Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by gb93433, Sep 20, 2006.
What were Calvinists called before John Calvin?
Probably Augustinians, buecause that's what the theology was known as.
Yes Calvin and Luther were augustinian catholics. But, Augustine was not a Calvinist . . .
Yes, New Yorkers are Americans, but I am not a New Yorker.
1st it was between Paulinism and Judaistic
Then came Augustinism
Then it was named Calvinism..
BTW..Calvin was raised as a Catholic, but was never a augustinian monk. Not that it really matters...but I just want to keep it straight.
Intriguing . . . the next time I read his Institutes, I will be enlightened by what you have written and by what Vance wrote:
As cited at: http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache...alvin++"augustinian"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
I read Calvin, because I could not believe the manners in which he was described. To follow what people have written and said about the man, one might think that he was more pelagian than even pelagius himself.
After reading Calvin, I always think: "Why aren't our theologians of today half as logical as he was?"
No, because Paul and the Jews were not arguing over predestination, which is the primary destinctive of Augustine's and Calvin's theology.
Can you show me where Augustine said that?
God's free election of Gentiles to the faith is a core doctrine in Paul's theology, and theologians through the centuries have recognized that. Some, even today, in order to counter Paul's teachings, try to set Peter and James against Paul. A preacher recently did that very thing in the pulpit of the church I attend, saying, "Paul taught predestination, so God had Peter write his books to straighten Paul out". My right hand is up, that's what the man actually said. He's a graduate of a "respected" IFB Bible College in N.C.
You have got to be kidding. Vance? Have you read this book? It is a joke.
If you have not read the book..just read the link you posted. The man interchanges quotes from many men trying to make the reader think is is one big quote from with one like meaning. All one needs to do is look up his sources and see what he has done. I ask all to read your link to see this 1st hand. Its as bad as saying...James says his car is blue. Pete Rose had a blue car...so James bits on games. Really its that silly.
You can read this review and others like it at the link below.. ...
Regardless, even a city boy can hit the inside of a barn with the doors closed.
This sounds like the man that wrote this has read the Institutes . . . I did one quick read and keep meaning to read him again . . . have you?
Calvin held Augustine in very high regard . . . and it showed up in his book(s) . . .
Maybe instead of obfuscating . . . you could point out where Calvin said Augustine was wrong . . . If you cannot and ask nicely, I could look it up for you.
And, being a fair man, didn't you intend to post the positive reviews?
I have read most of it...the part about grace.
Calvin did read Augustine and did like the man very much. All I was saying in my 1st post was this...
Some claim Calvin was a RCC monk, which you seemed to be saying in your post, but the RCC says they have no record of it.
Now luther was a monk of the of the Augustine order. As far as being wrong, both men were wrong in some areas. Both men were sinners for one thing. They also had some ideas I do not agree with. But the Calvin the man is not Calvinism the Bible based doctrine. For some reason this must be one of the hardest things for non- Calvinist to understand, for it always comes up. Non-Calvinist tell more stories about John Calvin and even quote calvin more then Calvinist do. Calvinist tend to talk more about the doctrine. Non-Calvinist only talk about the man john. We do not pray to Calvin or think that Calvin was God. Calvin wrote a few good books, but this does not mean he was never wrong. Calvin as i'm sure you know didn't even write the 5 points. Calvinist was used as a "name calling" word by non-Calvinst just to get under their skin so to speak. This was much like the Ana-Baptist, for they didn't pick their name either. In time, both names held.
If it does not line up with the Bible, do not believe it.
If it does line up with the Bible and the man sinned in another area...do we then not believe the truth?
Maybe we should get rid of Davids writings too.
My post was not to show both sides, yet I was not trying to hid the fact that there are other sides, for I posted the link where you can read on your own. My post was to show the way I feel about the book which I read part of about 6 months ago and also show that I am not the only one with this view.
1) If someone claims to be a calvinist today, what does it mean?
2) If someone only believes 4 of the 5 points, are they a calvinist?
3) Is there such a thing as a moderate calvinist?
4) Can someone believe in less than 4 points and still be a calvinist?
5) If Calvin didn't write the five points, why are they called the 5 points of calvinism?
I have said before, "I don't understand why one would call himself a calvinist, unless he subscribed to all the theology of Calvin". But now I would just like to know what it means to be calvinist. James, you stated above that you don't believe all of Calvin's theology. So, what makes you a calvinist? Am I a calvinist? It seems like there are many things you and I disagree on, but, do we need to agree for me to be a calvinist? I can tell you for sure, I am not an arminian.
I hold to his doctrines of grace. This would be the phrase most so called Calvinist would rather go by. But in the end if you hold to the doctrines of grace you will be labled a Calvinist...mark my word. I use to fight it, but I say whatever now.
I do believe Calvins theology, but do not hold to his doctrines of the church for one thing. I'm using the word theology here in the pure sense. Or...study of God.
Also...Baptisim, being of the Baptist faith, I can not agree with his doctrine on Baptisim.
There are other things I do not agree with. Also Calvin had a way with words and could really open up the passage in full light. Yet I do not always agree with his views on each passage. Nothing big other then one place(heb 6). We all have our own ideas. Just because Calvin wrote it, does not mean it is right. If we feel the writer is off whoever that maybe...we need to keep looking to find peace in our heart about it.
Many things. But mainly GRACE. This is not to say Free-willers do not hold to grace. They do, but they see it just as a gift from God. The doctrines of grace say it is a gift and much more.
Some say no...but I say yes. Election and depravity are what sets us apart from free-willers. The atonement is the biggest one to over come for most. Although I hold to the Calvin view of atonement now, it took me 10 years. But I never study it doing that time. If you do not, you may like the works of G. C. Morgan, who did not hold to limited atonement, but held to election. A GREAT writer.
Yes...or light calvinist. I maybe wrong, but your post of late seems to be leaning that way. If so..you may like Floyd H Barackman...Practical Christian Theology...which I have and have used so much it is falling apart.
This would be light calvin.
The reformation age, ...I am weak in history of this age. But the points were wrote something like 70-80 years after Calvins death. The 5 points of Calvinism which are a summation of the canons rendered by the Synod of Dort are based on Calvins views of the Bible doctrine and were published as to response to the five points of the Arminian.
What is Grace?
I know some who believe in six points. What would they be called?