A Tale of Two Faiths

[DHK]

Protestant wrote:

Can the unbiased reader discern the many implications of his answer?

1. It was what he did that made the difference.

We, on the other hand, understand that we believe only because of what God did.

We praise God for giving us faithless sinners the undeserved gift of faith; while DHK believes he was born a sinner with latent faith who needed no faith gift from God.

He merely needed to somehow, by his own power and ingenuity, cause his innate faith to flow forth like a waterfall from a rock.

The Bible commands one to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. See Acts 16:30,31. Without faith there is no salvation.
Salvation is not some mystical, mysterious, metaphysical nonsense as described by Protestant. Salvation is the gift of God, the work of Christ on the cross, offered to the unregenerate as a gift. It must be received by faith.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--One becomes a child of God by believing on his name.

Protestant offers philosophy, philosophy that primarily comes from Calvin, but some of his own imagination as well.
In contrast, I will offer Scripture. Why do some believe and some do not?
Take a look at history:

In Thessalonica:
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
--Paul preached for three Sabbath days. Note that in the matter of salvation the gospel comes first, not regeneration, but the Word. Then what happens?

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
--Some believe and others do not. Some put their faith in Christ, and others rebel against the gospel, even to the very extent that they attack the messengers and set one of their houses on fire.
Someone once said that the gospel will either make you mad or glad.
It is your choice whether to believe or not. God forces no one.

In Iconium:
Acts 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.
--Some believed and some didn't.

Throughout the missionary journeys of Paul, as he preached the gospel, some believed and others didn't. On the Day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved out of approximately 100,000. Why did 97,000 remain unsaved? They rejected their Messiah. See John 1:11.

The statement of Protestant:
It was what he did that made the difference.
--is nothing but a personal attack, something he does when he can't answer scripture. Pitiful.

Would that he could share with the world how he accomplished such a godly miracle.

Ungodly slurs and attacks; putting words in my mouth; lies, etc.

Salvation is all of God. I have always maintained that. Why, then, do you post such nonsense?

Perhaps more latent faith-filled sinners would be saved by such knowledge.

Jesus talked about having "faith as a little child."
He said to many "thy faith has made you whole."
What faith was he speaking of? He was speaking of the faith that is innate in every person.
But Protestant if you decide not to exercise your faith you will remain lost in your sins, as will every person that does NOT BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God. Salvation is by faith.

2. DHK discounts as irrelevant the innumerable Scriptures depicting the helpless and hopeless condition of the unregenerate.

Did I say that? Quote me.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Good scripture. I believe it too.

But DHK had hope. His innate faith was his hope.

No, not faith per se. Faith in Christ. Faith must have an object.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," is the promise.
If you believe on Christ as Lord, and in his saving work, you shall be saved.
The object of your faith must be Christ.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

But DHK was not helpless. His innate faith was his help.

Protestant I think you put your faith in yourself.
I put faith in Christ.
Faith has an object. Every man has faith. Where is your faith: self, money, cars, sports, family, etc. What is the object of your faith?

3. Though Jesus and the Apostles compare our spiritually dead condition to that of the bodily dead, DHK knows better.

You make an assumption that is not necessarily true. It sounds like you don't know your Bible very well.

It simply means ‘separation.’ Not a great separation, for the faith he was born with was sufficient to bridge the gap.

Only Christ can bridge the gap. He provides the salvation. Salvation is a gift. But the gift must be received, received by faith. Salvation, nevertheless is all of God.

In his theological system the separation between filthy sinner and holy God is easily bridged by the sinner’s natural born faith.

That is not true.

He is living proof.

More ignorance and personal attacks.

4. Though Jesus and the Apostles compare the sinner’s helpless and hopeless condition to that of a man born blind, unable to see the Sun of Righteousness, DHK’s infirmity was as debilitating as one wearing sunglasses at night.

You have an overactive imagination and are unable to use the Word of God.
Therefore you have nothing in your arsenal but to hurl insults. You know no other method of debate.
Let me demonstrate.
When Benjamin tried to teach you some of these same truths (God is a God of love, loves all, etc.)

To believe and teach that the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God failed to create His create His creatures with the human freedoms in Love by which He judges them in Truth and that He is not powerful enough to maintain these truths of His Nature and all His Just Ways is to teach a false god.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2012089&postcount=9

Your reply to Benjamin was:

After reading several of your posts it is obvious you are an intelligent, zealous man who sincerely believes in the god you worship.

You must feel pretty proud that you made good use of your free will while your neighbors, co-workers and unsaved family members did not.

To Benjamin be the glory!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2012495&postcount=16
--You haven't changed one iota in two years of posting.

The list of impenetrable impediments which work against sinners coming to saving faith in Christ is almost inexhaustible.

Needless to say, Pelagian, Arminian, non-Cal, and Synergist faith is quite different from ours.

Despite the sincere claims by DHK that 'all men have faith', the Bible tells us ‘not all have faith.’ (2 Thess. 2:3)

We prefer being gifted with ‘the faith of the Elect.’ (Titus 1:1)

For that is the faith that saves.

God's love is boundless, impenetrable.
Needless to say the monergist faith is quite different from the Bible and follows a former Catholic priest called Calvin who followed Augustine. Both were persecutors of Christians.
Despite the claims of Protestant, God loves all the world, all the people in the world, and would never refuse any that would come to him.
Whosoever will may come.

 

[DHK]

Of course he loved them before they did anything; He loved all his creation. He created all things in six days and declared that everything was very good. That included Adam and Eve even though he knew they would sin. He loved every individual that would come from their loins. There is no one that God did not love.

the historical facts of the gospel are in 1 cor 15...the part you ignore and do not understand in reality is...the part where it says
'according to the scriptures"...it is now obvious that you are yet without understanding

According to the scriptures one must believe the gospel in order to be saved. It says in that passage: "the gospel..by the which you are saved."
There is no salvation outside of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and faith in Christ.

of course not:laugh::laugh:
30 Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

Seriously? Is this the extent of your knowledge of Calvinism?
The doctrine of reprobation is not found in the Bible. Neither is Calvin's doctrine of election for that matter. I have given you the definition of both. Your verses don't match up to either one. Simply because the word "reprobate" is used in a verse doesn't mean it supports Calvin's teaching of reprobation. It doesn't even come close.

 

[Rippon]

Salvation is not some mystical, mysterious, metaphysical nonsense as described by Protestant.

Why do you resort to lies when you can't defend your cause? That's a mark of a guy who is desperate.

Protestant never described salvation with your invented nonsense. You owe him an apology.

Salvation is the gift of God,

Well good on ya'. Now go the whole way and give honor to the Lord and His Word by also declaring that faith and repentance are gifts to the ones of His choosing.

Needless to say the monergist faith is quite different from the Bible

The "monergist faith" gives all glory to God for their salvation, faith and repentance. All of which come from His hand not the puny creature. How is that "quite different from the Bible" DHK?

and follows a former Catholic priest called Calvin who followed Augustine.

Calvin appreciated the works of Augustine with discrimination. He disagreed with him about one third of the time. To say that Calvin did not follow the Bible is absurd as it is repugnant.

And historically, Calvin was never a priest --I have pointed that out to you numerous times yet you still delight in falsehoods about the man of Geneva.

Both were persecutors of Christians.

As I have said, you specialize in falsehoods. And because of your fondness for falsehoods --your claims rest on vapor.

 

[The American Dream]

There is one thing good for me personally that has come out of this thread. I read the "I was born with faith" posts, and it shows me how wrong I was a while back, using the sovereignty of God, grace, faith, and even the life of Calvin to irk others. Biblical truth is the same always, and that truth summed up is that everything is of the Lord and nothing of man. I reread some of my former posts from 2012 and before, and they sound exactly like the posts of the other side I am reading in this thread. It is one thing to disagree on the issues, but it is quite another to post just to get a reaction. Sometimes it takes harsh measures to get ones thinking straight. For that I apologize to all I did this to, especially two posters who know who they are.

 

[steaver]

The Bible commands one to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. See Acts 16:30,31. Without faith there is no salvation.
Salvation is not some mystical, mysterious, metaphysical nonsense as described by Protestant. Salvation is the gift of God, the work of Christ on the cross, offered to the unregenerate as a gift. It must be received by faith.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--One becomes a child of God by believing on his name.

Protestant offers philosophy, philosophy that primarily comes from Calvin, but some of his own imagination as well.
In contrast, I will offer Scripture. Why do some believe and some do not?
Take a look at history:

In Thessalonica:
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
--Paul preached for three Sabbath days. Note that in the matter of salvation the gospel comes first, not regeneration, but the Word. Then what happens?

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
--Some believe and others do not. Some put their faith in Christ, and others rebel against the gospel, even to the very extent that they attack the messengers and set one of their houses on fire.
Someone once said that the gospel will either make you mad or glad.
It is your choice whether to believe or not. God forces no one.

In Iconium:
Acts 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.
--Some believed and some didn't.

Throughout the missionary journeys of Paul, as he preached the gospel, some believed and others didn't. On the Day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved out of approximately 100,000. Why did 97,000 remain unsaved? They rejected their Messiah. See John 1:11.

The statement of Protestant:
It was what he did that made the difference.
--is nothing but a personal attack, something he does when he can't answer scripture. Pitiful.

Ungodly slurs and attacks; putting words in my mouth; lies, etc.

Salvation is all of God. I have always maintained that. Why, then, do you post such nonsense?

Jesus talked about having "faith as a little child."
He said to many "thy faith has made you whole."
What faith was he speaking of? He was speaking of the faith that is innate in every person.
But Protestant if you decide not to exercise your faith you will remain lost in your sins, as will every person that does NOT BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God. Salvation is by faith.

Did I say that? Quote me.

Good scripture. I believe it too.

No, not faith per se. Faith in Christ. Faith must have an object.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," is the promise.
If you believe on Christ as Lord, and in his saving work, you shall be saved.
The object of your faith must be Christ.

Protestant I think you put your faith in yourself.
I put faith in Christ.
Faith has an object. Every man has faith. Where is your faith: self, money, cars, sports, family, etc. What is the object of your faith?

You make an assumption that is not necessarily true. It sounds like you don't know your Bible very well.

Only Christ can bridge the gap. He provides the salvation. Salvation is a gift. But the gift must be received, received by faith. Salvation, nevertheless is all of God.

That is not true.

More ignorance and personal attacks.

You have an overactive imagination and are unable to use the Word of God.
Therefore you have nothing in your arsenal but to hurl insults. You know no other method of debate.
Let me demonstrate.
When Benjamin tried to teach you some of these same truths (God is a God of love, loves all, etc.)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2012089&postcount=9

Your reply to Benjamin was:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2012495&postcount=16
--You haven't changed one iota in two years of posting.


God's love is boundless, impenetrable.
Needless to say the monergist faith is quite different from the Bible and follows a former Catholic priest called Calvin who followed Augustine. Both were persecutors of Christians.
Despite the claims of Protestant, God loves all the world, all the people in the world, and would never refuse any that would come to him.
Whosoever will may come.

Excellent exegesis and observations :thumbsup: . I admire your patience in trying to help others understand God's teaching on salvation and how it comes about through simple faith placed in Jesus Christ.

I believe 99% of believers begin with this Holy Spirit taught biblical understanding of placing faith in Jesus Christ. Then some, after doing what they believe is some "deep digging" with the natural mind, end up burying this simple truth with all the dirt they toss up from all the digging!

 

[DHK]

Why do you resort to lies when you can't defend your cause? That's a mark of a guy who is desperate.

I didn't lie. I told the truth. I have stated the same thing a few times before. Disagree with me if you like; I don't care. It is my opinion of what Calvinists hold to when they describe regeneration. Inasmuch as the RCC believe the superstition that "water washes away sin," (Hindus believe the same, Hence baptizing themselves in the Ganges River); Calvinists can't explain their superstitious belief in a mystical regeneration that supposedly takes place without Christ, without the gospel, without the Word of God whatsoever. Presto! You are regenerated magically out of thin air without even knowing about! Why? Simply because you were elect from the foundation of the world. Silliest doctrine I have ever heard, and certainly not supported in Scripture. Like Hinduism it is not supported in the Bible. Again, that is the way I see it described by Calvinists on this board.

Protestant never described salvation with your invented nonsense. You owe him an apology.

I don't owe him any apology. I used his name. To reword it: "Protestant, as a representative of Calvinists on this board, believes as most Calvinists do, that regeneration is: mystical, mysterious, undefinable...
I didn't quote him.

Well good on ya'. Now go the whole way and give honor to the Lord and His Word by also declaring that faith and repentance are gifts to the ones of His choosing.

Why would I post something that is not biblical. I have been posting here for years--show me where God gives faith to the unregenerate. You or no one else has ever been able to demonstrate that God does such a thing.
Do you charge God with foolishness? Faith is a fruit of the Spirit and a gift of the Spirit. God gives neither to the unregenerate.

The "monergist faith" gives all glory to God for their salvation, faith and repentance. All of which come from His hand not the puny creature. How is that "quite different from the Bible" DHK?

In the last testimony that I read from a monergist he was giving experience and works as a basis for salvation. So think again.
You probably do the same thing. Do one thing and claim another.

Calvin appreciated the works of Augustine with discrimination. He disagreed with him about one third of the time. To say that Calvin did not follow the Bible is absurd as it is repugnant.

Calvin was a murderer. Again and again he had people executed for "breaking "his law." These are recorded facts.
Will Durant, a reliable historian writes in his "History of Civilization," III: 474

Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged: books…of immoral tendency were banned… To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry with death…a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558-59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offences; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000.

Very few wanted to live under such horrendous laws; a state-church government.

And historically, Calvin was never a priest --I have pointed that out to you numerous times yet you still delight in falsehoods about the man of Geneva.

Okay. His father enrolled him in the College de La Marche at the University of Paris with the intent that he should study theology and become a priest. He registered under the name "Johannes Calvinus," reflecting his love for Latin. However, soon after his father was excommunicated from the RCC, and shortly after that, his brother (already a priest), was also excommunicated for heresy. As a result Johannes Calvin, who was studying for the priesthood changed his vocation and began the study of law instead. He still remained a devout Roman Catholic, and finally in 1534 was influenced by Luther to leave and join the Protestant cause.
When he did, he took a lot of his RCC baggage with him, just as Luther did.

As I have said, you specialize in falsehoods. And because of your fondness for falsehoods --your claims rest on vapor.

What falsehoods.
Read the quote from Durant. He was a persecutor of Christians.
They both were. If you want more evidence I will give it to you.
If he was judged by "his fruit" today, most would not consider him to be a Christian.

 

[Rebel]

Calvin was a murderer. Again and again he had people executed for "breaking "his law." These are recorded facts.
Will Durant, a reliable historian writes in his "History of Civilization," III: 474

Very few wanted to live under such horrendous laws; a state-church government.

Okay. His father enrolled him in the College de La Marche at the University of Paris with the intent that he should study theology and become a priest. He registered under the name "Johannes Calvinus," reflecting his love for Latin. However, soon after his father was excommunicated from the RCC, and shortly after that, his brother (already a priest), was also excommunicated for heresy. As a result Johannes Calvin, who was studying for the priesthood changed his vocation and began the study of law instead. He still remained a devout Roman Catholic, and finally in 1534 was influenced by Luther to leave and join the Protestant cause.
When he did, he took a lot of his RCC baggage with him, just as Luther did.

What falsehoods.
Read the quote from Durant. He was a persecutor of Christians.
They both were. If you want more evidence I will give it to you.
If he was judged by "his fruit" today, most would not consider him to be a Christian.

Rippon does what other defenders and idolaters of Calvin do, much the same as defenders of RC atrocities do: They say that, oh, Calvin didn't persecute or kill anyone, that it was the government which did that. What a farce! When church and state are united, both are the persecutors and murderers! And really all anyone has to do to see this truth is to read unbiased historical accounts of Calvin and also the RCC. Calvin was one of the worst people who ever walked the earth claiming to be a Christian.

 

[Protestant]

The Nosyn Bible

Perhaps our non-Cal brethren should consider a version of the Bible which clearly expounds their views.
The Nosyn Bible would be designed for non-Cals and Synergists.

For example:

Instead of ‘foreknown’ they should substitute ‘foreseen.’

Rather than knowing, from eternity, His free choice as to whom His decree of Election unto salvation pertains, God foresees the future good decisions of men and elects them accordingly.

They are ‘The Foreseen.’

Instead of ‘predestined’ they should substitute ‘postdestined.’

Rather than destine men to salvation before (pre) they were born, God destines them after (post) He sees their future good choices.

For whom he did foresee, he also did postdestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Instead of ‘Elect’ they should substitute ‘chosen for foreseen faith.’

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father would then read:

‘Chosen for foreseen faith according to the foresight of God the Father.

Instead of ‘faith’ they should substitute ‘free will decision.’

“Thy free will decision hath saved thee.”
“O ye of little free will decision.”

Instead of ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins they should substitute ‘separated’ in trespasses and sins.’

“Let the separated bury the dead.”

The modern familiar proverb then becomes: “You’re gonna do what?! Over my separated body!”

 

[DHK]

Perhaps our non-Cal brethren should consider a version of the Bible which clearly expounds their views.
The Nosyn Bible would be designed for non-Cals and Synergists.

Anyone can look up your 500 + posts from the past two years and see how you have started thread after thread on the same topic, posting exactly the same thing over and over again, only to be refuted by different persons time and again--never learning; never coming to the truth. It is apparent that this one of those posts, and one of the demonstrations of what I have just described. You don't change.

For example:

Instead of ‘foreknown’ they should substitute ‘foreseen.’

FORE-SEEN: "to see afore" Or to see ahead of time, related to His omniscience. He sees before it happens. It has no relation to predestination or predetermine.

Rather than knowing, from eternity, His free choice as to whom His decree of Election unto salvation pertains, God foresees the future good decisions of men and elects them accordingly.

The Lord elects on the basis of his omniscient foreknowledge that He, in his sovereign grace, knows who will (of their own free will), will choose or reject him, elect those who will choose him. Thus election is based on the free will of men--not on an indiscriminate will of God that a certain percentage should go to heaven, and the rest damned to an eternal torment in the Lake of Fire such as Calvin taught.

Instead of ‘predestined’ they should substitute ‘postdestined.’

Rather than destine men to salvation before (pre) they were born, God destines them after (post) He sees their future good choices.

You are confused. That is what foreknowledge is. He sees beforehand what their future choices are.

For whom he did foresee, he also did postdestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You are very confused. Can't even quote the Bible correctly.

Instead of ‘Elect’ they should substitute ‘chosen for foreseen faith.’

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father would then read:

‘Chosen for foreseen faith according to the foresight of God the Father.

Clearly you are confused.

Instead of ‘faith’ they should substitute ‘free will decision.’

You shouldn't even speak here. You probably couldn't define faith even if you tried.

“Thy free will decision hath saved thee.”
“O ye of little free will decision.”

As I was saying....
Faith and free will are entirely different. You are confused.

Instead of ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins they should substitute ‘separated’ in trespasses and sins.’

“Let the separated bury the dead.”

More confusion and ignorance here.
Let the dead bury the dead.
Let those who are spiritually separated from God bury those whose spirits have been physically separated from their bodies. Death is separation.

The modern familiar proverb then becomes: “You’re gonna do what?! Over my separated body!”

Are you separated from God?

 

[Rippon]

Calvin was a murderer.

Repeating that lie of yours scores of times does not speak well of your integrity.

"Calvin did not have the authority in Geneva to arrest, torture, or execute anyone.

Any effort to paint John Calvin as a power mad authoritarian who ruled the church and the city with an iron fist and the threat of death simply belies the ignorance and lack of historical research on the part of the man who makes such a biased claim." (Jim McClarty)

You have known these facts for a long time yet, stubbornly refuse to admit your guilt.

Again and again he had people executed for "breaking "his law." These are recorded facts.

You lie so easily. As I have said, you know the facts they have been placed before you time and time again by quotes of dozens of Church historians and Calvin scholars.

Calvin was with the Consistory which had no authority in civil matters.

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec and Servetus do not even appear in its records." (Schaff)

Will Durant, a reliable historian writes in his "History of Civilization," III: 474

Not when it comes to Calvin, Calvinism or broad Christianty.

Here is what he said in a snip from his book Caesar and Christ:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ...Through these interpretations Paul could not neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known...Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic charge."

Very few wanted to live under such horrendous laws; a state-church government.

Thousands throughout Europe flocked to Geneva as a safe-haven during Calvin's time there. That's a fact.

Okay. His father enrolled him in the College de La Marche at the University of Paris with the intent that he should study theology and become a priest. He registered under the name "Johannes Calvinus," reflecting his love for Latin. As a result Johannes Calvin, who was studying for the priesthood changed his vocation and began the study of law instead.

As you began with "Okay" you acknowledged that you were wrong, and your words here have demonstrated that he was not, in fact ever a priest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK, you have twisted so much Church history in your time on the BB. You have tried to soil Augustine's life. You have claimed that John Gill was against the Great Commision. You have claimed Calvin plagarized Augustine. You have made the absurd claim that Erasmus was a virtual Baptist. In instance after instance you have done your best to distort actual facts. Even contemporary times are mishapen in your hands:"The great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in their hyper-Calvinistic beliefs." What a hoot.

Out of ignorance you said that Calvin "lived in Geneva and spoke either Dutch or German." That was a funny line. But most of your bizarre historical revisionism is malacious. You need to be man enough to admit your falsehoods and repent of them for all to see.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon does what other defenders and idolaters of Calvin do, much the same as defenders of RC atrocities do: They say that, oh, Calvin didn't persecute or kill anyone, that it was the government which did that. What a farce! When church and state are united, both are the persecutors and murderers! And really all anyone has to do to see this truth is to read unbiased historical accounts of Calvin and also the RCC. Calvin was one of the worst people who ever walked the earth claiming to be a Christian.

Listen rebel, you claimed to have specialized in history while pursuing your education. I have submitted quotes to you from Calvin scholars in the past. You did not respond.

Unbiased scholars have come to conclusions based on facts --not on your fancies.

Have you bothered to read any of the following authors regarding John Calvin:

B.B. Warfield
Philip Schaff
A. Reillet
William Cunningham
Cottret
Cadier
McGrath
J.H. Merle D'Aubigne
Bruce Gordon
Basil Hall
Emile Doumergue
Herman J. Selderhuis
Williston Walker
Mark J. Larson

To name a few. If you are not familiar with anything they have had to say on the subject, you can consider yourself uninformed.

 

[Protestant]

The Unitarian Leanings of our Adversary

Our Pelagian Baptist brother has for some 35,000 posts extolled the virtues of his free will, denying the bondage of man’s fallen nature and will as taught in Holy Writ.

Alas, he has many like-minded brethren in the same free-will fold.

These include the Unitarians who deny the Deity of Jesus as well as the divine truth of the Trinity.

Their historic Confession of Faith originates with the Racovian Catechism which I cite below:

CHAPTER X. OF FREE WILL.

The equity and justice or rectitude of God will not allow that he should deprive man of the will and power of acting rightly; especially since, subsequently to that period, he requires, under a threat of punishment, that he should will and act rightly (Deut. xxx. 19).

This is certain, that by the fall of Adam the nature of man is by no means so depraved as that he is deprived of the liberty and power of obeying or not obeying God in those things which he requires of him under the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. (Racovian Catechism, p. 325) https://archive.org/stream/racoviancatechis00rees#page/324/mode/2up

“The Racovian Catechism is a statement of Unitarianism. It was drawn up by Valentin Schmalz and Johannes Völkel, two followers of Faustus Socinus, and published at Raków, in southern Poland in 1605. Socinus had joined with followers of another heretic, Michael Servetus, and they formed the Minor Church. Their distinctive heresy was nontrinitarianism: they believed that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of the devil.” http://www.theologynetwork.org/unquenchable-flame/zwingli-and-the-radicals/the-racovian-catechism.htm

Please note the comradeship of Servetus with this cult.

Servetus has no less able an advocate than DHK.

“Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself.[2] Though they may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and can be considered a savior,[3] all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine. Unitarianism is also known for the rejection of several other conventional Christian doctrines,[4] including the soteriological doctrines of original sin and predestination.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

 

[DHK]

Repeating that lie of yours scores of times does not speak well of your integrity.

My integrity is just fine. Your false accusations don't speak well of you.

"Calvin did not have the authority in Geneva to arrest, torture, or execute anyone.

Calvin was the head of a state-church: in the RCC--the "Pope."
He made the laws; the Council approved and stamped them for him. He ran the show. A seat was always left open for him on the council.

Any effort to paint John Calvin as a power mad authoritarian who ruled the church and the city with an iron fist and the threat of death simply belies the ignorance and lack of historical research on the part of the man who makes such a biased claim." (Jim McClarty)

Actually, to tell the truth would offend your sensibilities and be too hard for you to admit. It is: deny, deny, deny.

You have known these facts for a long time yet, stubbornly refuse to admit your guilt.

The fact that he was a cruel dictator? Yes, I have known that for a long time.
I have no guilt in admitting that it is a true fact.

You lie so easily. As I have said, you know the facts they have been placed before you time and time again by quotes of dozens of Church historians and Calvin scholars.

Don't accuse me of lying. I have stated the truth and given historical citations. You don't like the truth so you attack the messenger. You also quote "selectively" hiding the truth, and making the truth into a lie. It is a dishonest way of trying to portraying a "truth" which is not.

Calvin was with the Consistory which had no authority in civil matters.

Civil and religious matters were one and the same in a church-state.

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec and Servetus do not even appear in its records." (Schaff)

Remember I also quoted Schaff to you. You quote selectively.

Not when it comes to Calvin, Calvinism or broad Christianty.

Calvin was as wicked and as cruel a person as one could find. Almost all historians attest to such, especially Durant.

Here is what he said in a snip from his book Caesar and Christ:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ...Through these interpretations Paul could not neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known...Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic charge."

This has nothing to do with Calvinism.

Thousands throughout Europe flocked to Geneva as a safe-haven during Calvin's time there. That's a fact.

Yes, I am sure they did. During that tumultuous time persecution came not only from Geneva but also from Rome, if not from other areas as well.

As you began with "Okay" you acknowledged that you were wrong, and your words here have demonstrated that he was not, in fact ever a priest.

He set out to be a priest; studied for the priesthood; had the knowledge of a priest; and when he became a Protestant carried the baggage of the RCC with him, just as Luther did.
If you are so set on defending Calvin and idolizing him, why haven't you joined the Presbyterian church?

DHK, you have twisted so much Church history in your time on the BB. You have tried to soil Augustine's life.

Really? Are you serious?
This is one of the father's of the RCC.
He persecuted Christians. He believed in transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, purgatory, and a host of other heresies. Yet you hold him up as one of your spiritual idols. You ought to be ashamed.

You have claimed Calvin plagarized Augustine.

Calvin virtually worshiped Augustine. He quoted him page after page.
No doubt he did plagiarize him in different places. Do you have evidence he didn't? His volumes are full of his works.

But again, what did Augustine believe:

Here are some of the catholic beliefs of Aurelius Augustine, catholic Bishop of Hippo:

The canon of Scripture includes the Septuagint OT canon (deuterocanonicals, Apocrypha)
Authoritative Tradition
Baptismal regeneration and grace
Necessity of baptism for salvation
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper)
The Mass is a sacrifice
Necessity of the Lord's Supper for salvation
Purgatory and praying for the departed
The communion of saints and saintly intercession
Authority of the Catholic Church
Apostolic Succession
Possibility of falling from grace
The sacrament of penance
Mary was ever virgin.

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/st-augustine-and-catholic-beliefs/

You have made the absurd claim that Erasmus was a virtual Baptist.

He was a brilliant man whose brilliance was coveted by Protestant, Catholic, and even royalty. In the end of his life his beliefs were more anti-Catholic then pro.

In instance after instance you have done your best to distort actual facts. Even contemporary times are mishapen in your hands:"The great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in their hyper-Calvinistic beliefs." What a hoot.

Hoot all you want. Calvin and Knox are the founders of the Presbyterianism. The great majority of Presbyterian churches naturally follow in Calvinistic footsteps. As to the definition of "hyper-calvinistic" that is relative to the person using it. Most on this board will have a different definition of who is hyper and who is not.

Out of ignorance you said that Calvin "lived in Geneva and spoke either Dutch or German." That was a funny line. But most of your bizarre historical revisionism is malacious. You need to be man enough to admit your falsehoods and repent of them for all to see.

Most of your posts are malicious. Most of your history is revisionists. If you want to be bilblical in your outlook you need to take heed to the command: "Thou shalt not commit idolatry," and stop idolizing Calvin.

 

[Iconoclast]

Our Pelagian Baptist brother has for some 35,000 posts extolled the virtues of his free will, denying the bondage of man’s fallen nature and will as taught in Holy Writ.

Alas, he has many like-minded brethren in the same free-will fold.

These include the Unitarians who deny the Deity of Jesus as well as the divine truth of the Trinity.

Their historic Confession of Faith originates with the Racovian Catechism which I cite below:

“The Racovian Catechism is a statement of Unitarianism. It was drawn up by Valentin Schmalz and Johannes Völkel, two followers of Faustus Socinus, and published at Raków, in southern Poland in 1605. Socinus had joined with followers of another heretic, Michael Servetus, and they formed the Minor Church. Their distinctive heresy was nontrinitarianism: they believed that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of the devil.” http://www.theologynetwork.org/unquenchable-flame/zwingli-and-the-radicals/the-racovian-catechism.htm

Please note the comradeship of Servetus with this cult.

Servetus has no less able an advocate than DHK.

“Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself.[2] Though they may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and can be considered a savior,[3] all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine. Unitarianism is also known for the rejection of several other conventional Christian doctrines,[4] including the soteriological doctrines of original sin and predestination.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

:thumbs::wavey::thumbsup: Thank you for your solid posting.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Salvation is not some mystical, mysterious, metaphysical nonsense as described by Protestant.

Protestant has given testimony to the biblical salvation as it is found In Christ.

You just do not recognize it.....the rest of us see it just the same way:thumbsup: you oppose it all the way.

Salvation is the gift of God,

We have to explain that to you everyday.

the work of Christ on the cross

,

accomplished redemption for the Covenant people of God. no more/no less

offered to the unregenerate as a gift.

offered to every believing one.

It must be received by faith.

Yes Jesus is the Author and Finisher of saving faith.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

yes..and it is very clear when we finish the thought;

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. you leave this part out...you do not like what it says:laugh:

The rest of us give all Glory to God:thumbsup:

--One becomes a child of God by believing on his name.

People are made new creatures by the wonderous and mysreious new birth which you do not hold to like we do.

Protestant offers philosophy, philosophy that primarily comes from Calvin, but some of his own imagination as well.

No one at anytime refuted anything he said. He openly exposed your error once again, so you lash out at him, calling him names.

We all know this is all you do, so we spot it instantly.

In contrast, I will offer Scripture. Why do some believe and some do not?
Take a look at history:

In Thessalonica:
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
--Paul preached for three Sabbath days. ?

We are told that Paul preached for 3 days....we are not told explicitly of the exact activity of the Spirit and when he did His work of heart transplant,regenerating the dead sinners. This unseen work results in saving belief among the elect who heard.

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

exactly as Paul spoke about here;14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

--Some believe and others do not.

The elect are enabled to believe by new birth....reprobates reject God's grace.

Some put their faith in Christ,

fallen man is devoid of faith to believe savingly. Those of us who know and understand biblical salvation and include jn 1:13...know you seek to remove the glory that goes to God alone.

and others rebel against the gospel, even to the very extent that they attack the messengers and set one of their houses on fire.

this sounds like what you and stevear and the others seek to do everyday...nothing for edification...just attack truth and those like Rippon and Protestant who offer it.

Someone once said that the gospel will either make you mad or glad.
It is your choice whether to believe or not. God forces no one.

It was not Jonah or any biblical person:laugh: many non cals have uttered such foolishness.

In Iconium:
Acts 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.
--Some believed and some didn't.

That is usually the case as God told Paul;

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.
God knows those who are His...not one will be lost.He knew them before they believed because He purposed to save them from start to finish.

 

[Rippon]

He made the laws; the Council approved and stamped them for him. He ran the show. A seat was always left open for him on the council.

What absurdities you are in the habit of making.

Calvin was subject to the Councils. He was not a magistrate. He didn't obtain his citizenship until a few years before his death. He held no civil office.

The fact that he was a cruel dictator?

You have redefined the word fact. For the rest of us it means things that are true and can be established.

Don't accuse me of lying.

I will when you lie.

Calvin was as wicked and as cruel a person as one could find. Almost all historians attest to such, especially Durant.

Your source of Durant is interesting in that he was not a Christian --if you will kindly review his opinion of the Apostle Paul.

"Almost all historians" huh? What a sick joke.

You need to read true history. The following are more reliable than your doubtful sources. None of them support your hate-filled agenda.

Philip E. Hughes
William Cunningham
Alister E. McGrath
T.H. L. Parker
C.H. Irwin
Otto Scott
R.C. Reed
Bernard Cottret
Jean Cadier
Williston Walker
Sinclair Ferguson
Bruce Gordon
B.B. Warfield
Basil Hall
Jean-Daniel Benoit
J.I. Packer
Francois Wendel
Philip Vollmer
Herman Selderhuis
Philip Schaff

Those are twenty reputable historians and Calvin scholars. You will not find any who support your wild untruthful charges about Calvin.

Yes, I am sure they did. During that tumultuous time persecution came not only from Geneva but also from Rome, if not from other areas as well.

Geneva was singular in that regard. Europeans flocked there in the thousands --more than anywhere else. Why? Because they knew it was a safe-haven. Calvin had a good reputation for his biblical and moral authority.

He set out to be a priest; studied for the priesthood...

As a minor John Calvin submitted to the authority of his father in that regard. He never was a priest. You were a former Roman Catholic. You were as much of a priest as Calvin was.
________________________________________________________________
I am pressed for time. I will respond to the rest of your post later, if it hasn't closed by the time I get back to it.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2

Throughout the missionary journeys of Paul, as he preached the gospel, some believed and others didn't. On the Day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved out of approximately 100,000. Why did 97,000 remain unsaved? They rejected their Messiah. See John 1:11.

Jesus said they believe not BECAUSE they are not sheep.


The statement of Protestant:
It was what he did that made the difference.
--is nothing but a personal attack, something he does when he can't answer scripture. Pitiful.

Ungodly slurs and attacks; putting words in my mouth; lies, etc.

no,,,he was very accurate...he just reported what you did and do everyday.

Salvation is all of God. I have always maintained that.

No you do not. You say the cross is of God.....but you claim you and other men do the rest...we read it all the time.

Why, then, do you post such nonsense?

He is forced to post and answer your falsehoods and showing it over and over.

.

. Every man has faith.

3 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

You make an assumption that is not necessarily true. It sounds like you don't know your Bible very well.

His posts are solid unlike yours so you attempt a shameful personal attack.

Only Christ can bridge the gap. He provides the salvation

.

you mean he makes it possible, we know that He does it all.

More ignorance and personal attacks.

you say this and then attach him in the next sentence..

You have an overactive imagination and are unable to use the Word of God.

everyone of us think it is the opposite, yet you continue in your hypocritical fashion.

 

[Iconoclast]

What absurdities you are in the habit of making.

Calvin was subject to the Councils. He was not a magistrate. He didn't obtain his citizenship until a few years before his death. He held no civil office.


You have redefined the word fact. For the rest of us it means things that are true and can be established.

I will when you lie.


Your source of Durant is interesting in that he was not a Christian --if you will kindly review his opinion of the Apostle Paul.

"Almost all historians" huh? What a sick joke.

You need to read true history. The following are more reliable than your doubtful sources. None of them support your hate-filled agenda.

Philip E. Hughes
William Cunningham
Alister E. McGrath
T.H. L. Parker
C.H. Irwin
Otto Scott
R.C. Reed
Bernard Cottret
Jean Cadier
Williston Walker
Sinclair Ferguson
Bruce Gordon
B.B. Warfield
Basil Hall
Jean-Daniel Benoit
J.I. Packer
Francois Wendel
Philip Vollmer
Herman Selderhuis
Philip Schaff

Those are twenty reputable historians and Calvin scholars. You will not find any who support your wild untruthful charges about Calvin.

Geneva was singular in that regard. Europeans flocked there in the thousands --more than anywhere else. Why? Because they knew it was a safe-haven. Calvin had a good reputation for his biblical and moral authority.

As a minor John Calvin submitted to the authority of his father in that regard. He never was a priest. You were a former Roman Catholic. You were as much of a priest as Calvin was.
________________________________________________________________
I am pressed for time. I will respond to the rest of your post later, if it hasn't closed by the time I get back to it.

He has no truth so he hides behind calvin Augustine and anyone else...Everyone schools him when he goes near scripture:laugh::laugh:

 

[Rebel]

Listen rebel, you claimed to have specialized in history while pursuing your education. I have submitted quotes to you from Calvin scholars in the past. You did not respond.

Unbiased scholars have come to conclusions based on facts --not on your fancies.

Have you bothered to read any of the following authors regarding John Calvin:

B.B. Warfield
Philip Schaff
A. Reillet
William Cunningham
Cottret
Cadier
McGrath
J.H. Merle D'Aubigne
Bruce Gordon
Basil Hall
Emile Doumergue
Herman J. Selderhuis
Williston Walker
Mark J. Larson

To name a few. If you are not familiar with anything they have had to say on the subject, you can consider yourself uninformed.

You are neither unbiased nor factual, nor, I might add, truthful. Why should I want to discuss anything with you?

You claim to be a Baptist. You'd better thank God that you did not live in Calvin's Geneva. If you had, and you'd tried to practice believer's baptism, liberty of conscience, and church-state separation, you would have got what Servetus got.

 

[Rebel]

I generally don't like to get into Calvinist/Arminian discussions since I am neither. However, I don't mind occasionally exchanging thoughts about these systems, but I'd rather do so without listening to someone extol the virtues of a virtueless criminal and idolize a murderer and persecutor.

It's true that the Magisterial Protestant churches were just about as bad as the Roman Catholics when it came to religious persecution and murder, but I don't know of any single individual who was worse than Calvin for the bodies and souls of believers and unbelievers alike. His religious system was a dark blot on Christianity. It made a monster god, and humans mere puppets. Its deterministic fatalism had more in common with the god of Islam than the God of Jesus Christ and the New Testament.