Calvin Was A Man...

if that makes you happy.

 

Not really...it was a joke.

 

I would have never guess.

 

I thought it was a joke. BTW, Jerome Zanchius, if I am not mistaken, calls it derminism. Or rather, teaches a form of predestination that is determinism. I'll have to double check....

 

...and I never would have expected a sarcastic reply from you

 

Of course you are correct that we should not name ourselves after a mere human being. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3.3-7:

3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.​

The difference between the Corinthian Christians saying, "I am of so-and-so", and people these days who believe in the Doctrines of Grace being called "Calvinists" is that in the first case, the name was self-imposed ("I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos"), whereas in the second, the name was imposed by others. Its use became so widespread that even some of its subjects began using the label. But (and it is a very big "but" ) they certainly don't mean by that that they derive their beliefs from John Calvin. As someone else has already said, there might be a few people in the world who revere Calvin and his writings more than Christ and the bible, but I have neither met such a person, nor seen any message on this Board to that effect.

(If there were anyone on the BB who believed like that, I expect they would be drawn to a thread like this one - perhaps if such a person exists, they could let us all know).

 

I agree. I believe that it has divided the body of Christ into "groups" according to what doctrines each man (John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, etc.) taught. It's the same problem which Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 1.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. (1 Corinthians 1:11)

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:12)

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:13)

This unity is in Christ alone--with the Bible as the final authority.

 

To an extent, I agree with you, Linda. But this is an inevitable result of the fact that no one, not even the greatest Christian preachers and teachers who have ever lived, has a perfect and complete understanding of God's Word. The Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others) read the bible and from it understood that salvation is entirely God's work. Others, such as Jacobus Arminius, looked at the same bible, and understood it to teach that fallen man has a will that is free to choose Christ or reject Him, to do good (in God's sight) or to choose evil. As far as I am aware, neither "side" claimed any other source for their teachings than the Word of God, unlike (say) the Mormons (Scripture plus the Book of Mormon), or the Roman Catholic (Scripture plus church tradition/dogma).

True Christians (by which I mean those who are "in Christ", as the bible puts it) differ on all sorts of things - eschatology, baptism, church order, and many others, as evidenced by the discussions on this Board. But these things, though important, are not the heart of the matter. For example, I am not pre- or post-millennial, but I still have fellowship with those who are.

 

Yea i have quoted this passage once already in this thread. Of course it was skirted and only another link I posted was addressed. When I insisted that my basis for my opposition was this passage it was ignored.

 

Lets stay with this idea and see how far it will go. Those before us, never have been able to do it. Yet right now, in this year we will end all that divides. No more Calvinist nor Arminian. Just in Christ.

Maybe we should take this one step at a time. We need to address each subject that divides. This make take a while, but if every one that post this idea, really means it, they will stick around to the end. We may need extra threads...but we can do it...right?

Being I was the first to step forward in this new age of togetherness, I will post the 1st thing we all should agree on.


1) God chooses before the world was made, whom will be saved, not based on foreseen faith nor based on works, but on His power and pleasure and His will to do so.

This is clearly supported in the Bible. What person from the old divide ...or better said...non-Calvinist of old....will step forward and agree? Once we get all to agree, we will move to point 2.

This unity is in Christ alone. Can you show unity?

 

So you want to justify an unbiblical practice by:

1. Going off topic

2. ignoring the passage of scripture cited

 

I think JArthur has demonstrated why we cannot have unity this side of heaven.

To achieve the unity Linda 64 and others want, JArthur will have to renounce his soteriology. Others will have to renounce baptismal regeneration and paedobaptism.

When James insisted that the basis of unity started with the adoption of Calvinism, 2Timothy reacted negatively. And predictably. Are there any non-Cals here who will give up their soteriology in the name of Christian unity?

To be sure, there are some who believe that despite differences, we can all rally around evangelism and missions. To do so, however, requires that certain doctrines be de-emphasized (doctrine divides, you know).

So the larger question remains: What are we willing to do to achieve unity in Christ?

 

AMEN, Linda!! :applause:

You know these "isms" are called "systems" by the world. It is how the WORLD explains the Bible, IMO. And there is an overarching "world system" that has adapted to certain religious notions in its midst. What the world system rejects is true Christianity where God is "in charge" and makes the rules.

We ought to say "I am of Christ" and tell the world to quit commenting on what they don't know.

skypair

 

And it is not that their intentions weren't good intentions when they each came up with quite opposite doctrines. But they were still MEN creating SYSTEMS to explain the Bible when NOTHING and NNE can explain the Bible like the Holy Spirit Who doesn't get any of it wrong!

You adjure that Mormons and Roman Catholics got it wrong. It seems that those "systems" are merely a little farther down the road of error than the Evangelicals who signed on to "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" covenant.

One day, there will be unity around Catholicism, BTW. That's the day when the Spirit indwelt will be taken out and all "Chrisian systems (the "foolish virgins") humanly constructed will make sense together -- Rev 2:22, "I will cast her into a bed and them that commit fornication with her into great tribulation."

One thing that is the entirity -- beginning and end of the matter for me -- is how one is saved? Without "unity of the Spirit" -- baptism of One same Spirit, salvation by the same God and Christ, one same faith (not of "election" but of salvation), etc.

The "bond of peace" IS that we have these in common to begin with (Eph 4:3-6)! Instead, what we have here are some saying their God is totally sovereign and they "did" nothing toward their new birth and that Calvinism is the Spirit of God that resides in them since that is what they admit they "received" as being the mind of Christ. Some even call Calvinism "the gospel!"

Now I ask pointedly (as Paul asked the Corinthians) -- is Calvinism the "mind of Christ?" Did Christ ever use any of Calvinism's terms or was it Calvinism's understanding of Christ that resulted in the use of TULIP, total sovereignty, etc? (Obviously, I could say that same for Mormonism and Catholicism and many would say a hearty "Here, here!")

What then don't some of you understand about the origins of "isms" that makes you divisive in their behalf??

skypair

 

Or gently correct them.


2 Timothy 2

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
​

That is not to say this specifically refers to "calvinist-calvinism" (well maybe a small few).

But there has been quite a bit of strife engendered concerning the Arminius-Calvin "debate".


HankD

 

RC Sproul wouldn't even agree to that. In the portion where YOU say "not based on foreseen faith nor based on works, but on His power and pleasure and His will to do so," RC would say "I do not know how God chooses whom He does to salvation." You can aver the negatives but neither you nor Sproul can assert the positive --- that we are "chosen" by our belief in THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION IN CHRIST.

His "power, pleasure, and will" is a "God can do whatever He wants" statement that obfuscates the fact that He tells us how He chooses in scripture! He chooses "whosoever believes," JArthur. Now see how you can plug that into your "system" where you can deliver unity on this first issue.

skypair

 

Well done. And what is ironic, is the ones crying "unity, unity" were the first once to combat on this! hahahahahaha

 

I rest my case.

 

I can't help it....

Bwaahahahahahahahaha


I did laugh out loud when I saw his response. Oh the irony!!!!

 

I fully agree that the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. But you seem to be saying that you have the "correct" doctrines, and I don't. We believe in the same Holy Spirit, and I imagine we both believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. Are you cleverer than I? (Probably! I'm not the world's brightest ) Do you have a greater measure of the Holy Spirit than I? (I don't know how we could answer that conclusively, do you?) We both say we get our doctrine from the bible, so how do you explain your assertion that you must be right? As for men creating systems, I have lost count of the number of times that I and others have explained that "The Five Points of Calvinism" did not come into being as a result of Calvin "creating SYSTEMS to explain the Bible", but in answer to the specific five points brought up by the followers of Arminius.

Do you really mean "adjure"? Perhaps it has a different meaning in American English, but here, it means "to solemnly command" or "to make an appeal to". I wonder if you meant "adjudge"? If so, let me assure you that I was not being judgmental, just using them as examples of groups who by their own admission add something to Scripture. As for your comment about "Catholics and Evangelicals Together", that just shows how widely (and in my view, wrongly) the term "evangelical" has come to be used today.

How can you be so certain that there will be unity around Catholicism? Where do you find that in the Bible? It may happen that way, but that is a different thing to saying that it will.

Sorry, I don't follow your meaning when you say "not of "election" but of salvation". Election is part and parcel of salvation. It is not some new word invented by John Calvin.

But the way you tell it, you make it sound (to me, at least) as if you think that "Calvinists" teach that unsaved sinners are simply to carry on with their sinful lives, and if they happen to be among God's elect, they will be saved. I have tried telling you that such is not the case. I believe, as do you, that a sinner must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. Unlike you, I see the bible teaching me that by nature, sinful man cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, nor does he want to be saved. Paul answers possible objections to such teaching, in Romans 9.14-24:

14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?​

Where did Paul ask the Corinthians about Calvinism? As for whether Christ made use of Calvin's terms, what terms? If you mean "The Five Points", I have already explained their origin above (I mean "above in this message", not that Calvin was delivered "a TULIP" by a visitation from on high )

But you keep telling "us" we are wrong, and we keep assuring you that despite the nickname of "Calvinism", we believe as we do because we find it in the bible, and not, I repeat not because John Calvin taught it. (If I believed things because John Calvin taught them, I wouldn't be a Baptist.) So in what way are we being any more divisive than you?