Well known Calvinist that have died for the faith

[John of Japan]

John...no big deal about the going forward with the debate. But I have shown some support where you asked. I also understand you disagree. Such are all debates.

But as to why there is little seen on election...and why there is none seen on the trinity ties the two together. AND YES...IT DOES HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH HISTORY.

well...sort of.

do you know why?

I have my views about it. But I'll bite. What do you think?

 

[Jarthur001]

I have my views about it. But I'll bite. What do you think?

in keeping with the subject of the thread.......

History shows..

...that truth is there before theology is wrote.

heresy comes and men of God see need to study the Bible in order to prove their doctrine. A theology system is built based on the Bible to prove the heresy wrong.

This can be found in both of the cases we have talked about...as well as nearly all of theology. The trinity was there, but not in name before the Arianism, but was not wrote about till after the heresy was around.

 

[Allan]

Now, I have carefully read all that you posted from the Fathers, and remain totally unconvinced that what you quoted shows Calvinism. I personally could agree completely with everything you quoted from them, and I am certainly not a Calvinist. What you have not proven (and cannot) from the Fathers is limited atonement or irresistible grace. I'm disappointed. Surely you can do better than this.

Oh, wait, I forgot to mention. None of your quotes are from the Apostolic Fathers. They are all from later fathers. Nice try.

Nor is James able to regarding 'Limited Atonement' specifically and the Doctrines of Grace in general.

In his own words regarding a thread concerning this excact same thing he writes:

I also do not deny the doctrines of grace was not talked about from around 120-320ad. It was not that they talked much about free-will either. There were a small hand full that took one side on the other, but for the most part it was silent time. If you are to look at church history as a whole it is clear why this was.

emphasis mine
The Thread is here (post is #20):
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36710&page=7&highlight=early+church+fathers

All born again believers are Pauline in and to the degree we study Pauls writting and us non-Cals most definately agree with Paul who was guided by the Holy Spirit. We might not agree with 'your' (regarding Calvinisms) version of what Paul was saying but we believe Paul was absolutely right in all he stated.

 

[Jarthur001]

Annnnnd, that gets into a theological debate. If you want to hijack your own thread, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to go along.

Annnnnnnd you asked why I said this is calvinism, and I showed why. No non-cal would say that what was said.

Let's try something else. You include Tyndale in your list of Calvinist martyrs. I'm very curious as to how you get that. Tyndale lived 1494-1536. Calvin lived 1509-1564. Furthermore, we have very little left that Tyndale wrote other than his NT translation, and I've never seen anything of it myself. So, how do you know Tyndale was a Calvinist?

John...really. You would change your views if I showed you..would you?

My guess is not. However I will if you you need to know.

 

[John of Japan]

in keeping with the subject of the thread.......

History shows..

...that truth is there before theology is wrote.

heresy comes and men of God see need to study the Bible in order to prove their doctrine. A theology system is built based on the Bible to prove the heresy wrong.

This can be found in both of the cases we have talked about...as well as nearly all of theology. The trinity was there, but not in name before the Arianism, but was not wrote about till after the heresy was around.

Okay, I'll agree with this--it is my view also. Doctrine develops historically as the need arises. However, it still does not help you read Calvinism back into the church fathers when it wasn't there.

You can't just say, "Oh, that guy talked about the elect, therefore he was a Calvinist." That's not doing good history. You have to show that his understanding of the term was the same as Calvin's.

The term "elect" occurs 31 times in the Apostolic Fathers though the term "election" just appears twice--and I quoted those for you. However, the term "elect" in the Apostolic Fathers almost always is a term for "believer." It just wasn't a doctrine for them. In fact, it was not a fully developed doctrine until Augustine (354-430). And even then it is a mistake to read the doctrines of Calvin (1509-1564) back into Augustine. Augustine influenced Calvin (though their doctrine had some differences), but Calvin could not have influenced Augustine. Things similar are not the same. In order to do justice to history, you have to take it as it occurs.

 

[Allan]

My question James is why single out Calvinists who have died for the faith.
Are all believers not worthy to be included in those Calvinists who were martyred for the cause of Christ?

I'm not 'trying' to nit-pic but what is the purpose of seperating these (Calvinists) killed for Christ and not includes those (non-Calvinsits) killed for Christ.
Are we two seperate beleifs serving two different gods, or are we one faith dieing for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

I guess if a person believes we preach a different gospel, then I can see why one would seperate those beloved martyrs of God. For if a person believes we preach another gospel, then we have another christ, and thus another god.

Do you believe we preach another gospel?

 

[Jarthur001]

Nor is James able to regarding 'Limited Atonement' specifically and the Doctrines of Grace in general.

In his own words regarding a thread concerning this excact same thing he writes:
emphasis mine
The Thread is here (post is #20):
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36710&page=7&highlight=early+church+fathers

All born again believers are Pauline in and to the degree we study Pauls writting and most definately agree with Paul who was guided by the Holy Spirit. We might not agree with 'your' version of what Paul was saying but we believe Paul was absolutely right in all he stated.

and on the same thread you was shown that most of your claims were only part true...which makes them.....well...

like here..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=935363&postcount=16

and here...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=935373&postcount=17

and you agreed with me here..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=935460&postcount=18

and rippon showed you were wrong here...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=942244&postcount=28

and again rippton here shows you..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=944566&postcount=35

and here..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=950661&postcount=48


tell ya what...why not read the whole thread.

 

[Jarthur001]

Okay, I'll agree with this--it is my view also. Doctrine develops historically as the need arises. However, it still does not help you read Calvinism back into the church fathers when it wasn't there.

You can't just say, "Oh, that guy talked about the elect, therefore he was a Calvinist." That's not doing good history. You have to show that his understanding of the term was the same as Calvin's.

The term "elect" occurs 31 times in the Apostolic Fathers though the term "election" just appears twice--and I quoted those for you. However, the term "elect" in the Apostolic Fathers almost always is a term for "believer." It just wasn't a doctrine for them. In fact, it was not a fully developed doctrine until Augustine (354-430). And even then it is a mistake to read the doctrines of Calvin (1509-1564) back into Augustine. Augustine influenced Calvin (though their doctrine had some differences), but Calvin could not have influenced Augustine. Things similar are not the same. In order to do justice to history, you have to take it as it occurs.

Very true. this is why I posted on the one chosen.

BTW..chosen means elect.

 

[John of Japan]

Annnnnnnd you asked why I said this is calvinism, and I showed why. No non-cal would say that what was said.

Of course they would say those things! I would! You obviously have a "big tent" approach to Calvinism, wherein anyone close to your doctrine must be a Calvinist. :smilewinkgrin:

John...really. You would change your views if I showed you..would you?

My guess is not. However I will if you you need to know.

It was a serious question. As I said I've read nothing of Tyndale's. I'm willing to change my views if you can show me the TULIP in his writings. He was somewhat contemporary to Calvin, so I admit he could have been a Calvinist--barely.

The whole issue is this. Calvinism is a system of doctrine. No one systemitized it before Calvin. End of story, whether you are a Calvinist or not.

Wycliffe (1320-1384) is a different matter. I see no way you can make him out to be a Calvinist. He lived long before Calvin, and although "Augustine's writings had much influence upon him" (Who Was Who in Church History, by Elgin Moyer, p. 447), that certainly doesn't make him a Calvinist. Augustine wrote about many doctrines.

 

[Jarthur001]

My question James is why single out Calvinists who have died for the faith.
Are all believers not worthy to be included in those Calvinists who were martyred for the cause of Christ?

I'm not 'trying' to nit-pic but what is the purpose of seperating these (Calvinists) killed for Christ and not includes those (non-Calvinsits) killed for Christ.
Are we two seperate beleifs serving two different gods, or are we one faith dieing for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

I guess if a person believes we preach a different gospel, then I can see why one would seperate those beloved martyrs of God. For if a person believes we preach another gospel, then we have another christ, and thus another god.

Do you believe we preach another gospel?

why? because Sky "the calvin basher" asked.

the old thread was closed...therefore this thread.

Would you like to answer the OP? if you read the OP i have asked what you want to hear. At this point not one name is given.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the whole issue in a nutshell concerning calling Calvinist those who lived before Calvin. No one until Calvin systematized the doctrine, though Augustine came close. Therefore there were no Calvinists before Calvin. Simple. :type:

 

[Jarthur001]

Of course they would say those things! I would! You obviously have a "big tent" approach to Calvinism, wherein anyone close to your doctrine must be a Calvinist. :smilewinkgrin:

It was a serious question. As I said I've read nothing of Tyndale's. I'm willing to change my views if you can show me the TULIP in his writings. He was somewhat contemporary to Calvin, so I admit he could have been a Calvinist--barely.

The whole issue is this. Calvinism is a system of doctrine. No one systemitized it before Calvin. End of story, whether you are a Calvinist or not.

Wycliffe (1320-1384) is a different matter. I see no way you can make him out to be a Calvinist. He lived long before Calvin, and although "Augustine's writings had much influence upon him" (Who Was Who in Church History, by Elgin Moyer, p. 447), that certainly doesn't make him a Calvinist. Augustine wrote about many doctrines.

Hold on...

You mean to tell me you agree with this statement.

God chose US so that we will believe in Him?

 

[Jarthur001]

Here is the whole issue in a nutshell concerning calling Calvinist those who lived before Calvin. No one until Calvin systematized the doctrine, though Augustine came close. Therefore there were no Calvinists before Calvin. Simple. :type:

allow me to repost the OP for your pleasure in reading. This time please notice the words in bold and in somewhat larger letters.

Martyrs who held to the doctrines of grace.

Paul having received the doctine from God and after writing them and sharing with others was put to death.

Many who were killed doing the 3 major Roman persecutions cannot be claimed as only free-willers.

Augustine of Hippo resist the Vandals Arian heresy and was killed because of it.

The Waldenses, are well known for their hold to the doctrines of grace and had numerous martyrdoms. The Waldenses met with Luther, and asked Calvin to translate the Bible into French. If I remember right, it was Calvin's cousin that Calvin asked to translate this for them.

Wycliffe did not die because of his faith, but the RCC sure wanted it that way. Three decades after his death, Wycliffe's bones were dragged from their grave and burned.

John Huss, the proselyte of Wycliffe, and a believer of the tenents of grace, was burned to death.

Jerome of Prague, was likewise burned.

William Sautre, John Claydon, Thomas Bilvey, Tyndale, James Bainham, John Lambert, and Robert Barnes were all burned to death for the Christian faith.

Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer , and John Hooper (1495-1554), also died in flames of fire.

John Foxe, not a martyr, but martyr-historian ["Foxe's Book of Martyrs"], was also a Calvinist.

Now this list about is not full. This is mainly leaders.

Augustus Toplady once challenged the Arminians of his time to produce evidence that an Arminian had ever gone to death in martyrdom.

I can think of one. Is there another?

 

[Bro. Williams]

Let me get this straight...you are claiming as Calvinists Paul, a bunch of Romans, Augustine, the Waldenses and a bunch of other people who lived before Calvin systemetized his doctrine? Absurd! :laugh: :laugh:

One more reason to stay out of the C/A debates!

Amen John.
I will say as well that Augustine was pretty close. In fact, a lot of Calvin's heresies are Augustine reborn and placed in protestantism.

 

[Bro. Williams]

allow me to repost the OP for your pleasure in reading. This time please notice the words in bold and in somewhat larger letters.

That may be what the OP said, but your thread title gives away the true intention of the thread.

 

[Jarthur001]

Amen John.
I will say as well that Augustine was pretty close. In fact, a lot of Calvin's heresies are Augustine reborn and placed in protestantism.

hey john....

what did I tell ya.

 

[Jarthur001]

That may be what the OP said, but your thread title gives away the true intention of the thread.

you mean you didn't read the OP?

shame shame

 

[Jarthur001]

That may be what the OP said, but your thread title gives away the true intention of the thread.

Let me ask you Bro Williams.

do you agree with this statement?

God chose US so that we may KNOW God and also will believe in Him?

 

[Bro. Williams]

you mean you didn't read the OP?

shame shame

Actually, I mean I read both and saw what you meant by both.

 

[John of Japan]

Hold on...

You mean to tell me you agree with this statement.

God chose US so that we will believe in Him?

Yes, I agree with that statement. No problem. And I also believe that man has a free will. No problem. The problem I have is trying to reconcile those two statements. That I cannot do, and that is another reason I don't participate in the C/A debates. I believe both doctrines just mentioned, and I believe they are unreconcilable. If we could figure out God, He wouldn't be God! :type: