were around but close to invisible. Apart from that, within the Christian Communities we have RCC & CoE, and a smattering of Eastern Orthodox enclaves (not widespread but around).

Prior to WW2 the RCC was 2nd to the CoE, now it is the dominate Christian community.

Funnily, my dad tells me that before the early 1980s when the anti-discrimination acts came into being here in Oz, the RCC was a suppressed society - my dad tells me in the employment adverts it was common to read "Jews & Catholic need not apply". The protestant ideawas the catholics would be the tradesmen & servants. The trouble (as usual) is the tradesmen etc ended up owning everything...

So, as an RCC, Calvinism is a grand curiousity for me, especially given that these days it is almost an exclusively USA phenomena.

As an old lecturer in Koine Greek at Sydney Uni that I once knew would say: "Cast the pearls before the swine. Just might act as a laxative and cleanse their innards..."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I can't (won't) believe, that any "self professing Calvanist" would be so self deceived, that anything covered during an intellectual discussion concerning, the writings of Calvin would have an effect on their convictions.
I won't reply directly to EmSw. But do not take his opinion of what I will do with you just because I disagree with you as gospel. He has an axe to grind because I have indeed called him out for heresy.

As a result he stalks me and snipes away from the sidelines at the things I am discussing with others.
I notice you and most self-proclaimed Calvinist are big on personal opinion (pulpit pamphleteering) and non-existant in quoting Calvin and/or Scripture. My assumption is you haven't studied either...
Your assumption would be wrong.

I will admit that I am not as familiar with the writings of Calvin as you seem to be. But then - I'm neither a Calvinist nor one who has a particular axe to grind against them. As a result - I have only so much time to give to Calvin's long and windy writings.

I did however, as I said clearly before, take the time to read those portions of his writings which you linked for us. They were very informative.
I don't have to make this stuff up. Read Calvin for yourself...
As I said - I did read him and thank you for providing the material.
As I said, the work in its entirety is a diatribe refuting those that advocated that man has free will = one can approach God of one's own accord = one does not need to be called = albeit one needs the Spirit's assistance to progress (see Romans 8:26-27).
And - as I said - you are conflating the idea that men have no free will at all with Calvin's "diatribe" against the idea that "one can approach God of one's own accord = one does not need to be called = albeit one needs the Spirit's assistance to progress (see Romans 8:26-27)."

His writing was not a condemnation of the idea that men can make choices. It is only that he condemns the idea that "one can approach God of one's own accord = one does not need to be called = albeit one needs the Spirit's assistance to progress (see Romans 8:26-27)."
So you hated reading Calvin because of what he actually said?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated to read Calvin?
Most "Calvinists" seem to have that reaction when they actually read Calvin, instead of their sanitized pulpit pamplets.
I have found the same thing when I debate the doctrine of limited atonement with them.
I suspect you & I have more in common than you and Calvin.
Unless you hold to every point of T.U.L.I.P. but limited atonement - I don't believe you are right about that.
Not "whether or not" his conclusion is an absolute "not" = Satan controls our motivations, we have no will of our own!
Calvin said "no" absolutely.
Like I said - regarding things related to salvation I totally agree with Calvin.
Because of Calvin's idea of "God's election and predestination" man's personal desires must be presumed to be overridden by God, according to Calvinism = Sin all you want, it is gauranteed to be forgiven. You are especial!!!
That's absolutely not true.

No so called Calvinist I know of would say those things and I haven't seen anywhere where Calvin said those things. You seem to like to stay with what Calvin wrote only - then you turn around and present your opinion of what he said "amounts to" as if it were not a true representation of what he taught.
We can only do evil! Our only choice is the extent of that evil!!! According to Calvin, only God can resolve this impasse!!!!
Calvin was right on all three points.
If so, then there is no predestination=predeterminism=preordination.
That is incorrect. Preordination includes the choices men make.

God uses means to bring to past what He has predestined to occur. In this case those means are the wills of men who are created in His image and therefore able to reason and make choices.
Marvin Knox said:
God is not to be faulted because He chose to enlighten some and pass others by and leave them in their sins. That was Calvin's position and it is my position as well.
Ezekiel 18:25 then read verse 24....

I did and there is nothing there which contradicts what I said or even pertains to it that I can see. Please show me where you are pointing to.

"“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" Ezekiel 18: 24-25
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟66,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I won't reply directly to EmSw. But do not take his opinion of what I will do with you just because I disagree with you as gospel. He has an axe to grind because I have indeed called him out for heresy.

As a result he stalks me and snipes away from the sidelines at the things I am discussing with others.
Your assumption would be wrong.

Of course you won't reply to me, just as I told Karl. You can't even keep from calling me a heretic, just as I told Karl.

You are as predictable as I say. Give it time, and Karl will be in your heretic box.
 
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
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?
I was looking for something and came across your post. My apologies if I haven't already replied...

In respect of your comment: Firstly we need to be guided by scripture, not human philosophies. In that vain I'll point to Hebrews 2:16-18 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [us] his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted".

Note the two bits I've undelined. Was Jesus in the acqusition of humanity to his "hypostasis" (cp. Heb 1:3) identical to us in every possible way? Or did his "theotes" (cp. Heb 2:9) overwelm his humanity?

These questions were central to the argumentation leading upto Chalcedon. Chalcedon avoided the "ousia" / "homoousios" issue/s by relying on Cyril's writings (affirmed by Leo bishop of Rome) and concluded that the two "physes" (natures) are distinguishable but not the "hypostasis" (contra Nestorius). In short: Jesus did not have MPD! As faithful Son he, by his own will, remained obedient to his Father in both his pre-existence & incarnation.

I'm sure you are familiar with the "kenosis"controversies that preceded Chalcedon. In this theory the Son suppressed the fullness of his "theotes" and let his human nature do the navigating. For instance: in any civil court of law, ancient or modern, Jesus' actions as depicted at Jn 2:15 would have him convicted of aggravated assault, destruction of private property and terrorism.

From a humanist perspective, he had as little justification for his actions as Daesh currently have. (Albeit, even the Talmud accurses Annas & Sons for their commercialisation of the Temple). The point is: did Jesus in his actions "sin"? In the eyes of men, the answer is 100% YES! In the eyes of God, the answer is 100% NO (cp. Ezekiel 18:29-32). Thus Jesus is declared 100% sinless in the "eyes" of God.

Now have a read of Philippians 2:7-9 "...[He] made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name..."

The first bit I've underlined uses the word "kenosis". The phrases "likeness of men" & "fashion as a man" use the words "homoiōma" (resemblance, equality of identity) & "schēma" (everything about a person which strikes the senses). A.Paul is very adament about the reality of Jesus' humanity in all his letters extant to us! The reason for this is summized as his effeort to combat what are called the docetae who advocated Christ's humanity wasn't real!!!

Remember that in traditional theology sin results from the fact that our will is fallen.
According to scripture it is because Adam disobeyed God! Or more particularly, from Genesis 3, prefering the voice of his wife over that of God. In contrast, according to scripture Jesus remained steadfastly obedient to his Father's will!

Apart from disobedience to God's declared will, what is sin?

Abraham prostituted his sister/wife 3 times showing complete distrust in God! Did Abraham sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists? Jacob set conditions on his acceptance of YHWH as his God! Did Jacob sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists? Moses smashed to pieces God's decalogue, personally handed to Moses by God and instituted his own ordinances? Did Moses sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists?

Calvin's analysis was that God gave Christ an unfallen will, and that for that reason he fully submitted to God. Yes, it was free choice, but free choice that resulted from his election.
An idea upon which scripture is 100% silent. Whereas Jesus' personal choice (will) to remain steadfast in his obedience to his Father's will is well testified in scripture (Mk 14:36 comes immediately to mind).

Now, thinking upon your ascertain that "God gave Christ an unfallen will" - it has the aroma of Arianism about it (only creations are given attributes, not the natural "monogenes" of the Father). Imu, Hebrews 1:3 contradicts Calvin's speculation = Jesus was "imprinted" with his Father's "hypostasis". It wasn't gifted but a natural consequence of his begettal.

I don't accept TULIP, but on this point I think Calvin's answer is
reasonable. Here's his comment:

"He is conceived a mortal man of the seed of David; what, I would ask them, are the virtues by which he deserved to become in the very womb, the head of angels the only begotten Son of God, the image and glory of the Father, the light, righteousness, and salvation of the world? It is wisely observed by Augustine, that in the very head of the Church we have a bright mirror of free election, lest it should give any trouble to us the members—viz. that he did not become the Son of God by living righteously, but was freely presented with this great honor, that he might afterwards make others partakers of his gifts."
Imu, the effect of which has Calvin denying the Son as being natural monogenes, and makes him a creature. Possibly you'd end up with tritheism as Calvinism is often accused of asserting by the Unitarians. Imo, you end up denying the ontological tri-unity (The Trinity) and are left with just a bunch of organisms co-operating as a union.


On autotheos, you may find the following review interesting: Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son – Credo Magazine. I don't think it's obvious that Calvin's view is wrong, although personally I think the issue as a whole is a result of the limitations of the traditional way of talking about the Trinity.
Imu, Calvin is supposed to have explained that his use of "autotheos" was to emphasise that the Son's "theotes" is fully contained within himself. Unfortunately, that isn't how anyone understood or understands the term "autotheos"="God of himself" which is the sole domain of the Father. The Son's "theotes" is derivative & a consequence of his being "born of the Father before all ages".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
That's absolutely not true.

No so called Calvinist I know of would say those things...
How many times have you heard "Once saved, always saved" and "Are you saved?"

Here in Oz, Baptists (Calvinists) are thin on the ground, but noisy from time to time. My main exposure is via tele-evangelists.

USA style "exceptionalism" doesn't go far here in Oz. As the apostle Paul says "if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess 3:10-13). From James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also".

A mentor of mine puts it this way: "When you receive an underserved gift, should you not show more thanks than you would for an anticipated gift? How have you shown your gratitude to God for your hope of an eternal life, yesterday & today, and how will you show it tomorrow?"

The way I understand it (drawing on one of Jesus' parables): We have been invited to a feast, we have the choice to accept or refuse the invite (friends of the host have refused the invite). If we choose to accept the invite, we must not abuse the privilege, but dress & behave at our finest... and (drawing on another parable of Jesus), if we humble ourselves seating ourselves at the lowest end of the table, then the host might entreat us to join him at the had of the table...

Will reply to the rest of your post later in the week
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Because of Calvin's idea of "God's election and predestination" man's personal desires must be presumed to be overridden by God, according to Calvinism = Sin all you want, it is gauranteed to be forgiven. You are especial!!!
That's absolutely not true.
No so called Calvinist I know of would say those things and I haven't seen anywhere where Calvin said those things. You seem to like to stay with what Calvin wrote only - then you turn around and present your opinion of what he said "amounts to" as if it were not a true representation of what he taught.
How many times have you heard "Once saved, always saved" and "Are you saved?"

Here in Oz, Baptists (Calvinists) are thin on the ground, but noisy from time to time. My main exposure is via tele-evangelists.

USA style "exceptionalism" doesn't go far here in Oz. As the apostle Paul says "if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess 3:10-13). From James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also".

A mentor of mine puts it this way: "When you receive an underserved gift, should you not show more thanks than you would for an anticipated gift? How have you shown your gratitude to God for your hope of an eternal life, yesterday & today, and how will you show it tomorrow?"

The way I understand it (drawing on one of Jesus' parables): We have been invited to a feast, we have the choice to accept or refuse the invite (friends of the host have refused the invite). If we choose to accept the invite, we must not abuse the privilege, but dress & behave at our finest... and (drawing on another parable of Jesus), if we humble ourselves seating ourselves at the lowest end of the table, then the host might entreat us to join him at the had of the table...

Will reply to the rest of your post later in the week
I have no idea how what you said here applies to my reply to your other statement.

Please explain.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
I have no idea how what you said here applies to my reply to your other statement.

Please explain.
Read scripture! Read Calvin! Read both, instead of your Church pamplets!!!

As I said "Will [directly] reply to the rest of your [previous] post later in the week."

But for now, here is something for you to think upon.

Jesus often commented (using the vernecular) that his disciples were "thick as a brick". So I don't expect you to understand his parables. They didn't! Why should you!!!

But, actually, Jesus' parables are very understandable - once we change our paradigm...

Protestant antagonism towards the Papacy in the medieval period (and even in modern times) is quite justifiable, but they had/have a tendency (to use the vernecular) "to throw out the baby, along with the bath water".

Hence we have in the Americanisation of Calvinism (which is not the teaching of Calvin) the rampant preservation of anti-Papistism and a pervasion of Calvin.

Americanisation of Calvinism (which is not the teaching of Calvin) breeds cults. An historical fact that is incontrovertable!

The advent of all modern herecies is traceable to the Americanisation of Calvinism = most notably the offspring of the Puritan emigres, Campbellites & Millerites = JWS, SDA, Christadelphians, InC, KKK Baptists, Oneness Churches, Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Prospertity Churches, Church of Scientologiy, Mormons etc etc etc.

That is my stance, established from the study of the ramifications of the abuse of Calvin's writing in most of the western World and the continued abuse of his writings in America.

Intersestingly: Cavin advocated the establishment of a theocracy = central administration with no secular input. He was 100% Augustine, with next to no scriptural allowance (apart from that allowed by Augustine). He advocated many an RCC doctrine that was subsequently rejected by American protestantism. Why is that (certainly nothing to do with scripture!).

I don't have to make this stuff up! Read Calvin!!!

As I said "Will [directly] reply to the rest of your [previous] post later in the week". Here I have given random thoughts, when I respond to you [previous] post, I wish to give you 100% of my attention!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
I suspect that no one who holds to "sola scriptura" would support Calvin's actual writings, and yet there are many who say they hold to "sola scriptura" who identify themselves as Calvanists. Ezekiel 18 heartily refutes the idea of predestination of the individual, as do less direct scriptures. Of course the rewards and penalties are predetermined, and we have fair warning in scripture as to how to attain either...

Jesus teaches us through His Spirit (John 16:13-16). It ought to be sola Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Jesus teaches us through His Spirit (John 16:13-16). It ought to be sola Christ.
The apostle John, whom you cite, advises "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world". (1 John 4:1).

A.John's advice is very wise when one considers that followers of the way / path = Islam, believe that Mohammad was Isa bin Miriam's (Jesus') promised parakletos. Imo, Islam fails testing, as does Calvin et al...

It is not his own Spirit that Jesus promised to ask his Father to send so that we would not be alone (left without guidance)...

John 14:16-18,26 "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper (original Greek=paraklētos], that He may abide with you forever — the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans... "the Helper [original Greek=[I]paraklētos[/I]], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you..."

It is obvious that the paraklētos is distinct for two reasons:

1. John in the Greek has Jesus call him "ἄλλον παράκλητον" (another parkletos), implying that this one is to replace Jesus as our paraklētos.

2. A John at 1 John 2:1 says "if any man sin, we have an advocate [original Greek=[I]paraklētos[/I]] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous". This position of authority was attained on his ascension to the Father's right hand.

So who is our parakletos? ASk him yourself, if he resides in you as Jesus promised. Where is the perceptable representation of the parakletos. I'll tell you where he is not. He is not in any independent or national ekklesia... As scripture advices you can tell what a thing is by examining its fruit...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Karl.C

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
132
34
44
Punchbowl, NSW
✟12,725.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Exactly what church and what pamphlets do you think that would be?
Pick a so called Calvanist ekklessia & their propagada books & pamplets, youtube, TV etc!

It is notable that in the very verbose Vol. 1 of his institutes Calvin only applied two scriptures, and only did so to give credence to the philosophical opinions of Plato & Plutarch. Calvin in his writings is huge on the philosophers & especially huge on Augustine, but neglects scripture intensely.

In my readings, there are no-Calvinists left, they have been replaced by what others call neo-Calvinists. Calvinism & Protestantism fratured from the start into a myraid of splinter groups each pushing an independent agenda. So much for the "one faith, one church" prayers of Jesus & A.Paul...

As Jesus once proclaimed to his disciples (Luke 17:1)
“Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come". NIV.

If you have the pretense to identify as a "Calvinist" then make sure you read Calvin exclusively! He was often at war with other "protestants"...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0