Calvin A Safe Spiritual Guide?

[Ray Berrian]

Jgreyhound,

You must have been taught in college that you cannot throw around 'generalized statements' or 'blanket statements' like every theologian and Christian has been influenced by Augustine. The whole concept of Arminianism means that we detest Augustinian/Calvinistic alleged truth.

Your lack of theological refinement shows through by statements like 'Calvin was a masterful exegete.

He was a man who came straight out of Catholicism after many years of study prior to becoming a priest. And then many who have not thought things through seem to come up with the idea that suddenly he became 100% Protestant. Calvin drug along behind him all of the error of his admired Augustine, the first and greatest Roman Catholic theologian, but only in the eyes of Roman Catholics and Calvinists.

You cannot be so limited as to your thinking that after his conversion/salvation that he became quickly a master or a doctor in the church. Keep in mind he was steeped in Latin and probably not that of Greek. We do know that Augustine did not even know the Greek N.T. alphabet.

I know some Calvinists who have thrown out at least one of Calvin's doctrines, that of 'infant baptism' which he also carried on his back into Reformation theology. Apparently, even the Presbyterians swallowed this view.

Some of our Christian brethren can attest to the fact that leaving the Roman Catholic Church does not mean that they dropped all of their theological understanding and background over night. Coming to know the purity of God's Word takes sometimes months or even many years. My wife is from a Catholic background so I know her struggles. One thing I have always admired about Catholics is their deep respect for the clergy, which many Protestants ignore. If leadership in the local churches do not respect the man of God, how then is it possible for the new-born Christian to assimilate this important factor. [I Timothy 5:17]

Call the local pastor in the Roman Catholic Church and ask him if Augustine was a Roman Catholic. Rest assured, the priest will want to sit down and talk hours about his masterful insight into the Vulgate version of the Bible, that is if he has time.

 

[Frogman]

If leadership in the local churches do not respect the man of God, how then is it possible for the new-born Christian to assimilate this important factor. [I Timothy 5:17]

Calvin did command this respect you admire. In truth, the pastors should be admired, but not considered to be in a position higher than any other man.

Again, search history farther back than the moments after Luther and Calvin 'protested' against the Roman church. You will find bodies of believers who taught the Doctrines of Grace before either of the Above Catholics attempted to reform the RC; their goal was reform, they had no intention of 'seperating' or leaving the church, only to reform it.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Brutus]

Ray;what exactly do you know concerning infant baptisim? Do you know why the Presbyterians hold to infant baptisim?

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

I totally agree with your most recent post. Thank God for men and women who knew the truth in spite of persecution. No one can steal it our of you heart/life.

 

[Ray Berrian]

"The Moody Handbook of Theology" written by Dr. Paul Enns basiclly says this about Pelagianism. We do NOT agree with Pelagianism but we are Arminian in theology.

'Pelagius taught that God created every soul directly (he despised the traducian theory), and that every soul therefore was innocent and unstained. No created soul had any direct relation to the sin of Adam; the only significance of Adam's sin upon humanity was the bad example. No sin of Adam was imputed to the human race; only those acts of sin that people themselves committed were imputed to them.'

'Pelagius's teaching ran contrary to the Scriptures on a number of points. He taught that man did not die because of sin, yet Scripture affirms the opposite (Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:23). Pelagius taught that man did not have a natural tendency toward sin, but Scripture affirms the opposite (Rom. 3:9-18). If the Pelagian view is followed out logically, then each person born free of the sin of Adam would require an individual "fall," or there would be some perfect people.' {end of two paragraphs of Enns quotes} [Moody Press, p. 311.

One of the aspects of Arminianism is the belief that God initiates [Revelation 22:17] Divine salvation and fully carries it out until we reach Heaven. [I Peter 1:4-5] Salvation is by grace plus nothing. [Ephesians 2:8-10] Faith is a human beings response to the general and faithful call of God to everlasting life. [John 5:24; Romans 4:3; Romans 5:1]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brutus,

I know and understand both sides of the issue as to 'infant baptism.' I understand that Presbyterians believe in it and their clergy minister it to children of believers.

I don't know, Brutus, if we are allowed to start a new post on this touchy subject.

 

[Brutus]

Ray;will you please tell me what you do know? We can start a new thread on this if you desire to or we can pm or e-mail one another if you prefer to do that.Michael

 

[romanbear]

Hi Brutus;
A quote from you;
--------------------------------------------------
Ray;what exactly do you know concerning infant baptisim? Do you know why the Presbyterians hold to infant baptisim?
--------------------------------------------------
Oh, I know, I know, Pick me, pick me.

They believe this will prevent diaper rash

A little humor.
Actually I believe they practice it because they believe that this will justify the elected child of there congregation.This seals them into the family of God...
Romanbear

 

[romanbear]

Hi Jgreyhound;
I had an uncle who worked for greyhound for more than 40 years.

He wasn't a Calvinist.
Since you challenged Ray to zee duuaal with scripture. I'm here to offer the same to you.With out your interpretation of the scriptures show me where it say we are regenerated before we have faith if you can. Show me where unconditional election is .Show me where irresistable grace is. Show me where atonement is limited. You might be bright you might be strong but this nonCalvinist doesn't run from a good argument...

Romanbear

 

[Frogman]

I am not JGreyhound, but:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?... Rom. 10.14

Without the Frogman spin, nor the Romanbear grin, the scripture are plain as day, what more can a fellow say?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Bible-belted]

Ray,

Arminianism is not called "semi-pelagianism" for no reason.

The fact is that Arminius drew on Pelagius, and that his ideas, while not going as far as Pelagius, do draw from them.

The info from Enns does not contradict that.

Also I could easily deny that Calvanism is not Augustinian in th sense of holding to all that Augustine taught regardinelection etc.

If you want to deny the Pelagius conection in oredr to be called "catholic" then you have to Calvanists to do the same viz Augustine.

Better I think though Ray to simply admit that your basic argument (actually the one Roman bear puts forward) is basically a bad one resting on presuppositions that are not tenable when examined.

 

[Brutus]

romanbear;if I'm not mistaken I believe that what you stated is what the Covenant Presbyterians teach.I don't know about all Prebyterians in general but I asked Sinclair Ferguson who is a Presbyterian pastor from Scotland about infant baptisim and he said"we hold to infant bapt. with about the same importance as circumcision",in other words it's more tradition than most people outside the Presbyterian church would assume.He said that they in no way consider infant baptisim neccesary for salvation.Michael

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
I am not JGreyhound, but:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?... Rom. 10.14

Without the Frogman spin, nor the Romanbear grin, the scripture are plain as day, what more can a fellow say?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Use the whole context of Romans 10, and not just a portion of verse 14.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brutus,

Interesting. Thanks!

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible belted,

I just passed on Dr. Enns data for information. I never studied Arminius or Pelagius except as generally speaking, as I studied theologically. It was and is my concern to find out what God was saying through His Word and not the views of other men. We do welcome the compliment that Christ died for all people and all they have to do is believe and receive Him.

 

[JGrayhound]

Please don't lecture me about generalized statements. You made a handful in this topic alone. (example- Calvinism is catholic because Augustine influenced Calvin.....huge leap, at best)

My "lack of theological refinement"? Nice insult. You can't deal with the issues I raise so you attack me. Another 'ad hominem' attack....way to go.

Back to your original error-filled 'ad hominem' attack. You may want to go read a few more books before you just wipe away John Calvin as a catholic or as a useless figure. Protestantism owes Luther and Calvin almost all that we have. Both were former Catholics, both influenced by Augustine. Sorry, but protestants and catholics claim Augustine because he was BEFORE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Read church history, you'll see that. Augustine's teachings have had such a vast influence that no modern theologian (catholic or protestant) is left untouched. You might want to look at other "catholic" teachers and see their teachings. Should we throw them all out because they were "catholic"? I guess we can get rid of the trinity, hypostatic union, etc. Your argument is ridiculous.

Augustine was not Roman Catholic, he was "catholic" (little c).

Calvin is widely regarded as having one of the widest influences in theology and exegesis across the board. If you would study Calvin's life at all you would see that. His "Institutes' is a masterpiece of theology, and his commentaries are some of the most widely read and influential commentaries ever. You simply don't know what you talk about when you downplay him as an exegete. He was probably a better exegete than theologian....then again you must be an exegete to be a good theologian.

BTW, I never said I agreed with EVERY aspect of Calvin. Calvin didn't agree with EVERY aspect of Luther or Augustine.

You need to gain a little perspective before posting a baseless attack like this. At least post some facts rather than just your slanted view of history (which holds little similarity to actual history).

Try not to attack me while you are at it.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
I am not JGreyhound, but:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?... Rom. 10.14

Without the Frogman spin, nor the Romanbear grin, the scripture are plain as day, what more can a fellow say?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Use the whole context of Romans 10, and not just a portion of verse 14. </font>[/QUOTE]

Still, vs. 14 says How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

This is clear pure word of God, not filtered through anything, add it into the context of vs. 14 and the whole of chapter 10, as well as the book of Romans, and then all of Scripture, and you will find that vs. 14 still says:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

And you will still have to deal with that portion of God's word.

In another thread you claim Paul is speaking of the Jews, ok, then quit using in your evangelization among Gentiles.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
I am not JGreyhound, but:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?... Rom. 10.14

Without the Frogman spin, nor the Romanbear grin, the scripture are plain as day, what more can a fellow say?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Use the whole context of Romans 10, and not just a portion of verse 14. </font>[/QUOTE]

Still, vs. 14 says How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

This is clear pure word of God, not filtered through anything, add it into the context of vs. 14 and the whole of chapter 10, as well as the book of Romans, and then all of Scripture, and you will find that vs. 14 still says:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

And you will still have to deal with that portion of God's word.

In another thread you claim Paul is speaking of the Jews, ok, then quit using in your evangelization among Gentiles.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]But again, you take that phrase out of context to make it mean something that it does not mean in context.....Stop it!

[Rom 10:8-10] What does it say, then? The word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith, the faith which we preach, that if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.

[Rom 10:11-13]When scripture says: No one who relies on this will be brought to disgrace, it makes no distinction between Jew and Greek: the same Lord is the Lord of all, and his generosity is offered to all who appeal to him, for all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.


[Rom 10:14-16] How then are they to call on him if they have not come to believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard of him? And how will they hear of him unless there is a preacher for them? And how will there be preachers if they are not sent? As scripture says: How beautiful are the feet of the messenger of good news. But in fact they have not all responded to the good news. As Isaiah says: Lord, who has given credence to what they have heard from us?

[Rom 10:17] But it is in that way faith comes, from hearing, and that means hearing the word of Christ.

Rom 10:18 Well then, I say, is it possible that they have not heard? Indeed they have: in the entire earth their voice stands out, their message reaches the whole world.


[Rom 10:19-21] Well, another question, then: is it possible that Israel did not understand? In the first place Moses said: I shall rouse you to jealousy with a non-people, I shall exasperate you with a stupid nation. And Isaiah is even bold enough to say: I have let myself be found by those who did not seek me; I have let myself be seen by those who did not consult me; and referring to Israel, he says: All day long I have been stretching out my hands to a disobedient and rebellious people.

The scripture speaks for itself, open up thine own eyes, and thine own ears, and Hear the word of the Lord.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bible belted,

I just passed on Dr. Enns data for information. I never studied Arminius or Pelagius except as generally speaking, as I studied theologically. It was and is my concern to find out what God was saying through His Word and not the views of other men. We do welcome the compliment that Christ died for all people and all they have to do is believe and receive Him.

Huh. So you can say you studied the word and came out an arminian which comes out of pelagianianism but if we say our theolgy is calvanist we must have been influevned by Calvin. We must be associated with Calvin ad all his actions, and augustine without qualification.

Sigh.

How do you use such double standards?

And btw, in that calvanism faithfully reflects and summarises apostolic teaching it IS historic orthodoxy.