History of Calvin

I agree that we are not to give glory to men. But it seems to me that you are mistaken in suggesting that people who believe the doctrines of grace "give glory to" John Calvin, just because he also believed those doctrines.

In the same way, it would be wrong to say that those Christians who don't believe those doctrines are "giving glory to" Arminius, or Arius, or whoever, just because those men also did not believe those doctrines.

Put it another way, surely it is possible to agree with another Christian (be it John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, or a fellow member of the Baptist Board), without "giving glory to" them.

 

Aw, shucks... We all know that Calvin was a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed tons of people -- all good believers at that! :tonofbricks:

 

I am sorry to seem so convoluted. I am a doctrines of grace person too--5 points that is. The real point I am trying to convey is that the teachings in Calvin's 5-points preceed Calvin by about 1500 years. Some would say all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Sub corollary: feverishly, dedicated, sincereness toward a cause does not necessarily make one right. Example: Saul of Tarsus. He thought he was doing God a service--wrong answer. More examples: Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr., Ellen G. White, Judge Rutherford, Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong--etal--all of these were very sincere and dedicated to be sure. Jon Chauvin is not necessarily in this group. God knows them that are His. We are not judges of such things.

We are charged to keep the faith, once for all delivered unto the Saints.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Mother Theresa probably spent more time doing good things. Now what?

The only problem is: all of our righteousness is as filthy rags. If we do anything good, it is because of the imputed righteousness of Christ--all praise goes to God and His sovereign grace.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

John Calvin would not have approved of TULIP. It was formulated after he was long dead.

 

That may indeed be true. He did not formulate it, nor are his words precisely that of the ever-so-popular (or hated!) TULIP, which was properly seen a response to 5 points brought before the Synod of Dort that do not paint a complete view of God's sovereignty in salvation. But, he would likely just tweak the points a bit -- not toss them as some are prone to hold.

 

Sorry, James, that I seem to have misunderstood your earlier post. Thanks for taking time to explain.

 

I bought a wonderful book a while back.(I used to put my date of purchase). The author is Herman J.Selderhuis. He's a leading Reformation historian. His book is:John Calvin : A Pilgrim's Life.

I'll give some snips from it.

Calvin was certainly not the big boss of Geneva,and in fact had no political power at all. He was indeed the chief pastor,but that got him very little in a city where the government made all of the final decisions,even in the church,and it got him nothing at all when that government was not particularly well-disposed toward him. (p.128)

The city,for instance,had already decided to purify itself and adopt imperial law --including the death-penalty for heretics --as its norm when Calvin was still many miles away,and in fact still a student. The old image of Calvin the tyrant is not at all in line with the facts... in reality he never had much say in Geneva --except possibly toward the end of his life. [That would have been the last 10 years of his life --1555-1564 --Rip] (p.64)

The Geneva archives clearly show he was no king...(p.66)

 

My problem with most 5 pointers is that they limit what God can do. They claim that the Holy Spirit can't regenerate a person until the person first says (asks, believes, understands) something. This, at best, is semi-pelagian.

 

Strange, I thought it was the other way round. Is it really the "5 pointers", as you call them, who limit God? Do they say things like: "God has done all that He can to save you. Now it's up to you"? And it is surely the non-calvinists who "claim that the Holy Spirit can't regenerate a person until the person first says (asks, believes, understands) something." They say that belief preceeds regeneration.

Maybe another listen to Sinclair Ferguson's "great sermon on the doctrines of grace" that you reccommended on another thread would help.

 

...The supposedly scandalous things of which Calvin has been accused for centuries were nothing other than the results of laws enacted by the government of Geneva and received by its citizens.(p.119)

It is high time to overturn another image:that of Calvin as the mayor of Geneva. He actually kept his dance from politics...He was glad to give up the power that others said he so eagerly sought...[and which he nver had in the first place --Rip] (p.147)

Since 1548, the majority of the Geneva council had been made up of his opponents. (p.155)

 

More From Selderhusis

The 1546 dispute about a certain theater production is therefore interesting.The play in question was based on the book of Acts.Calvin had seen the piece and had found nothing wrong with it,but several of his colleagues did...at times he was more lenient than his colleagues. (p.160)

Calvin quote:"But if wine is a poison to the drunkard,does that men we are to have an aversion to it?Please,no. We do not let that spoil the taste for us,for on the contrary,we delight in the taste of wine!" (p.162)

 

From Selderhuis

The longest chapter by far of the Institutes is devoted to prayer...The worldwide Reformed practice of praying before and after every meal,at home and elsewhere,had its origin in Calvin. (p.161)

 

From Selderhuis

[Regarding wedding parties] Calvin worried especially about the drinking,and said he hardly knew of any party where that did not get out of hand.When people drank too much,the topic of conversation degenerated,and with that the door was left wide open to all kinds of sin. (p.179)