Arminius on Calvin

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I see what you mean. I did in fact not read the OP. I just couldn't believe anyone would say what was quoted. I stand corrected.

John Calvin was a brilliant student and teacher of the Word of God. But with Luke using the phraseology "one of the greatest men of the Bible" was a mistake on his part. Calvin deserves a lot of credit --but not to that unwarranted degree!

Plus he knows that.....Sometimes he writes early in the morning when he is tired.

 

[John Toppass]

I guess the OP is about John Calvin and not Calvism.

I read the scripture and at times I do use commentaries and other writings to help me put some things into perspective.

However, I do not use John Calvin as an only authority in any subject.
John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That in itself is such a simple misunderstanding of scripture that I could not take him as a serious theologian. I am not saying Calvin was always wrong but he was wrong enough not to be taken as an only source for commentary.

 

[Luke2427]

Rip! Didn’t you even read the OP? How could you overlook such spoil?!?



I understand you were feeling the sting from the comparison of worshiping men and systems and how that hits close to home, but try to be more careful before asking such silly questions, this kind of neglect reveals your inability to focus of the topic.

Not FROM the Bible- of the Bible.

You are a man of the Word.

I am a man of the Word.

"man of the Bible" simply means one who was proficient in Scripture.

Just as we would use the phraseology "man of science" or "man of medicine".

 

[Luke2427]

I understand you were feeling the sting from the comparison of worshiping men and systems and how that hits close to home, but try to be more careful before asking such silly questions, this kind of neglect reveals your inability to focus of the topic. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[insults edited out]

I OBVIOUSLY, and any intelligent person could see it, meant "man of the bible" the same way we mean "man of science".

It simply means one who is proficient in that area.

I intended to write it just the way I did- I was certain that no one was ignorant enough to take that to mean "a character from the Bible."

But to combine such ignorance with such arrogance is startling.

...........................................................................................


Now pay attention folks. I'LL be the one to get the reprimand.

 

[Rippon]

Not FROM the Bible- of the Bible.

You are a man of the Word.

I am a man of the Word.

"man of the Bible" simply means one who was proficient in Scripture.

Just as we would use the phraseology "man of science" or "man of medicine".

Luke,I know what you meant. But it looked like you were saying Calvin was one of the greatest men of the Bible,because..you actually said it.

To have said that Calvin was one of the greatest teachers/expositors/preachers/commentators of the Bible would not have caused confusion. Disagreement,for sure,but no confusion.

 

[Rippon]

I guess the OP is about John Calvin and not Calvinism.

I read the Scripture and at times I do use commentaries and other writings to help me put some things into perspective.

However, I do not use John Calvin as the only authority of a given subject.


... that I could not take him as a serious theologian. I am not saying Calvin was always wrong but he was wrong enough not to be taken as the only source for commentary.

I hope you don't mind that I adjusted some of your wording.

No Calvinist here ever suggested that one should only consult John Calvin's works. Some Calvinists here claim to have read little to nothing of Calvin's works. So you are not speaking realistically.

But for you to say that John Calvin should not be taken seriously as a theologian is just silly on your part. Scholarly friends and foes of his theology would insist most stridently that he should be taken very seriously as a theologian. His friend Philip Melancthon even dubbed him "The Theologian"

 

[Bro. James]

God is no respecter of persons

Jesus told Nicodemus(a master theologian) that he must be born again to enter the kingdom--not by becoming a better theologian. Nicodemus had not a clue. John Ch. 3.

"not by acts of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us..."

There is only one deserving of all praise, honor and glory: Jesus the Christ. Anything else is vainglory.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Benjamin]

It FLOORS me how you people criticize Calvinists for being arrogant or rude and you people are CONSTANTLY saying smart alek, snotty things like this!

It is insulting. Which I don't CARE if you are insulting. But it blows my mind how many of you non-cals are the snottiest lot on earth and how many of you non-cals at the same time criticize Cals for being arrogant.

I OBVIOUSLY, and any intelligent person could see it, meant "man of the bible" the same way we mean "man of science".

It simply means one who is proficient in that area.

I intended to write it just the way I did- I was certain that no one was ignorant enough to take that to mean "a character from the Bible."

But to combine such ignorance with such arrogance is startling.

...........................................................................................


Now pay attention folks. I'LL be the one to get the reprimand.

Luke, Luke, Luke, any INTELLIGENT person could see that I was razzing Rip by mocking his earlier response to me. Quit ur whining…

It is OBVIOUS you intended to write it just the way you did, and it is OBVIOUS you ELEVATE the MAN and HIS SYSTEM and have been SPOILED in the PROCESS. (Col 2:8)

I understand that you intend to be INSULTING to others by referring to a “NO-NAME THEOLOGY” which shows where YOUR ALLEGIANCES lie.

That is WHY I point out your and other Calvinist’ ERRORS in ARROGANTLY and PROUDLY worshipping a system.

I know the comparison of the way you value YOUR SYSTEM to the thoughts and methods of the Pope and the Catholic church hits you close to home:

I don’t expect Catholic theologians’ warnings to be without partiality and I don’t expect their concerns to have motives other than those of control and to maintain their manmade systems. They were/are people who formed traditions by building systems who called themselves and their doctrines holy while thinking others to be deprived of such virtues if they strayed from their prideful system. In reality it is those that proudly put man’s systems and try to box everything within are the ones who forgo God truths and come to spoil.

Col 2:8
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I see little different between those who worship the Pope and those that worship Calvin. I mean look at what they say about him: “Calvin was one of the greatest men of the Bible” as if there was a book in the Bible written by him or he had the authority of biblical prophecy. The Calvinist system has spoiled many in their pride of building and holding to a particular system.

But if combining the STING from this truth and revealing your methods through mocking STARTLES “YOU PEOPLE” so, maybe you should slow down on PROUDLY declaring the SUPERIORITY of OWNING a SYSTEM and learn from this experience and the errors of the past.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke,I know what you meant. But it looked like you were saying Calvin was one of the greatest men of the Bible,because..you actually said it.

To have said that Calvin was one of the greatest teachers/expositors/preachers/commentators of the Bible would not have caused confusion. Disagreement,for sure,but no confusion.

Not if one understands the English language, Rippon.

You are a man of the Bible.

Calvin is one of the greatest men of the Bible of all time.

It is totally unnecessary to say "expositors of the Bible".

No more than an avid student of science must be called an expositor of science.

It is perfectly accurate to say of such a student- he is a man of science.

It is that simple.

The deficiency is not in me on this- it is with those who are critiquing the statement.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, Luke, Luke, any INTELLIGENT person could see that I was razzing Rip by mocking his earlier response to me. Quit ur whining…

It is OBVIOUS you intended to write it just the way you did, and it is OBVIOUS you ELEVATE the MAN and HIS SYSTEM and have been SPOILED in the PROCESS. (Col 2:8)

I understand that you intend to be INSULTING to others by referring to a “NO-NAME THEOLOGY” which shows where YOUR ALLEGIANCES lie.

That is WHY I point out your and other Calvinist’ ERRORS in ARROGANTLY and PROUDLY worshipping a system.

I know the comparison of the way you value YOUR SYSTEM to the thoughts and methods of the Pope and the Catholic church hits you close to home:


But if combining the STING from this truth and revealing your methods through mocking STARTLES “YOU PEOPLE” so, maybe you should slow down on PROUDLY declaring the SUPERIORITY of OWNING a SYSTEM and learn from this experience and the errors of the past.

Listen, Ben. You thought the phrase "..man of the Bible..." was a gaff because you did not recognize that it in its clear and proper context it refers to a student of the Bible just as "man of science" refers to a student of science.

And I have no idea what all this nonsense about Catholics and popes means nor how it is applicable to anything we've been talking about.

 

[Luke2427]

Jesus told Nicodemus(a master theologian) that he must be born again to enter the kingdom--not by becoming a better theologian. Nicodemus had not a clue. John Ch. 3.

"not by acts of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us..."

There is only one deserving of all praise, honor and glory: Jesus the Christ. Anything else is vainglory.

Peace,

Bro. James

What is this responding to, James.

I don't know of anyone who has made such a wild accusation. Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

 

[Benjamin]

And I have no idea what all this nonsense about Catholics and popes means nor how it is applicable to anything we've been talking about.

FYI, I addressed the values you place on adhering to the doctrine of a man and a system. The reference to Catholic theologies addressed an agreement with you (about pride in following a systemized theology) post #42. I wish “you people” would read the tread and think before spouting off. Sheesh!

 

[Luke2427]

FYI, I addressed the values you place on adhering to the doctrine of a man and a system. The reference to Catholic theologies addressed an agreement with you (about pride in following a systemized theology) post #42. I wish “you people” would read the tread and think before spouting off. Sheesh!

I'm sure you have a point here, Ben-(not sarcastically- I'm serious)- but I jsut don't see it.

I do not desire to go back and reread the whole thread either.

I am not the bad guy you think I am, Ben.

[insult deleted]

 

[John Toppass]

I hope you don't mind that I adjusted some of your wording.

No Calvinist here ever suggested that one should only consult John Calvin's works. Some Calvinists here claim to have read little to nothing of Calvin's works. So you are not speaking realistically.

But for you to say that John Calvin should not be taken seriously as a theologian is just silly on your part. Scholarly friends and foes of his theology would insist most stridently that he should be taken very seriously as a theologian. His friend Philip Melancthon even dubbed him "The Theologian"

Actually for you to adjust my wording then call me silly is quite offensive. I stated one of the many reasons why I feel like I do. That was "John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That in itself is such a simple misunderstanding of scripture that I could not take him as a serious theologian."

Leaving out what people state to make an inaccurate statement on what they did say is juvenile at best.

The problem is those people tend to do that with the Scripture too and then folks believe them to be accurate and then start calling themselves "ists" behind the last name of the person misrepresenting the scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Actually for you to adjust my wording then call me silly is quite offensive. I stated one of the many reasons why I feel like I do. That was "John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That in itself is such a simple misunderstanding of scripture that I could not take him as a serious theologian."

Leaving out what people state to make an inaccurate statement on what they did say is juvenile at best.

The problem is those people tend to do that with the Scripture too and then folks believe them to be accurate and then start calling themselves "ists" behind the last name of the person misrepresenting the scripture.

Rippon's right here John.

No SERIOUS theologian would marginalize the theological contributions of John Calvin.

Even the proponent of the OPPOSITE theological system spoke GLARING praise of the brilliance of Calvin as I point out in the OP.

No educated person thinks he should not be taken seriously.

I'll give you this challenge:

Find somebody who is well educated here on BB, not in an IFB college (some are diploma mills- I'm sure some are good), who thinks Calvin was an idiot or to be taken lightly.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm sure you have a point here, Ben-(not sarcastically- I'm serious)- but I jsut don't see it.

I do not desire to go back and reread the whole thread either.

I am not the bad guy you think I am, Ben.

I just debate hard and get aggravated with snottiness.

Ok Luke. Though I see good debate to be about quality rather than quantity. Long to hear, slow to speak, you know. :thumbs:

 

[John Toppass]

Rippon's right here John.

No SERIOUS theologian would marginalize the theological contributions of John Calvin.

Even the proponent of the OPPOSITE theological system spoke GLARING praise of the brilliance of Calvin as I point out in the OP.

No educated person thinks he should not be taken seriously.

I'll give you this challenge:

Find somebody who is well educated here on BB, not in an IFB college (some are diploma mills- I'm sure some are good), who thinks Calvin was an idiot or to be taken lightly.

Why do you want me to find someone who think Calvin was an idiot? Are you still struggling with this? I merely stated fact. Then I stated this was one of the reasons that I can not believe something just because Calvin said it. Education does not equal intelligence. (Proven on this board daily)

 

[Luke2427]

Why do you want me to find someone who think Calvin was an idiot? Are you still struggling with this? I merely stated fact. Then I stated this was one of the reasons that I can not believe something just because Calvin said it. Education does not equal intelligence. (Proven on this board daily)

I think thinking people can put men's beliefs in context. They can understand why people far more brilliant than themselves could be bad off in a particular area in lieu of their age and the context in which they lived.

In fact, this is exactly what a theological education enables many to do.

I am attending Liberty and it is vehemently opposed to Calvinism- but even there they recognize the brilliance and awesome theological and political contributions of John Calvin.

 

[Rippon]

Actually for you to adjust my wording then call me silly is quite offensive.

I straightened out some of your grammar. You took offense? Sorry about that. But you were not misrepresented in the least.

Deal with my last two paragraphs. Take up Luke's challenge if you dare.

 

[John Toppass]

I straightened out some of your grammar. You took offense? Sorry about that. But you were not misrepresented in the least.

Deal with my last two paragraphs. Take up Luke's challenge if you dare.

No that is not true! You deleted the whole jest of main reason I made the statement. It is what it is. You are forgiven before you ask.

I try to deal with facts and no matter what others say for or against a fact, it is still a fact if it is the truth.