Arminian, General, or Free Will Baptists

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Chick,
Well, I wanted and tried to be conciliatory--oh, well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Michael,

I am more than willing to be conciliatory, but I will not bend on the truth of the gospel, nor on the facts of history. You have repeatedly chosen to not respond to my questions. You have repeatedly made Calvin out to be a murderer, which he is not. Calvin was by no means perfect, and I would certainly not agree with everything he stood for, but I cannot think of anyone with whom I would completely agree with from the 1500s. I have stated before that you are not being fair with Calvin the person, and that you have not answered the many verses that support Calvinist (Biblical) soteriology. Of course you grind your teeth when you see me refer to Calvinist Soteriology as Biblical Soteriology, but then why don't you kindly reply to the many verses presented repeatedly on this board. I recall my doctrine teacher from College saying once that he read a verse which teaches Divine election, only to have an Arminian student object with several minutes of ranting and raving. After the student finally became quiet, my teacher politely remarked, "do you realize that all I did was read a verse?"

Please also understand, Michael, that I do not have an attitude that I must be right on everything. I have no dillusions regarding my fallibility, but the Scriptures are not fallible. You must interact with THEM, not me, in your attempt to approach God without total depravity, unconditional election, irrisistible grace, and perseverance of the Saints.

Best wishes with a conciliatory tone,

Chick

 

total depravity- Man's attempt to describe what the Bible says

unconditional election- True, but understood with man's implecations.

irrisistible grace- see total depravity

perseverance of the Saints- See unconditional election.

You forgot the 'l', I'm not sure what it stands for, but it should stand for Love.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:

Calvin WAS a murderer; he and the secular authorities in Geneva were in an unholy church-state alliance, and together they murdered Servetus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rarely have I heard such an assurance based upon such ignorance. By your consistent strawmen, ad hominems and non sequiters, you have rendered yourself useless as to any meaningful discussion, be it here or the other threads.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chick,
For now: I have repeatedly answered your questions; you just don't like and will not accept the answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless the moderator of this board has deleted dozens of your posts, I would like to know where your responses are. Not simply "Calvin WAS a murderer", but rather an interaction with historical documents, and with Scripture, resulting in credible evidence that contributes to an overall plausible argument that I and my Calvinist brethren are all wet. Remember, you have proposed that Calvin was a murderer, therefore the burden is on you to prove this, not on me to prove that he was not a murderer.

And I am compelled to accept all answers that you give that are affirmed in Scripture. I do not have a choice to approach the Bible picking and choosing what is true. I can (and will-yea must) reject your answers when they violate the clear teaching of Scripture.

Chick

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

I checked your quote Michael, and I see no evidence from it that Calvin was a murderer. Had Calvin personally hunted down Servetus, run him through with a sword without a trial, then you could have an accusation of murder. In fact, Servetus, a heretic, and a known enemy of Calvin, showed up one day in Calvin's church! He was dragged to the city council where he was formally charged and issued a sentence of the death penalty. Calvin himself was no doubt happy to be rid of Servetus, but he was not on the council. In fact, he mercifully plead with the council to only behead him, but he was not able to pursuade the jury--as they were committed to burn Servetus. Had Calvin stuck his neck out to try to save someone who was a person enemy (He had betrayed Calvin earlier by publishing personal letters from Calvin without his consent), a theological heritic, and someone that the enraged citizens were demanding to be killed, he would not only have lost his ministry in Geneva, he may have been persecuted himself--because in those times, to have stood to defend someone like Servetus in the context of those days, and in the context Calvin was in, would have been the same as to agree theologically with Servetus.

Again, I have stated repeatedly, that I was not in favor of the decision made by the city council, and regret that the council and Calvin himself did not have the foresight of those pushing for the separation of church and state. But when the dust settles, Calvin may have been involved in bring Servetus to his death, but it is hardly murder. In the old west, they would say, "It was a legal, proper hangin'"
It should not have been done, but it was legal, and there was little Calvin could have done short of agreement with Severtus.

Chick

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

YAWN

 

Michael,

Actually I was yawning at your tired old argument. No one on this board believes Calvin was right and actually what Calvin did to Servetus is irrelevant to the argument. Calvin believed in infant baptism and the state church and I disagree with him strongly on those issues also. Calvinism doesn't rise or fall with Calvin. Augustine, Peter Waldo, Waldenses all taught this Biblical doctrine well before Calvin.

Using your logic I can discredit your Armininianism because Arminius believed in infant baptism, John Wesley died a Anglican minister and thus also was a member of a state church that persecuted people, Arminian churches in the early 20th century tithed to the KKK in the south to support lynchings of blacks. We can go on and on.

I gave credit to the early Anabaptists and General Baptists on a earlier post for their contribution to the Baptist faith though I disagree with their Arminian theology. The Baptist faith as we know it however in more ways than CALVINISM was shaped and molded by the Particular Baptists since the Arminian Baptists contribution was only minor after 1644. You demonized those who built Baptist work in America and your knowledge of Calvinism seems to built on propaganda type material that is found in ABA and SWORD OF THE LORD pamplets .

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

HELLO FOLKS (and specifically Michael since he is the chief offender here)!!!!!!!!!

I do not mean to be pedantic or to unnecessarily repeat myself. But why in the world are we talking about Calvin the man? "Calvinism" is simply the nickname that reflects what many us believe the Bible teaches about salvation. To continually pursue Calvin the man is a red herring. It has no bearing on the issues at hand. If you want to discuss the theology of salvation, then let's do that. If you want to discuss church history then move it to the church history forum.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Larry,

I keep focusing on Calvin the man because people keep making the ludicrous argument that Calvin was not responsible for what happened to Servetus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah ... but who cares??? This is a thread about soteriology, not church history. So what if Calvin was responsible?? Does that invalidate the biblical teaching on salvation? Of course not. That is why you are beating a dead horse. It just doesn't matter.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Using your logic I can discredit your Armininianism because Arminius believed in infant baptism, John Wesley died a Anglican minister and thus also was a member of a state church that persecuted people, Arminian churches in the early 20th century tithed to the KKK in the south to support lynchings of blacks. We can go on and on.

I gave credit to the early Anabaptists and General Baptists on a earlier post for their contribution to the Baptist faith though I disagree with their Arminian theology. The Baptist faith as we know it however in more ways than CALVINISM was shaped and molded by the Particular Baptists since the Arminian Baptists contribution was only minor after 1644. You demonized those who built Baptist work in America and your knowledge of Calvinism seems to built on propaganda type material that is found in ABA and SWORD OF THE LORD pamplets .

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen Kiffin!

 

Michael, Once again you are not understanding the issue. When we talk about "Calvinism" we are talking about truth that predated Calvin by ... oh thousands of years ... all the way to the garden of Eden and find their statement most clear in the NT&gt; The fact that Calvin may have murdered someone has no bearing on the NT teaching on soteriology. It appears that since you cannot argue with the theology concerning soteriology you have stooped to arguing whether Calvin was a murderer. And my question is so what? I do not defend what he did (if he did it). I do not know and I do not care because it is non issue for those who care what the Bible teaches on soteriology.

As for arminianism, they define total depravity differently. If you deny total depravity, then please explain why. And I would be very careful following Pinnock. On the basis of what he has written, it appears that he has apostatized, denying some very basic clearly revealed truth.

 

In fact, from what I have been told, Pinnock has gone so far as to deny that God can even know the future, much less be sovereign in the realm of future events. Pinnock epitomizes Arminianism going to its logical end.
I agree with those on this thread who say that the accusation of Calvin being a murderer is a non-issue relative to the Soteriology. I do apologize to all of you for contributing to above extended discussion of the murder question. I simply could not resist defending Calvin a little here, because I believe that Michael is not allowing Calvin to live in his context.
Yes, Calvin was involved in the events that led to Servetus' death, but "murder" is a term loaded with meaning that does not apply directly to Calvin's activity.
I truly wish that Calvin had not supported the union of church and state, and I wish that he had not defended infant Baptism. But I have never said that Calvin was perfect. Neither was David or Moses--and they killed men in cold blood.