The Latest on Calvin

[OzSpen]

I don't know why everyone is against John Calvin.\

Rollo,

Could that be hyperbole from you?

Oz

 

[Earburner]

I don't know why everyone is against John Calvin.\
It's like he hurt everyone somehow and now everyone wants to get even.

Give the guy a break, he is/was a church leader.
That's more than we can say for most of us.

I'm starting a "I Like Jack" campaign.
Anyone with me?

There are many "Takes" who are "church leaders"

 

[Earburner]

^Correction- Tares

 

[CNKW3]

How do you know YOU are IN HIM?
I know because I chose to be IN HIM.
But how do you know???
And where are all these predestination verses?

I know I am “in Christ” because I have been obedient to the gospel. Ive done what those in the first century did. Read acts 2, 8,9,10,16,18,19. They all did the same thing..
I’ve heard the word, believed, repented, confessed him before men and been baptized “into Christ” for the remission of my sins. Acts 2:47 When people in the NT did this the word says they are saved, sanctified, justified. 1 Cor 6:9-11.
It says they are heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:26-29

How did you”choose” to be in him? How does that work? Where is the evidence for that in the NT. Show me people that “chose” to be in him.

 

[Enoch111]

All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation

This is exactly what both the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646, 1658) and the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) state.

It is simply amazing that the Reformers -- who all rejected most of the false doctrines of the Catholic Church -- created their own false doctrine, to mislead hundreds of thousands of people. Just goes to show how Satan works to undermine God's truths among the best of men.

The Bible is crystal clear that the gift of eternal life and the gift of the Holy Spirit are offered to ALL HUMANITY. But all must obey the Gospel.

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, ok... Here comes my Calvin commentary again!

People hate him because of Calvinism. But he wasn't a modern day Calvinist. He didn't even come up with that TULIP thingy. He is best known for his stance on predestination, which 1. Is Biblical as he discussed it in HIS writings; 2. He draws heavily on Augustine; and 3. Despite his support of it, he was a very pius guy who (as far as I can find) actually coined the phrase, "Grace isn't a license to sin". Yea... He actually wrote that! And might be the first to do so!

What folks don't realise is that he wrote a mere 3 chapters in one of over 50 books about that topic. He didn't spend a lot of time on the topic! Today, people equate him with predestination; which is like saying Benjamin Franklin is in the swimming hall of fame and saying that's his biggest acheivement!

"Jack" wrote meticulous commentaries on almost all books of the Bible. When he did, he related them to his present times. He was a very sharp witted guy, only out done by Martin Luther and in my opinion, Tertillian.

He did all that, by the way, without Google. Without search engines. He exhausted cross referencing scripture without our tools. Frankly, he could bury us in a debate without using Google!

And that's what I really admire about any Bible scholar before the year 2000. They actually had to know before they looked it up.

Now, what I don't like about him is that I fully believe he was never dedicated. He spoke against the Pope but would hobnob with the Pope's priests. We was for change, but he sealed the death of Michael Servatus. He could've prevented it. This, he was part of the Inquisition.

But... Before anyone goes hating Jack, you ought to at least read something he wrote. I don't think many have.

Excellent

 

[friend of]

Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons. This means no favoritism. All who repent and believe in Jesus can be saved. Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35

 

[aspen]

I don't know why everyone is against John Calvin.\
It's like he hurt everyone somehow and now everyone wants to get even.

Give the guy a break, he is/was a church leader.
That's more than we can say for most of us.

I'm starting a "I Like Jack" campaign.
Anyone with me?

He ran over my dog and then just took off!

 

[OzSpen]

And yet he did not burn anybody at the stake. He was the religous leader not the civil leader. He had very little influence over the civil courts.

Windmill,

In August 1553, Servetus, the anti-Trinitarian heretic, travelled to Geneva. There he was recognized and at Calvin’s request he was imprisoned by the city magistrates.

The trial of Michael Servetus lasted until October 1553 when the Council of Geneva condemned him to death. Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first. Who was the Calvinist who reported him in Geneva? Calvin!

The condemnation and death of Michael Servetus has been a black mark on John Calvin’s reputation for centuries. Was the burning of Servetus justified, or was it cold-blooded murder? God will judge. In contemplating the history of Calvin and Servetus, it is good to remember the following facts:

– The laws in Switzerland made heresy punishable by death; Servetus’ death was thus justified in the eyes of the Geneva Council. Plus, the councils of Berne, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen were consulted, and they all encouraged the verdict and punishment.

– Calvin agreed with the sentence of death passed on Servetus; however, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning. The council rejected his suggestion.

– Michael Servetus was the only heretic ever executed in Geneva in Calvin’s lifetime (Source: Got Questions).

I consider it is naive to state that Calvin 'had very little influence over the civil courts' when it was Calvin who reported Servetus to the magistrates.

Oz

 

[Enoch111]

What folks don't realise is that he wrote a mere 3 chapters in one of over 50 books about that topic.

Well that is not even the issue. The issue is that he presented a FALSE DOCTRINE of predestination, and was very influential among the Reformers, and hence we have what is known as Calvinism.

One could even call it a heresy, since it perverted the Gospel (see Galatians 1). So while Calvin was going after the so-called heretics, he was building a heretical gospel himself, which denies fundamental Gospel truths.

 

[OzSpen]

I love John 3.16 too.:)

farouk,

I'd like to know how and if your interpretation differs from that of GodsGrace. What are your differences in exegesis? I'll ask the same question of GodsGrace.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Well that is not even the issue. The issue is that he presented a FALSE DOCTRINE of predestination, and was very influential among the Reformers, and hence we have what is known as Calvinism.

One could even call it a heresy, since it perverted the Gospel (see Galatians 1). So while Calvin was going after the so-called heretics, he was building a heretical gospel himself, which denies fundamental Gospel truths.

Enoch,

How would you define the differences between heresy and false teaching?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I only spoke about Calvin because it seems the O.P. doesn't know him very well.
I don't speak against Calvin...although he was a rather cold and unloving man and to me doesn't seem to have behaved like a Christian person.

What I'm against is TULIP...and all that calvinism stands for.
I've been banned from forums for my outspokenness..
do I care?
No.
Because that theology is horrendous and has no place in the Church Jesus set up on this earth.

What do you want me to post?
I've been asking for scripture.

Here's what I'll post:
John 3:16

Go ahead.
Make my day.

GodsGrace,

What interpretation differences of John 3:16 do you have with farouk who also loves that verse?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't know why everyone is against John Calvin.\
It's like he hurt everyone somehow and now everyone wants to get even.

Give the guy a break, he is/was a church leader.
That's more than we can say for most of us.

I'm starting a "I Like Jack" campaign.
Anyone with me?

Rollo,

Apart from his being a church leader, what else do you like about Jack Calvin?

Give the guy a break, he is/was a church leader.
That's more than we can say for most of us.

Who are the church leaders posting on CyB?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons. This means no favoritism. All who repent and believe in Jesus can be saved. Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35

Is that how TULIP Calvinism sees it?

 

[Enoch111]

Enoch, How would you define the differences between heresy and false teaching? Oz

I would define heresy as any teaching which deliberately undermines the fundamentals of the Faith and the fundamentals of the Gospel. A good example is the rejection of the Deity of Christ (which also affects the broader doctrine of Christ).

According to Galatians 1 and Gospel truth as understood by most Christians, Five Point Calvinism is what Paul would call "another gospel" (therefore accursed). Just Limited Atonement itself is heretical, since the Bible makes it perfectly clear that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

False teaching -- on the other hand-- would be less critical, but serious enough to be exposed, e.g. the false doctrine of Soul Sleep, or the teaching that no saints go to Heaven, and never have.

 

[friend of]

Is that how TULIP Calvinism sees it?

I don't believe so. After all, wouldn't predestination denote a favoritism of sorts?

 

[friend of]

And thank you @OzSpen for post #49. Didn't know any of that.

 

[OzSpen]

I would define heresy as any teaching which deliberately undermines the fundamentals of the Faith and the fundamentals of the Gospel. A good example is the rejection of the Deity of Christ (which also affects the broader doctrine of Christ).

According to Galatians 1 and Gospel truth as understood by most Christians, Five Point Calvinism is what Paul would call "another gospel" (therefore accursed). Just Limited Atonement itself is heretical, since the Bible makes it perfectly clear that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

False teaching -- on the other hand-- would be less critical, but serious enough to be exposed, e.g. the false doctrine of Soul Sleep, or the teaching that no saints go to Heaven, and never have.

Enoch,

Could you provide some definitions of 'heresy' and 'false teaching' that inform what you've stated here?

Titus 3:10 (NASB) states, 'Reject a factious man after a first and second warning'. 'Factious' is the adjective for the noun and the NIV translates as 'divisive'. It comes from the noun, heraesis.

What is its meaning? One of the early church fathers, Irenaeus, wrote an outstanding refutation of heresy, Against Heresies. What kind of false doctrine was he dealing with?

Does that help us to understand the difference between heresy and false teaching?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't believe so. After all, wouldn't predestination denote a favoritism of sorts?

Yes, but do you believe there is a legitimate teaching on election to salvation in Scripture?

What does Eph 1:11 mean in your view of predestination?