The two major shortcomings of Calvinism

[Rippon]

His explanation of the Trinity doctrine, was it too non-Catholic?

It was heretical in the extreme. I don't even want to quote what MS said about the Trinity.

Let me ask you proph --do you think he was a Christian? Notice I am not addressing anything about his State execution. I am asking you about his doctrine --was it Christian or not?

 

[prophet]

It was heretical in the extreme. I don't even want to quote what MS said about the Trinity.

Let me ask you proph --do you think he was a Christian? Notice I am not addressing anything about his State execution. I am asking you about his doctrine --was it Christian or not?

I asked why he deserved the deatth penalty, is this your answer?
Did the Man who first correctly identified the function of the heart, in the circulatory system, as well as many other scientific and medical discoveries, deserve to die, in a place he simply visited, for non-Catholic views?

 

[Rippon]

He calls everyone, but only some will respond.

Does He "call" those who have never heard the Gospel or the Name of Christ?

It takes God to open some hearts.

Every single person who is regenerated has had their heart opened by God --no exceptions.

 

[Rippon]

I asked why he deserved the deatth penalty, is this your answer?

From our perspective he did not deserve the death penalty. But his heretical beliefs at that time were considered treasonable.

Did the Man who first correctly identified the function of the heart, in the circulatory system, as well as many other scientific and medical discoveries, deserve to die, in a place he simply visited, for non-Catholic views?

You had said that Servetus was righteous. On what basis can he be considered righteous? Do you think his doctrines were biblical?

I am not asking about his medical advances whatsoever. That has nothing to do with anything.

He didn't simply drop into Geneva for a visit. He was on the lam. He was a dead man walking. The sentence of death was on his head. Geneva was the only place in Europe where he could hide out and not be nabbed by the authorities. Or was he deliberately egging on Calvin? The Libertines were in control. They were enemies of Calvin's. Calvin was not large and in charge. He couldn't even cast a vote. He wasn't even a citizen in 1553. Calvin had no power or authority to put anyone to death. He wasn't an iron-fisted despot of Geneva. Don't fall for historical revisionism.

Servetus thought he had it made because John Calvin was overruled by his enemies at that time.

 

[convicted1]

thisnumberisdisconnected, it is plain that we are not going to agree on the subject of your opening post. To keep going back-and-forth over it is pointless. I stand behind my words and will let other readers pass judgment on their veracity.

I was heartened to see that you finally cited a source for your prior assertion in your opening post. I will address John Piper’s article in a separate post. I want to focus this post on your critique of John MacArthur’s book “Slave” of which I am intimately acquainted. You wrote:



First, you are wrong when you claim, “Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled”.” He does equate being a Christian (as a slave of Christ) as joyful in the last chapter of the book, but that is not the theme of the book. I challenge you to support your “Throughout the book” claim. If MacArthur used this language throughout the book, it should be clearly seen in each chapter. As it is, that is not the case.

“Slave” was written to undo what MacArthur labels as a “conspiracy”, whether intentional or unwittingly. The conspiracy is the failure of most English translations in regard to the Greek word doulos. The word means “a slave”. It has no other meaning. To translate it any other way is an unfaithful rendering of the Greek word. He then goes on to describe the Christian life in light of the slave-master relationship.

MacArthur does not ignore the difficulty of living the Christian life. He writes on page 93, “Because the Lord is our Master, we can trust Him to take care of us in every situation and stage of life.” That would include good and bad situations. On page 118 he draws attention to the fact that early Christians were often slaves by position, and sometimes treated harshly. “Early Christians would have been well aware of the abuses a slave could suffer at the hands of an unjust owner. Many first-century believers were slaves themselves, and some of them were subjected to harsh and unfair treatment.”

When you write, “A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. A job loss, a prolonged illness personally experienced in self or close family -- these things serve to progressively sanctify, but is MacArthur going to try to convince us that we must face them with joy and delight, with no negatively expressed emotion mixed in, or else we are in sin?” (emphasis mine) have you forgotten what scripture instructs us to do in light of suffering?

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,

Matthew 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

While imprisoned for the cause of Christ, Paul wrote: Philippians 4:2-7, "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! 5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (emphasis mine)."

Imprisoned and facing death, Paul was able to write, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will, rejoice!” He then went on to write be anxious for nothing. Was that a callous remark by the Apostle? Indeed, Paul puts his suffering in context in Philippians 1:29 “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake”. Whereas no Christian would dare label the Apostle Paul as callous and unfeeling over his command to “rejoice” and “be anxious for nothing” in the midst of suffering, apparently you must think that of John MacArthur because he does not qualify his words.

Back to page 207 of “Slave”. In context, MacArthur writes: “Slavery to Christ is much more than mere duty; it is motivated by a heart filled with loving devotion and pure delight. Because God first loved us and sent His Son to redeem us from sin, we now love Him – longing from the heart to worship, honor, and obey Him in everything. Our slavery to Him is not drudgery but a joy-filled privilege made possible by His saving grace and the Spirit’s continued working in our lives. As loyal citizens and grateful children, we now serve our King and our Father out of hearts brimming with thankfulness. To be Christ’s slave is a wonderful and blessed reality; to be His “doulos is not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.””

The above quote from “Slave” is axiomatic. It does not ignore individual suffering, but views all things in the Christian life through the lens of being a slave to Christ. Indeed in the next paragraph MacArthur compares bondage with freedom. He describes the yoke and burden of the Christian life as light. So, he does understand the sufferings Christians endure, but he views them through the lens of Christ.

If MacArthur’s intent was to write a book on Christians and suffering, and he only gave lip service to the hardships of suffering, then your criticism would be valid. But that is not the intent of his book; ergo your criticism is invalid. Actually I am quite surprised that a person who writes so well cannot understand the theme of the book and what the author is trying to convey.

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL!!!! Giddy, giddy, giddy. :jesus: :godisgood: :jesus: :godisgood:

Also, the Disciples rejoiced in being found worthy to be beaten for the name of Jesus(Acts 5:41). When Paul was in prison, his time to die was near, he sent a second letter to Timothy, not to "will you get me out of this place?", but rather, he exhorted him to "PREACH THE WORD".

 

[prophet]

From our perspective he did not deserve the death penalty. But his heretical beliefs at that time were considered treasonable.


You had said that Servetus was righteous. On what basis can he be considered righteous? Do you think his doctrines were biblical?

I am not asking about his medical advances whatsoever. That has nothing to do with anything.

He didn't simply drop into Geneva for a visit. He was on the lam. He was a dead man walking. The sentence of death was on his head. Geneva was the only place in Europe where he could hide out and not be nabbed by the authorities. Or was he deliberately egging on Calvin? The Libertines were in control. They were enemies of Calvin's. Calvin was not large and in charge. He couldn't even cast a vote. He wasn't even a citizen in 1553. Calvin had no power or authority to put anyone to death. He wasn't an iron-fisted despot of Geneva. Don't fall for historical revisionism.

Servetus thought he had it made because John Calvin was overruled by his enemies at that time.

Why then, did he, who had corresponded with Calvin for years, walk into a church service where Calvin was preaching?

Why did Calvin turn him in to the Council?

Why did Calvin turn him in to the Spanish Inquisition years before that?

Why after Meeting Calvin in París, did the University there demand his death?

Have you read the reasons, which Calvin published, for demanding his death?

 

[kyredneck]

From our perspective he did not deserve the death penalty. But his heretical beliefs at that time were considered treasonable.

I thought this was informative:

"The anti-Trinitarian campaigner Servetus was burned at Geneva in 1553, and this is often seen as a blot on Calvin’s reputation. But weigh these facts:

1.The belief that denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin’s and Geneva’s medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it.

2.Anti-Trinitarian heretics were burned in other places beside Geneva in Calvin’s time, and indeed later–two in England, for instance, as late as 1612.

3.The Roman Inquisition had already set a price on Servetus’ head.

4.The decision to burn Servetus as a heretic was taken not only by Calvin personally but by Geneva’s Little Council of twenty-five, acting on unanimous advice from the pastors of several neighboring Reformed churches whom they had consulted.

5.Calvin, whose role in Servetus’ trial had been that of expert witness managing the prosecution, wanted Servetus not to die but to recant, and spent hours with him during and after the trial seeking to change his views.

6.When Servetus was sentenced to be burned alive, Calvin asked for beheading as a less painful alternative, but his request was denied.

7.The chief Reformers outside Geneva, including Bucer and the gentle Melanchthon, fully approved the execution.

The burning should thus be seen as the fault of a culture and an age rather than of one particular child of that culture and age. Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode. As regards the rights and wrongs of what was done, the root question concerns the propriety of political paternalism in Christianity (that is, whether the Christian state, as distinct from the Christian church, should outlaw heresy or tolerate it), and it was Calvin’s insistence that God alone is Lord of the conscience that was to begin displacing the medieval by the modern mind-set on this question soon after Servetus’ death....."

Calvin and Servetus

 

[Aaron]

He deserved the death penalty for what?

“The arrest of Servetus in Geneva, where he did neither publish nor dogmatize, hence he was not subject to its laws, has to be considered as a barbaric act and an insult to the Right of Nations.” Voltaire

Maybe his Medical discoveries were too advanced?

Were his maps too correct?

His explanation of the Trinity doctrine, was it too non-Catholic?

Or, is the truth this...

Jn 16:2-3
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues:yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Jn 8:44
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:for he is a liar, and the father of it.

?

Servetus' BBQ has been debated ad nauseum on this board, the conclusion of which is that those who judge Calvin for it do so in ignorance. If the worst thing you could say of me was that I had burned a heretic, I could enter Heaven on my own merit.

The issue is your assignment of Christ's words on Christian martyrs to heretics. Many blasphemers were justly stoned, but no proclaimer of the Gospel was justly stoned. Many heretics were justly put out of the synagogues, but no Christian was justly excommunicated.

Many pagans have been justly prosecuted for their beliefs, but no Christian ever was.

Many pagans have been murdered for their beliefs, but they are not the ones of which Christ speaks when He uttered the words you applied to Servetus.

You've done worse than blaspheme Christ, you've hallowed a heretic.

 

[prophet]

Servetus' BBQ has been debated ad nauseum on this board, the conclusion of which is that those who judge Calvin for it do so in ignorance. If the worst thing you could say of me was that I had burned a heretic, I could enter Heaven on my own merit.

The issue is your assignment of Christ's words on Christian martyrs to heretics. Many blasphemers were justly stoned, but no proclaimer of the Gospel was justly stoned. Many heretics were justly put out of the synagogues, but no Christian was justly excommunicated.

Many pagans have been justly prosecuted for their beliefs, but no Christian ever was.

Many pagans have been murdered for their beliefs, but they are not the ones of which Christ speaks when He uttered the words you applied to Servetus.

You've done worse than blaspheme Christ, you've hallowed a heretic.

Servetus was murdered for daring to claim that the Council of Nicea's invention of a defensive doctrine, designed to hush the charges by pagans that the Christians worshipped 3 gods, was ill conceived.

His real crimes were translating the Scriptures into Spanish, and opposing the little godman, Calvin.

 

[Aaron]

Servetus was murdered for daring to claim that the Council of Nicea's invention of a defensive doctrine, designed to hush the charges by pagans that the Christians worshipped 3 gods, was ill conceived.

His real crimes were translating the Scriptures into Spanish, and opposing the little godman, Calvin.

Even if your assertion here were true, it wouldn't mitigate your offense.

 

[Aaron]

:thumbs:

thisnumberisdisconnected, it is plain that we are not going to agree on the subject of your opening post. To keep going back-and-forth over it is pointless. I stand behind my words and will let other readers pass judgment on their veracity.

I was heartened to see that you finally cited a source for your prior assertion in your opening post. I will address John Piper’s article in a separate post. I want to focus this post on your critique of John MacArthur’s book “Slave” of which I am intimately acquainted. You wrote:



First, you are wrong when you claim, “Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled”.” He does equate being a Christian (as a slave of Christ) as joyful in the last chapter of the book, but that is not the theme of the book. I challenge you to support your “Throughout the book” claim. If MacArthur used this language throughout the book, it should be clearly seen in each chapter. As it is, that is not the case.

“Slave” was written to undo what MacArthur labels as a “conspiracy”, whether intentional or unwittingly. The conspiracy is the failure of most English translations in regard to the Greek word doulos. The word means “a slave”. It has no other meaning. To translate it any other way is an unfaithful rendering of the Greek word. He then goes on to describe the Christian life in light of the slave-master relationship.

MacArthur does not ignore the difficulty of living the Christian life. He writes on page 93, “Because the Lord is our Master, we can trust Him to take care of us in every situation and stage of life.” That would include good and bad situations. On page 118 he draws attention to the fact that early Christians were often slaves by position, and sometimes treated harshly. “Early Christians would have been well aware of the abuses a slave could suffer at the hands of an unjust owner. Many first-century believers were slaves themselves, and some of them were subjected to harsh and unfair treatment.”

When you write, “A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. A job loss, a prolonged illness personally experienced in self or close family -- these things serve to progressively sanctify, but is MacArthur going to try to convince us that we must face them with joy and delight, with no negatively expressed emotion mixed in, or else we are in sin?” (emphasis mine) have you forgotten what scripture instructs us to do in light of suffering?

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,

Matthew 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

While imprisoned for the cause of Christ, Paul wrote: Philippians 4:2-7, "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! 5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (emphasis mine)."

Imprisoned and facing death, Paul was able to write, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will, rejoice!” He then went on to write be anxious for nothing. Was that a callous remark by the Apostle? Indeed, Paul puts his suffering in context in Philippians 1:29 “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake”. Whereas no Christian would dare label the Apostle Paul as callous and unfeeling over his command to “rejoice” and “be anxious for nothing” in the midst of suffering, apparently you must think that of John MacArthur because he does not qualify his words.

Back to page 207 of “Slave”. In context, MacArthur writes: “Slavery to Christ is much more than mere duty; it is motivated by a heart filled with loving devotion and pure delight. Because God first loved us and sent His Son to redeem us from sin, we now love Him – longing from the heart to worship, honor, and obey Him in everything. Our slavery to Him is not drudgery but a joy-filled privilege made possible by His saving grace and the Spirit’s continued working in our lives. As loyal citizens and grateful children, we now serve our King and our Father out of hearts brimming with thankfulness. To be Christ’s slave is a wonderful and blessed reality; to be His “doulos is not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.””

The above quote from “Slave” is axiomatic. It does not ignore individual suffering, but views all things in the Christian life through the lens of being a slave to Christ. Indeed in the next paragraph MacArthur compares bondage with freedom. He describes the yoke and burden of the Christian life as light. So, he does understand the sufferings Christians endure, but he views them through the lens of Christ.

If MacArthur’s intent was to write a book on Christians and suffering, and he only gave lip service to the hardships of suffering, then your criticism would be valid. But that is not the intent of his book; ergo your criticism is invalid. Actually I am quite surprised that a person who writes so well cannot understand the theme of the book and what the author is trying to convey.

Here endeth the lesson. :type:

 

[preacher4truth]

perhaps you should be surprised that DCONN even read the book knowing his apparent disapproval of Reformed theology. Have you asked him why he would even read a John Macarthur book to begin with?

I'm not convinced he's even read the book. The quote Reformed gave can be found in its entirety online as a review of the book 'Slave'. All of tnd's evidence came from that one quote alone it is readily available online with a simple search. :thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

The OP is purely subjective. Hence the quote 'I've decided'. It is also quite apparent the OP has very little understanding of DoG/Calvinism. :type:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm not convinced he's even read the book. The quote Reformed gave can be found in its entirety online as a review of the book 'Slave'. All of tnd's evidence came from that one quote alone it is readily available online with a simple search. :thumbs:

If true, he has not done a thorough study of Reformed doctrine. If DCONN attempted a complete study of DoG, Reformed theology etc., then he would have a better understanding and be more credible.

In closing...because this thread had becomme tedious, I would remind DCONN that the majority of "Calvinists " are well studied on Arminism and Non - Calvinist theology (and some were even enemies of "Calvinism") way before we ever embraced it as biblical doctrine. I myself consider DoG a ligimate theology extracted from scripture. That be my story and I is sticking wit it. Also done with this thread.

Play nice.

 

[kyredneck]

I'm not convinced he's even read the book. The quote Reformed gave can be found in its entirety online as a review of the book 'Slave'. All of tnd's evidence came from that one quote alone it is readily available online with a simple search. :thumbs:

The OP is purely subjective. Hence the quote 'I've decided'. It is also quite apparent the OP has very little understanding of DoG/Calvinism. :type:

If true, he has not done a thorough study of Reformed doctrine. If DCONN attempted a complete study of DoG, Reformed theology etc., then he would have a better understanding and be more credible.....

Not the first time d-CON has been caught 'pretending':

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2075118#post2075118

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2075305#post2075305

 

[kyredneck]

....lol, and he's always bashing 'the great pretender' over on news & politics forum....

 

[preacher4truth]

Not the first time d-CON has been caught 'pretending':

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2075118#post2075118

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2075305#post2075305

Plagiarism too I see eh?

I guess it is THAT important to some to come off as learned and knowledgeable online and will go to any extent come across as such.

#googlegurus

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

First, you are wrong when you claim, “Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled”.” He does equate being a Christian (as a slave of Christ) as joyful in the last chapter of the book, but that is not the theme of the book. I challenge you to support your “Throughout the book” claim. If MacArthur used this language throughout the book, it should be clearly seen in each chapter. As it is, that is not the case.

An impressive response, to be sure, and I mean that in reference to the entire post. Accurate, truthful -- within the narrow scope of its reply. It ignores JMac's consistent return to the idea that it is the "true believer" that does not doubt, who instantly goes to the Lord, without waivering, without hesitating, without even briefly considering his own sense of loss, hurt, pain, or fear. You dealt with the terms "joy" and "delight" in your post, but ignored JMac's well-known propensity to speak of joyful obedience as duty. Not only did he put this concept into "Slave" and return to it throughout, but he preached a three-part sermon series in January of 1999 on this same subject, entitled "How to Endure Trials," using James 1:2-12 as his text. I've read through the entire series twice just today, in order to make sure I wasn't missing anything. JMac is very reluctant to get to a point in this series, and when he does, he sneaks up on it, hits it quickly, and moves on. But among other things he said was this, in Part II, which is where the link above goes.

"And so, we respond to our trials with a joyous attitude and with an understanding mind, and then, lastly, last time, a submissive will. Verse 4, "Let endurance have its perfect result." Don't fight it. Let the test do what God wants it to do that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. It's all a part of your spiritual maturation. It's all a part of your spiritual development. It's a part of growing up...whether it's an illness or a loss of a loved one, whether it's having your husband and your two sons incinerated by a mad mob of God-hating agents of darkness, whether it's a loss of a job, whatever it is...your first initial approach is an attitude of joy because you know that God works all thing together...all things together for...what?...for your good." [Emphasis added]

I would challenge you to show me where God expects us to forego our true initial approach, which is abject sorrow, fear, anger or whatever emotion is appropriate to the type of trial we face. Not once does JMac acknowledge that those emotions are not only "likely" to happen, but absolutely, without doubt, regardless of is experiencing them, will happen. JMac's overall statements here are ludicrous. No one is able to immediately go to that joy and peace of God's sustaining love and strength. Some of us may go there quickly, others much more slowly. But none of us make it the "first initial approach" as JMac insists James is teaching in this passage. And to suggest, as Piper does in his book, that it is sin to take any but the "first initial approach" of joy is bombastic.

I would go on and point out that you did nothing to respond to my comment about Piper, who is even more adamant about this "first initial approach" than JMac, going so far as to call "sin" any attitude other than joy in the face of trial. But that really isn't necessary, because as much applause as you have received for this post, it fails utterly in disproving or calling into question anything I've said about Calvinism on this thread. You picked one very narrow focus of my comments, and totally ignored the fact that I stated this claim that "anything other than joy in the face of trial is sin," is simply indicative of a larger overall misinterpretation of Scripture. That being it is symptomatic of the larger error of God's total control over man's will, that being apparent in the JMac view, and Piper's, that it is sin not to immediately go to a joyful attitude in the fact of trial.

In other words, you totally missed the point by focusing on the example and not the overall errors mentioned in the OP. Let me refresh your memory:

First, it results in an overly supreme view of how God works with men to accomplish His plan ...

The second error is the unbiblical and hidden assumption of an indifference in God toward the non-elect. Calvinists appear to assume that if God had any desire toward saving the non-elect, then He would have elected them.

If you truly want to respond to me, then these are the points you should be focusing on. The JMac and Piper comments in the post to which you replied were indicative of the first error. Let's look at the second error.

Calvinists and most other Christians understand that we are born worthless, despicable sinners. The Bible thoroughly drives the point home over and over that we can choose not to be,so, if we respond to the drawing, call and enabling by the Holy Spirit to believe. Even Calvinists will sometimes slip up and use the word "believe" from the point of view of it being an active verb, the action being taken by the sinner to come to God's grace. Only the bias of a theological system could cause one to disregard this. That is what we find in Calvinism. That is the point of the thread. Let's see if we can stay focused on that, rather than taking rabbit trails built off of illustrations meant to engage a larger point.

 

[kyredneck]

Plagiarism too I see eh?

I guess it is THAT important to some to come off as learned and knowledgeable online and will go to any extent come across as such.

#googlegurus

Nah, I'd call it trolling for jollies......can't help but wonder how many other aliases he has on how many other boards...lol, how many aliases does he have/has he had on this board?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This is not the place to make accusations, in particular about trolling and multiple accounts on this Board.
If you feel the need to accuse somepne report the post. You will be asked for evidence beyond a mere assusation.