The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists

[Rippon]

In my post, I was speaking more about the man's living, lifestyle

His lifestyle? From most accounts he lived an exemplary lifestyle. The worst that can be said was that he was peevish and irritable. But since he was dealing with about a dozen illnesses it's quite understandable.

... not so much about his writings,

You still haven't said if you have read any of his works or not.

Sacraments (believed in a mixture of symbolism as physically only bread and wine, and by the spirit actually becoming the substance of the body and blood),

You may be confusing his beliefs with those of Martin Luther's consubstaniation --not much different than transubstantiation.

and finally, the element of imposing upon society, the rule of the church.

The church didn't rule Geneva --the Genevan Council did.

Perhaps the area of atonement would also be an issue.

As best I can tell, Calvin would not have embraced limited atonement.

Not according to Calvinistic scholars like J. Rainbow,Paul Helm,Roger Nicole and others.

 

[webdog]

I disagree. The unmerited favor of God is unswayed by human effort. In fact when Scriptures display human effort in attempts to gain Godliness, it is seems put in the light of either dangerous (tower), foolish (rich man), and/or misguided (Baptism of John that Paul encountered at Ephesus).

The Scriptures clearly state:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

​

Your statement would be accurately applicable to the believer following the salvation experience. Effort after salvation is much a part of the believer's life and living.

Do not the Scriptures state that even the effort of righteousness (before salvation) is as nothing but stinky diapers.

E


Again, this isn't the thread for such a debate as your post would desire to engage.

It is enough to point out that your non-cal view does not fit into the Calvinistic perspective.

You state you disagree with my comment...then essentially agree with me our efforts don't gain godliness, something I stated. What did God tell Cain? Who does Scripture state He rewards? The Bible is filled with such examples! Faith is never a meritorious work, but is essential...and required of us.

 

[quantumfaith]

You state you disagree with my comment...then essentially agree with me our efforts don't gain godliness, something I stated. What did God tell Cain? Who does Scripture state He rewards? The Bible is filled with such examples! Faith is never a meritorious work, but is essential...and required of us.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[agedman]

In my post, I was speaking more about the man's living, lifestyle...

His lifestyle? From most accounts he lived an exemplary lifestyle. The worst that can be said was that he was peevish and irritable. But since he was dealing with about a dozen illnesses it's quite understandable.

Calvin's life style is not my life style. I don't know what you consider "exemplary" but, being "irritable and peevish" is not in the list of what a Spirit controlled person would normally exude.

I am not trying to be overly critical, I am just stating that He and I wouldn't be that close of a friend.

You still haven't said if you have read any of his works or not.

Of course I have read from some of his writings - why does that matter? Are you assuming that what others quote from his writings (both in criticism and in support) is inappropriate?

I understand well going to the "original source" for research purposes, I did enough of that during my career. So, yes I have read some of his translated writings as well as other source comments about his writings.

Sacriments (believed in a mixture of symbolism as physically only bread and wine, and by the spirit actually becoming the substance of the body and blood)

You may be confusing his beliefs with those of Martin Luther's consubstaniation --not much different than transubstantiation.

Nope. Calvin held that the wine and bread were symbolic until ingested, in which they became by the power of the Spirit the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

the element of imposing upon society, the rule of the church.

The church didn't rule Geneva --the Genevan Council did.

The "Geneva council" ruled about as much as the puritan influenced "round heads" ran England without the influence and approval of the Puritan church leaders, or the King of Spain ruled without the papists dictatorial oversight.

I really don't want to get into this, but those that fled to Geneva learned well how to control others through the "politics" of the church. But then the world was used to such rule by the papists for centuries.

Perhaps the area of atonement would also be an issue.

As best I can tell, Calvin would not have embraced limited atonement.

Not according to Calvinistic scholars like J. Rainbow,Paul Helm,Roger Nicole and others.

I just did a quick search and came up with this resource to which you might look: John Calvin

I think it would express more clearly and give you more documentation than I have the time or inclination to dig out for the BB.

Besides the site embraces the "Calvinistic doctrines of grace." So, when they are either positive and especially critical it must comes with credible documentation.

Perhaps you can contribute to this site and improve it. That is always welcome if the contribution is accurate and documented. With your own knowledge, I am sure you may be a great benefit to them.

:godisgood:

 

[agedman]

Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.

You state you disagree with my comment...then essentially agree with me our efforts don't gain godliness, something I stated.

As YOU can see, your second statement does NOT conform to your first statement.

Perhaps you just didn't remember.

I have that problem - more and more each day.

I didn't think you were getting that problem, too.

What did God tell Cain? Who does Scripture state He rewards? The Bible is filled with such examples! Faith is never a meritorious work, but is essential...and required of us.

Ok, lets look at what God told Cain:

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?"
​

In other words, "Why do you have the pout-y lips and bad attitude?"

7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?"
​

In other words, "If you do what is correct, won't you have a bright smiley face?"

"And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
​

In other words, "Sin has consequences and demands more and more until it masters you, but you must master it."


Now, Cains efforts did nothing to which we would agree, however again this is NOT in agreement with what you stated here:

Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.

Cain showed great "effort" and grace was certainly opposed to that effort.

 

[webdog]

As YOU can see, your second statement does NOT conform to your first statement.

Perhaps you just didn't remember.

I have that problem - more and more each day.

I didn't think you were getting that problem, too.

it conforms perfectly...you just don't like the definitions involved

It takes effort to turn from sin and turn to Christ. It takes effort to no longer want to live for yourself. It takes effort to reason with the Lord, as He tells us to do. None of that is considered works, meaning we don't earn salvation in any way, shape, or form.

You honestly believe the following verse is merely about a pouty face in contrast with a smiley face?!?

6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”

The irony is God was telling a spiritual corpse in your system he could do well and rule over sin.

Cain showed great "effort" and grace was certainly opposed to that effort.

Nobody said anything about any kind and all effort receiving His grace. He gives grace to the humble, humility in itself taking great effort in our fallen state. God is quite clear which effort saves, it is the effort of turning from yourself and your self righteousness that you think deserves a place in salvation and turning to the completed work of Christ.

It takes great effort to reason, especially when you are created bent towards sin and self gratitude.

 

[agedman]

it conforms perfectly...you just don't like the definitions involved

It takes effort to turn from sin and turn to Christ. It takes effort to no longer want to live for yourself. It takes effort to reason with the Lord, as He tells us to do. None of that is considered works, meaning we don't earn salvation in any way, shape, or form.

You honestly believe the following verse is merely about a pouty face in contrast with a smiley face?!?

6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”

The irony is God was telling a spiritual corpse in your system he could do well and rule over sin.
Nobody said anything about any kind and all effort receiving His grace. He gives grace to the humble, humility in itself taking great effort in our fallen state. God is quite clear which effort saves, it is the effort of turning from yourself and your self righteousness that you think deserves a place in salvation and turning to the completed work of Christ.

It takes great effort to reason, especially when you are created bent towards sin and self gratitude.

Webdog,

This is far from the OP, and is going no where.

I quoted the passage, showed the meaning. That you disagree with the meaning is not obliging me to change.

I quoted you, and you don't see your own work as contradictory.

No point in continuing.

You desire some human effort out of some innate natural freedom of will and choice irregardless of any desires, motives or impress by the Holy Spirit. Calvinistic thinking does not agree.

You can continue your view on the Cal/Arm forum.

The continued discussion on this topic doesn't belong in this forum.

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

This is far from the OP, and is going no where.

I quoted the passage, showed the meaning. That you disagree with the meaning is not obliging me to change.

I quoted you, and you don't see your own work as contradictory.

No point in continuing.

You desire some human effort out of some innate natural freedom of will and choice irregardless of any desires, motives or impress by the Holy Spirit. Calvinistic thinking does not agree.

You can continue your view on the Cal/Arm forum.

The continued discussion on this topic doesn't belong in this forum.

Nice way to quietly back out of the room :applause::thumbs:

I showed quite succinctly and accurately how my quote is not contradictory. You just don't like the explanation.

I desire biblical truth, so please don't tell me what I desire.

It also cannot be denied it takes effort to reason. Just our exchange alone takes the effort to compile our thoughts, type them out, edit the spelling, etc.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin's life style is not my life style. I don't know what you consider "exemplary" but, being "irritable and peevish" is not in the list of what a Spirit controlled person would normally exude.

You obviously have not picked up a book dealing with his life. I told you before that he had many ailments that a man of weaker constitution would have fainted under. To be peevish and irritable at times though still sinful would not be anything like the slanderous charges that have been laid at his feet even by professing Christians.

Of course I have read from some of his writings - why does that matter?

For one thing it would give you greater insight and appreciation for the man that God raised up and provided comfort and encouragement to Christians throught the past 450-some years and counting.

Calvin held that the wine and bread were symbolic until ingested, in which they became by the power of the Spirit the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

You're wrong. I have before me "A Contemporary Edition of The Westminster Confession Of Faith" edited by Donald Remillard. Presby Press 2002. I will cite headings 6 and 7 of chapter 29. I think things are stated clearly there and would be in agreement with John Calvin's understanding.

6) "Teaching that the substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of Jesus Christ's body and blood (usually called transubstaniation)through consecration by a priest,or through any other means,is contrary to Scripture and repugnant to common sense and reason. It contradicts the nature of the celebrated sacred event,having caused and continues to cause numerous superstitions and excessive idolatries.

7) Those worthily receiving the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper receive and feed on Jesus Christ crucified. Through faith, in reality and actually,not physically but spiritually,they assume to themselves all of the good results of his death. Christ's body and blood are not physically in,with or under the bread and wine. As the bread and wine are physically real to the senses, so through the faith of believers in the reality signified by the Lord's Supper, Christ is spiritually present with the celebrants."

Of course the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is substantially the same as the WCF in the same subject matter.

I just did a quick search and came up with this resource to which you might look: John Calvin

I think it would express more clearly and give you more documentation than I have the time or inclination to dig out for the BB.

No,it only references Roger Nicole's work which I had mentioned in my post. It also listed an opposing view by Norm Geisler --a professing "moderate Calvinist" is is certainly an Arminian. He has said that the Canons of Dort are hyper-Calvinistic! Some unusual Calvinist is he.

I did like the site though and its links.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know I am late to the party on this thread, but I have spent all of last week in sunny Florida hitting the links and traversing the Disney World theme parks with my family.

Allow me to dispel a misnomer. Most Calvinistic Baptists accept the label "Calvinist" as defining their belief in the doctrines of grace only. Calvin believed in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology (among other things). Calvinistic Baptists reject these teachings of Calvin. Calvin's name is prominently referenced because he was an eloquent statesman of the doctrines of grace. Any connection between Baptists and Calvin's theology ends there.

You are painting with a broad brush when you ask Calvinists to modify their behavior. Do you not mean some Calvinists? Specific Calvinists? You certainly do not mean the whole lot of us, do you?



I am not Southern Baptist and have never been a member of an SBC affiliated church. Could it be that there is something lacking in the majority of SBC churches that has lead to this "Young, Restless, and Reformed" as you put it?

As far as a "traditional understanding of salvation in the Baptist church" that depends on how you define traditional. The SBC has roots in Calvinistic soteriology. Tradition is often defined by the one doing the defining.



You are referred to as Arminian in your soteriology only. You are synergistic in your soteriology. Ariminus believed in a lot of other things that I am sure you reject. It is just like a Calvinistic Baptist being linked to everything else Calvin taught. The connection ends with soteriology.



I have to disagree with you. If the disagreement with Calvinist thought was a insignificant as you make it out to be then every Baptist would be a Calvinist! The fact is that the theological difference is the fundamental catalyst of division.

I agree that there are rude and crude Calvinists. This is not news. There are rude and crude people in every theological camp. Their attitude is often times reprehensible and they deserve to be castigated. But no one should make the mistake of judging a theological position based on the person who holds to it.

many who hold to non calvinistic/Arminian theologies don't seem to see that there are differences in the camp of the Calvinists!

To my understanding, there are these distinct and seperate groups under the banner of calvinism:

Reformed Christians holding to all of cavinism, Covenant theology, infant baptism, Church government etc as held by calvin and followerers

Reformed baptists same as above, except hold to believers baptism and different church government...

reformed christians, usually the so called '4 pointers", baptists who would hold to the Doctrines of grace as regarding Sotierology, debate would be between those holding to limited/unlimited atonement views!

Would say in the SBC and overall baptist churches, group 3 would be most common 'calvinists"