Arminius on Calvin

--------------------------------------------------------------

A shallow regurgitation from a theological illiterate: what was the teaching of soteriology before the sixteenth century? Do we have 15 centuries of mystery? What is wrong with the letter to the Ephesians Ch. 1 and 2?

Calvin and Arminius were both pedobaptists.

Why do we lift them up?

There is only one to lift up--Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Luke, suggest you compare the attitude projected in the opening sentences in your OP about those who disagree with you, with Arminius' attitude projected about Calvin who disagreed with him. You have pointed out one of Arminius' strong points.

 

Good quote Luke.....thanks for posting

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Which religious system allows for the baptism of infants? Jon Chauvin was a baptizer of infants. He was also a believer in state religion. Both of these positions are not baptistic. Forgiveable? Of course. Applaudable? No.

This is all part of the ecumenical movement, right?

Jesus said He would never leave nor forsake His Bride. What is with all these theological sideshows the past 1900 years?

Sola Scriptura was around long before Luther/Calvin, etal rediscovered it.

The Lord is faithful, even when we are not.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Arminius: "I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy"


Did Calvin return the same respect for Arminius that Arminius showed for Calvin? If so, I would like to see the quote or quotes. If not, perhaps Calvin is the one who started the questionable attitude some Calvinist have towards those they disagree with here on BB. Or maybe that is just a part of Calvinism.

 

You need a refresher course in Church History. Calvin died in 1564 when Arminius was 4.

 

Thank you. I stand corrected on that one.

 

Yet another mis-direction thread. Lets divert discussion from the doctrines of grace, to the behavior of those who disagree with the doctrines of grace. Lets charge them with mis-characterizing Calvin. Then we can discuss various non-biblical quotes and wander in the desert of he said, she said mythology.

Folks, any time you see Calvinists discussing the qualifications and character of their opponents, rather than discussing the differing positions, know the agenda is to shift the focus away from the false doctrines of Calvinism.

Note no quote was provided for anyone saying John Calvin was a heretic, or a monster, or an idiot. Certainly some posters have disparaged Calvin's character, but the charge is that many of those who disagree with the positions associated with his name, disparage him personally incessantly. When called on it, the shuck and jive will begin, saying Calvinist doctrines are unbiblical is tantamount to saying Calvin himself was a heretic, or monster, or an idiot. Thus the opinion of the Calvinist poster is substituted for charge of malfeasance. And the beat goes on.

Calvinism is false doctrine and is defended using the tools of propaganda, devoid of truth.

 

I am not what whio believes in Infant baptism BUT..

Didn't Calvin NOT see it as Baptismal Regeneration, ala the RC Church, but as a sign of infants being part of the Covenant blessing/promise to those in NT now?

being Covenant theologian, would see it as circumcision was in OT, as a sign to others children were part of the Community of faith?

Like I said, believe in believer baptism as a baptist, but isn;t this what he actually taught on it?

 

Well...

It is just another way/system used to understand the Bible, that DOES interact with the Bible...

Does have some great truth in it, as it tries to frame Biblical truths in a systematic fashion...

NOT everything in it is total correct, but same can be said of Arminian or any other Theological framework/system...

remember ONLY Bible and its authors were 100% correct in theur theological 'system", its up to us to try to see what the biblical truths are...

Just curious, have you read the Institutes by chance?

 

Van posted...

Yep.

Dancing up a storm

 

Thank you....Thank you very much. You are a credit to your "side" of the debate. So much better, infinitely so, than referencing "those shallower types".

 

My issues (problems) etc. are far less with Calvin than with the derogatory, demeaning and disrespect that you dole out here in BB.

 

Absolutely not. You have some unique,that is to say, stand-alone perspectives that don't stand the light of day.

You mean when the Lord has sent godly men to reinvigorate the Church with the truth of His Word?

You will fault them with uncovering these truths?! Are you against what Hezekiah and Josiah did?

 

QF,you would have to agree with Luke on this one,or else you would be acting immaturely.

 

Hi Jesusfan, I have come to the opposite conclusion. Calvinism is a way/system that systematically mischaracterizes Biblical doctrine. And those who study how they derived the positions from scripture learn not how to learn the truth, but how to bend scripture to fit man-made doctrine. I say James 2:5 says God chose the poor to the world, and the Calvinist will say, no, you are reading that into scripture. From my side of the street the Calvinists are reading it out of scripture.

The TULIP presents five so called doctrines, and by my light, only one, eternal security, is valid. Now it is true there is a mass of lesser points, which are on target, but the system seem to me to take truth too far and ends up in la la land.