-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
confused about Calvin
- Thread starter psalm40.17
- Start date
Hello Barry.
Everybodies wrong but you're right. HaHa! You're be at home here then. Welcome.
Samuel was a small child so what? God teaches. Calvin in no way started Calvinism, if you will excuse me sounding Arminian. Many of our brothers and sisters never got to print but this truth has been passed on down the ages.
The Reformation was not a one man crusade it was a popular uprising with many genius' in it's number. It heralded in a freedom of expression unheard of for a 1000 years and a freedom in religious beliefs denied us by those who ride the beast.
John Wycliff predates Calvin, he translated the Latin bible into English for the first time and was condemned by Rome as an heretic.
There's a short article here: http://www.sepoangol.org/wycliffe-e.htm , a five minute read. It might interest you. I find history far more complex than your portrayal of John Calvin and well worth the effort.
john.
Just a cheap shot forgive me old chap.
Is it customary in Bradley to bury the living along with the dead?
Everybodies wrong but you're right. HaHa! You're be at home here then.
Welcome.And I think you have a nerve telling the Body of Christ what She should be doing. It's the Head that tells the Body not the Body. Where the Church is is where the Head of it wants it to be. He's Sovereign.
Do you know what he taught? He taught me to prove all things from scripture. Sola scripture is on our banner just under God is Sovereign. Where do we worship man? Is it that we are noble enough to listen to others and noble enough to check it against scripture?
Yer learning.
Samuel was a small child so what? God teaches. Calvin in no way started Calvinism, if you will excuse me sounding Arminian. Many of our brothers and sisters never got to print but this truth has been passed on down the ages.The Reformation was not a one man crusade it was a popular uprising with many genius' in it's number. It heralded in a freedom of expression unheard of for a 1000 years and a freedom in religious beliefs denied us by those who ride the beast.
John Wycliff predates Calvin, he translated the Latin bible into English for the first time and was condemned by Rome as an heretic.
There's a short article here: http://www.sepoangol.org/wycliffe-e.htm , a five minute read. It might interest you. I find history far more complex than your portrayal of John Calvin and well worth the effort.
john.
unashamedservant
New Member
I hope that you all don't think I am speaking out of igorance. This is something I have given many hours to and researched. The college that I attend it strong against and they have every reason to believe. I want to say that one of the best things that I have written the subject is "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt. So if you are wondering what line of thinking I am coming from than. Some of my thoughts are from that book. But I want to remember also that that is not the only place that I have gathered my research. I have not said this yet and behooves me to do now. I love people on both sides of the issue. They are people that sincerely serve and love the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't doubt they passion for God. But I am a firm believer that we MUST be BIBLISTS!!!!!!!!!
Barry
Barry
John had this to say on another thread.
You say man has "No goodness" yet John says man possess sufficent "goodness" no blood is required to remit his sins.
Beliefs are based on "Fundamentals" of scripture which are "Absolute", but with Calvin, nothing is "Absolute".
Jesus isn't the only way to heaven, God didn't really means his will was for none to perish,
This is clear evidence that you're not very well acquainted with the "ABSOLUTE GOD" who will condemn for even "ONE SIN".
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
"Knowledge" is based on "fundamentals" which don't change, and neither do they "Contradict" other scripture, but then I suppose you would have to understand the scriptures to recognize a contradiction.
You might think that trying to play one against the other is a slick move... However, your position is still faulty and minor discrepancies between my understanding and John's won't change the fact that you can't address the core issues we bring up nor answer simple, straight forward questions.
There are variations of explanations and differences on minor points in calvinism just like there is in arminianism, premillinialism, dispensationalism, or any other attempt to present an organized interpretation of a scriptural truth. I doubt John would claim infallibility... and know I wouldn't.
What in the world was this incoherent rambling supposed to mean?
Are you claiming perfection now? Might as well. You have already claimed that you have goodness independent of God.
Wait a minute. Just yesterday you were claiming that you receive truthes directly from a spirit that are not the same as the text of scripture. Of course these truths are obviously things that can change because you feelings on the matter might change.
Your inconsistency provides an excellent argument against your position. Thanks for the help.
Hello Me4Him.
That's the condition of man. Now show me where I said man has sufficient goodness to save himself and I'll eat John Calvin's hat otherwise correct the impression I said such a thing please. I will not hold my breath.
john.
I said no such thing. Rom 3:10 ..."There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
That's the condition of man. Now show me where I said man has sufficient goodness to save himself and I'll eat John Calvin's hat otherwise correct the impression I said such a thing please. I will not hold my breath.
For instance? What's Calvin got to do with anything? I haven't seen nor heard of him yet. All I've heard is scripture being taught to you not Calvin's words. Another damp squid.
One infraction of the law was enough to condemn the entire race of man this is not in dispute is it? What happened to free will then? That doesn't sound like He allows free will if a punishment is the result of disobedience. Do you believe in the orthodox Hell?
john.
Hello Ed.
I see nothing funny about Calvinism myself and nor do the vast majority of those I've spoken to.
There is no logic,reason or scripture our enemies can use to win an argument and we are not within range so poking fun is the only weapon you have left.
Sticks and stones Ed boy names have no effect.
john.
I see nothing funny about Calvinism myself and nor do the vast majority of those I've spoken to.
There is no logic,reason or scripture our enemies can use to win an argument and we are not within range so poking fun is the only weapon you have left.
Sticks and stones Ed boy names have no effect.
john.
johnp- with respect. I would see a great deal of ofference between the Bil Watterson cartoon characters of Calvin and Hobbes, as shown in rbell's copy of the cartoon at the top of page 17 and the theological system of so-called 'Calvinism'. I fully admit to taking myself a bit less seriously than some of the posters on BB. As to the systems of theology, known generally as Calvinism and Armininism, I have offered more than once that they are, in fact, no different. That is not 'poking fun' but I have yet to expand on why this is so. One of the problems I have is an inability to type very well, and an inability to store these posts before posting them. I do plan to post my reasons why at some time. I just am not able to at the moment. Ed
I do not know who "our enemies" are, and who you are referring to. I have made neither any references that could be construed (by any thoughtful individual, anyway) as 'personal' or 'vengeful', I do not believe. Have I ever 'attacked' any member, here? I do not believe so, in any instance. Have I been 'argumentative'? I don't think so. Do I argue 'back and forth' with other members, as I seem to see as more than somewhat common practice? Again, I don't think so. Does that make me unusual on this board? As that is a rhetorical question, one does not have to answer. Have I 'poked fun'? Well, yeah- Duh! That is my style. Is there seriousness behind the fun? Usually. I would offer that the 'Calvin and Hobbes' cartoons (although I had never thought about it before) are a great, though unintended, example. Hobbes is actually a small toy stuffed tiger. Only when he is in the presence of Calvin alone, does Hobbes' personna take on a life of its own. 'Think on these things.'
I just ran my morning check on my closet. All the skeletons are still there where they are supposed to be, the guns are fully loaded, and the axes all already have sharp edges. I'm ready for the day, here. No special work needed to get started.
In His grace,
Ed
I just ran my morning check on my closet. All the skeletons are still there where they are supposed to be, the guns are fully loaded, and the axes all already have sharp edges. I'm ready for the day, here. No special work needed to get started.
In His grace,
Ed
Hello Ed.
Why would one wish to bring in a stuffed cartoon character called Calvin into a discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism? One does wonder.
Mistakes are apt to occur when two are named the same.
derisively 1 a : a laughing at what seems ridiculous or contemptible : the use of ridicule, mockery, or scorn to belittle or to show contempt
How can we tell which is which? Using derision is your style? I like your style.
Then I'm not going to tell you. If you don't know you won't shoot me.
"duh." "derision." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (26 Jan. 2006).
john.
Why would one wish to bring in a stuffed cartoon character called Calvin into a discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism? One does wonder.
Calvinism and Arminianism. And so you have and that is all, I have seen no any explanation as yet. If it is hard for you to use the computer then your longer than normal post and the speed of it's arrival must have caught you at a convienient time. You could have used the time to answer the question that you posed such a long time ago. Words do need backing up. Questions that have no answer could be seen as a laugh by some and is where, if I were a gambling man, I would put me money.
Saying Calvin is hilarious is not poking fun? During an exchange between the two sides? Is rbell's post not making fun? Might be rbell was not but just thought it was a good idea to juxtapose the two for a laugh. Would I have replied if the stuffed tiger was called Arminius?
Mistakes are apt to occur when two are named the same.
used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident
derisively 1 a : a laughing at what seems ridiculous or contemptible : the use of ridicule, mockery, or scorn to belittle or to show contempt
You just said you were not poking fun now you say that is your style?
How can we tell which is which? Using derision is your style? I like your style.Expand at your leisure old chap.
Is he anything like Homer? Some things Homer teaches are worth thinking on as well.
Cool!
Then I'm not going to tell you. If you don't know you won't shoot me.That's my wife's opinion of me to.
Well, yeah- Duh! My point I think.
"duh." "derision." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (26 Jan. 2006).
john.
johnp. said:
Why would one wish to bring in a stuffed cartoon character called Calvin into a discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism? One does wonder.
Actually, Calvin is named after John Calvin. A recurring theme in the cartoons was Calvin's (inaccurate) complaint that he was not to blame for his misbehaviour, because he was a victim of circumstances - in other words, predestination.
(Hobbes is named after the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, BTW. Like Thomas Hobbes, the tiger is somewhat pessimistic about human nature.)
Why would one wish to bring in a stuffed cartoon character called Calvin into a discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism? One does wonder.
Actually, Calvin is named after John Calvin. A recurring theme in the cartoons was Calvin's (inaccurate) complaint that he was not to blame for his misbehaviour, because he was a victim of circumstances - in other words, predestination.
(Hobbes is named after the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, BTW. Like Thomas Hobbes, the tiger is somewhat pessimistic about human nature.)
(asking for forgiveness in advance for the shout)
GEEZ! LIGHTEN UP!
I had the chore of counseling teens last night as to why their friend was killed in a car wreck. I also had the privilege to lead one to the Lord. THAT, my friends, is ministry. Fighting about Bill Watterson's cartoon is NOT.
Perhaps all of us should remember that we are called to love God and make His name known, NOT sit around and shred fellow Christians to bits. You know, a bit of humor (and perhaps a mild laxative) might improve things around here just a bit.
I'd just as soon you choose the humor, by the way.
And to be totally egalitarian, I will attempt to draw a stuffed armadillo named "Arminius." But I'm not the artist that Watterson was.
Geez.
(end of rant--waits for the grenades)
GEEZ! LIGHTEN UP!
I had the chore of counseling teens last night as to why their friend was killed in a car wreck. I also had the privilege to lead one to the Lord. THAT, my friends, is ministry. Fighting about Bill Watterson's cartoon is NOT.
Perhaps all of us should remember that we are called to love God and make His name known, NOT sit around and shred fellow Christians to bits. You know, a bit of humor (and perhaps a mild laxative) might improve things around here just a bit.
I'd just as soon you choose the humor, by the way.
And to be totally egalitarian, I will attempt to draw a stuffed armadillo named "Arminius." But I'm not the artist that Watterson was.
Geez.
(end of rant--waits for the grenades)
Hello rbell nice to meet you.
Why do you use the Name of Jesus as an oath? That is not just hasty words but taking the Name of the Lord in vain.
We need a binding agent not a mild laxative round here. HaHa!
Keep up the good work man.
john.
Why do you use the Name of Jesus as an oath? That is not just hasty words but taking the Name of the Lord in vain.
We need a binding agent not a mild laxative round here. HaHa!
What, like you are doing?
Keep taking His Name in vain and it might be you that lightens up.
Keep up the good work man.john.
John,
Let me apologize for using what you understood to be the name of Jesus used as an oath. You and I would probably disagree on the etymology of the word I used, but out of respect for you and others I won't use it again here. I would not want to offend, nor ever malign the name of my Savior.
I went back, read, and reread this thread in its entirety. I was unable to gather any evidence of my "shredding fellow Christians." I made the statement, directed at no one person or viewpoint, that we should keep the main thing the main thing. I also attempted to use humor to try to get folks to laugh a bit and "step back" before attacking others. Apparently, I have not been as successful as I had hoped. I own every "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon project ever released, and find it funny. Read nothing more into that.
I'll continue to read this thread with interest, but won't post here again. I do not wish to be party to any further escalation in animosity.
God's best to all of you, and hope you guys find a bit of common ground.
RB
Let me apologize for using what you understood to be the name of Jesus used as an oath. You and I would probably disagree on the etymology of the word I used, but out of respect for you and others I won't use it again here. I would not want to offend, nor ever malign the name of my Savior.
I went back, read, and reread this thread in its entirety. I was unable to gather any evidence of my "shredding fellow Christians." I made the statement, directed at no one person or viewpoint, that we should keep the main thing the main thing. I also attempted to use humor to try to get folks to laugh a bit and "step back" before attacking others. Apparently, I have not been as successful as I had hoped. I own every "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon project ever released, and find it funny. Read nothing more into that.
I'll continue to read this thread with interest, but won't post here again. I do not wish to be party to any further escalation in animosity.
God's best to all of you, and hope you guys find a bit of common ground.
RB
Hello rbell.
How does one contend for the faith without contention (Jude 1:3)?
...NOT sit around and shred fellow Christians to bits.
I don't know? Am I being too sensitive or what? How can I tell?
john.
It seemed to clash with your other statements.
Your post itself was one of ripping us apart wasn't it? You were having a go at all of us and our discussion, that we were humourless and sitting around (doing nothing?) and that a mild laxative would be in order (when in fact that would be like pouring petrol onto the fire). What do you mean you couldn't find any evidence?
How does one contend for the faith without contention (Jude 1:3)?
...NOT sit around and shred fellow Christians to bits.
I don't know? Am I being too sensitive or what? How can I tell?
john.
johnp...since rbell stated he would not post on this thread again, did you or didn't you accept his apology? You seem to want to keep the fight going well after it should have ended. This would be a good time for this thread to be closed as it has turned into a case of "you said, you said".
