they have NOT accused the 'DR" of anything that he has not been caught doing!
And do you really think the Non Cals are even more rigid and fixed in their ways, like van when he keeps hammering on cal straw men, just as the DR likes to do here?
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
is calvinism based upon John Calvin, Or Upon Jesus And the Gospel?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
they have NOT accused the 'DR" of anything that he has not been caught doing!
And do you really think the Non Cals are even more rigid and fixed in their ways, like van when he keeps hammering on cal straw men, just as the DR likes to do here?
Thing is that Calvin himself was NOT its founder, as those after Hima ctually organized the system that is now called Calvinism!
Which makes calling one's self a Calvinist even sillier.
More misdirection, no light
1) Is the fall a distinctivie of Calvinism, of do Non-Calvinists embrace the fall? Thus this is not Calvinism, the TULIP is.
2) Some do seek after God to get saved. Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33. So a straight-up falsehood.
3) Jesus died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. So a second straight-up falsehood.
4) Yes, eternal security is taught by Calvinism, so they got one right out of 5. Yet many Non-Cals also firmly embrace once saved always saved, so yet another non-distinctive of Calvinism. Thus the distinctive doctrines are the TUL and I of the tulip. There is no support whatsoever in scripture for these mistaken doctrines. They are read into the text.
5) And finally, the doctrine of progressive sanctification, as we grow more mature in Christ is not a distinctive of Calvinism but is embraced by Non-Cal.
Bottom line, an effort at misdirection, deflection and deception.
Some biblical truth calvinism promotes!
Fall of Adam all humans except jesus dead in their sins
NONE seek after God to get saved, the lord initiates that
Jesus death full atonement for the sins of all sinners to get saved by Him
Saved by grace alone,received thru faith alone
Those saved are ternally secured, never will forfeit salvation
Once saved, need to keep being confirmed into image of Christ
WHAT bible truth do you disagree with?
1) Is the fall a distinctivie of Calvinism, of do Non-Calvinists embrace the fall? Thus this is not Calvinism, the TULIP is.
2) Some do seek after God to get saved. Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33. So a straight-up falsehood.
3) Jesus died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. So a second straight-up falsehood.
4) Yes, eternal security is taught by Calvinism, so they got one right out of 5. Yet many Non-Cals also firmly embrace once saved always saved, so yet another non-distinctive of Calvinism. Thus the distinctive doctrines are the TUL and I of the tulip. There is no support whatsoever in scripture for these mistaken doctrines. They are read into the text.
5) And finally, the doctrine of progressive sanctification, as we grow more mature in Christ is not a distinctive of Calvinism but is embraced by Non-Cal.
Bottom line, an effort at misdirection, deflection and deception.
Yet another falsehood, I admit mistakes many times. Yeshua1 simply advances logical fallacies, attacking the opponent rather than his or her views. His goal seems to be to stir up turmoil, rather than enlighten. Note the lack of referenced verses. Why bury the light under an avalanche of falsehoods?And do you really think the Non Cals are even more rigid and fixed in their ways, like van when he keeps hammering on cal straw men, just as the DR likes to do here?
"Sovereignty" has nothing to do with it. God is "Sovereign" yes...............................but does the definition of "Sovereignty" necessarily imply that EVERYTHING that happens is what he DESIRED to happen or what he ALLOWED to happen. You cannot or have not answered that question.God is sovereign, so how can He can NOT be the One guiding and bring to pass ALL Things per His soveregn Will and pleasure?
ALL consistent Calvinists must admit that God is the determiner of ALL evil and sin.......or they are not consistent. If you believe that God's "Sovereignty" is properly defined as meaning that NOTHING comes to pass unless he WANTS or WILLS it to pass, than you cannot, at the same time pretend that he does not WILL or WANT "Evil".I don't know many Cals who would hold to God determined/caused Eil and sin, do you?
Stake whichever claim you want. God is either "Sovereign" as you define it in that he WANTS evil...........or, rather, God is "Sovereign" and that evil is not his perfect will and intent. You may NOT have it both ways.
Non-Calvinist doctrine is not at issue. Non-Calvinists easily and readily admit that any differences or failures are NOT in accord with God's perfect decree...........thus, there is room in non-Calvinist Theology for differences of opinion. There is NO ROOM in Calvinist thought for those differences, unless God is playing a Theological chess-match against himself in your Theology...................yet, they obviously exist.And if yo u think calvinists are not united, whatabout the non cals, who hold to Charasmatic/free will/ deny original Sin/Universalism etc that are aprts of some of their theology?
Admit that God is playing chess with himself......or that (more easily admitted) Calvinism is rather stupid.
That is your problem to answer.
DrJamesAch
New Member
.Calvin did not "skip" the book of Revelation. He didn't get to it. He was occupied
I will agree that he was occupied alright.
Do you think a man with as many ailments and as busy as he was in his not-quite 55 years had time to write commentaries on every book of the canon? Give credit where credit is due. He wrote commentaries on many of the books of the Bible and a fair share of sermons among the same
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak...." Paul 2 Cor 11
Matthew Henry did it. Kittel did it. Rice did it. Need I go on! Yet he found time to write one from Matthew to Jude. hmmmmm. Martin Luther failed there also. Coincidence?
Which ignored exegesis on Revelation.He did a commentary on Daniel which should give you a clue as to what his approach to Revelation would have been.
they have NOT accused the 'DR" of anything that he has not been caught doing!
And do you really think the Non Cals are even more rigid and fixed in their ways, like van when he keeps hammering on cal straw men, just as the DR likes to do here?
They have falsely accused Dr. J. of "Blasphemy".............
you are now then one who piles on
You have officially false accused the brethren of Blasphemy.
You have borne false witness, and you have falsely accused your brother of blasphemy as you place yourself in that camp congratulations to you.
You have spoken idle words of false accusation, and you will answer to God for them.
Yeshua, I accuse publically, as a man who has borne false witness against his brethren in a false accusation of "blasphemy"...
Let him then prove the accusation of "blasphemy" is true, or then, he must repent of his false accusations.
Let him then prove the accusation of "blasphemy" is true, or then, he must repent of his false accusations.
DrJamesAch
New Member
And yet Spurgeon was pre-mil. If he was convinced that Augie and Calvin preached the truth, why didn't he adopt either one of their eschatological views?From the pen of Charles H. Spurgeon:
"The old truth that Calvin preached,that Augustine preached,is the truth that I must preach today,or else be false to my conscience and my God."
"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe it sprang from the great Founder of all truth."
.
Matthew Henry did it.
No,you are wrong yet again. Matthew Henry only completed the books up to Acts. Matthew Poole and John Gill, both ardent Calvinists completed the task because they were granted longer lives.
saturneptune
New Member
Wrong again, it was through to the start of the book of Romans.No,you are wrong yet again. Matthew Henry only completed the books up to Acts. Matthew Poole and John Gill, both ardent Calvinists completed the task because they were granted longer lives.
.
I will agree that he was occupied alright.
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak...." Paul 2 Cor 11
Matthew Henry did it. Kittel did it. Rice did it. Need I go on! Yet he found time to write one from Matthew to Jude. hmmmmm. Martin Luther failed there also. Coincidence?
Which ignored exegesis on Revelation.
John Calvin was apperently the only "divine" (as they called them) in Geneva to have insufficient time to visit the sick............even though every other divine found the time to do it. (As Castellio quotes him). Calvin insisted that it was not appropriate that the Church be robbed of his ministry while he ministered to the sick................and similarly, Calvin didn't think it was fair that he (as Servetus's official accuser) spend time in prison AS his accuser (according to Genevan law at the time) and instead sent a proxy of his tp suffer in prison to level his accusations instead.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong again, it was through to the start of the book of Romans.
Like you have ever read Matthew Henry! Romans through Revelation were done by other non-conformist ministers.
isms and schisms
When two do not agree, they both cannot be right. They could both be wrong.
What is the standard? The holy fathers and post Reformation commentators are all in the same category: subject to human error from their depravity. Yep, Augustine and Chauvin were not infallible. They were also pedobaptists.
Why do many insist on putting extraneous biblical doctrine on the same level as the whole counsel of the infallible Word of God?
The fact that Jon Chauvin, aka John Calvin, was a pedobaptist, a practice he got from his childhood religion, should tell us he is not worthy of a pedestal.
There is only one worthy-- we crucified Him.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
When two do not agree, they both cannot be right. They could both be wrong.
What is the standard? The holy fathers and post Reformation commentators are all in the same category: subject to human error from their depravity. Yep, Augustine and Chauvin were not infallible. They were also pedobaptists.
Why do many insist on putting extraneous biblical doctrine on the same level as the whole counsel of the infallible Word of God?
The fact that Jon Chauvin, aka John Calvin, was a pedobaptist, a practice he got from his childhood religion, should tell us he is not worthy of a pedestal.
There is only one worthy-- we crucified Him.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
saturneptune
New Member
Like you have ever read Matthew Henry! Romans through Revelation were done by other non-conformist ministers.
I was reading Matthew Henry before you were born. Go back to your day job as court jester.
I was reading Matthew Henry before you were born.
Hmm...what a prodigy you must have been at a mere 10 months.
"Sovereignty" has nothing to do with it. God is "Sovereign" yes...............................but does the definition of "Sovereignty" necessarily imply that EVERYTHING that happens is what he DESIRED to happen or what he ALLOWED to happen. You cannot or have not answered that question.
ALL consistent Calvinists must admit that God is the determiner of ALL evil and sin.......or they are not consistent. If you believe that God's "Sovereignty" is properly defined as meaning that NOTHING comes to pass unless he WANTS or WILLS it to pass, than you cannot, at the same time pretend that he does not WILL or WANT "Evil".
Stake whichever claim you want. God is either "Sovereign" as you define it in that he WANTS evil...........or, rather, God is "Sovereign" and that evil is not his perfect will and intent. You may NOT have it both ways.
Non-Calvinist doctrine is not at issue. Non-Calvinists easily and readily admit that any differences or failures are NOT in accord with God's perfect decree...........thus, there is room in non-Calvinist Theology for differences of opinion. There is NO ROOM in Calvinist thought for those differences, unless God is playing a Theological chess-match against himself in your Theology...................yet, they obviously exist.
Admit that God is playing chess with himself......or that (more easily admitted) Calvinism is rather stupid.
That is your problem to answer.
EVERYTHING that happens does HAVE to be either god doing it, or allowing it to happen, what other choice can there be?
look at the Cross of Christ for your answer, as God had ordained and determined that messaih would die for sins, yet He had sinners willfully stick Him up there as they pleased to get His Will done!
1) Is the fall a distinctivie of Calvinism, of do Non-Calvinists embrace the fall? Thus this is not Calvinism, the TULIP is.
2) Some do seek after God to get saved. Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33. So a straight-up falsehood.
3) Jesus died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. So a second straight-up falsehood.
4) Yes, eternal security is taught by Calvinism, so they got one right out of 5. Yet many Non-Cals also firmly embrace once saved always saved, so yet another non-distinctive of Calvinism. Thus the distinctive doctrines are the TUL and I of the tulip. There is no support whatsoever in scripture for these mistaken doctrines. They are read into the text.
5) And finally, the doctrine of progressive sanctification, as we grow more mature in Christ is not a distinctive of Calvinism but is embraced by Non-Cal.
Bottom line, an effort at misdirection, deflection and deception.
However you see salvation happening, its NOT due to "free will!"
(As Castellio quotes him).
Not an impartial source.
Calvin didn't think it was fair that he (as Servetus's official accuser) spend time in prison AS his accuser (according to Genevan law at the time) and instead sent a proxy of his tp [sic]suffer in prison to level his accusations instead.
Calvin had to obey the law as everyone else. He was not a magistrate, as I have said over and over again. He was a member, the leading member of the consistory. He was not serve in a civil capacity.
Yet another falsehood, I admit mistakes many times. Yeshua1 simply advances logical fallacies, attacking the opponent rather than his or her views. His goal seems to be to stir up turmoil, rather than enlighten. Note the lack of referenced verses. Why bury the light under an avalanche of falsehoods?
have you ever asked why the sovereignty of God bothers you so much, and why free will is so appealing?