Calvinism

[CharismaticLady]

Because I would be more than happy to deal with the text of Scripture; if I missed anything it was not my intention.

We started out great, then not so much. Would you like to start over?

 

[Mjh29]

Sure. A clean slate then! You can begin wherever.

If you want, you can ask me questions about things that perhaps you don't understand or disagree with concerning Calvinism

Or you could start by presenting your beliefs and the verses that I may not have seen

Either way is fine by me!

 

[Willie T]

Shouldn't it be perfectly applicable to read what John Calvin said he believed, and thus know what "Calvinists" also believe?

 

[Mjh29]

Shouldn't it be perfectly applicable to read what John Calvin said he believed, and thus know what "Calvinists" also believe?

Well, yes and no. Here's what I mean; Calvin is extremely difficult to read, I'll be the first to admit it. And while, yes, Calvinism obviously takes it's roots in Calvin's works, and He would indeed line up 100% with their teachings, the way he words things sometimes gives a wrong impression unless re-read and understood a bit more in depth. For Calvinism, the book I would recommend is "The Five Point of Calvinism, Defined, Defended and Documented" by Steele, Thomas, and Quinn. It is a nice, easy read, and includes the history of both Calvinism and Arminianism, an in-depth Scriptural look at each point, and a bibliography with works for further study.

So, sum up my answer:
Yes, you can read just Calvin and get the points of Calvinism, but it is a study that would take a whole lot of time, and can get confusing. I prefer to use sources such as the one listed above, or perhaps "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner

 

[CharismaticLady]

Sure. A clean slate then! You can begin wherever.

If you want, you can ask me questions about things that perhaps you don't understand or disagree with concerning Calvinism

Or you could start by presenting your beliefs and the verses that I may not have seen

Either way is fine by me!

My main issue is not about justification by faith in Jesus - He is the only road. My issue has to do with Scriptures I've seen other Calvinists take out of context in the middle of Paul's teaching, and in doing so have come up with a completely different conclusion than what Paul was making.

Paul did a teaching dealing with sin. It included the Law of the Old Covenant and the new method of the Law of the New Covenant. It spanned the first 8 chapters of Romans, but this Calvinist I'm recalling took a verse out of Romans 4 about imputed righteousness, right in the middle and didn't seem to read the whole teaching.

His conclusion was that the death of Jesus was Him paying for our punishment. Then His righteousness was covering us and all God could see was His Son's blood, and not the sin we keep committing underneath.

What is your conclusion of Romans 1 through 8?

 

[Mjh29]

My main issue is not about justification by faith in Jesus - He is the only road. My issue has to do with Scriptures I've seen other Calvinists take out of context in the middle of Paul's teaching, and in doing so have come up with a completely different conclusion than what Paul was making.

Paul did a teaching dealing with sin. It included the Law of the Old Covenant and the new method of the Law of the New Covenant. It spanned the first 8 chapters of Romans, but this Calvinist I'm recalling took a verse out of Romans 4 about imputed righteousness, right in the middle and didn't seem to read the whole teaching.

His conclusion was that the death of Jesus was Him paying for our punishment. Then His righteousness was covering us and all God could see was His Son's blood, and not the sin we keep committing underneath.

What is your conclusion of Romans 1 through 8?

I am going to reply, it may just take a few moments as it may be a tad bit lengthy; I'm working on it as we speak!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Shouldn't it be perfectly applicable to read what John Calvin said he believed, and thus know what "Calvinists" also believe?

Who are you talking to? When I responded, and am shown who you are responding to, I see you are responding to yourself. LOL

Run! The men in white coats are coming!

 

[CharismaticLady]

I am going to reply, it may just take a few moments as it may be a tad bit lengthy; I'm working on it as we speak!

Don't hurry, I was just taking a break from chores and checked the computer. So I may not respond immediately. This whole discussion may take a few days. Just check your alerts.

Be back later.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

As I recall you are the one I've made the most posts to, but you never referred to any of the verses I quoted. Why tell you them again just to get ignored?

I've not witnessed @Mjh29 ignore or not refer to verses used for ones position. If you have a post that this happened to, would you repost it so we can look it over?

 

[Mjh29]

Don't hurry, I was just taking a break from chores and checked the computer. So I may not respond immediately. This whole discussion may take a few days. Just check your alerts.

Be back later.

Before I do, I need to clear the air.

I would like to apologize for any un-Christian responses I made in the past; In trying to defend what I believe is the truth, I forgot to act the in the most basic Christian manner. It was not my intention, but it still happened, more times than I'd like to admit. If I offended you in any way, I would like to apologize.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I've not witnessed @Mjh29 ignore or not refer to verses used for ones position. If you have a post that this happened to, would you repost it so we can look it over?

Don't worry about it, we decided to start over from scratch.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Before I do, I need to clear the air.

I would like to apologize for any un-Christian responses I made in the past; In trying to defend what I believe is the truth, I forgot to act the in the most basic Christian manner. It was not my intention, but it still happened, more times than I'd like to admit. If I offended you in any way, I would like to apologize.

No problem, I've developed a thick skin over the years from all the times Calvinists called me a heretic. LOL

 

[Willie T]

Well, yes and no. Here's what I mean; Calvin is extremely difficult to read, I'll be the first to admit it. And while, yes, Calvinism obviously takes it's roots in Calvin's works, and He would indeed line up 100% with their teachings, the way he words things sometimes gives a wrong impression unless re-read and understood a bit more in depth. For Calvinism, the book I would recommend is "The Five Point of Calvinism, Defined, Defended and Documented" by Steele, Thomas, and Quinn. It is a nice, easy read, and includes the history of both Calvinism and Arminianism, an in-depth Scriptural look at each point, and a bibliography with works for further study.

So, sum up my answer:
Yes, you can read just Calvin and get the points of Calvinism, but it is a study that would take a whole lot of time, and can get confusing. I prefer to use sources such as the one listed above, or perhaps "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner

I dunno. That sounds a bit like what I was told as a child in the Baptist church..... that in order to truly understand the King James English Translation, I would need to get someone to translate it for me.
I will definitely agree that Calvin is difficult to read... and he often seems to write in contradictory "Double-Speak." So, I have to wonder why haven't his more doctrinally definitive writings already been translated into readable Modern English?
It seems odd to tell new Christians: I know his words make little sense, but trust me that THIS is what he meant to say.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Don't worry about it, we decided to start over from scratch.

Not worried about anything. Offer up your Scripture referenced arguments and we can all go from there.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Not worried about anything. Offer up your Scripture referenced arguments and we can all go from there.

Already did. Mjh27 is now responding. And I'll be back later. You are certainly free to join us. It has to do with Romans 4 and imputed righteousness, but please read my objection first.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Already did. Mjh27 is now responding. And I'll be back later. You are certainly free to join us. It has to do with Romans 4, but please read my objection first.

Which post is your objection?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Which post is your objection?

Which post is your objection?

Unless you have someone on ignore, it is #1825. I haven't stated what I believe, only that I object to the Calvinist view on imputed righteousness.

Just wait for my response in your alerts as it may be a while. I will address my response to both of you with an "@"

 

[Mjh29]

I dunno. That sounds a bit like what I was told as a child in the Baptist church..... that in order to truly understand the King James Translation, I would need to get someone to translate it for me.
I will definitely agree that Calvin is difficult to read... and he often seems to write in contradictory "Double-Speak." So, I have to wonder why haven't his more doctrinally definitive writings already been translated into readable Modern English?
It seems odd to tell new Christians: I know his words make little sense, but trust me that THIS is what he meant to say.

I agree. And I think that one of the reasons for this is the respect for the eloquence of the original Institutes, though I actually have a translation in the English that I have been reading through that isn't TOO awful hard to understand.

And I would agree, but the difference is that Calvin is not Scripture. He is just a man. Do I think that he had a lot of things correct? Yes. But he is just a man.

There, to me, is a huge difference from excepting someones interpretation of the Word of God, and having someone help you wade through a tough systematic theology book. Just my personal thoughts

 

[Willie T]

Who are you talking to? When I responded, and am shown who you are responding to, I see you are responding to yourself. LOL

Run! The men in white coats are coming!

I usually don't try to search out personal arguments with individuals. I try to make my questions acceptable enough to the subject at hand that anyone can give their opinion.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I usually don't try to search out personal arguments with individuals. I try to make my questions acceptable enough to the subject at hand that anyone can give their opinion.

If I'm not in a discussion with someone, I usually don't read the whole thread unless I have time, just alerts to me. I wish you would quote as I can then trace back what the other person said to begin with. Otherwise, out of context it is confusing.