Paul the Apostle A Deceiver? Invented Christianity? Say it isn't So! Nonsense!

[preacher4truth]

The problem most people have with Calvin is his distortion of truth.

If you want to present the "crux" of Jefferson's rejection of Calvinism, why not quote Jefferson?

Did Jefferson reject unconditional election? Yes

As for quoting a heretic, Paul was no heretic, Calvin was.

Was Jefferson oppossed to "every" christian doctrine? No.

Did he accept the trinity? No
Did he accept the divinity of Jesus? No
Did he accept the miracles of Jesus, such as rising from the dead? No

So it would be accurate to say he rejected the fundamental Christian doctrines.

But what about unconditional election. He rejected that crock and happened to be on the side of truth.

Now lets turn to the heretic Calvin.

He accepted unconditional election.

He accepted irresistible grace.

He accepted total spiritual inability.

And he may or may not of finally come down on the side of limited atonement.

So Calvin rejected the gospel proper and turned God into a monster, hindering the ministry of Christ. Jefferson's views were off the mark, to say the least, but his position was he could hold them, and government power should not make them illegal.

You're attempting to justify a heretic. Another interesting thing about you.

That, and you leave out the whole crux of this heretics problem with Calvin; God chooses for His own purpose. He didn't like that, neither do you.

You as he, do not like this, and instead lean towards the false teaching of being elected "because" of yourself and things you do.

That, and you quote, out of context, a heretic, a false teacher, to support your fallacy.

Jefferson created a god to his liking, so do all who think they've earned election.

 

[JesusFan]

The problem most people have with Calvin is his distortion of truth.

If you want to present the "crux" of Jefferson's rejection of Calvinism, why not quote Jefferson?

Did Jefferson reject unconditional election? Yes

As for quoting a heretic, Paul was no heretic, Calvin was.

Was Jefferson oppossed to "every" christian doctrine? No.

Did he accept the trinity? No
Did he accept the divinity of Jesus? No
Did he accept the miracles of Jesus, such as rising from the dead? No

So it would be accurate to say he rejected the fundamental Christian doctrines.

But what about unconditional election. He rejected that crock and happened to be on the side of truth.

Now lets turn to the heretic Calvin.

He accepted unconditional election.

He accepted irresistible grace.

He accepted total spiritual inability.

And he may or may not of finally come down on the side of limited atonement.

So Calvin rejected the gospel proper and turned God into a monster, hindering the ministry of Christ. Jefferson's views were off the mark, to say the least, but his position was he could hold them, and government power should not make them illegal.

jefferson denied the essentials of the Christian faith, denied the Cross/resurrection, so he was a confirm heretic...

John Calvin merely understood the Bible differently than you, and watch out addressing him as a heretic, as he was a teacher gifted by God, and was wiser than you or me in this area, I would presume!

Would you hold the same dsregard towards Apostles peter/paul?john?
As they to varying degrees taught on same things, calvin just fleshed out their biblical outlines!

 

[Van]

I simply used the word the Calvinists used.

Thomas Jefferson's religious views were off base, but he did not present his views as something others must hold. That was Calvin's bag.

It is because I hold Peter, Paul and John in high regard, that I consider Calvin a heretic of the worst kind.

The government does not have the right to declare the views of men illegal. But those who believe in the God of compulsion would disagree. Burn the heretics they would cry. Thomas Jefferson stands today and forever against every form of tyranny over the minds of men.

 

[Van]

Reply to C4K

Good point - of course Jefferson hated Calvin, he also hated Paul.

His exact words were that Paul was 'the first corrupter of the great doctrines of Jesus.'

Jefferson was opposed to basically every Bible teaching. When he developed his own 'Jefferson Bible' he simply snipped out any references to miracles or the deity of Christ and harmonised what remained of the gospels.

Jefferson was opposed to claims of supernatural power, or claims for things incomprehensible. Thus corruptions flowed from taking the simple truths of Jesus, which a child could understand, and adding on the inventions of Plato's metaphysics.

So while it is true there is no need to defend his unbiblical understanding of religion, there is also no need to misrepresent his views.

Therefore his exact words were not "Paul was 'the first corrupter of the great doctrines of Jesus.'" In his letter to William Short, dated April 13, 1820 he wrote the following:

"Among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus*, and firm corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man."

*Coryphaeus refers to the leader of a group.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

'First' compared to 'firm.' Thats pretty close for thirty years of memory . I'm happy with myself!

 

[preacher4truth]

Jefferson was opposed to claims of supernatural power, or claims for things incomprehensible. Thus corruptions flowed from taking the simple truths of Jesus, which a child could understand, and adding on the inventions of Plato's metaphysics.

So while it is true there is no need to defend his unbiblical understanding of religion, there is also no need to misrepresent his views.
.

The above highlighted is exactly what you've done. You've misrepresented the disdain of heretic Jefferson for Calvin, which is due to the specific reason that Calvin believed in predestination/election being based upon God's choosing man in spite of his works being good, evil, or any lack thereof.

Calvin is correct, and as I've shown Jefferson believes against this and instead believes we can merit favor from God by works. This is heresy. This is who you've used turning a blind eye to the correct context of what he believes, going as far as leaving that part out to make your quote of him look better, and to make it have a different caste than its context allowed.

Your presentation and quote purposely left that off as I've shown here within this thread. That you've refused and have avoided addressing that since is interesting also.

You've used a heretics quotes (leaving the crux out of the quote of course) to try and back up your own bias against the truths of DoG.

If anyones teaching is demonic, it is Jeffersons. He denies the power of God altogether. Scripture teaches us to turn away from such (2 Timothy 3:5) not toward such as you have done, for, you know, quotes used out of context to support fallacious theology.

 

[InTheLight]

No, because Jefferson had no use for Bible Christianity.

Have you checked out 'Jefferson's Bible'?

It is amazing that so many evangelical Christians hold Thomas Jefferson in high esteem. An important founding father, for sure, but after I read up on his beliefs regarding Christ (completely unorthodox) and learned about the Jefferson Bible, I've lost all respect for the man, to the point where I see people quoting him as if he was some wise individual, especially when it comes to economics, of which he knew next to nothing, it makes me about want to puke.

But Jefferson is a topic for another thread. I just had to chime in on this point.

 

[Iconoclast]

:laugh:

Imagine you, quoting a heretic denouncing the truth.

He finally found a kindred spirit....:laugh::laugh: an unsaved persons rambling attack on the God of scritpure....impressive:thumbsup:

Jeremiah 5:3
O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return

 

[psalms109:31]

Comprehend

I don't think we can really fathom living in a country who was trying to save a whole country of called people and destroy what they thought was evil around them. How people came to America for freedom of religion. I Don't know exactly what happened at that time, I have heard of people being burned at the stake and tortured and hung for their beliefs, but what people did to have freedom of religion. There is no excuse for man to tear out scripture for others who have misunderstood to their own destruction.

 

[preacher4truth]

:laugh:

He finally found a kindred spirit....:laugh::laugh: an unsaved persons rambling attack on the God of scritpure....impressive:thumbsup:

LOL!!!!!!!!! Yup!

 

[quantumfaith]

I simply used the word the Calvinists used.

Thomas Jefferson's religious views were off base, but he did not present his views as something others must hold. That was Calvin's bag.

It is because I hold Peter, Paul and John in high regard, that I consider Calvin a heretic of the worst kind.

The government does not have the right to declare the views of men illegal. But those who believe in the God of compulsion would disagree. Burn the heretics they would cry. Thomas Jefferson stands today and forever against every form of tyranny over the minds of men.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

:laugh:

He finally found a kindred spirit....:laugh::laugh: an unsaved persons rambling attack on the God of scritpure....impressive:thumbsup:

Icon,

I am in no way condoning Jefferson or any of his religious views, you are a bit out of line here, unless I am reading you wrongly, skillfully attempting to suggest that Van is a "kindred spirit" to an unsaved non-believer. If I am wrong, then you have my apology, if not, you should not suggest such things.

 

[Van]

The gang of Calvinists continue to shift discussion from the topic to my character and qualifications. Anything but the basis of Thomas Jefferson's disdain for the corruptions of Calvinism upon the doctrines of Jesus. According to Jefferson, as per a quote provided by a Calvinist, Calvin introduced more corruptions into Christianity, than Jesus corrected. Here is the quote:
"Calvinism has introduced into the Christian religion more new absurdities than its leader [Jesus] had purged it of old ones,"

So lets see, Augustine's neo-Platonism was adopted and expanded in the dark ages, and it was from this corruption Jefferson sought to untangle the doctrines of Jesus. He (Jefferson) missed by a great deal, as I and others have pointed out. However, those that advocate for the God of compulsion, i.e. Calvinists, created part of the morass Jefferson tried unsuccessfully to excise.

See posts # 30 and 40 for more info.

 

[preacher4truth]

The gang of Calvinists continue to shift discussion from the topic to my character and qualifications. Anything but the basis of Thomas Jefferson's disdain for the corruptions of Calvinism upon the doctrines of Jesus.

So lets see, Augustine's neo-Platonism was adopted and expanded in the dark ages, and it was from this corruption Jefferson sought to untangle the doctrines of Jesus. He (Jefferson) missed by a great deal, as I and others have pointed out. However, those that advocate for the God of compulsion, i.e. Calvinists, created part of the morass Jefferson tried unsuccessfully to excise.

Not at all, you continue to avoid the context that you left out of the heretic you endorsed for a quote.

His problem with Calvin and the doctrine of his that he called "daemonic" was that Calvin believed God chooses us not according to our works, and that good works aren't meritorious. This is a scriptural doctrine that Jefferson called demonic. He also rejected the writings of the apostle Paul for this same reason.

Calvins view here is biblical, and Jefferson didn't like it and cast this off as demonic, as he also did Pauls writings, wanting to be favored for his works, which won't ever happen. Why? It's works based salvation. Calvin denied this heresy and rightly rejects it. But you? You've employed this quote, knowing full well its true context because it sounded so good (you thought) and left this part off.

This is why I gave the entire context of what this heretic stated with the reason for it contained within the context.

This again is the specific reason he rejected Calvin, not for the reasons you make inference to in your quote, which again you've conveniently you've left that part out.

Leaving out the context is being spurious, and deceptive. So I gave the whole truth of the matter within its context.

I thought we were told to turn from those who deny the power of God, yet at the same time hold to godliness? 2 Timothy 3:5?

 

[Van]

Here is Thomas Jefferson's view of Calvin:

DEAR SIR, -- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

See post #40 for additional details.

Works based salvation is false doctrine, but faith without works is dead. Salvation is by faith alone, but the faith is the kind from which faithfulness flows. So Jefferson recognizing the need to walk the talk was close to the mark, but alas his solution threw the baby out with the bath water. However, in the above quote, Jefferson was addressing the idea that God would punish people forever for doing the only things they are able to do. Such a god would be a malignant spirit.

 

[preacher4truth]

Here is Thomas Jefferson's view of Calvin:

DEAR SIR, -- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

That was also his view of Paul. For this specific reason here. I quote the heretic Jefferson to give the proper context of vans out of context quote:

"Calvinism has introduced into the Christian religion more new absurdities than its leader [Jesus] had purged it of old ones," he explained. What would have been the proper response to the "insanities of Calvin"? The "strait jacket alone was their proper remedy." Like Adams, what bothered Jefferson most about this philosophy is that it undermined morality. Any religion that eliminated good behavior as the path to salvation merited no respect, and any god that picked the favored few without considering the lives they led was an imposter, in Jefferson's view.

Same reason he rejected Paul.

 

[Van]

It is obvious Preacher for truth cannot read. The quote contains partial quotes, the the remainder was written by someone talking about Jefferson. ROFLOL

Jefferson certainly rejected Paul but NOT for all the same reasons he rejected Calvin's absurdities. Recall where I addressed this issue. (1) Trinity, (2) Divinity of Christ, and (3) miracles including rising from the dead? These are the reasons Jefferson rejected Paul, and thus Jefferson's view was unbiblical and unchristian.

Now returning to Jefferson's view of Calvinism, he considered unconditional election an absurdity added to Christianity by Calvin. So if Jefferson misunderstood Ephesians 1:4, and I have not seen where he specifically talked about it, then he would reject Paul as providing the basis of unconditional election. However, since Paul did not actually provide any support whatsoever for this false doctrine, Jefferson's scorn rightly should fall on Calvinism alone.

 

[Van]

"The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind it's improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against the appointment of Dr. Cooper whome they charge as a Monarchist in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are in every other point, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical theology against those who believe there is one god only. The Presbyterian clergy are loudest. The most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed. They pant to restablish by law that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion."

Thomas Jefferson wrote this in a private letter in 1820. He was trying to create a wall between church and state such that the government could not use the law to make views differing from the lawmakers illegal. Kind of important.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Closed at author's request.