Arminius on Calvin

[Rippon]

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.
...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.

There John. I didn't fix your grammar and spelling this time.

I rarely quote the entire post of another --I post the gist. And your gist is just hot air.

I still maintain that you do not know what you are talking about. Scholarly friends and foes alike admire the wisdom and intelligence of John Calvin. John Calvin is certainly regarded as a top-notch --perhaps THE best theologian/exegete/commentator the Church has been blessed with. Your rant is insubstantial.

Nobody on the BB has said that John Calvin alone should be consulted. So you are not dealing with reality. You are making false claims.

 

[John Toppass]

There John. I didn't fix your grammar and spelling this time.

I rarely quote the entire post of another --I post the gist. And your gist is just hot air.

I still maintain that you do not know what you are talking about. Scholarly friends and foes alike admire the wisdom and intelligence of John Calvin. John Calvin is certainly regarded as a top-notch --perhaps THE best theologian/exegete/commentator the Church has been blessed with. Your rant is insubstantial.

Nobody on the BB has said that John Calvin alone should be consulted. So you are not dealing with reality. You are making false claims.

You still left out or deleted facts that I used. You are being dishonest.

I have not said anyone on the BB has said that John Calvin alone should be consulted. So you are the one who is fabricating things not said. You are the one deleting the main gist and calling it "grammar" correction.

I merely stated proven facts and how these facts helped me come to my own conclusion based on fact. You attacked me! It seems when those who think they are educated can not deal with intellect and common sense then they attack and call names.

Do your own homework read the whole scripture as it was written not as it was interpreted for you in someone else's commentary.

 

[Rippon]

I have not said anyone on the BB has said that John Calvin alone should be consulted. So you are the one who is fabricating things not said.

You had said that you do not use John Calvin as "an only authority on any subject." You stated that "he was wrong enough not to be taken as an only source for commentary." Oviously you are implying that there are those,on the BB,and they would have to be Calvinists who look exclusively as their sole source for explaining the Scriptures. You weren't aiming at the non-Calvinists here. But yet no one is doing what you deride.

I merely stated proven facts and how these facts helped me come to my own conclusion based on fact. You attacked me! It seems when those who think they are educated can not deal with intellect and common sense then they attack and call names.

I attacked you? Call 911 immediately!

Do your own homework read the whole scripture as it was written not as it was interpreted for you in someone else's commentary.

Now what would you call your closing remark? That's right...pure bunk. Are you capable of blushing?

 

[Jaocb77]

Calvin was also a Catholic before he was a Reformer. Like many of these Catholics who were excommunicated from that church, Calvin still clung to some of his beliefs such as limited atonement/grace.

If one does not subscribe to Calvinism, it does not necessarily mean one is Arminian. Since Calvin had beliefs that do not square with the Holy Scriptures, for anyone to subscribe to Calvinism would indicate that they are following a man.

 

[John Toppass]

You had said that you do not use John Calvin as "an only authority on any subject." You stated that "he was wrong enough not to be taken as an only source for commentary." Oviously you are implying that there are those,on the BB,and they would have to be Calvinists who look exclusively as their sole source for explaining the Scriptures. You weren't aiming at the non-Calvinists here. But yet no one is doing what you deride.



I attacked you? Call 911 immediately!



Now what would you call your closing remark? That's right...pure bunk. Are you capable of blushing?

You prove my point, I wish I was as perfect as you think you are. You are back on ignore for obvious reasons-------- it hurts to much to unplug enough brain to talk with you.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin was also a Catholic before he was a Reformer. Like many of these Catholics who were excommunicated from that church, Calvin still clung to some of his beliefs such as limited atonement/grace.

Calvin was not excommunicated. He left the RC. The R.C. did not teach limited atonement.

Since Calvin had beliefs that do not square with the Holy Scriptures, for anyone to subscribe to Calvinism would indicate that they are following a man.

A Calvinist is not one who has to square all their beliefs with that of the man from Geneva. It's shorthand to call one's self a Calvinist. But most professing Christians of today hold to a number of beliefs not found in Holy Writ. John Calvin,though a fallible man is an excellent guide in understanding the Word of God. (Notice the article "an",not the.)

Welcome to the BB Jaocb.

 

[Rippon]

... it hurts to [sic]much to unplug enough brain to talk with you.

Say what? Huh?

 

[Tom Butler]

Calvin was also a Catholic before he was a Reformer. Like many of these Catholics who were excommunicated from that church, Calvin still clung to some of his beliefs such as limited atonement/grace.

If one does not subscribe to Calvinism, it does not necessarily mean one is Arminian. Since Calvin had beliefs that do not square with the Holy Scriptures, for anyone to subscribe to Calvinism would indicate that they are following a man.

Rippon has corrected you on the facts. Now it becomes my unpleasant duty to tell you that you are not supposed to post here. This is a Baptist-only category, and you're not Baptist.

BTW, your profile lists your denomination as non-dom, and your home church as "n/a." Why is it n/a?

By the way, don't answer that. You are welcome to post in those categories which welcome all believers. So, if you'd like to do so, start a thread on Calvinism (or most anything else) in the Other Christian Denominations category. Look at the categories for the ones appropriate for your posts.

 

[Benjamin]

Now it becomes my unpleasant duty to tell you that you are not supposed to post here.

Curious of how you acquired the responsibility for this unpleasant “duty” which you are so quick to participate in at every opportunity. Or do you just come by it naturally?

 

[Benjamin]

see John Calvin as being one of the greatest theologians of the Church , but do not see either him or calvinism as being 'The Bible", as in my mind the greatest theologian who ever lived was the Apostle paul, and Calvin just not in that same league!

Here we have a Calvinist saying: "Unfortunately there are some of the shallower sort who incessantly regurgitate the same old assault- that Calvinists follow a man and not the Bible even though Calvin was one of the greatest men of the Bible who ever lived;"

In the OP, from a Calvinist perspective we have:

A: Opposition Charges = "Calvinist follow a man and not the Bible"

B: Defense = "Even though Calvin was one of the greatest men of the Bible"

Question 1 = In light of (A) does (B) not express an attempt to equate Calvin with the Bible?

Question 2 = Even though you see John Calvin as one of the greatest theologians of the (C)hurch, do you you still think it wise to interpret the Bible through his theology in light of Col 2:8?

 

[Jaocb77]

Calvin was not excommunicated. He left the RC. The R.C. did not teach limited atonement.



A Calvinist is not one who has to square all their beliefs with that of the man from Geneva. It's shorthand to call one's self a Calvinist. But most professing Christians of today hold to a number of beliefs not found in Holy Writ. John Calvin,though a fallible man is an excellent guide in understanding the Word of God. (Notice the article "an",not the.)

Welcome to the BB Jaocb.

Yes, you are correct, Calvin did leave the RCC. Although the RCC believes that Christ died for all, they had taught that those who were not Roman Catholic were indeed going to hell. Pope Innocent III said: ""There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

This sounds to me like limited grace.

I must disagree with Calvin being an excellent guide to understanding the Holy Scriptures. He had an image of God that I do not see in the Bible.

Thanks for your welcome!

 

[Jaocb77]

Rippon has corrected you on the facts. Now it becomes my unpleasant duty to tell you that you are not supposed to post here. This is a Baptist-only category, and you're not Baptist.

BTW, your profile lists your denomination as non-dom, and your home church as "n/a." Why is it n/a?

By the way, don't answer that. You are welcome to post in those categories which welcome all believers. So, if you'd like to do so, start a thread on Calvinism (or most anything else) in the Other Christian Denominations category. Look at the categories for the ones appropriate for your posts.

I consider myself nondenominational and attend a local Baptist church. First of all, the Baptist faith is not a Protestant denomination. Therefore, it is nondenominational.

What is n/a? It means not applicable. I have a house church where I do Bible study and it does not have a name.

Thanks for welcoming me on the board!

 

[Rippon]

Yes, you are correct, Calvin did leave the RCC.

Thanks for admitting that.

Although the RCC believes that Christ died for all, they had taught that those who were not Roman Catholic were indeed going to hell. Pope Innocent III said: ""There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

This sounds to me like limited grace.

It may "sound" like it to you but it in no way resembles definite atonement.

I must disagree with Calvin being an excellent guide to understanding the Holy Scriptures.

Based upon your extensive reading of his works? You really are speaking from an extreme bias,and not a factual basis.

He had an image of God that I do not see in the Bible.

You are totally wrong. Why do you say such a thing? Get specific and tell me something he wrote about God that you find totally unbiblical.

 

[Jaocb77]

Thanks for admitting that.



It may "sound" like it to you but it in no way resembles definite atonement.



Based upon your extensive reading of his works? You really are speaking from an extreme bias,and not a factual basis.



You are totally wrong. Why do you say such a thing? Get specific and tell me something he wrote about God that you find totally unbiblical.

I have no problem admitting my mistakes. So many were excommunicated during the reformation period.

I am totally wrong about Calvin? How so?

Calvin's view of God is one of a respecter of persons. One who picks and chooses who will go to heaven and creates the rest for hell. This is not the God of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible tells us that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Jesus said all who are hungry or thirsty may come. Whenever anyone asked: "What must I do to be saved?" The response was never: "if you were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, you are of the elect and automatically saved, but if God created you for hell, sorry you are doomed!"

No, the response was always: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. God is not willing that any should perish, but for all to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

 

[Tom Butler]

I consider myself nondenominational and attend a local Baptist church. First of all, the Baptist faith is not a Protestant denomination. Therefore, it is nondenominational.

What is n/a? It means not applicable. I have a house church where I do Bible study and it does not have a name.

Thanks for welcoming me on the board!

You may consider Baptist NOT to be a denomination, but I think for clarity's sake this board does.

Thanks for clearing up n/a. Are the Baptist church you attend and the house church where you do Bible study different entities? No problem, just curious.

Either way, you're welcome to the board. I'll leave it to you and the moderators to figure out where you can or can't post.

 

[Jaocb77]

You may consider Baptist NOT to be a denomination, but I think for clarity's sake this board does.

Thanks for clearing up n/a. Are the Baptist church you attend and the house church where you do Bible study different entities? No problem, just curious.

Either way, you're welcome to the board. I'll leave it to you and the moderators to figure out where you can or can't post.

Actually, it was when I did some research about Baptist history that I discovered they are not a Protestant faith (because they did not give birth during the Reformation), but believe they came straight from the apostles. My pastor agrees with this. The bottom line is that God does not care about denominations but about our hearts and our accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. However, the Baptists, in my view are the most scriptural and faithful.

I don't know what you mean by different entities, but I conduct weekly Bible study in my home.

Thanks for the welcome. I think we all need to be careful not to be so quick to rush to judgement. The Baptists have splintered into many different groups. yet there is only one Faith and one Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

Actually, it was when I did some research about Baptist history that I discovered they are not a Protestant faith (because they did not give birth during the Reformation), but believe they came straight from the apostles. My pastor agrees with this. The bottom line is that God does not care about denominations but about our hearts and our accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. However, the Baptists, in my view are the most scriptural and faithful.

I don't know what you mean by different entities, but I conduct weekly Bible study in my home.

Thanks for the welcome. I think we all need to be careful not to be so quick to rush to judgement. The Baptists have splintered into many different groups. yet there is only one Faith and one Lord Jesus Christ.

Actually, I agree with you in large part. Baptists are not Protestants, and our spiritual ancestors were around well before the Reformation.

In terms of the terminology used on this board, I was confused. You attend a Baptist Church, but are not Baptist. You have Bible study in your home, and it's a church.

The way I read the rules, you may be Baptist in doctrine, but consider yourself non-denom. But you must declare yourself a Baptist in order to post in the Baptist-0nly Forums.

See why I was confused. We were talking past each other.

 

[Jaocb77]

Actually, I agree with you in large part. Baptists are not Protestants, and our spiritual ancestors were around well before the Reformation.

In terms of the terminology used on this board, I was confused. You attend a Baptist Church, but are not Baptist. You have Bible study in your home, and it's a church.

The way I read the rules, you may be Baptist in doctrine, but consider yourself non-denom. But you must declare yourself a Baptist in order to post in the Baptist-0nly Forums.

See why I was confused. We were talking past each other.

I am a nondenominational baptist. I don't believe Baptist is a denomination. I believe they are the ones who are the most faithful to the Scriptures and what Jesus taught

I have a bible study in my home. I did not say it was a church. This is why I put n/a . I was not aware that one must have a house church to post on this forum.
Since you feel I should not post on here, I will send the Mod a PM...:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Calvin's view of God is one of a respecter of persons. One who picks and chooses who will go to heaven and creates the rest for hell. This is not the God of the Holy Scriptures.

Your respecter of persons thing needs thought through. You're not really understanding what it means.

On the contrary, it is actually the God of Holy Scriptures. You're only looking at the facet you like, and as many others cringe and buck when God does as He wills. Romans 9? Don't reply against the Potter, clay.

Consider:

In Genesis 12 He picked Abram of all people to do His will. Sovereignty in action. Or is this Him being a respecter of persons? I say it is grace and Sovereignty. According to your words, you see this as a respecter of persons, when He chooses according to His will.

He picked David as King above all others. Sovereignty in action. Or respecter of persons as He chose him above all others?

He came to die for the sins of His people and save them from such in Matthew. Ditto.

Anyone could construe these passages to mean He is a respecter of persons.

God has mercy on whom He wills, and compassion on whom He wills. And whom He wills, he hardens. And He is just in doing so.

Look at the whole counsel of God instead of proof-texting to prove a point.

There's a context for this respecter of persons verse. I think it means He doesn't show favor to persons because of the person themselves. Thus, all are on the same playing field per se. He does however, according to the Bible, choose those He wills to choose. Therefore, your premise that in your above quote, this is not the God of Scripture is in error.

 

[psalms109:31]

Acts 10

Acts 10 (New International Version)
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”


Acts 10 (King James Version)
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins