Calvin vs Charlie

I noticed you didn't actually refute the article but resorted to ad hominem. Telling.

 

Actually, you only said the church. You never said the church fathers. Not that the church fathers are the final authority anyway.

 

More ad hominem. You also still haven't proven claims about Calvin. Twisting history is more like it. That being said, Calvinists could write Calvin out of the equation completely and still have the doctrines of grace because they are in Scripture.

 

DID JOHN CALVIN MURDER MICHAEL SERVETUS?

Many blame John Calvin (1509–1564) for the execution of the famed heretic Michael Servetus (d. 1553). Often this ad hominem attack is meant to dismantle some of the more controversial claims of Reformed theology. But what really happened between Calvin and Servetus?
For two decades Calvin and Servetus debated several Christian doctrines, particularly the Trinity, which Servetus denied. Servetus’ views caught more than just Calvin’s attention. The Catholic Inquisition convicted Servetus of heresy and condemned him to die by execution. (During the early modern era, heresy was considered a soul disease that threatened the whole community unless it was eliminated.) Living as a fugitive, Servetus wrote to Calvin that he was coming to Geneva. Despite Calvin’s protest that these unwise travel plans could likely result in Servetus’ execution, Servetus came to Geneva. The civil authorities arrested him (it’s unclear who informed them). Servetus was tried, found guilty, and executed. Calvin only served as a witness to the content of Servetus’ doctrine. After trying to dissuade Servetus from his error, Calvin pleaded—unsuccessfully—for mercy, that Servetus would be executed by sword rather than by fire. Servetus’ fate would have been no different in any other city.


Dayton Hartman, Church History for Modern Ministry: Why Our Past Matters for Everything We Do (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 68.

 

Boy, I read where a man got a married woman pregnant once. Tried to cover it up by trying to get him to sleep with his wife and when that didn’t work, got him smashed and tried to coax him into laying with his wife and when that didn’t work, he had him taken to where the battle was hottest and ordered the men to hang him out to dry like laundry.

There’s no way a man that wicked can be saved. No. Way. Oh wait...

 

When we say Calvinism, we are really referencing TULIP or particular election

 

He repented, Did Calvin ?

 

No, that is part of the doctrines of grace. When we say Calvinism we are referring to:

Radical Depravity
Sovereign Election
Definite Atonement
Irresistible Call
Preserving Grace

All five stand on each other, not alone.

 

For the last time, Calvin did not kill anyone. You have yet to show one shred of evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm not sure who the "we" is you are referring to other than a Steven Lawson rename scheme, but come on, TULIP is the standard for Calvinism. Such semantics of renaming an acronym are merely blowing smoke, the principles are the same - and they all must necessarily logically hinge on Strict Determinism.

IOWs, many Calvinist prefer to dodge these associations ("Calvin the Tyrant" etc.) and call their doctrines "The Doctrines of Grace" rather than being associated with Calvin ("the baby baptizer") but if you guys wanted to be up front with the roots of your Determinist doctrines you'd call it the "The Doctrines of Deterministic Grace" for you get no monopoly on the term "doctrines of grace" with such claims. AS an Non-Calvinist I preach a much broader and inclusive view of God's grace!

And all 5 points, however you name them, also fall together into Theological Fatalism due to their reliance on Determinism.

 

Steven Lawson actually. And what I was referring to is the fact that they said particular election as if that was being isolated out of TULIP.

Yes,

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

All of these are explicitly found in Scripture.

I don't dodge "Calvin the Tyrant" (which is historically inaccurate by the way), I just don't like ascribing any doctrine that is biblical to a man.

A broader inclusive view of God's grace? As opposed to what? What makes one belief more inclusive than the other biblically? Explain yourself.

 

Yes, the historically most proper (and quite fitting) term for those of you who follow the Five Points scheme from the Synod of Dort is not Calvinist but Gomarist:

Dictionary of Religion, p. 476:

"Gomarists or Anti-Remonstrants. —The opponents of the Arminians. They take their name from their leader, Francis Gomar, who was born at Bruges in 1563. He commenced his studies at Strasburg and Heidelberg, and in 1582 came to England, and went first to Oxford and then to Cambridge, where he took his B. D. in 1581. In 1594 he was elected Professor of Divinity at Leyden, and he is chiefly known for his violent opposition to the doctrines of his colleague Arminius. He was present at the Synod of Dort, in 1618, and was the main instrument in getting the Arminians expelled from the Reformed Church."

 

No, the most proper term is biblical doctrine.

 

Calvinists (Gomarist ) can not preach a genuine hope of salvation to all being they believe it is only for the lucky specially pre-selected few. They are less than transparent about this when they preach the Gospel, but nevertheless... When I preach the Gospel it is a genuine offer of hope to ALL, therefore my biblical doctrine of God's grace is more inclusive.