Calvin vs Charlie

Esau I hated and Jacob I loved....hmm....

 

So two problems.

1. Works based Salvation
2. You make God unjust with this argument.

 

who is out of context ? Read the chapter

God's plan for a nation to bring the Messiah does not mean all others were not considered. God favored all Israel and the fact Esau was not appeared to be favored shows God's undue love for Jacob and us in the Messiah.
God did not create Esau just to send him to hell. You insult God.

 

And where did I say that He did? You are putting words in my mouth.

 

nope, been there before,
We do not work with our minds to believe but our hearts, body is not involved.
God gave us the faith to use or not. Faith is of the heart, soul not body

 

That is still a work though. And how do you get around Total Depravity? Romans tells us that nobody in their natural state seeks after God.

 

it is the unspoken part of election, The non elect had no choice so God made them just to send them to Hell, The elect and therefore there is non elect who do not have a choice but end up in hell.

capeche?

 

explain natural state verses lost sinner

 

All sin. That damns all of us to Hell. God, out of his grace, selects some to save for His glory. He doesn't have to save any of us but he has mercy on some. So no, God did not create them to send them to Hell. Their sin sends them to Hell.

 

Lost sinner is the natural state.

 

I think you have misinterpreted Romans 3 Paul was quoting a fool the same fool who said there is no god.
Paul was proving that all are under sin.Not that they couldn't seek God A fool in the Bible is a sinner who isn't saved and Romans 3 10-18 is what the fool says in His heart.
Paul is quoting David in Psalm 14
Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
Psa 14:5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
Psa 14:7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
This is what the fool says when he rejects the testimony of a believer.
MB

 

Did God create the non elect just to send them to hell?

 

I believe I have already addressed this in the very post you quoted. Does this mean you have no rebuttal?

 

#3. was a Bible verse from Matthew. You're saying that your sources "directly contradict" Matthew?

You've quoted one webpage from a Calvinist sycophant with no sourcing who doesn't even mention most of this.

What does your source say about what Calvin did when the plague hit Geneva?

Defending Calvin is a losing cause.

 

I have already made clear I was not referring to Scripture. I have listed multiple sources. Now you want to change the topic to the plague. We have also made clear that the doctrine doesn't rise or fall on Calvin in any way. Even if it did, we have also asked about Paul who murdered Christians yet wrote half of the New Testament.

Your points simply do not hold water and are irrelevant.

 

And you don't understand it well enough to explain it? I guess we'll leave it as one of life's mysteries.

 

Irresistible grace means that once the Holy Spirit calls one of the elect, that person will come to saving faith. Christ will not lose any that have been given to him by the Father.

 

No, you didn't. People can go back and look. But I'm glad you weren't referring to scripture. (That is why I put a question mark.)

Two are on Calvin's theology. Only one is on history and, yes, it is written by a Calvinist sycophant.

The topic is still Calvin's life. How he responded to the pain and suffering of other's does matter and does point to how he responded in Servetus' and other's cases.

I asked about that because you have not and will probably refuse to read a full history of how Calvin behaved. You are refusing to read a full accounting of Calvin. You only want to peruse the few websites and possibly books which falsely exonerate Calvin.

Does it really not matter that Calvin had no faith in God?

Then say, "So what is Calvin was a bad person?! It doesn't matter. The doctrine does not react on him."

Why do you insist on defending the guy if the doctrine doesn't rely on him?

Paul repented. Of course, this was brought up before and you don't seem to realize the importance. David repented. Paul repented. Peter repented.

Calvin, to his death, not only didn't repent, he ascribed his actions as God's will.

I will admit that they are likely being ignored by you. But I obviously wouldn't be writing this if I thought that it was irrelevant.

 

Faith comes by hearing the gospel and believing. We all have faith but not all have faith in God.

God chose to save the whole world. It's man that rejects Christ and isn't saved because of his rebellion

Not sure I understand you hear. I believe the reason for creation is simply LOVE.
MB

 

Many people were banished, and hence, left alive. Most who disagreed with Calvin were banished and not killed. Your example is invalid. I do not want to mischaracterize John Calvin. He was no more murderous than Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, or Queen Elizabeth. (In fact, he was likely less murderous than those three - even when taking into account differences in population and time "in power") Comparing him to Charlie is a very poor and overly inflammatory example. The environment created actually prevents an actual situation where people can properly discuss the matter without the flaring of emotions.

Calvin's "rule" was as complicated as his Institutes. It is a subject that has to be read to fully understand because he didn't rule like other kings would. He was more of a puppet master. If you don't thoroughly read this complicated case, you will come out with one of two opinions.

1. John Calvin is Charlie.
2. John Calvin is completely innocent.

Neither is true and a more thorough study will show that the true John Calvin is somewhere in between. He definitely did not try to imitate Christ.