Calvin vs Charlie

They do not accept the pardon of Christ,

your standard way of teaching this is of no use with me.

Mat 7:13

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

you do not know who you ate or why you are here to ask these questions

 

Christ didn't pardon anyone. He made a payment. He paid the penalty. Those are two totally different concepts. So I ask again, if Christ paid the price for every sin, why do some people go to Hell?

This verse does nothing to add to the conversation. Of course, you are also focusing on limited atonement outside the other doctrines that stand with it.

Total or Radical Depravity
Sovereign Election
Definite Atonement
Irresistible Call
Preserving Grace

 

You are, or at least trying to...

FYI, I wouldn't dispute that Calvin was a tyrant but that's not the point, the point is simple logic determines that your premise does not support your argument as having a true conclusion. You clearly offered a classic example of a blatantly fallacious attempt to begin an argument by "poisoning the well" with an AD Hominem. It doesn't matter what side of the issue I'm on, I see right through such fallacies and don't consider them worth the data space you used up to present it.

If you don't understand why your argument is fallacious then I suggest if you truly interested in logically drawing out the truth in your arguments that you check it out.

A quick comparison would be to consider how much Paul persecuted Christians, yet he wrote much of our Bible. Are you going to tell me they should have prejudged his doctrines by prior fruits. No, it is the content that matters, by the very logic you've used here Paul should have been automatically written off. - see why the fallacy?

 

Michael Servitus was far from a "good friend" of John Calvin. John Calvin hated Servitus almost from the beginning. I've seen no record of Calvin ever saying something nice about Servitus.

 

Quite the opposite really. And despite what @Ran the Man tries to claim, Calvin did not kill, or even sentence, Servetus to death.

The Servetus Problem - Tim Challies

 

On that note: Religion, politics and the law were tightly woven in those days and to suggest that the religious leader (Calvin) had perfectly clean hands and absolutely no responsibility in the murder seems like merely wishful thinking to me.

 

He gives us free will to make choices even though the pardon is offered, We are condemned already.

 

Where do we see that it is a pardon for our sin? Pardon means forgiven without penalty. But that isn't what happens with salvation.

 

Did you read the article I linked to?

 

In 5 years as magistrate of the Geneva “church-city-state,” Calvin oversaw 58 death sentences and the exile of 76 people. He wasn't the sole decision-maker in those cases, but personal correspondence and city council records betray his extraordinary influence. When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.


sounds like responsible

 

Forensic Justification by Francis Turretin

 

In a "I pushed my wife off a cliff but I didn't kill her. Gravity did!" kind of way.

Calvin went out of his way to out Servitus to the Catholic Inquisition. He had hoped the Catholics would kill him for him. There is a full book on the subject if you don't just read the top search result for google.

https://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Murde...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1439208689

I'm sorry, but insulting Calvin in Geneva resulted in death orbanishment. This idiocy of "Calvin was a poor persecuted soul in Geneva with no power whatsoever." is nothing but excrement.

As I said before this doesn't really do anything to take down TULIP or Arminianism. As best, it undermines their appeal to an historical basis.

 

First, that is a load of nonsense and against history.

Second, TULIP doesn't rely on Calvin so not even sure why we care at this point.

 

My history books say your webpage is wrong. I don't think we are going to agree on this.

That's what I basically said.

 

Do you really think that one link is the only source I have for that?

 

Calvin is used as a abbreviation of symbol of TULIP principally election.

 

Huh? What are you talking about?