Are there any Bible teachers you fully agree with.

[RipponRedeaux]

Ohhh my, Jon that’s a hard revelation to those who worship at the alter of Calvinism!

Learn to spell boy.

 

[JonC]

Just where are you getting stoic philosophy from?

Calvin's commentary on Seneca's work.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Calvin is theological. But for the most part Calvin is known for his philosophy (his ideas that exceeded God's revelation in the Bible).

You are entirely wrong. Calvin adhered to Scripture and not to philosophy. It is clear that you haven't read much of Calvin's works.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Calvin's first book was a commentary on Stoic philosophy as it pertains to law (De Clementia).

He wrote that in 1532, which was two or three years before his conversion. There are scant few biblical references in it.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Throughout Calvin's work Stoic philosophy bleeds through. Most of Calvin's Institutes fail in terms of pure theology as it is Christian philosophy.

If you want to rename theology as Christian philosophy, go ahead. But most of the Christian world calls it theology.

You have absolutely no knowledge of what you speak. You fail.

 

[JonC]

I said it and I believe it. I didn't say the gift, but a gift. Stop with your nonsensical "I suspect you know this."

It is not nonsensical. "I suspect" means that this is something that I believe it probably. This is a fact (my opinion that it is probable). That you know this is referring to the fact that while you and I believe Calvin to be such a gift that belief is far from an objective fact.

 

[JonC]

If you want to rename theology as Christian philosophy, go ahead. But most of the Christian world calls it theology.

You have absolutely no knowledge of what you speak. You fail.

No. I have read Calvin's "Institutes". It does contain proper theology. But it is also quite a bit of philosophy.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate his works. I just am not so indoctrinated into his views that I am blind to what I am reading.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

It is not nonsensical. "I suspect" means that this is something that I believe it probably. This is a fact (my opinion that it is probable). That you know this is referring to the fact that while you and I believe Calvin to be such a gift that belief is far from an objective fact.

Gobbledygook. What I stated, I believe. Your suspicions are worthless.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

No. I have read Calvin's "Institutes". It does contain proper theology. But it is also quite a bit of philosophy.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate his works. I just am not so indoctrinated into his views that I am blind to what I am reading.

Give an example of Calvin's "philosophy." You said it contains quite a bit. Surely you can give an example.

 

[MrW]

Calvin was evil. I hope he repented before he died.

 

[JonC]

If you want to rename theology as Christian philosophy, go ahead. But most of the Christian world calls it theology.

You have absolutely no knowledge of what you speak. You fail.

The difference is what we are studying. It has already been named Christian philosophy (I was born too late to make that claim).

Calvin was influenced by the humanistic my movement of his day. He applied the philosophy he knew and studied to Scripture upon his conversion and came up with a "theology".

Calvinism belongs to systematic theology. As such it contains Scripture, but also philosophy. By referring to it as a Christian Philosophy I am not slighting the view but rather pointing out the basis of Calvinism. I appreciate the philosophy, although I no longer hold it as true.

 

[JonC]

Give an example of Calvin's "philosophy." You said it contains quite a bit. Surely you can give an example.

His reasoning for the secular government as the "arm of God" is philosophical (not true theology). His defence of infant baptism is philosophical in its reasoning out of the importance of baptizing babies). His application of humanistic law to Scripture and divine justice is philosophical.

You have to remember that Calvin was not formally educated in theology. His education was comprised of philosophy and humanistic law. Nobody is faulting him for applying both to Scripture. That is what he knew, how he thought.

 

[atpollard]

Calvin was evil. I hope he repented before he died.

Let me guess, you read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie, didn’t you?


Win People to Your Way of Thinking

1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, “You’re wrong.”
3. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
11. Dramatize your ideas.
12. Throw down a challenge.

 

[JonC]

Issue here is we all hold philosophies that we apply, by necessity, to Scripture.

The problem isn't the philosophy but the inability to recognize it. That is when we lean on our own understanding.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yesterday was the 459th anniversary of John Calvin's death. However, not the death of his biblical exegesis. Thank the Lord.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvin's commentary on Seneca's work.

Did he like Seneca then? How did he make a connection, or did he?

I’m a Cato the Elder fan myself.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Learn to spell boy.

Take a flying leap for yourself pops.

 

[JonC]

Did he like Seneca then? How did he make a connection, or did he?

I’m a Cato the Elder fan myself.

He studied Seneca (his first published work was a commentary on Seneca).

John Calvin was first and foremost a humanist philosopher. His interest (as was Renaissance Humanism) was in reviving some aspect of the Classical period. Reading Calvin's Institutes, he at least agreed with the philosophical approach to ethics.

Calvinism is basically an amalgamation of Scripture, philosophy, and reformed Roman Catholic doctrine.

I love reading Calvin, but mostly because I enjoy philosophy. I like Calvin's pastoral works, but I certainly would not read Calvin for theology. His works are his philosophy applied to Scripture in a contemporary to his time vacuum - that is apart from other contemporary interpretations.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I find very little of what Spurgeon wrote that I disagree with, so he probably comes closest. He even helped convince me about Limited Atonement (which I always found … and still find … a weak scriptural case and more of a strong Logical Argument).

Limited Atonement is a weak … and I would say a false demeaning term to use… after All, what is Limited about it? I prefer Particular or Definite Atonement.

 

[kyredneck]

Limited Atonement (which I always found … and still find … a weak scriptural case and more of a strong Logical Argument).

That's why the Old Baptists refer to it as 'Particular Redemption'. He gave all that He had to buy 'the whole field', but He particularly bought the treasure hidden in that field.