Free Will

[PinSeeker]

You keep falsely equating John Calvin’s advocating the execution of his theological opponents with David and Paul...

I'm not doing any such ridiculous thing. Goodness gracious. If you say, though, that John Calvin was a murderer because he approved of the execution of Christians, then, yes, even according to Scripture itself, you have to say the same of Paul (at that time Saul), who, according to Luke in Acts 8:1, approved of Stephen's execution. Wow. But yes, Saul’s involvement with Stephen’s death set him off on a series of killings and persecutions of Christians. Though Jesus’ followers scattered throughout Samaria and Judea, Saul pursued them wherever he could find them.

“As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Acts 8:3​

The Greek word there translated to the English “made havoc” commonly refers to destroying a city or mangling by a wild animal. The fact that Saul pursued both women and men and not men alone indicates he was inflicting the most severe punishment whenever possible on whomever possible. Paul even admits to such:

"I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities" (Acts 26:9-11)​

...and ...

"I thank Him Who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because He judged me faithful, appointing me to His service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Timothy 1:13)​

as though that comparison washes away the murderous legacy of Calvin.

<eye roll> History is history, for sure. As I said above, though, Calvin did some very sinful and reprehensible things. But none of it nullifies the great things he said and wrote.

There is a huge difference. David and Paul repented.

One of the things Calvin preached and wrote much about was repentance. He very much believed, as did all the Reformers, what was later written into the Westminister Confession, that Christians should repent of each one of their sins particularly. To suggest that Calvin did not repent of his sins, whatever they were, and over and over again, is baseless and ridiculous. Calvin himself said ~ and I quote ~ "Repentance is the true turning of our life to God, a turning that arises from a pure and earnest fear of Him, and it consists in the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the Spirit," and "Scripture points out this difference between believers and unbelievers; the latter, as old slaves to their incurable perversity, cannot endure the rod; but the former, like children of noble birth, profit by repentance and correction." And Paul... we have no record of him actually repenting of anything. But we do read in Romans 2 him saying that God, in His mercy, leads us to repentance.

Calvin did not repent, but persisted in plotting to have his theological opponents, and other people, imprisoned, tortured, and killed.

Rubbish. He did, and so did Paul. And so do all true Christians, those born again of the Spirit.

We cannot accept the theological writings of a man like that.

You be you, for sure.

But even if, like many Calvinists, we refuse to research the historical records....

Which no Calvinist does, but only to not try to rewrite history, as... many do.

...his writings on their own are clearly a distortion of the gospel

<chuckles> Name one. I already wrote a post... and no one responded; big surprise there... that Calvin did not reject "free will" or say that man did not have free will, quoting extensively John Calvin himself, so there's one off your list...

...must be rejected.

Like I said, you be you.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Anchorite]

One of the things Calvin preached and wrote much about was repentance. He very much believed, as did all the Reformers, what was later written into the Westminister Confession, that Christians should repent of each one of their sins particularly. To suggest that Calvin did not repent of his sins, whatever they were, and over and over again, is baseless and ridiculous. Calvin himself said ~ and I quote ~ "Repentance is the true turning of our life to God, a turning that arises from a pure and earnest fear of Him, and it consists in the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the Spirit," and "Scripture points out this difference between believers and unbelievers; the latter, as old slaves to their incurable perversity, cannot endure the rod; but the former, like children of noble birth, profit by repentance and correction."

Calvin may have written about repentance, but where in his writings did he ever say he repented of advocating the imprisonment, torture, and death of his theological opponents?

1 John 3:15

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

 

[PinSeeker]

Calvin may have written about repentance, but where in his writings did he ever say he repented of advocating the imprisonment, torture, and death of his theological opponents?

Okay, well, likewise, where did Paul? Or David? Again, none of Calvin's writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit as Paul's or David's writings in the Bible, but still, the question is valid: Where did Paul or David ever say anything other than, basically, repentance is a good and necessary thing in the life of a Christian? The answer is... nowhere.

1 John 3:15

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Yeah, so again, by this standard, you yourself could be considered a murderer here, by this very standard.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

 

[PinSeeker]

View attachment 87039

Thanks, Dan, but you know, self-portraits are not necessary... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Behold]

John Calvin advocated the execution of his theological opponents.

The Calvin/Servetus story is an interesting read.

Its true that J. Calvin did not take a stand against Servetus being murdered.......for His Beliefs.

However, JC did make a case for a beheading, vs burning Servetus at the stake.......and He did visit Servetus before he was murdered, and talked to Him about his position against THE TRINITY Teaching, that was about to cost Servetus his life

 

[PinSeeker]

The Calvin/Servetus story is an interesting read.

It is, sure. But it really has no relevance to this discussion.

Its true that J. Calvin did not take a stand against Servetus being murdered.......for His Beliefs.

I mean, technically it wasn't a murder; he committed a crime punishable by execution. John Calvin had no hand in making that law, or actually passing it into law, or carrying out the execution order of the state/magistrate.

However, JC did make a case for a beheading, vs burning Servetus at the stake.......and He did visit Servetus before he was murdered, and talked to Him about his position against THE TRINITY Teaching, that was about to cost Servetus his life

Right, and wrote Servetus several letters in an effort to get him Servetus to recant his views as a means to the same end, but discontinued those letters when it was evident that Servetus would not recant.

Again, though, it's all irrelevant to this discussion. It's just another (futile) excuse to try to discredit John Calvin, really. And about 500 years after the fact at that...

Grace and peace.

 

[Behold]

It is, sure. But it really has no relevance to this discussion.

Someone here on the Thread posted about it, so that enlists a conversation about it, if someone wants to have it.
I did.

But i do agree that Demonic Calvinism, was willing to burn people to death, and they'd do it now, but Laws have changed, and so have the times.

One of the things that The Mary Cult has in common with Demonic Calvinism, is that both have a history of burning Christians to death if they disagreed.

I mean, technically it wasn't a murder; he committed a crime punishable by execution.

Servetus didnt believe in the Trinity. @PinSeeker .
That was his capital offense.......his outrageous crime.
This reminds me of the leadership of the Mary Cult threatening Galileo 500+ yrs agoi with some bodily injury if he didnt """leave that telescope alone."""
So, if not believing in the Trinity is a CRIME, its not found under Moses 613 Laws or the 10 Commandments ...or in the Bible.
So then whose LAW burned Servetus at the Stake. ???????
Therefore, this execution was enlisted by a pile of crazy religious Heretics who had a posionous religious spirit, and had the authority to kill you if you disagreed with them.

See this was not really about Theology......it was......>"we are the ruling religious class and you will obey what we say, or we will turn you into a pile of blazing charcoal.

A.) Thats not Christianity.......thats a Murderous cult., I(Think ISLAM).... and nothing more and nothing less.

John Calvin had no hand in making that law, or actually passing it into law, or carrying out the execution order of the state/magistrate.

JCalvin never took a stand against it.
He merely suggested that they "behead Servetus" instead of frying Him with a pile of big burning sticks while he was chained to a post, screaming as he burned for them to enjoy.

Right, and wrote Servetus several letters in an effort to get him Servetus to recant his views as a means to the same end, but discontinued those letters when it was evident that Servetus would not recant.

Well, the thing is.....Servetus should not have been murdered by these religious nut-bars.
He was murdered.
Murdered.

I wonder what bible verse they twisted against Him... to falsely validate murdering him.
Maybe you can share that verse.... since you are such a energetic dupe of J.Calvin's teaching.

Again, though, it's all irrelevant to this discussion. It's just another (futile) excuse to try to discredit John Calvin

No need to use Servetus to discredit a doctrine of devils, (Calvinism)... as Heb 13:9 has already put that spotlight on J. Calvin and his deceived disciples, and what you teach.

 

[PinSeeker]

But i do agree that Demonic Calvinism, was willing to burn people to death...

LOL. Ridiculous. Not you, per se, but that's just a ridiculous thought.

......Laws have changed, and so have the times.

Right. Thank God for that...

Servetus didnt believe in the Trinity. @PinSeeker . That was his capital offense.......his outrageous crime.

Well, his crime against the state, yes. It was a capital offense in those days in Switzerland. And he was prosecuted for it. And punished to the full extent of it. By the state. I'm not even sure why this... "conversation"... is even necessary. It's not.

So, if not believing in the Trinity is a CRIME, its not found under Moses 613 Laws or the 10 Commandments ...or in the Bible.

Right, but we're not talking about the law of the Bible, either the civil, ceremonial, or moral.

So then whose LAW burned Servetus at the Stake.

Well no law burned anyone at the state, as the law as a whole, or any one particular law, is an inanimate object, a system of rules... <smile> But, according to Swiss law in the sixteenth century, heresy was a capital crime. Again, is clarifying this even necessary? No, it's really not...

Therefore, this execution was enlisted by a pile of crazy religious Heretics who had a posionous religious spirit, and had the authority to kill you if you disagreed with them.

If you want to put that label on the sixteenth century Swiss government, then okay...

See this was not really about Theology......it was......>"we are the ruling religious class and you will obey what we say, or we will turn you into a pile of blazing charcoal."

Yeah, again...

JCalvin never took a stand against it.

Right or wrong ~ the law of the land at the time ~ it was what it was. And like you and I have both said, John Calvin tried to get Servetus to recant his views and thus to avoid execution. The only part in this that John Calvin had was as an expert witness, and he said, in effect, "Yes, repudiation of the triune-ness of God, is a heresy." And you and I, as trinitarians, would agree.

He was murdered. Murdered.

No, he was executed, according to the law at the time, by the civil magistrate, the state. Fortunately, there are few executions that take place in this country (the USA; not sure if you're a citizen of this country or not)... by lethal injection or by electricution... anymore for capital offenses. But in the few cases there are, witnesses are not guilty of anything, and such is the case with John Calvin in the Servetus case.

I wonder what bible verse they twisted against Him...

The only Bible references that might have been "used against him" were the ones confirming that God is indeed triune, which you and I agree with. No "twisting" necessary...

a energetic dupe of J.Calvin's teaching.

<eye roll>

No need to use Servetus to discredit a doctrine of devils, (Calvinism)... as Heb 13:9 has already put that spotlight on J. Calvin and his deceived disciples...

LOL. I mean I would call Arminius's teachings a "doctrine of devils," but as wrong as you think Calvin was regarding soteriology, it really applies to him... and thus you. As for John Calvin, Behold, except for maybe a few important point, I'm quite sure he believed very, very closely along the same lines as you and I do.

...what you teach.

...is, again, probably ~ except for a very few things ~ is "what you teach."

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Anchorite]

Well, his crime against the state, yes. It was a capital offense in those days in Switzerland. And he was prosecuted for it. And punished to the full extent of it. By the state. I'm not even sure why this... "conversation"... is even necessary. It's not.

Well no law burned anyone at the state, as the law as a whole, or any one particular law, is an inanimate object, a system of rules... <smile> But, according to Swiss law in the sixteenth century, heresy was a capital crime. Again, is clarifying this even necessary? No, it's really not...

Right or wrong ~ the law of the land at the time ~ it was what it was. And like you and I have both said, John Calvin tried to get Servetus to recant his views and thus to avoid execution. The only part in this that John Calvin had was as an expert witness, and he said, in effect, "Yes, repudiation of the triune-ness of God, is a heresy." And you and I, as trinitarians, would agree.

No, he was executed, according to the law at the time, by the civil magistrate, the state. Fortunately, there are few executions that take place in this country (the USA; not sure if you're a citizen of this country or not)... by lethal injection or by electricution... anymore for capital offenses. But in the few cases there are, witnesses are not guilty of anything, and such is the case with John Calvin in the Servetus case.

Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, suffered a horrible fate. He was Calvin's longtime acquaintance who resisted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.


However, he angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins.


So what did Calvin do? You can read his resolution from a personal letter he wrote to a friend:


“Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546


The next time Servetus attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on a visit, Calvin had him arrested and charged with heresy. The 38 official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. The city magistrates condemned him to death.


Calvin requested that Servetus be beheaded, instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but to no avail, and ultimately he supported killing Servetus and all such heretics.


On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward.


For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:


“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin


How could such torture be condoned? In November 1552 the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against."


Disagreeing with Calvin’s view of God was a violation warranting the death penalty according to the way John Calvin interpreted Leviticus 24:16.


The Geneva city council records describe one verdict where a man who publicly protested against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the city’s main intersections and then expelled (“The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59,” translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy).


You did not get to disagree with Calvin in this town.


John Calvin argued:

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”

 

[PinSeeker]

Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, suffered a horrible fate. He was Calvin's longtime acquaintance who resisted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.


However, he angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins.


So what did Calvin do? You can read his resolution from a personal letter he wrote to a friend:


“Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546


The next time Servetus attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on a visit, Calvin had him arrested and charged with heresy. The 38 official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. The city magistrates condemned him to death.


Calvin requested that Servetus be beheaded, instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but to no avail, and ultimately he supported killing Servetus and all such heretics.


On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward.


For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:


“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin


How could such torture be condoned? In November 1552 the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against."


Disagreeing with Calvin’s view of God was a violation warranting the death penalty according to the way John Calvin interpreted Leviticus 24:16.


The Geneva city council records describe one verdict where a man who publicly protested against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the city’s main intersections and then expelled (“The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59,” translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy).


You did not get to disagree with Calvin in this town.


John Calvin argued:

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”

Hard times, weren't they, Anchorite? Again, none of it invalidates or nullifies the work John Calvin did for and great contributions John Calvin made to the church. The same is true of Martin Luther, who said some awful things near the end of his 62 years. They were sinners, as are we all.

As I said, anyone who vilifies and condemns John Calvin for the awful things he did has to do the same to the Apostle Paul, who, as we read in Acts 8, prior to his conversion in Acts 9, even by his own admission, actually did far worse things than Calvin ~ brutalizing and killing... murdering... many Christians for no reason other than the fact they were not Pharisees. But yet... thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament ~ maybe fourteen; the author of Hebrews may have been Paul, but I don't think so. And considering what Jesus says murder really is, you yourself are guilty.

At any rate, both Luther and Calvin wrote many great commentaries and other works, and their work is very similar to Augustine's over a thousand years earlier. The Institutes ~ and I'm looking at them on my bookshelf now ~ is Calvin's magnum opus. You should read them; everyone should.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Anchorite]

Hard times, weren't they, Anchorite? Again, none of it invalidates or nullifies the work John Calvin did for and great contributions John Calvin made to the church. The same is true of Martin Luther, who said some awful things near the end of his 62 years. They were sinners, as are we all.

As I said, anyone who vilifies and condemns John Calvin for the awful things he did has to do the same to the Apostle Paul, who, as we read in Acts 8, prior to his conversion in Acts 9, even by his own admission, actually did far worse things than Calvin ~ brutalizing and killing... murdering... many Christians for no reason other than the fact they were not Pharisees. But yet... thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament ~ maybe fourteen; the author of Hebrews may have been Paul, but I don't think so. And considering what Jesus says murder really is, you yourself are guilty.

At any rate, both Luther and Calvin wrote many great commentaries and other works, and their work is very similar to Augustine's over a thousand years earlier. The Institutes ~ and I'm looking at them on my bookshelf now ~ is Calvin's magnum opus. You should read them; everyone should.

You are entranced by the ridiculous theology of a bitter, heretical, murderous person, John Calvin.

Calvin contributed nothing to the church but a fiendish distortion of the gospel.

I am not guilty of murder, for I do not hate anyone. I simply rebuke false theology and warn others to not be deceived.

You persist in equating John Calvin with the Apostle Paul, but they were very different individuals. Paul repented and stopped having Christians executed.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are entranced by the ridiculous theology of a bitter, heretical, murderous person, John Calvin.

<eye roll>

Calvin contributed nothing to the church but a fiendish distortion of the gospel.

That's about as stupid a statement as denying the nose on your face.

I am not guilty of murder...

You are.

for I do not hate anyone.

You have a very, very low definition of 'hate.' You do, and you are doing so here, on a brother in Christ who is long deceased and on a brother in Christ you are speaking to now (me).

I simply rebuke false theology and warn others to not be deceived.

Me, too. Tell me what you think Calvin... or I... hold to theologically that you think is false. Maybe that would be the better, more profitable conversation to have here, since this is the Christian Theology Forum.

You persist in equating John Calvin with the Apostle Paul...

Only in the sense that they were both men and both sinners, and in that sense I would equate us all. And Paul would agree... read Romans 7 sometime. <smile>

...they were very different individuals.

LOL. Yes. Yes they were. Goodness gracious. But both sinful men.

Paul repented and stopped having Christians executed.

Servetus was the only person whose execution Calvin had any connection with. We have no record of either Paul or Calvin ever repenting or not repenting... they were both ~ obviously ~ penitent Christians.

Dude. You obviously have anger issues and are very... prideful and self-absorbed. Maybe you need to repent of those things... Even so, though, grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[stevesonthebay]

I say there is no free will is to say there is no 'true self' in the world. Or in reality or as experienced. That its all in the imagination and nothing of substance. A by product of electrical impulses and chemical reactions.

Best best evidence for free will is our own experience of it. We know that we know that people say its all in the imagination. But still we live like its real. So we still have the faith to believe in free will despite all the nay sayers and logical math heads that calculate it is impossible.

Its a bit like moral realism. People claim there are no moral truth while reacting like there are moral truths. Its ok for people to steal if they believe its ok. But as soon as they are robbed they demand justice.

 

[PinSeeker]

I say there is no free will is to say there is no 'true self' in the world. Or in reality or as experienced. That its all in the imagination and nothing of substance. A by product of electrical impulses and chemical reactions.

Best best evidence for free will is our own experience of it. We know that we know that people say its all in the imagination. But still we live like its real. So we still have the faith to believe in free will despite all the nay sayers and logical math heads that calculate it is impossible.

Interesting. I say ~ as a five-point Calvinist, and I think if John Calvin were part of this conversation he would agree ~ that, humanly speaking, to say there is no free will is absolutely equivalent to saying man has no brain and cannot think, and thus cannot evaluate anything at all or make any decisions at all, among other things. Which I hope we would all agree is just an absurd thought.

Its a bit like moral realism. People claim there are no moral truth while reacting like there are moral truths. Its ok for people to steal if they believe its ok. But as soon as they are robbed they demand justice.

Hmmm... this sounds like, for these people you are referring to here, relativism... and hypocrisy to me... <smile>

But what I would say is this (which I have said before): There is a certain sense in which we do not have free will... that our will, while in and of ourselves is free, is always, at any point in time, to do either the devil's will (before we are born again of the Spirit) or God's will (after we are born again of the Spirit). If anyone disagrees, that's okay, but this is what Jesus Himself said in John 6, 8, and 10, particularly in John 8:44-47...

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."​

And again, the real issue is not the will at all, but the state of the heart, the spirit within the person that is either dead in sin and of the devil or born again of the Spirit and thus of God. The spirit in the person and who (or Who) it is of is what always drives the will of the person. If the spirit is dead in sin, the person will never choose to do God's will. But for the born-again Christian, he or she is alive spiritually, and thus of God ~ God is his or her Father ~ and thus always, very freely, choosing to do God's will (although failing from time to time, unfortunately, because in this life we are not yet sinless). As Christians, we are being conformed to the image of Christ, Who always did the Father's will, just as he said in John 6:38... "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent me."

So... <smile> ...our will is changed, not because somebody "changed it for us"... we change our own minds... <chuckles> ...but, as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 1:3-5, "God ... (a)ccording to His great mercy... has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for (us), who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Or, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-8, "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ⁠ ~ by grace you have been saved⁠ ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..."

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Hard times, weren't they, Anchorite? Again, none of it invalidates or nullifies the work John Calvin did for and great contributions John Calvin made to the church.

Teaching things Jesus and His Apostles did not teach is making great DEMONIC deceptions to the church to deceive many which is why the tares and the forces of darkness speak so highly of Calvin.

That's about as stupid a statement as denying the nose on your face.

We can always tell who the tares are. They follow Calvin and/or Luther rather than the Lord Jesus

Paul repented and stopped having Christians executed.

Yes, and those were things Paul did BEFORE he had gotten born again.

Calvin not only did his murderous deeds after having claimed to gotten born again, but he claimed God led him to be carnal minded and serve satan.

You are.

And yet you have no proof but plenty of conjecture.

You have a very, very low definition of 'hate.' You do, and you are doing so here, on a brother in Christ who is long deceased and on a brother in Christ you are speaking to now (me).

Calvin was a tare, NOT a brother in Christ.

We have no record of either Paul or Calvin ever repenting or not repenting...

Of course those ignorant of the New Testament thinks Paul never repented...

Only in the sense that they were both men and both sinners, and in that sense I would equate us all. And Paul would agree... read Romans 7 sometime. <smile>

Fatal error of the so called reformed people - they continually identify with being sinners as they are incapable of understanding they the answer to Romans 7 man is to keep reading over in to Romans 8

Reformed people are carnal minded (which is death) so they cannot see Romans 8 being in bondage to the flesh as they cannot understand the Gospel.

But both sinful men.

You claim Paul lived in sin?

If he did then he's burning in hell right now with your boy Calvin.

No, Paul learned how to not live in sin because he awoke unto righteousness and ceased from sin.

1 Corinthians 15:34
Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil

Since you claim to be a sinner, do you let people know that you are of the devil and the Lord said thru the Apostle John? You let everyone know you sin daily in thought, word and deed?

I'll bet parents refrain from allowing their children to be around you!

Dude. You obviously have anger issues and are very... prideful and self-absorbed. Maybe you need to repent of those things... Even so, though, grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Another feeble attempt to gas light someone who is exposing the false doctrines of the so called reformers.

 

[PinSeeker]

Teaching things Jesus and His Apostles did not teach is making great DEMONIC deceptions to the church to deceive many which is why the tares and the forces of darkness speak so highly of Calvin....We can always tell who the tares are...

In your... humble opinion.

...those were things Paul did BEFORE he had gotten born again.

Even Paul, though ~ after he was born again... said... well, quoting... "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me" (Romans 7). The same is true of John Calvin, and Martin Luther, and you and me. So, you're making a distinction where there really is no difference.

....he claimed God led him to be carnal minded and serve satan.

He certainly did not. He... "claimed" that what happened was the will of God. That has nothing to do with whether what happened was done sinfully or not. God governs all the affairs of men, and nothing happens apart from His will, which means He either does things or allows things to happen, and... as Paul says in Romans 8:28, works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. In the case of sinful actions of men, the way we can succinctly put it is, He uses sin sinlessly.

And yet you have no proof but plenty of conjecture.

I feel the anger in you. <smile> That's all the proof needed.

Calvin was a tare, NOT a brother in Christ.

Again, in your... humble opinion. <smile>

Of course those ignorant of the New Testament thinks Paul never repented...

Right, I agree, and by the same token, since Calvin wrote so, so much about repentance and its absolute necessity, only the ignorant think he never repented.

Fatal error of the so called reformed people - they continually identify with being sinners...

Because they are... we are; just as John said, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." Please note, John was an Apostle... <smile> Do you think you are sinless, Dan? Surely not... And you know, the Apostle Paul called himself the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Do you think yourself better in God's eyes than Paul, Dan? Surely not...

as they are incapable of understanding they the answer to Romans 7 man is to keep reading over in to Romans 8

Right, no more condemnation for sin for those in Christ Jesus, and nothing can separate us from God's love in Jesus Christ despite our sins ~ which means we still in this life sin, because we are not yet completely like Christ. One day we will be, but for now, we strive against sin, which Paul and the other New Testament writers exhort us to over and over again. There are still consequences for sin, but no more condemnation. Yeah, man, read over into Romans 8, but don't disregard or discard Romans 7... anymore... <smile>

Reformed people are carnal minded (which is death) so they cannot see Romans 8 being in bondage to the flesh as they cannot understand the Gospel.

<eye roll>

You claim Paul lived in sin?

No, of course not. But it is impossible for us, in this life ~ and the same was true for Paul ~ to be sinless. Goodness gracious. So, we continually repent, confess, and ask God for forgiveness, and He is then faithful and just to forgive. See above.

If he did then he's burning in hell right now with your boy Calvin.

<eye roll>

Paul ... ceased from sin.

In a sense ~ "it is no longer I who do it but the sin that dwells within me... I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." (Romans 7:18, 25) ~ yes, but in another sense ~ "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Timothy 1:15) ~ he did not.

Since you claim to be a sinner...

Since I am a sinner ~ we sin, and therefore we are sinners ~ I continually repent and ask God for forgiveness, and rest in the surety of Jesus, knowing that God is faithful and just to forgive.

By the same token though, since I do not dwell in my sin but have died to sin and live to God, I rest in the surety of Jesus, knowing my eternal destiny in Christ.

And I hope the same is true of you.

You let everyone know you sin daily in thought, word and deed?

Yes. And God, Who knows my sin even before I do, so I acknowledge and confess it, and ask His forgiveness. And in His kindness leads me, by His Spirit, to repentance, and is faithful and just to forgive. Because I am His.

I'll bet parents refrain from allowing their children to be around you!

<eye roll> Don't go to Vegas, man, you'll lose all your money! LOL!

Another feeble attempt to gas light someone who is exposing the false doctrines of the so called reformers. View attachment 87107

<eye roll>

Cheers, Danny Boy. LOL!

Grace and peace to you