Calvin vs Charlie

[Reformed1689]

Calvinists (Gomarist ) can not preach a genuine hope of salvation to all being they believe it is only for the lucky specially pre-selected few. They are less than transparent about this when they preach the Gospel, but nevertheless... When I preach the Gospel it is a genuine offer of hope to ALL, therefore my biblical doctrine of God's grace is more inclusive.

Please, show us this genuine hope for all. Did Pharaoh have genuine hope? What about Judas?

 

[loDebar]

Judas had the Gospel right in front of him for years and rejected it

Pharaoh hardened his heart against God

but if they had no choice, as you say, it is God's fault as TULIP suggests

The exist only by God's choice, so created to go to hell, Is this what you believe? it is what you teach

 

[Reformed1689]

Judas had the Gospel right in front of him for years and rejected it

Pharaoh hardened his heart against God

but if they had no choice, as you say, it is God's fault as TULIP suggests

The exist only by God's choice, so created to go to hell, Is this what you believe? it is what you teach

No. They are sinners and therefore destined to go to Hell. God did not choose to save them. Is this unjust? No. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

 

[MartyF]

For the last time, Calvin did not kill anyone. You have yet to show one shred of evidence to the contrary.

There was that entire book which I listed.

Its pretty simple.

1. Calvin repeatedly stated his motive that he hated the guy and wished him dead. Calvin’s own writings support this.
2. Calvin outed Servitus to the Catholic authorities because he simply didn’t like him and wanted him dead.
3. Calvin did not offer shelter, visit Servitus in prison, or try to stop the excution. At best, he simply tried to change it to beheading.
4. Calvin was known for having bad things happen to people who crossed him. Even the nobleman Jerome Bolsec was banished in 1551 for having the balls to say Calvin’s predestination was wrong.
5. When he returned from Straussburg in 1541, he ended up dictating many of the laws. He was far from impotent.
6. Calvin’s contemporaries found Calvin’s actions to be murder. And Calvin defended himself, not by saying there was nothing he could do, but by saying how bad a person Servitus was.

I could go on and on, but I listed a book for that.

Now you can scream “YOU LIE!” all you want. You can also stick your head in the sand and refuse to read anything.

It won’t change who Calvin was.

 

[tyndale1946]

No. They are sinners and therefore destined to go to Hell. God did not choose to save them. Is this unjust? No. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

So you are saying you deserve grace by something you did?... Sounds to me like the sinner saving himself?... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Eternal life is not in the paper and ink of the Bible, it's in the shed of blood of Jesus Christ!

 

[Reformed1689]

There was that entire book which I listed.

Its pretty simple.

1. Calvin repeatedly stated his motive that he hated the guy and wished him dead. Calvin’s own writings support this.
2. Calvin outed Servitus to the Catholic authorities because he simply didn’t like him and wanted him dead.
3. Calvin did not offer shelter, visit Servitus in prison, or try to stop the excution. At best, he simply tried to change it to beheading.
4. Calvin was known for having bad things happen to people who crossed him. Even the nobleman Jerome Bolsec was banished in 1551 for having the balls to say Calvin’s predestination was wrong.
5. When he returned from Straussburg in 1541, he ended up dictating many of the laws. He was far from impotent.
6. Calvin’s contemporaries found Calvin’s actions to be murder. And Calvin defended himself, not by saying there was nothing he could do, but by saying how bad a person Servitus was.

I could go on and on, but I listed a book for that.

Now you can scream “YOU LIE!” all you want. You can also stick your head in the sand and refuse to read anything.

It won’t change who Calvin was.

1. That doesn't mean anything really.
2. Calvin actually warned him not to come because it would not be safe because of his heresy which was against the law. So no, it wasn't because he simply did not like him.
3. Why would he give shelter to a heretic and how would he give him shelter when he broke the law?
4. Proof?
5. How does that relate to Servetus?
6. Citation?

You are simply wrong on the issue.

 

[Reformed1689]

Eternal life is not in the paper and ink of the Bible, it's in the shed of blood of Jesus Christ!

Where have I said otherwise?

So you are saying you deserve grace by something you did?... Sounds to me like the sinner saving himself?... Brother Glen

How have I said that? You can't possibly read that into anything I have said.

 

[tyndale1946]

Where have I said otherwise?

How have I said that? You can't possibly read that into anything I have said.

Oops I was responding to loDebar not you... Forgive me David!... Brother Glen

 

[Ran the Man]

No, the most proper term is biblical doctrine.

How do you get irresitsble Grace out of the story where Jesus wanted to do miracles in a town but couldn't because of thier unbelief? You might say this proves Calvinism but would Jesus act out of concert with the holy spirit and the father? If Jesus wanted it so did the father and the holy spirit. Problem was people didn't.
Freewill.

 

[Reformed1689]

How do you get irresitsble Grace out of the story where Jesus wanted to do miracles in a town but couldn't because of thier unbelief? You might say this proves Calvinism but would Jesus act out of concert with the holy spirit and the father? If Jesus wanted it so did the father and the holy spirit. Problem was people didn't.
Freewill.

Is that really what the passage says? You might want to read it again.

 

[Ran the Man]

Is that really what the passage says? You might want to read it again.

Dude, I've read it a lot of times.

 

[Reformed1689]

Dude, I've read it a lot of times.

Really? Because that isn't what the passage says. It does not say that he wanted to but couldn't. It only says that he didn't.

 

[Ran the Man]

Really? Because that isn't what the passage says. It does not say that he wanted to but couldn't. It only says that he didn't.

wrong o! it says that he WOULD that he could do miracles there, but could do none, BECAUSE of thier unbelief. the words would that mean wanted to. You're talking to an English teacher here.

 

[Reformed1689]

wrong o! it says that he WOULD that he could do miracles there, but could do none, BECAUSE of thier unbelief. the words would that mean wanted to. You're talking to an English teacher here.

I really don't care if you are an English teacher you still have this wrong. Here is the ACTUAL quote:

“And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:58, ESV)

It does not say he wanted to but couldn't, it just says that he did not. You are reading into the text.

 

[Ran the Man]

I really don't care if you are an English teacher you still have this wrong. Here is the ACTUAL quote:





It does not say he wanted to but couldn't, it just says that he did not. You are reading into the text.

that's one translation.

 

[Reformed1689]

that's one translation.

That's multiple translations. What translation are you using?

 

[Ran the Man]

An at any rate, it says He didn't because of their unbelief. They resisted what could have been theirs. No irresistable grace there. And also, if he did miracles, He wanted to. and He wanted to do for them, otherwise He wouldn't have gone. He did nothing out of concert with the Father and Holy Spirit. There is no Father's will, Son's will. All in perfect concert. Father God told Him to go, Mother Holy Spirit gave Him the power to do miracles, so God the Son WANTED to do miracles. They resisted Him. If man is made in God's image, then freewill is a given.
yes i do beleive in feminine third person of the trinity. So does the Ethiopian Church, which is way older than anything in Europe. try reading back past the last 500 years. The Church is 2000 years old, not 500.

 

[Reformed1689]

An at any rate, it says He didn't because of their unbelief. They resisted what could have been theirs. No irresistable grace there. And also, if he did miracles, He wanted to. and He wanted to do for them, otherwise He wouldn't have gone. He did nothing out of concert with the Father and Holy Spirit. There is no Father's will, Son's will. All in perfect concert. Father God told Him to go, Mother Holy Spirit gave Him the power to do miracles, so God the Son WANTED to do miracles. They resisted Him. If man is made in God's image, then freewill is a given.
yes i do beleive in feminine third person of the trinity. So does the Ethiopian Church, which is way older than anything in Europe. try reading back past the last 500 years. The Church is 2000 years old, not 500.

So you couldn't actually provide a translation to refute me. So you go off on a tangent without any Scriptural backing. Then you claim a feminine spirit without any reason to do so.

No irresistable grace there.

That's because they weren't being called. You should really study what a doctrine teaches before you try to attack it.

 

[MartyF]

You are simply wrong on the issue.

1. Yes, it does matter. Motive is very important when determining guilt. Always has been.

2. Yes, but Calvin did still notify the Catholics because he wanted the Catholics to kill Servitus for him. Remember, that Calvin liked to keep appearances, so he wanted the Catholics to murder Servitus for him.

3.
Matthew 25:37-40 NLT
[37] "Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? [38] Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? [39] When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?' [40] "And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'

4. I listed a book and there are others out there. If you won’t read them, that’s on you, not me.

5. So, I’m glad you agree that Calvin indeed was the one with the power to execute Servitus or stop the execution if he pleased.

6. See 4.

No, you’re not right.

 

[Ran the Man]

1. Yes, it does matter. Motive is very important when determining guilt. Always has been.

2. Yes, but Calvin did still notify the Catholics because he wanted the Catholics to kill Servitus for him. Remember, that Calvin liked to keep appearances, so he wanted the Catholics to murder Servitus for him.

3.
Matthew 25:37-40 NLT
[37] "Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? [38] Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? [39] When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?' [40] "And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'

4. I listed a book and there are others out there. If you won’t read them, that’s on you, not me.

5. So, I’m glad you agree that Calvin indeed was the one with the power to execute Servitus or stop the execution if he pleased.

6. See 4.

No, you’re not right.

He was the one with the power to kill the 57 others he had murdered.

welcome to the hotel Geneva... You can check out any time you like...but you can never leave ...alive that is.