The Advent of Heresy: Calvin Investigated

[Karl.C]

I thought Mark Kennedy had offered to debate in post#16

Thanks for the heads up! Post #15 or #16 weren't up (on my screen) when I last posted...

 

[Karl.C]

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.

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.

As for the Geneva Bible being a better translation. Read the opinions of reputed and acknowledged academics. Read why King James had it suppressed.

As for Tyndale. Are you a JW, InC, Christadelphian or like? They love Tyndale's translation because of its perception of being unitarian friendly.

What your arguing is simply false

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!!!

ohn Calvin was one of the main people responsible for the Geneva Bible:

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...

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)​

The KJV was based on Beza's Greek text. Compare 2 Peter 1:1 and note the difference to modern versions.

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.

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.

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

I thought the teaching influence of scripture was God (?)

The trouble with your presumption is that 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

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!

The accademic paper I quoted in an earlier post seems to highlight your predisposition...

Full Length Research Paper ‘Forgotten and forgiven’? Calvinism and French Society"...
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJSA/article-full-text-pdf/7BC5CD642909

"...]Americans, do not know or ‘remember’ what original Calvinism is and who Calvin was; in this sense in ontrast to the virtually universal knowledge or ‘remembrance’ of Lutheranism and Luther. Thus, while it is commonly known that Lutheranism originally is the Protestant Reformation in Germany and Luther was a German, this does not seem, at least in America, so withrespect to original Calvinism and Calvin...

...The preceding yields a cognitive paradox. It consists of the deep and enduring societal impact of the Calvinist expansion and development and yet relative lack of knowledge or remembrance of original Calvinism, especially in America. America has been widely observed, since Tocqueville and Weber through contemporary sociology, as the most and even the sole surviving Calvinist society... Yet paradoxically, in this mostly though not solely, Calvinist society what original Calvinism is and also who Calvin was seems, judging from casual observations and impressions, less known or remembered than in other Western societies...

However, Calvinism’s own ‘genesis’ and original form and societal setting in Europe apparently remain a partial mystery in the ‘new Calvinist-Puritan nation’, as least for most ordinary Americans and many sociologists outside the field of sociology of religion. In sum, in terms of its major theological dogma of predestination, Calvinism has sociologically be ‘predestined’ i.e., via Puritanism ‘over determined’ (Munch 2001) America as the Calvinist society/‘Puritan nation’. And yet, the latter hardly seems to know or remember accurately the original form, the historical societal context, and social effects of its major eligious determinant, which is a remarkable cognitive paradox and historical irony (perhaps analogous to a child not knowing or remembering exactly the father from childhood)..."​

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.

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...

 

[Karl.C]

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

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.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Thread became a discussion thread, therefore I have moved it from debate proposals area.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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:

• Calvinism Socialization,
  
• Predestination
• Calvinism and Scripture

Closing Remarks

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.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Karl.C]

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:

• Calvinism Socialization,
  
• Predestination
• Calvinism and Scripture

Closing Remarks

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.

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...

 

[hedrick]

I'm quite familiar with Calvin's theology, and the Biblical exegesis that supports it. Calvin was the best exegete of his time. He had good exegesis behind predestination. There are fine Biblical scholars today that still think his exegesis is right. I don't, but I accept the general approach referred to as the "new perspective." While I think the evidence is convincing, it would be a big mistake to condemn someone based on understandings that developed 500 years later and still are controversial.

Compatibilism prevents Calvin's theology from being fatalist. His explanation in the Institutes is good enough to protect it against that.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

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.

 

[Ron Gurley]

...>The DEBATE OFFERED<...

TULIP Calvinism Explained
The five points of Calvinism can be remembered using the acronym TULIP:

T - Total Depravity
Humanity is stained by sin in every aspect: heart, emotions, will, mind and body. This means people cannot independently choose God. God must intervene to save people.
Calvinism insists that God must do all the work, from choosing those who will be saved to sanctifying them throughout their lives until they die and go to heaven. Calvinists cite numerous Scripture verses supporting humanity's fallen and sinful nature, such as Mark 7:21-23, Romans 6:20, and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

U - Unconditional Election
God chooses who will be saved. Those people are called the Elect. God picks them based not on their personal character or seeing into the future, but out of his kindness and sovereign will.
Since some are chosen for salvation, others are not. Those not chosen are the damned, destined for eternity in hell.

L - Limited Atonement
Jesus Christ died only for the sins of the Elect, according to John Calvin. Support for this belief comes from verses that say Jesus died for "many," such as Matthew 20:28 and Hebrews 9:28.
Those who teach "Four Point Calvinism" believe Christ died not for just the Elect but for the entire world. They cite these verses, among others: John 3:16, Acts 2:21,1 Timothy 2:3-4, and 1 John 2:2.

I - Irresistible Grace
God brings his Elect to salvation through an internal call, which they are powerless to resist. The Holy Spirit supplies grace to them until they repent and are born again.
Calvinists back this doctrine with such verses as Romans 9:16, Philippians 2:12-13, and John 6:28-29.

P - Perseverance of the Saints
The Elect cannot lose their salvation, Calvin said. Because salvation is the work of God the Father; Jesus Christ, the Savior; and the Holy Spirit, it cannot be thwarted.
Technically, however, it is God who perseveres, not the saints themselves. Calvin's doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is in contrast to the theology of Lutheranism and the Roman Catholic Church, which hold that people can lose their salvation.

REF:
TULIP: 5-Point Calvinism Explained

DEBATE: Which of the 5 points are are contrary to /aligned with TRUE DOCTRINE , supported by the weight and clarity of SCRIPTURE??

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of T=TOTAL DEPRAVITY is FALSE!

Salvation is a "2 way street".

1. God SPIRITUALLY CALLS /DRAWS ALL MEN.
2. Man has a spiritual "free will" CHOICE: ACCEPT or REJECT God's Grace/Love/Mercy and the gift of spirit-led FAITH/BELIEF.

1. God SPIRITUALLY CALLS /DRAWS ALL MEN.

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means:
‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’
for I did not come to CALL the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 22:14
For many are CALLED, but few are chosen.” (by Man's ACCEPTING the CALL!)

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me DRAWS him;
and I will raise him up on the last day.

2. Man has a spiritual "free will" CHOICE: ACCEPT or REJECT.

God spiritually calls/draws/knocks to ALL.
EACH Man's "free will" spirit must accept or reject.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

1 Chronicles 28:9...KING David to wise son Solomon
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him;
BUT if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

John 3:36...John the Baptizer on Jesus: CHOOSE
1. He who believes in the Son has eternal (spiritual) life; (BELIEVER)
but
2.he who does not obey (TO BELIEVE IN!) the Son will not see life, but the "wrath of God" (OT) abides on him.” (UN-BELIEVER)

John 1...RECEIVE or REJECT
11 He came to that which was His own, but His own did NOT receive Him.
12 Yet to all who DID receive him,
to those who BELIEVED in his name, he gave the right to become "children of God"(SAVED BELIEVERS)
— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but "born of God"

Revelation 3:20...OPEN or CLOSE the "door"
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

John 10: 7,9 (NASB)...ENTER the dooror take the destructive "way"
7 So Jesus said to them again,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep...(saved believers)
9 I am the door; IF anyone enters THROUGH Me, he will be (is certain to be) saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

 

[hedrick]

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!

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?

Remember that in traditional theology sin results from the fact that our will is fallen. 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.

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."

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.

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of U - Unconditional Election is false!

A> "Elect of God" = false doctrine!(started by Calvinism?)

ZERO = 0 Bible search results for “Elect of God.” in the NASB.

Matthew 24 uses "elect"(eklektos) more than in any other passages. Start there.

The "elect" is ALL of the "John 3 explained in Ephesians 2" ...spiritually changed believers...the "saints"!

the elect...Greek 1588... eklektos...
i.to obtain salvation THROUGH Christ..a.Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
ii.the (DIVINE) Messiah is called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable

Romans 8:33
Who will bring a charge against "God's elect"? God is the one who justifies;

B>'endured to the end' = false salvation doctrine based on TWO verses taken out context

C>the STATUS of a Man does not save him

At salvation, SPIRITUAL POSITION IN RELATIONSHIP TO GOD...CHANGES! Back to: "John 3 explained in Ephesians 2"

SEARCH: "IN CHRIST"..."IN GOD"..."INTO SPIRIT"

SEARCH: 2 "PILES" OF Man's SPIRITS in God's eye:

BELIEVERS...>VERSUS<...UNBELIEVERS
SHEEP vs. "goats"
Saved vs. "lost"
Forgiven (1 John 1) vs. UN-Forgiven
Righteous vs "wicked"

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not judged (saved believers); he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 8 (NASB)[ Deliverance from Bondage ]
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (SPIRITUAL POSITION NOT JUDGED!)
For the law of the Spirit of life "IN Christ Jesus" has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
For what the (Mosaic) Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did:
sending His own Son in the "likeness" of sinful flesh (yet sinless!)
and as an (voluntary) offering FOR sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

John 5:24..“Truly, truly, I say to you,
he who hears My word, and BELIEVES Him who sent Me, has eternal (SPIRITUAL) life,
and does NOT come into judgment, but "has passed" out of death into life.

John 11:27
She (Martha, sister of Lazarus) said to Him,(Jesus)
“Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” (from heaven = DEITY)

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of L - Limited Atonement is false!

Q1: Is the doctrinal truth of "substitutionary atonement" supported by Scripture?
A: Yes!

Q2: Did the completed work of Jesus the Christ voluntarily bleeding to death on an unjust Cross provide THE way of salvation, a major benefit of which is "forgiveness of sins" for believers?
A: Yes!

SUBSTITUTION...
the act, process, or result of substituting one thing FOR another;
one that is substituted FOR another

"FOR"...Greek ...hyper ...~+ for, of, above, for (one's) sake, on (one's) behalf,
more than, in (one's) stead, than, very chiefest, beyond, to, over, more,
exceedingly abundantly, exceedingly, very highly

"FOR"...Greek ...hymas - ~= you, ye, >for your sakes<, not tr, misc

2 Corinthians 5:15
and He died FOR ALL, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all,
the just (Jesus0 for the unjust,(makind)
so that He might bring us to God, (reconciliation/salvation)
having been put to death in the flesh, (crucifixion of Body/Soul)
but made alive in the spirit;(resurrection, appearances, ascension)

John 10 (NASB) ....Jesus the Good Shepherd dies FOR his Sheep
11 “I am the good shepherd;
the good shepherd lays down His life FOR the sheep....
14 I am the good shepherd,
and I know My own, and My own know Me,
15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life FOR the sheep.
17 For this reason the Father loves Me,
because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative.
I have authority to lay it down,
and I have authority to take it up again.
This commandment I received from My Father.”

Matthew 20 ; ...Jesus' Substitutionary Death and Resurrection Foretold
17 As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem,
He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them,
18 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem;
and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death,
19 and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him,
and on the third day He will be raised up.”
...and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom FOR many.” (who RECIEVE Him)

John 17 (NASB)...Jesus: The High Priestly Prayer
20 “I do not ask on BEHALF of (hyper="FOR"} these (followers) alone, but FOR those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one;
even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You,
that they also may be in Us,
so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

John 11 (NASB...belief that Jesus died FOR you gives LIFE
25 Jesus said to her, (Martha, sister of the resurrected Lazurus)
“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live, even if he dies,
26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him,
“Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ,
the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

The NEW Covenant!..."substitutionary Atonement".

Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the (NEW) covenant, which is poured out FOR many FOR forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the (NEW)covenant, which is poured out FOR many.

Luke 22:20
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying,
“This cup which is poured out FOR you is the new covenant IN My blood.

Act 2:37
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, (drawn by God, spirit-led BELIEF)
and said to Peter and the rest of the (11) apostles, “ Brethren, what shall we DO?” (to be like you)
Act 2:38
Peter said to THEM,
“Repent, (turn to God) and
each of you be (spiritually) baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
(not in the name of John the Baptizer..symbolic water baptism to wash away sins)
FOR (as a symbol of salvation, BECAUSE OF) the forgiveness of your sins;
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (be baptized into God the Holy Spirit)

"FOR" = Greek 1519 "eis" ~= into, unto, to, towards, for, among, (because of?) (in place of?)

FORGIVENESS / REMISSION ...Greek 859 - "aphesis'...release from bondage or imprisonment; forgiveness or pardon, of sins
(letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty

Forgiveness of Sin / Sin(s) is ONE of the spiritual benefits of salvation!...(all NASB)

Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many FOR forgiveness of sins.

Luke 1:77
To give to His people the knowledge of salvation,
By (knowing) the forgiveness of their sins,

Act 5:31
“He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and (to grant) forgiveness of sins.

Act 10:43
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that
through His name everyone who BELIEVES in Him
receives forgiveness of sins.”

Ephesians 1:7
IN Him, we have redemption THROUGH His blood,
the forgiveness of our trespasses,
according to the riches of His GRACE

Colosians 1:14
in whom we have redemption,
the forgiveness of sins.

 

[hedrick]

On the Son as autotheos, here's what Calvin says in Institutes 1.13.25:

"Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God."

Calvin is trying to distinguish between the common essence and the person. I don't think there's anything heretical about his language, even though most Reformed theologians haven't adopted it.

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of I - Irresistible Grace is false!

God's GRACE RECEIVED is not a pre-requisite to Man's "free will" CHOICE to REPENT/REPENTANCE..

OT:

Number 23:19
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

"that He should repent;" ...Hebrews 5162...nacham...
to be sorry, console oneself, regret, comfort, be comforted

"to repent."...Hebrews 7725...shuwb...to return, turn back


NT:

Matthew 3:2; 4:17 ; Mark 1:15
“Repent, for the "kingdom of heaven" (God) is at hand.” (Jesus the Divine Messiah has come!...good news!)

"Repent,...Greek 3340...metanoeo...to change one's mind / to change one's mind for the better; heartily to amend with abhorrence one's past sins

Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God;
the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to ACCEPT the divine forgiveness." (SALVATION)

To Me, repent simply means: RE-THINK...spiritually turning to God when He calls / draws you.

Repentance in context has TWO meanings:

1. repent UNTO salvation...God calls/draws you to Him from sinful self...turning to God to ACCEPT THE GIFT!

e.g. Jesus preached:

Mark 1 (NASB)...Jesus Preaches in Galilee
14 Now after John (the Baptizer) had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel (good news) of God, 15 and saying,
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; (Jesus the Divine Messiah had come!)
repent AND believe in the "gospel".” (Jesus the Divine Messiah had come!)

Luke 24...Jesus: AFTER The Resurrection
47 and that repentance for (because of?) forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Romans 2 (NASB)
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience,
not knowing that the kindness (GRACE!) of God (the Holy Spirit) LEADS you to repentance?

2 Cor. 7:10
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret,
leading to salvation, (NOT a condition of!)
but the sorrow of the world produces death.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, (unbelievers?)not wishing for ANY to perish
but for ALL to come to repentance.

2 Timothy 2:25
with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, (NOT a condition of!)

2. repent BACK into fellowship after sinning...e.g. The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Luke 15 (NASB)...Jesus and the Parable of "The Lost Coin"
10 In the same way, I tell you,
there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Repentance for believers involves CONFESSION
and claiming cleansing and forgiveness of sins purchased by Jesus' completed work on the Cross.

1 John 1...God Is Light
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light,
and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have FELLOWSHIP with Him and yet walk in the darkness,
we lie and do not PRACTICE the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light,
we have FELLOWSHIP with "one another", (BELIEVERS)
and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess (AGREE WITH GOD ABOUT) our sins,
He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of I - Irresistible Grace is false! PART 2!

Salvation is a "two way street"!

1. God spiritually CALLS/DRAWS/KNOCKS on the spirits of ALL Men

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means:
‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’
for I did not come to CALL the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 22:14
For many are CALLED, but few are chosen.” (by ACCEPTING!)

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me DRAWS him;
and I will raise him up on the last day.

2. Man has the "free will" CHOICE of ACCEPTING or REJECTING God's Grace/Love/Mercy and the gift of spirit-led FAITH/BELIEF unto the Salvation EVENT and through the SANCTIFICATION PROCESS.

God spiritually calls/draws/knocks to ALL.
EACH Man's spirit must accept or reject.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that
I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse.
So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

1 Chronicles 28:9...KING David to wise son Solomon
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him;
BUT if forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

John 3:36...John the Baptizer on Jesus: CHOOSE
1. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (BELIEVER)
but
2.he who does not obey (TO BELIEVE IN!) the Son will not see life,
but the wrath of God abides on him.” (UN-BELIEVER)

John 1
11 He came to that which was His own, but His own did NOT receive Him.
12 Yet to all who DID receive him,
to those who BELIEVED in his name, he gave the right to become "children of God" (saved believers)
ot of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but "born of God"

 

[Ron Gurley]

The doctrine of P - Perseverance of the Saints as stated below is false !
"The Elect cannot lose their salvation (by sinning), Calvin said. Because salvation is the work of God the Father; Jesus Christ, the Savior; and the Holy Spirit, (ALONE!) it cannot be thwarted."

ETERNAL SECURITY of the true believer's salvation (OSAS) is discussed herein ad nauseum.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/losing-salvation.8010090/

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/you-can-lose-your-salvation-through-apostasy.7785433/

Can True born again BELIEVERS lose their spiritual POSITION in Christ? ...>MY VIEWS

Can a Christian Lose His Salvation?

Willful Sin after Salvation and Eternal Security

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Thanks Mark, I intend to if the original poster can agree to terms.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Calvin was NOT a "heretic". His interpretation of Scripture and published theology were in spiritual ERROR!