Calvin A Safe Spiritual Guide?

I am sick of people who assume because people refer to us as calvinist, we must follow every teaching of John Calvin. That is just stupid. Those who call themselves Arminian hardly follow all the teachings of Arminius. So when I refer to my self as a calvinist, let me clarify what I am saying. I am saying that I believe in the doctrines of grace.

Thanks.

 

It is not wise to wage a quote war. Google works just as well for the other side, you know. Using the same tactics, let's see how well Arminianism does...

Satan may use means, sometimes he works immediate; at times he works in public, at other times in secret; at times he uses theologians, at other times those who teach philosophy. ... It makes no difference to the devil whether he plants weeds with the right hand or with the left, as long as he achieves his end. That is how before this he made long-condemned Pelagianism re-appear. - Abraham van de Velde (1614-1677)

Warnings from the pulpit and denunciation of the errors of Arminianism are not now heard as once they were. Even in pulpits where the truth is preached, it is to be feared that, in some cases, a faithful witness is not raised against Arminianism. The cause of this may be due in a measure to the fact that in defending the cause of truth new forms of error have to be exposed and assailed, with the result that the old enemy is left so far unmolested as if it were dead. Unfortunately this is not so; Arminianism is very much alive in the pulpit, in the theological and religious press, and in the modem evangelistic meeting . . . . . When we bear in mind the horror with which our forefathers regarded Arminianism, the modern attitude to it indicates how far the professing Church has drifted from the position of the theologians of those days." - The Reformed Faith I by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 18

Arminianism is armed to the teeth in enmity to true and vital godliness. Where it flourishes its fruits are a superficial goody-goody form of godliness -- the lamp and the light of the foolish virgins which went out in death and in despair. The Declaratory Acts of 1879, 1892 and 1921 in Scotland, and in 1901 in the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand threw open the flood-gates to the deluge of Arminianism. Spiritual death and desolation followed. The fat land was turned into barrenness, and the Churches adopting these Declaratory Acts are now well on the road to Rome. The 'sovereign drug' of Arminianism has flourished beyond the wildest dreams of priests and Jesuits. It is not by open and unabashed passing of nefarious Declaratory Acts that Satan as an angel of light now works. Subtle infiltration is his present policy and technique. What need there is for the 'denunciation' and the 'horror' the Rev. D. Beaton refers to, as the cloven-hoof of Arminianism is unmistakably seen far within the tents of the popular evangelical conventions, fellowships, and unions of our day! The Scripture Union, the Inter-Varsity Fellowship, the International Council of Christian Churches, the conventions of the Keswick fraternity etc., are all riddled with the cancer of Arminianism. - Rev. William MacLean, M.A.

God will not build anything on any foundation of man, on any other foundation than that which has the seal of His everlasting election. He will not! God does not build the church on an Arminian foundation. ... The Arminian is not working at the foundation of God. He is not. Those who in any sense of the word -- I do not hesitate to say it -- build on the foundation of man, on the foundation of Arminian grace or any other common grace, do not build on the foundation of the church. - Herman Hoeksema, "The Sure Foundation of God"

"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will" - Jonathan Edwards

"Many of you say you have faith in Christ. Can you tell us anything about Him in whom you say you believe? Were your souls ever ready to sink into hell? Did they ever stick fast in the miry clay of corruption? Locked up in the prison of unbelief? Icebound by impenitence? Laid lower than the beasts with lusts? Tormented as beset by devils? Did any one come to rescue you in that state? Who is He? Is He a Saviour? Mary saw the Lord; she could tell something about it. And so the two disciples going to Emmaus. Can you this day condescend upon a single incident, even to the extent of the twinkling of an eye? Any condition of body or soul in which you saw the Lord by faith? Can you tell what passed between Him and you?" - Rev. Jonathan R. Anderson, Glasgow. Died 1859

There's plenty more if you still want to play.

 

What is grace?

 

Main Entry: 1grace
Pronunciation: 'grAs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin gratia favor, charm, thanks, from gratus pleasing, grateful; akin to Sanskrit grnAti he praises
Date: 12th century
1 a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
2 a : APPROVAL, FAVOR <stayed in his good graces> b archaic : MERCY, PARDON c : a special favor : PRIVILEGE <each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage -- Rudyard Kipling> d : disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency e : a temporary exemption : REPRIEVE
3 a : a charming or attractive trait or characteristic b : a pleasingly graceful appearance or effect : CHARM c : ease and suppleness of movement or bearing
4 -- used as a title of address or reference for a duke, a duchess, or an archbishop
5 : a short prayer at a meal asking a blessing or giving thanks
6 plural, capitalized : three sister goddesses in Greek mythology who are the givers of charm and beauty
7 : a musical trill, turn, or appoggiatura
8 a : sense of propriety or right <had the grace not to run for elective office -- Calvin Trillin> b : the quality or state of being considerate or thoughtful

There's plenty there from which to choose. I'd start by eliminating "appoggiatura".

 

I suggest we follow Augustine and Calvin, Arminius and Wesley when they follow God's Holy Revelation and refuse to follow them when they don't follow God's Word!!

It is logically fallacious to dismiss someone's studied belief because you don't like the source of his beliefs or because you don't like the associations he belongs to.

rufus

 

Hi sturgman;
a quote from you;
--------------------------------------------
I am sick of people who assume because people refer to us as calvinist, we must follow every teaching of John Calvin. That is just stupid. Those who call themselves Arminian hardly follow all the teachings of Arminius. So when I refer to my self as a calvinist, let me clarify what I am saying. I am saying that I believe in the doctrines of grace.
---------------------------------------------
I don't like lables either although I've told you and others that I'm not an Arminian, I'm still called an Arminian.I wonder is it because Arminian and my self share simular beliefs.
Romanbear

 

Ray,

You can't seriously expect a self published source to be considered credible?

 

I've taken it for granted so far that Luther studied Augustine and agreed with him on most points regarding predestination/free will. I've also stated that Sproul considers Calvin little more than a footnote to Luther.

Should we expect a point at the end of all this? Or are you expecting us to gasp in horror at the brand new revelation that Augustine was Catholic and therefore dismiss the role Luther played and toss out all the scriptural support and abandon the doctrine of election in favor of free will?

 

Then Romanbear, consider the old proverb, "If the shoe fits wear it."

 

Hi Ray;
In Answer to your question as the head line of your post "Is John Calvin a safe spiritual Guide?"
Let me put it this way. I would not leave my children in the hands of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer (" Not sure of spelling') even if they were Christian.Calvin was a Thief And a murderer.I combine both sins because a Murderer is a thief in that he will steal your life.
Romanbear

 

Ray,

Of course Calvanism is Augustnian. Just like Arminianism is Pelagian. If you want to complain that Calvanism is historic orthodoxy, by all means continue. It only highlights that Arminianism is historically heretical.

Besides, you havbe not answered the question. You can't eally expect anyone to take a self-published crank ( or a self proclaimed ThD) seriously.

 

Ray,

If only you would be consistent in the way you split hairs.

The fact that Arminianism is not completely Pelagian is irrelevant. After all, in your thinking, the fact that Calvanists don't hold to all of Augustine's theology does not prevent them from being Roman Catholic, right?

So why should the fact that you a don't hold to all of Pelagius' errors mean anything? I'm just using your logic here.

Besides your argument is also incoherent in that you forget that Pelagius himself drew from Augustine (not to mention Ambrosiaster, and Origen). Guess that makes him,and your theology (as Arminius clearly drew on Pelagius) Roman Catholic too. (Given that RC soeriology is synergist much ike Pelagianism... uh, Arminianism, it has more in common with RC soteriology than does Calvanism.)

But I would dispute that Arminianism really is all the "semi" in its pelagianism. After all, pelagianism is not all that uniform. I am sure that in one vatiation or another you are fully Pelagian. You play down the effects of the Fall so much that I fail to see a valid distinction. That is but the most obvious issue.

I am not an upset person at all. (you should spend more time trying to answer questions than psychoanalyse.) The questioning of the validity of your alleged ThD is due to the way you use it and fail to use it. You use it usually to try to intimidate people. You fail to use it in that you don't use any scholarly sources or methods in researching or representing the sources you do use.

To clarify I don't question that you hold a ThD. I simply question the credibility of it. Considering the arguments you accept it seems impossible that it is from an accredited reputable institution.

You stil have not answered the question regarding the source you use. I know that it is very much your modus operandi to ignore questions and try to get them to chase rabbits, but it doesn't work with me. You also fail to deal with the fact that Augustinianism is unquestionably historic christian orthodoxy. If you differ from it you differ from historic orthodoxy. That is something, given the impliccations of yor logic, that you need to deal with and not run from.

I suppsoe it would be importune of me to point out tha Arminiansism has been the root theology for such errors as denials of the full deity of the Son, Openness Theology and Open Theism, and denial of penal subsitutionary atonement.

You align yourself with very dangerous beliefs.

 

First of all, this is a ridiculous argument. If all you can do is resort to 'ad hominem' arguments, you simply embarass yourself. Those are not legit arguments.

Second, Calvin would claim his theology is based on Scripture not on a man.

Of course he and every other theologian (and Christian, for that matter) has been influenced by Augustine. Augustine is a towering figure in theology.

Third, Augustine is not 'Roman-Catholic'. It would be more fair to say he was a 'catholic' theologian. Conisdering the church was not called the 'Roman Catholic church' at that time, this is well before Trent. His theology was so broad that 'RC' rejects some of his views, as does protestantism.

None of us can escape the shadow of Augustine. Sorry, but to use this as any way to refute Calvinism is just a weak attempt to avoid going to the Scripture.

 

Agreed.

But the fact that this whole ad hominem attack is ridiculous remains.

Augustine was not "Roman Catholic" as you claim.

Calvin (although influenced by Augustine - as well as Luther and many others) based his theology on that of Scripture. Calvin was a masterful exegete, something that gets overlooked by people who don't look at Calvin closely.

This is a horrible argument....I think this thread should be locked.