Servetus was executed by the secular libertarian government of Geneva, Calvin was a character witness and tried to get Servetus to repent and was trying to get him beheaded rather than burnt alive.
Servetus was executed by the secular libertarian government of Geneva, Calvin was a character witness and tried to get Servetus to repent and was trying to get him beheaded rather than burnt alive.
It was an execution and so the city-state of Geneva gave the authority for Servetus to be executed.And who gave anyone authority to exact vengeance upon a soul for what he believed?
It was carried out by an executioner employed by the city-state of GenevaWas this God's decree carried out by His loving disciples for His glory?
It was quicker and wouldn't have resulted in the accidental use of fresher logs which burned slowly.Was beheading more honorable to wish upon a man than being burned alive?
different times man different laws we didnt live then ,cant compareAlso, do Calvinists still try to get a man to repent by threatening his life?
Also, do Calvinists still try to get a man to repent by threatening his life?
different times man different laws we didnt live then ,cant compare
Difficult passages? They are everywhere. And yes, I agree, they seem to support your beliefs. But I don't question those as much as God doing nothing to save those 'reprobates', whom He, for some odd reason, did not choose to be saved.
I can't find that teaching plainly written anywhere in the Bible. One has to take parts, here and there, to make that a definite truth. I do find He loves everyone, and Paul gave us a very good definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, from which I find it hard to believe He would 'ordain' anyone to hell without remedy.
I said what your intentions "appear" to be--I'm not claiming to know your motivations. If you genuinely believe using that quote for your signature block is edifying to your brothers and sisters in Christ here, then use it.
I am bothered by it. Since being on this forum, I haven't once quoted John Calvin; and I've only read part of the introduction to his Institutes. Like I said, I don't worship the guy, but I gather that he knew his soteriology pretty well.
I would. I shouldn't have said we don't use it as a proof text for "anything."
Inasmuch as they have influenced others whom I have been influenced by (since I've read next to nothing of his works), yes.
If I understand the question properly, yes. But I'm not sure why that should matter...
What bothers me is that we can list off a number of verses that support our theology and still be told that our viewpoints are nowhere taught in Scripture. The least you guys could do is admit that there are difficult passages that seem to teach what we believe (JackSparrow was able to do this)--otherwise you come across as being disingenuous. I freely admit that there are a number of passages that are difficult (not impossible) for me to reconcile with what I believe is taught in Scripture, but I would have the exact same problem if I were in your camp (which I was when I first believed). I find that the vast weight of Scripture leads me to believe in the doctrines of grace.
For all: I know there are those of us on both sides that fall into the trap of launching ad hominem attacks and raising straw men, but we should all strive to keep our discussions centered around understanding passages of Scripture--otherwise we're probably wasting our time.
Yes and I will go cursing and screaming against God into the fires of hell if I'm not, but I will serve him now.I accept that there are difficult passages.
Are you comfortable with the fact that you yourself may not be among the elect?
But this is true under your own theology.
- It is true biblically, that man is ultimately divided into the saved and the unsaved.
- It is also true that an omnipotent God could save them all.
- An omniscient God knows before he created them who is, and who is not saved.
Conclusion: God creates some people in the certain knowledge that they will go to hell and that there is no remedy for them.
- If God knows that a non-believer is a non-believer before he is created, then there is no possible action the non-believer can take to change that.
People here use the argument "but God wants people to love him freely, not create robots", but ultimately it's God who writes the rules. God's clear wish is that those who don't follow Christ in faith will be denied eternal life. There's no dressing it up.
Unfortunately, it seems to be only Calvinists who point out this truth (and sometimes I wonder if it's only us who understand it), and we get pilloried for it. If people would honestly address the question then there would be a great deal more harmony on this board.
If God knows that a non-believer is a non-believer before he is created, then there is no possible action the non-believer can take to change that.
Yes and I will go cursing and screaming against God into the fires of hell if I'm not, but I will serve him now.
I echo the words of Paris Reidhead who said:
"Lord Jesus, I'm going to obey you, and love you, and serve you, and do what you want me to do, as long as I live even if I go to Hell at the end of the road, simply because YOU ARE WORTHY TO BE LOVED, AND OBEYED, AND SERVED, and I 'm not trying to make a deal with you!"
If a genuine opportunity to be saved is available to every man that will ever live, then God's knowledge of the final outcome does not in any way influence that genuine opportunity. This is undeniable. If you can provide an example of how God's knowledge prevents or influences this opportunity then you would have a point.
Since you think that our theology leaves some men in an equally contingent state as your theology, please provide an example.
The fact is is that your doctrine damns some - and does so without any remedy available whatsoever. The difference is crystal clear.
This is false. If a man has genuine free will and can, synergistically, come to faith in God, then he has had a chance. That he chose not to was his decision.
You really do have trouble with basics Janx. Is it possible that he might be comfortable with the possibility of not being saved but may be upset if the possibility turns into reality? Or can't you see the difference?I wrote:
Are you comfortable with the fact that you yourself may not be among the elect?
You say that, yes, you are comfortable with this but 'cursing and screaming against God' does not equate to being comfortable.
Are you comfortable or not?
God's good character is impugned by these doctrines.
I am comfortable with it now, that doesn't mean that I will be comfortable with it when I am cast out into darkness, in fact without God's common grace the true me would be revealed, an enemy of God.I wrote:
Are you comfortable with the fact that you yourself may not be among the elect?
You say that, yes, you are comfortable with this but 'cursing and screaming against God' does not equate to being comfortable.
Are you comfortable or not?
If you say so, it would be nice if you were to explain why you think so.God's good character is impugned by these doctrines.
I am comfortable with it now, that doesn't mean that I will be comfortable with it when I am cast out into darkness, in fact without God's common grace the true me would be revealed, an enemy of God.
May I ask would you serve God if you knew without a doubt that you were destined for hell at the end of your life?
If you say so, it would be nice if you were to explain why you think so.
Janx, I'm not going to explain this further to you as I've done it several times before and you just don't seem capable of understanding. Work through my statements, tell me which of them you disagree with and why, and then we can discuss things.
However, because it's so frustrating that you can't grasp the simplest of concepts I'm going to try one of them one last time:
I'll try this by asking a simple question: What action can a non-believer take to prove God's foreknowledge false? Don't side-step; don't change the question; don't evade it in any way.
- If God knows that a non-believer is a non-believer before he is created, then there is no possible action the non-believer can take to change that.
I know what I truly deserve and nothing I can do will make a lick of difference to where my destination is.How is it possible that you could be comfortable with this?
I'm not arguing for Calvinism at the moment, I'm arguing against serving God as a means to an end, if you truly believe that God is good you would serve him without question, not thinking of reward, the service in and of itself should be the reward.If it were true that scripture taught that salvation was predetermined then I would consider scripture to be bunk. I would become an atheist or an agnostic.
And so you continue to hold God to a moral standard that is apart from him. God is the moral standard he is just, he is fair.For God to decide in advance who would be saved and who would not is just about as unfair as it is possible to be. It is a shocking doctrine.
We are both side-stepping crimsonleaf
If the opportunity is real (whether an entity outside of time knows the final outcome or not) then responsibility lies with the man not God. Under Reformed Theology God decides and if Total Depravity is indeed total then the man is not responsible. As I have said, 'unable' is the word Calvin used.
He made me do it won't stand up in court why do you think it'd stand up against God's justice?
It is total, and he is not able.Is total depravity total or not?
In your view, is an unregenerate man able to turn to God or not?
No, I reject your assertion. Does God not hold account his instruments of discipline against Israel for sinning against him and Israel?If regeneration is the only thing that will make a difference and such regeneration is withheld, then man is unable and not responsible.
The world knows that it is guilty of disbelieving in Jesus, how does that necessarily make man able to respond?If man is able (with the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:8)) then he is responsible.
Yes man is still responsible, why must man be able to turn to God for him to be responsible?I cannot see how your argument holds up. You are implying that even under the doctrines of grace man is still responsible; but that would mean man is able to turn to God but Calvin said he is not able (t depravity).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?