Staight up question. Should any of the writings of John Calvin be included in Holy Sc

You'll know a tree by its fruits. Look at Geneva...

Calvin and Holy Scripture did not walk the same path.

 

You speak nonsense Helen .

I was going to start a thread about the following . Do any of you non-Calvinists have any of Calvin's works in book form ? I have seen some rather inept characterizations of the Reformer on the BB .

For those of you who actually have some of his books tell us what you appreciate in his writings . Get specific about what has edified you .

The same thing applies to John Bunyan , Charles Spurgeon , John Owen ,A.W. Pink and others . Those of you who do not consider yourselves Calvinistic -- do you actually own their writings in bookform ? Have you really read their works ? Or , dare I say it ? Are you just making things up as you cast about on the storm tossed seas of ignorance ?

 

No, that's just silly. Do you even know why it is called "Calvinism"?

 

You keep us very well informed on the Calvinists. We don't need any books, just read his followers that post on BB to get a pretty good description of what he taught.

 

I am assuming that the New Testament is reserved for those who have had direct revalation of the Lord Jesus Christ and or an apostle.

 

No. Of course it should not be added to Scripture. That would violate one of the most important solas of the reformation: Sola Scriptura. Many of the doctrines of John Calvin, however, are taught in Scripture and therefore, has no need to be added.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Huh? Are you serious?

You're asking this in a Baptist forum! Every Calvinist here, if they are really Baptist, has major disagreements with Calvin's writings.

Most Calvinists haven't even read much of Calvin. They agree, in a general sort of way, with Calvin on soteriology. But then Calvinistic soteriology was held by many others before and after him.

Calvinism is just the most common label used to describe a particular take on salvation--that start to finish, it's a work of the Lord. The name has nothing to do with revering Calvin or his writings.

And of course calvinists are dogmatic on matters of salvation. It's an important subject, and they've studied the scriptures, and they believe what they see taught in scripture in regards to salvation is important.

Anyone who cares about the truth ought to be quick to stand up for what they see as truth, don't you think?

 

I'm pretty sure the canon was closed about 1900 years ago.

 

Should any of the writings of John Calvin be included in Holy Scriptures.

Why, sure they should. Heck. Let's throw out the other 66 books.

 

We must always be reminded that the words of Calvin are somewhat less than infallable and inerrant and inspired!!

To add the words of Calvin to Scripture would be to damn ourselves!!!!

 

Every person on this board, Calvinist or non-Calvinist recoils at the very thought of your question. Most of us who hold to calvinistic soteriology do so not because of anything John Calvin or the Synod of Dort said. I became a Calvinist before I ever knew what that word meant. I became a Calvinist by studying the book of Romans.

I have since read the Institutes and a few of his commentaries. I do not entirely agree with some of his covenant theology. Nor do I agree with paedo-baptism or his view of the sacraments.

What I do agree with is the Scripture. The Scripture teaches God's sovereignty over every area of life. I could really care less what John Calvin thought of it.

 

Probably not. My Bible doesn't have much room for pictures.