• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

People that attack Calvinism

evangelist6589

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Someone on FB posted this CRUDE article.

http://safeguardyoursoul.com/the-idiocy-of-calvinism/

I disagree with this page and its attack on Calvinism by crude language and sweeping judgments. Is this author a militant KJVO? Calvinism has issues in its Eschatology and the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. Other than that I have no major objections that I can think of. I do agree with Lordship, I do agree with presuppositional evangelism, and not methods/pragmatism based evangelism often common in non Calvinism churches, etc.. Calvinism is correct on most issues so I find it Biblical for the most part.
 
C

convicted1

Guest
I found this excerpt very troubling:

***Deformed Theology Dupes: Calvin idolaters will be crying out on their deathbed “oh John, please save me! help John, help!” Their cries will go unanswered because John Calvin is not only a mere sinful man, he died an unrepentant murderer of more than 60 people and as a false teacher, a heretic.

You could attack Jesus Christ Himself and they wouldn’t dare think of defending the Son of God the way they run ever so swiftly to defend their beloved evil and murderous master, a dead heretic, John Calvin. Astounding! Delusional! Idolatrous! Adulterous! Hell bound!



Read more: The Absurd Falsehoods of Calvinism http://safeguardyoursoul.com/the-idiocy-of-calvinism/#ixzz237XIvytA
Click to expand...


Although I disagree with reformed theology, I would never go this far and say that they will be calling out to a man to save them. Neither would I even entertain the thought that they would defend Calvin more fervently than they would Jesus. This person needs to get out of their wet diaper, and put their underwear and "big boy" pants on.
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
convicted1 said:
I found this excerpt very troubling:




Although I disagree with reformed theology, I would never go this far and say that they will be calling out to a man to save them. Neither would I even entertain the thought that they would defend Calvin more fervently than they would Jesus. This person needs to get out of their wet diaper, and put their underwear and "big boy" pants on.
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

This is a good example of the variability from the norm of the population. Every issue, position and group has this. This author of this article may in fact be MORE than 3 Standard deviations from the norm of his sample population.
 
C

convicted1

Guest
quantumfaith said:
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

This is a good example of the variability from the norm of the population. Every issue, position and group has this. This author of this article may in fact be MORE than 3 Standard deviations from the norm of his sample population.
Click to expand...



So, you're saying that this person needs to be recalibrated? The lab tech coming out of me....:D
 
preachinjesus

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Often the loudest rhetoric in opposition to an idea comes from people who don't understand the idea. That much is clear from the link.
 
S

saturneptune

New Member
Mexdeaf said:
I think you meant to say they need to be 'recalvinated'.:laugh:
Click to expand...
I agree with Calvin on doctrines of grace and sovereignty. However, I find the man Calvin to be disguisting and not worthy of a holy doctrine named after him. Besides being a murderer, he was a brutal dictator of a city-state theocracy. In his writings, he talks about seperation of church and state, yet he ruled in a position where both are one in the same. Calvin believed in infant Baptism. I could go on and on. Surfice to say, we need to rename the doctrine.

I think everyone on this thread is correct, regardless of your position, this article goes way beyond the founds of decency. That is the mindset that causes heretic to be tossed around here like a football.
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
saturneptune said:
I agree with Calvin on doctrines of grace and sovereignty. However, I find the man Calvin to be disguisting and not worthy of a holy doctrine named after him. Besides being a murderer, he was a brutal dictator of a city-state theocracy. In his writings, he talks about seperation of church and state, yet he ruled in a position where both are one in the same. Calvin believed in infant Baptism. I could go on and on. Surfice to say, we need to rename the doctrine.

I think everyone on this thread is correct, regardless of your position, this article goes way beyond the founds of decency. That is the mindset that causes heretic to be tossed around here like a football.
Click to expand...

I have been on this forum since 2004. I have suggested on numerous occasions that those Biblical Doctrines called Calvinism should be renamed, in part because of the reasons you name S/N. However, I have also noted that the word Calvinism is used as a pejorative to many on this Forum. The term "Doctrines of Grace" have been used by myself and others but Arminians will assert they believe in the Doctrines of Grace. In my opinion an acceptable alternative might be Sovereign Grace, for certainly Salvation is only by the Sovereign Grace of God, regardless of one's opinion!

Just still shuffling along!
 
S

saturneptune

New Member
OldRegular said:
I have been on this forum since 2004. I have suggested on numerous occasions that those Biblical Doctrines called Calvinism should be renamed, in part because of the reasons you name S/N. However, I have also noted that the word Calvinism is used as a pejorative to many on this Forum. The term "Doctrines of Grace" have been used by myself and others but Arminians will assert they believe in the Doctrines of Grace. In my opinion an acceptable alternative might be Sovereign Grace, for certainly Salvation is only by the Sovereign Grace of God, regardless of one's opinion!

Just still shuffling along!
Click to expand...
One of the best suggestions I have heard. I do not know if many have bothered to study the life of Calvin, or how many have actually read his material, but I have always wondered if the life style he lead adds to the dislike of the doctrine.
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
saturneptune said:
One of the best suggestions I have heard. I do not know if many have bothered to study the life of Calvin, or how many have actually read his material, but I have always wondered if the life style he lead adds to the dislike of the doctrine.
Click to expand...

your going to have to elaborate.....what do you mean by the lifestyle he (Calvin) led?
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
saturneptune said:
One of the best suggestions I have heard. I do not know if many have bothered to study the life of Calvin, or how many have actually read his material, but I have always wondered if the life style he lead adds to the dislike of the doctrine.
Click to expand...

I prefer the term, "Doctrines of Grace" ....now I have individual pieces of doctrine I can examine & see how they all fit....kinda like an erector set..... now do I like it being referred to as DOG..... nope, I dont like that any more than I like the old acrostic TULIP, that needs to be modernized & corrected to properly communicate what is rightly to be conveyed.
 
T

TCGreek

New Member
In all this, please don't forget the origin of the TULIP was really a response to the followers of J. Arminius.
 
S

saturneptune

New Member
Earth said:
your going to have to elaborate.....what do you mean by the lifestyle he (Calvin) led?
Click to expand...

There are many people who lead a life worthy of a doctrine being named after them. Calvin was basically a power hungry thug. He murdered, ruled a theocracy like a barbarian, and supported infant baptism and other traditions including creeds that can be traced back to the RCC.


Murder of Michael Serevetus

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm


Abuse of power

http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/execution-of-child-and-adulterers-in.html

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.8.HTML

What makes this so disguisting is that many of Calvins writings talk about seperation of church and state. The lure of power evidentally was stronger than his beliefs, especially in light of how he ran Geneva, a theocracy.

On infant baptism

http://pastordougroman.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/john-calvin-was-wrong-on-infant-baptism/

Creeds and RCC connections

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/calvin.pdf

While Calvin is correct of God's sovereignty and grace, known as TULIP, the doctrine needs a name of someone or idea that is worthy to carry the banner, not a power hungry thug.
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
S

saturneptune

New Member
Historical facts are facts. We do not have people burned at the stake because they differ theologically in this nation, and such a belief has no place within the norms of human decency. We are all sinners, but just do not recall being involved in murder for such a ridiculous reason. I am not one to judge someone's state of salvation, but neither am I about to defend barbarians and a total disregard for human life. This has nothing to do with a belief in Calvinism, it has to do with admiring a self centered, power hungry thug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top