The Source of False Doctrine

[Yeshua1]

Please itemize his "false doctrines." Obviously as Baptists we would disagree with his view of Baptism and church order. Aside from those categories what do you have an issue with? Compared with a lot of so-called preachers of today --John Calvin's theology is still top notch.

Agreed, but why not go to the very source, jesus and the Apsotles first and foremost?

 

[Rippon]

Agreed, but why not go to the very source, jesus and the Apsotles first and foremost?

RM made a wild charge and has yet to document it. Of course the writings of the New Testament are paramount. But Calvin was a very biblical exegete and yet RM comes barging,as is his tendency,levels a wild assertion then scrams. Instead of throwing granades, he needs to substantiate specifics.That's not his forte however.

 

[Revmitchell]

RM made a wild charge and has yet to document it. Of course the writings of the New Testament are paramount. But Calvin was a very biblical exegete and yet RM comes barging,as is his tendency,levels a wild assertion then scrams. Instead of throwing granades,[sic] he needs to substantiate specifics.That's not his forte however.

First, I do not sit around waiting for you guys to respond to my post. You guys need to get over yourselves.


Second any thoughts of irresistible grace is completely out f bounds and scripture is devoid of it. Neither Calvin nor yourself can come up with any verses that declare the grace of God irresistible. Therefore his doctrine is a false source. and if you are going to nit pick people then you need to make sure you know how to spell.

 

[Rippon]

Second any thoughts of irresistible grace is completely out f [sic]bounds and scripture is devoid of it. Neither Calvin nor yourself can come up with any verses that declare the grace of God irresistible.

You are confused. The term Irresistible Grace was coined in the first decade of the 20th century. A better term would be Effectual Grace. The Lord gets who He wants. He chooses particular people for salvation. See 2 Thess. 2:13 and Eph. 1:4,11 for examples.

Go to John chapter 6 and verses 37,39,44,45 and 65 and try to dispute the doctrine with integrity.

"Devoid"? Don't be so uninformed.

Therefore his doctrine is a false source.

Well, you have to deal with Scripture. Be careful about calling it false just because you hate what you think Calvin was ,or Calvinism is.

 

[DHK]

You are confused. The term Irresistible Grace was coined in the first decade of the 20th century. A better term would be Effectual Grace. The Lord gets who He wants. He chooses particular people for salvation. See 2 Thess. 2:13 and Eph. 1:4,11 for examples.

Go to John chapter 6 and verses 37,39,44,45 and 65 and try to dispute the doctrine with integrity.

"Devoid"? Don't be so uninformed.

Well, you have to deal with Scripture. Be careful about calling it false just because you hate what you think Calvin was ,or Calvinism is.

Those are good points. Though I may disagree with you as I disagree with Calvinism let me intervene in this discussion here.

First, debate the tenets of TULIP if you wish, such as Irresistable Grace, as doctrine, not from a human perspective but from a Biblical perspective. Leave history and human origins out of the discussion.

The same is true with "Calvin" himself. Truth be told, Calvin got much of his information from Augustine. But that is not relevant. Debate the truth, or what is perceived to be the truth, from the Bible. Leave Calvin, and attacking him, out of the picture. It does do any good for your cause (I am agreeing with you Rippon).

Remember that attacking the person is the lowest tactic of debate and a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

 

[BobRyan]

The same is true with "Calvin" himself. Truth be told, Calvin got much of his information from Augustine. But that is not relevant. Debate the truth, or what is perceived to be the truth, from the Bible. Leave Calvin, and attacking him, out of the picture. It does do any good for your cause (I am agreeing with you Rippon).

Remember that attacking the person is the lowest tactic of debate and a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

indeed. As I always say - "When logic fails - ad hominem prevails". You can tell when someone thinks their argument has run aground by how fast they resort to all-ad-hominem all-the-time responses.

There is no point in resorting to it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Please itemize his "false doctrines." Obviously as Baptists we would disagree with his view of Baptism and church order. Aside from those categories what do you have an issue with? Compared with a lot of so-called preachers of today --John Calvin's theology is still top notch.

Calvin did have some good ideas - and it is not at all clear that he would agree with some of the modern day Calvinist positions.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

it is not at all clear that he would agree with some of the modern day Calvinist positions.

For example....?

 

[Yeshua1]

For example....?

reformed baptists not sprinkling infants, Dispy calvinists, and there is still big debate wether Calvin was a stricted holder to limited/unlimited atonement, as He can be read and understood either way!