Free Will vs. Predestination

Wells,

Further, when I do post scripture it is either ignored or dismissed. Calvinists, I have noticed, read into scripture what they want it to say.

No Calvinist I have ever read, and that's quite a lot, has been able to successfully explain away Hebrews 6 and related scripture.

All those verses that were quoted elsewhere, I believe by you, attempting to show that nothing and no one can take us away from God do not speak to the question of whether or not wer can, so to speak, take our own selves away after receiving salvation. I contend we remain free to do so--we can wilfully reject what we once received. Hebrews 6, among others, bears that out.

One problem with Calvinist Baptists is they seem to forget that General Baptists arose before them and still exist; they think their Calvinism is the only Baptist theology, or the only legitimate one, when in fact many if not most Calvinistic Baptists are not much more than Congregationalists or Presbyterians who reject infant baptism and hold, or used to hold, to separation of church and state. That fact has been confirmed here by the praise and defense of the murderous Magisterial Reformers.

 

Michael,

Don't just say, "Hebrews 6." Take it apart verse by verse and explain WHY you think it says what you think it says. That would be most helpful. You want us to do all the work while you sit back and throw insults. Oh, by the way, you just couldn't resist getting in that inflamatory remark at the end, could you? That really adds to your credibility. I don't think we need a constant reminder of how corrupt you think we Calvinists are.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells - formerly wellsjs ]

 

John,

I never said you were corrupt, just that the Magisterial Reformers were. And anyone who can praise Calvin's conduct in Geneva strains his/her credibility.

 

Chris,

I hesitate to respond to someone who has questioned and insulted my intelligence but I'll offer this brief comment for now: God gives to Christ those who have accepted Him and who endure to the end.

Further, Calvinists think they believe in grace while Arminians do not, but that's not true; the two groups just define grace differently. Arminians believe in prevenient grace and the Light of Christ in everyone--now that's grace!

Arminius was a Protestant Reformed theologian sent to defend Calvinism; he became utterly convinced of its untruth, but he remained a Protestant Reformed theologian because that's what Arminianism is--a Protestant Reformed theology, albeit the opposite side of the coin from Calvinism.

 

John Wells,

I should add: Why would I want to go into detail for someone who has called me bigoted?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And anyone who can praise Calvin's conduct in Geneva strains his/her credibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Michael, you need to specify what conduct you have in mind. If you are referring to the death of Michael Servetus, please refer to my discourse on this earlier. He was put to death by the state for committing a crime that the government deemed worthy of the death penalty. The government was wrong for having such laws. That is why we rejoice in living in a country with freedom of religion. John Calvin was NOT the government. The government had offically legalized his beliefs, but that is hardly Calvin's fault. In fact, he was forced to flee for his life from Geneva for three years because he fell out of favor. The joined nature of church and state was part of life in Medieval Europe. You cannot hold Calvin liable to the legal standards of 21st century United States of America.

So outside of the Severtus incident, which conduct issue do you have with Calvin in Geneva?

Chick

 

The problem with your argumentation Michael, is that you constantly divert, switch and redirect your arguments against biblical Calvinism toward something else. You equate Calvinism to Romanism, yet you are the one who uses Romanistic diversionary tactics and never addressing the biblical evidence. You argue from a Baptistic tradition-as-truth position as assuredly as much as any Romanist. I quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I wonder why I should take offense at being called ignorant! I am insulted on this board by the far right and on BaptistNet by the far left; I guess my position is about correct, considering that...

No Calvinist I have ever read, and that's quite a lot, has been able to successfully explain away Hebrews 6 and related scripture...

One problem with Calvinist Baptists is they seem to forget that General Baptists arose before them and still exist; they think their Calvinism is the only Baptist theology, or the only legitimate one, when in fact many if not most Calvinistic Baptists are not much more than Congregationalists or Presbyterians who reject infant baptism and hold, or used to hold, to separation of church and state. That fact has been confirmed here by the praise and defense of the murderous Magisterial Reformers...

And anyone who can praise Calvin's conduct in Geneva strains his/her credibility...

Arminius was a Protestant Reformed theologian sent to defend Calvinism; he became utterly convinced of its untruth, but he remained a Protestant Reformed theologian because that's what Arminianism is--a Protestant Reformed theology, albeit the opposite side of the coin from Calvinism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Decide what you want to debate Michael, history, ethics or theology. If its theology, stick with the biblical texts. Until you deal with the biblical texts which prove Calvinism, you have no argument.

(BTW, Heb 6 is hardly a great nemesis of Calvinism, and can be dealt with fairly easily, as did the Puritans. )

 

Michael said, "I should add: Why would I want to go into detail for someone who has called me bigoted?"

Cop-out!

 

Chick,

Before I address your post, I want to say this to you: I appreciate your being able to strongly disagree with me without resorting to insults and patronizing comments. I welcome passionate debate, and I respect those who can engage in same without attacking the character or intelligence of their opponents.

Now, as for Calvin: Calvin exercised an oppressive authority over Geneva; further, the point that you seem to miss is that Calvin SUPPORTED the union of church and state. He was not some innocent bystander who disapproved of the persecution and murder of religious dissenters; on the contrary, such actions were sanctioned by Calvin and the other Magisterial Reformers. Yes, the union of church and state was considered part of the natural order of things before, during, and after the Reformation--but by Catholics and Magisterial Protestants, not by the Radical Reformers--these dissenters forfeited their lives in defiance of this unholy system. So, do you defend these church-state murderers on the basis that this was "just the way things were"? Your Baptist ancestors who died at their hands cry out to you in protest of such a sentiment!

 

For Temple and Wells:

Do either of you happen to have a full-time job? I do, and I can't always answer posts to the extent I'd like. I post some while at work, but my offerings and their content are necessarily limited while on the job. I'm usually very tired when I get home after dealing all day with a very large group of junior high kids.

Anyway, that's enough of an explanation to people whom I owe no accountability.

I'll continue below...

 

Chris Temple,

I've passionately and heatedly debated Roman Catholics on other boards: I never thought I would just as passionately be engaged in debate with Baptists, but I have--here with Calvinist right-wing fundamentalists and on BaptistNet with left-wing fundamentalists.

You said I should decide what I want to debate--history, ethics, or theology; well, homeboy, I'd like to debate all three. And I'll deal with those Biblical texts you spoke of when I have more time.

BTW, Hebrews 6 IS a nail in the coffin of "once saved, always saved"; Calvinists have tried many times to unsuccessfully explain it away. Verses 4-6 refute the idea that it is impossible to reject one's salvation, once received. You can't fall away from something (salvation) you've never had--it had to be in your possession before you could fall away from it.

To touch briefly on some other verses I saw posted ( I can't remember by whom or where), I agree that nothing or no one can snatch us out of God's hand, but that doesn't mean we can't remove our own selves from God--we can, by an act of our free will and choosing, turn our backs on God and reject our salvation. God does not force anyone to stay loyal to Him--He didn't force Satan, nor Adam and Eve, and He doesn't force us.

Enough for now.

 

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. (6:4-5)

The Hebrews being addressed here had five great advantages, which are summarized in these two verses.

they had been enlightened

First of all, we should notice that this passage makes no reference at all to salvation. There is no mention of justification, sanctification, the new birth, or regeneration. Those who have once been enlightened are not spoken of as born again, made holy, or made righteous. None of the normal New Testament terminology for salvation is used. In fact, no term used here is ever used elsewhere in the New Testament for salvation, and none should be taken to refer to it in this passage.
The enlightenment spoken of here has to do with intellectual perception of spiritual, biblical truth. In the Septuagint, the Greek word (phoµtizoµ) several times is translated “to give light by knowledge or teaching.” It means to be mentally aware of something, to be instructed, informed. It carries no connotation of response-of acceptance or rejection, belief or disbelief.
When Jesus first came to Galilee to minister, He declared that He had come to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2, which, in part, reads, “The people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light” (Matt. 4:16). All who saw and heard Jesus saw this “great light,” but not all who saw and heard were saved. Seeing God’s light and accepting it are not the same. Those people in Galilee, as all people who hear the gospel, were to some extent or other enlightened; but, judging by the biblical accounts, few of them believed in Jesus. They had natural knowledge, factual information. They saw Christ, they heard His message from His own lips, they saw His miracles with their own eyes. They had firsthand opportunity to see God’s truth incarnate, an opportunity that only a few thousand people in all of history have had. The Light of the gospel had personally broken in on their darkness (cf. John 12:35-36). Life for them could never be the same again. Their lives were permanently affected by the indelible impression Jesus must have made on them. Yet many, if not most, of them did not believe in Him (cf. John 12:37-40).
The same thing had happened to the Jews being addressed in Hebrews 6:1-8. They were enlightened but not saved. Consequently, they were in danger of losing all opportunity of being saved, and of becoming apostate. It is of such people that Peter speaks in his second letter. “For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:20-21). Because of their unbelief, the light that was given to save them became a judgment against them.


they had tasted of the heavenly gift

This group not only had seen the heavenly light but had tasted of the heavenly gift. The heavenly gift could be one of several things. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in Scripture as a heavenly gift, but, since He is mentioned in the next verse, I do not think He is the gift meant here. The greatest heavenly gift, of course, is Christ Himself (God’s “indescribable gift,” 2 Cor. 9:15) and the salvation He brought (Eph. 2:8). Christ’s salvation is the supreme heavenly gift, and no doubt the one referred to here.
This great gift, however, was not received. It was not feasted on, but only tasted, sampled. It was not accepted or lived, only examined. That stands in contrast with Jesus’ work on our behalf. Having tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9), He went on to drink it all.
Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:10). Jesus was speaking of the gift of salvation, the “living water” that leads to “eternal life” (v. 14). Those who drank it-not sipped it or just tasted it, but drank it-would be saved. A short time later in Galilee, Jesus told His hearers, “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever” (John 6:51; cf. v. 35). Eternal life comes from eating, not simply tasting, God’s gift of salvation in Christ.
One of the presalvation ministries of the Holy Spirit is that of giving the unsaved a taste of the blessings of salvation. This is part of His ministry of drawing men to Christ. But tasting is not eating. The Holy Spirit will give us a taste, but He will not make us eat. God placed the blessing of salvation to the lips of these New Testament Jews, but they had not yet eaten. The tasting came from what they saw and heard, as many today have seen the transforming power of Christ and heard the gospel.


they had partaken of the holy spirit

Partakers (Greek, metochos) has to do with association, not possession. These Jews had never possessed the Holy Spirit, they simply were around when He was around. This word is used of fellow fishermen in Luke 5:7, and of Christ in relation to the angels in Hebrews 1:9. It has to do with sharing in common associations and events. In the context of Hebrews 6:4, it refers to anyone who has been where the Holy Spirit has been ministering. It is possible to have an association with the Holy Spirit, to share in what He does, and not be saved. As we have seen (2:4) these Jews had heard the word and had seen and even participated in numerous signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. They were actually involved in some of His work.
The Bible never speaks of Christians being associated with the Holy Spirit. It speaks of the Holy Spirit being within them.
Here, however, are some persons who are simply associated with the Holy Spirit. Like perhaps most of the multitudes whom Jesus miraculously healed and fed, they partook of the Holy Spirit’s power and blessings, but they did not have His indwelling. They did not possess the Holy Spirit, nor did the Holy Spirit possess them.


they had tasted the word of god

Again these readers are spoken of as having tasted something of God, this time His word. The Greek term used here for word (rheµma, which emphasizes the parts rather than the whole) is not the usual one (logos) for God’s Word, but it fits the meaning in this context. As with His heavenly gifts, they had heard God’s utterances and sampled them, tasted them, without actually eating them. They had been taught about God. No doubt they regularly came to the assembly of the church. They may have listened carefully and even thought carefully about what they heard. They took it all in, possibly with enthusiasm and appreciation. But they could not say with Jeremiah, “Thy words were found and I ate them, and Thy words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart” (Jer. 15:16). They tasted but they did not eat, just like the nation to whom Jeremiah spoke.
Herod was like this. In spite of the prophet’s hard message, including accusations directly against the king, Herod enjoyed listening to John the Baptist preach (Mark 6:20). He was perplexed but fascinated by this dynamic preacher. He liked to sample the message of God. But when pressed into decision, he forsook God’s man and God’s message. He reluctantly, but willingly, agreed to have John beheaded. His taste of God’s Word only brought on him greater guilt.
Tasting is the first step to eating. It is not wrong to taste God’s Word. In fact David encourages that very thing. “O taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps. 34:8). To some degree, everyone must taste the gospel before he accepts it. The problem is stopping with tasting. Like so many who hear the gospel for the first time, these Jews were attracted to its beauty and sweetness. It tasted very good to them. But they did not chew it or swallow it, much less digest it. They just kept tasting. Before long, its appealing taste was gone and they became indifferent to it. Their spiritual tastebuds became insensitive and unresponsive.
Any person who has heard the gospel and perhaps made a profession of Christ, but who is uncertain of salvation, should take Paul’s advice: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (2 Cor. 13:5). Such a person needs to learn if he has only tasted the gospel without eating it.


they had tasted the powers of the age to come

The age to come is the future kingdom of God. The powers of the kingdom are miracle powers. These Jews had seen the same kind of miracles that are going to come when Jesus brings in His earthly kingdom. They tasted them. They saw the apostles do signs and wonders like those that will be reproduced in the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ. They saw miracle upon miracle. And the more they saw and tasted without receiving, the more their guilt increased. They were like those who saw Jesus Himself perform miracles. How hard it is to explain the hatred and unbelief of those who saw a resurrected Lazarus, who saw the blind given sight and the dumb given voices, and yet who rejected the One who did these marvels in front of their eyes. How guilty they will stand before God in the great white throne judgment.
These Jews had been wondrously blessed by God’s enlightenment, by association with His Holy Spirit, and by tasting of His heavenly gifts, His Word, and His power. Still they did not believe.


A Fourth Warning

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. (6:4-6)

Still speaking to the unsaved who have heard the truth and acknowledged it, but who have hesitated to embrace Christ, the Holy Spirit gives a fourth warning, the crux of 6:1-8. Summarized, the warning is: “You had better come to Christ now, for if you fall away it will be impossible for you to come again to the point of repentance.” They were at the best point for repentance-full knowledge. To fall back from that would be fatal.
Because they believe the warning is addressed to Christians, many interpreters hold that the passage teaches that salvation can be lost. If this interpretation were true, however, the passage would also teach that, once lost, salvation could never be regained. If, after being saved, a person lost his salvation, he would be damned forever. There would be no going back and forth, in and out of grace. But Christians are not being addressed, and it is the opportunity for receiving salvation, not salvation itself, that can be lost.
The believer need never fear he will lose his salvation. He cannot. The Bible is absolutely clear about that. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29). Paul is equally clear. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? ... For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 38-39). “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). We are “to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven,” and we “are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:4-5). If the power of God cannot keep us, nothing is dependable or trustworthy or worth believing in. A Christian has no reason at any point in his life to believe that his salvation is or can be lost. If by Christ’s death we can be saved, certainly by His life of power and intercession we can be kept saved (Rom. 5:10).
It is unbelievers who are in danger of losing salvation-in the sense of losing the opportunity ever to receive it. The unbelieving Jews were in great danger, because of their spiritual immaturity and sluggishness, of turning back to Judaism and of never being able to repent and come to Christ. They would be lost forever, because they had rejected, at the most vital point in knowledge and conviction, the only gospel that could save them. There is no other salvation message they could hear, no evidence of the truth of the gospel they had not seen.
These particular Jews had even heard the apostles preach and had seen them perform signs and wonders and miracles (Heb. 2:4). They had been privileged to behold virtually all the manifestations of His saving Word and power that God could give. They had heard it all and seen it all. They even had accepted it all intellectually. Any who are so informed, so witnessed to, so blessed with every opportunity to know God’s gospel, and who then turn their backs on it-for Judaism or anything else-are eternally lost. They not only reject the gospel, but crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. They had either to go on to full knowledge of God through faith in Christ or else turn away from Him, to become apostate and be lost forever. There was no other alternative.
Some have translated adunatos (impossible) in 6:6 as “difficult.” But it is clear even from other passages in Hebrews that such a translation is unjustified. The same Greek word is used in 6:18 (“It is impossible for God to lie”), in 10:4 (“It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”), and in 11:6 (“Without faith it is impossible to please Him”). All three of these passages would be nonsense if “impossible” were changed to “difficult.” The harsh finality of the danger cannot be escaped or minimized.
A vaccination immunizes by giving a very mild case of the disease. A person who is exposed to the gospel can get just enough of it to immunize him against the real thing. The longer he continues to resist it, whether graciously or violently, the more he becomes immune to it. His spiritual system becomes more and more unresponsive and insensitive. His only hope is to reject what he is holding onto and receive Christ without delay-lest he become so hard, often without knowing it, that his opportunity is forever gone.
To renew means to restore, to bring back to an original condition. The original condition of these Jews was that of excitement about the gospel when they first heard it. It was beautiful. They had moved from Judaism right up to the edge of Christianity, evidently even to repentance. They had turned from their old ways. They had tried to turn from their sin. They had begun to turn toward God. They had come all the way up to the edge of salvation. All the revelation God had He had given them. There was nothing else He could say or do. If they fell away they did so with an evil heart of unbelief and they did it against full revelation. They had the advantage of having been raised under the Old Covenant and they had heard and seen all the beauty and perfection of the New. If they now fell away from that, if they now departed from the living God, there was no hope that they could ever be restored to the place where the gospel was fresh, where the gospel taste was sweet, where repentance was a proper response. They could never get back there. When one rejects Christ at the peak experience of knowledge and conviction, he will not accept at a lesser level. So salvation becomes impossible.
They could not return because they had crucified to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. To themselves simply means that, as far as they were concerned, the Son of God deserved to be crucified. Regardless of what they may still have been professing openly and publicly, they now took their stand with the crucifiers. In their hearts they said, “That’s the same verdict we give.” They had made trial of Jesus Christ and, with all the evidence possible, they decided He was not the true Messiah. They had turned around and gone back to Judaism. To them Jesus was an impostor and deceiver and got exactly what was coming to Him. They agreed with those who killed Jesus, and they put Him to an open shame again. Shame here connotes guilt. They declared openly that Jesus was guilty as charged.
When anyone has heard the gospel and then turns away, he has done exactly what these Jews did. Though he would never take up a hammer and spikes and physically nail Jesus to a cross, he nevertheless agrees to Jesus’ crucifixion. He takes his place with the crucifiers. If this happens with full light, such a person has become an apostate, and for him salvation is forever out of reach. He has rejected Jesus Christ against the full light and power of the gospel. He is incurably anti-God, and for him is reserved the hottest hell. He takes his place with Judas, who walked and talked and ate and fellowshipped with God incarnate, yet finally rejected Him. “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29).
It is dangerously self-deceptive for a person to think that, by staying on the sidelines, by holding off deciding, by thinking himself tolerant of the gospel simply because he does not outwardly oppose it, that he is safe. The longer one stays on the edge the more he leans toward the old life. Staying there too long inevitably results in falling away from the gospel forever. It may not be, and often is not, a conscious decision against Christ. But it is a decision and it is against Christ. When a person goes away from Him in full light, he places Him on the cross again, in his own heart, and puts himself forever out of the Lord’s reach.
How terribly serious it is to reject Jesus Christ.
For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also filled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. (6:7-8)
Do you see the illustration? All those who hear the gospel are like the earth. The rain falls, the gospel message is heard. The gospel seed is planted and there is nourishment and growth. Some of the growth is beautiful and good and productive. It is that which is planted, rooted, and nourished in God. But some of the growth is false, spurious, and unproductive. It has come from the same seed and has been nourished by the same ground and the same water, but has become thorny, destructive, and worthless. It has rejected the life offered it and become good only for burning.
MacArthur, John F., The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1983.

 

Gentlemen and Ladies,

While I would not presume to attain to the textual scholarship represented here in this forum, I find I must contribute the following, if possible, and to have it examined with lack of egoism and insult, please.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe myself to be.

First of all, for all you 1st century koine greek scholars out there:

Is it not true that in many cases, a greek text would first use something as "true" or "false" before stating a treatise, and that statement would mean "ok, the following of what I'm about to say can't happen," and then it states it. Meaning that, it is preambling (sp?) a case which may be true, or may be false.

I'm referring to the case in Hebrews 6:4-6.

I have provided the Strong's Greek Lexical horizontal form here:

4. |9999| {it is} |0102| impossible |1063| Because |9999| {for} |3588| those |0530| once |5461| being enlightened, |1089| having tasted |5037| and |3588| of the |1431| gift |2032| heavenly, |2532| and |3353| participants |1096| becoming |4151| Spirit |0040| of {the} Holy,
5. |2532| and |9999| {the} |2570| good |1089| tasting |2316| of God |4487| word, |1411| works of power |5037| and |3195| of a coming |0165| age.
6. |2532| and |3895| falling away |3825| again |0340| to renew |1519| to |3341| to a change of heart, |0388| crucifying again |0846| for themselves |3588| the |5207| Son |3588| of |2316| God |2532| and |3856| putting {Him} to open shame.

Of which the English equivalent from the KJV is:

Hebrews 6:4-6
4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

I apologize for my lack of brevity. I find I cannot address this with brevity, though.

So, secondly:

It appears to me the writer is saying:

"Ok, I'm getting ready to state a scenario, and that scenario is totally false or impossible...."

And then the scenario he states deals with falling away from the care of the Lord.

The writer is saying this circumstance cannot occur.

Comments? And please guys, understand, I am not going to roll around in the mud with this one.

I just want your scholarly opinion as to whether I am getting the correct information, both from my examination of the greek text, and from those fundamentalists who tutored me in Bible school?

Thank You.

In His Steps,

Alex
II Corinthians 10:5

 

Michael Wrenn quoted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chick,
Before I address your post, I want to say this to you: I appreciate your being able to strongly disagree with me without resorting to insults and patronizing comments. I welcome passionate debate, and I respect those who can engage in same without attacking the character or intelligence of their opponents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Temple and Wells:
Do either of you happen to have a full-time job? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, you're a hoot!

 

Why, thank you, Chris.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, as for Calvin: Calvin exercised an oppressive authority over Geneva; further, the point that you seem to miss is that Calvin SUPPORTED the union of church and state. He was not some innocent bystander who disapproved of the persecution and murder of religious dissenters; on the contrary, such actions were sanctioned by Calvin and the other Magisterial Reformers. Yes, the union of church and state was considered part of the natural order of things before, during, and after the Reformation--but by Catholics and Magisterial Protestants, not by the Radical Reformers--these dissenters forfeited their lives in defiance of this unholy system. So, do you defend these church-state murderers on the basis that this was "just the way things were"? Your Baptist ancestors who died at their hands cry out to you in protest of such a sentiment! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Michael,
Of course Calvin supported the Union of Chuch and State. I have never said otherwise. So did everyone else in Medieval Europe prior to the Radical Reformation. I have never endorsed the union of church and state. I have never said that Calvin was perfect. What I have said is Calvin cannot be held to today's judicial standards of 21st century America. Ask yourself honestly if you are being fair with Calvin. Using your standard for Calvin, you should exercise even more venom for King David who actually had a man killed in cold blood and he committed adultery. Michael Severtus was tried and found guilty by the city council of Geneva. It happened to be John Calvin's teachings that were offically codified. Remember that there was a three year period when the Genevans had had enough of Calvin's hard preaching against moral laxity and persuaded the council to run him out of town. Had things gone poorer for Calvin, he could have been killed. The Reformation was a wild time, with all kinds of things happening--a time that God was moving in such a way to renew the church with fresh purity and vigor.

Furthermore there is NOT ONE Baptist ancestor of mine that was put to death in Geneva when John Calvin was pastoring there. Michael Severtus was an Anabaptist who believed in Not taking Oaths, Not serving in the military, and was Arminian. All these I disagree with. My Baptist ancestors came from the Baptist movement in England. Severtus may be your ancestor, not mine. If I was a Mennonite, Amish, or Brethren, then I would have to consider claiming Severtus. Furthermore, you have produced no other names in Geneva of radicals killed other than Severtus.

Chick

 

Chick,

In that last paragraph, your reasoning sounds dangerously close to that of the Magisterial Reformers--but I hope I'm misreading you.

 

In what way? If the Reformers have argued the way that I have in my last paragraph, then I take your comment as a complement. Who other than Severtus was slain in Geneva? It was Zwingle over in Zurich that couldn't seem to resist drowning or burning the radical reformers (anapbatists), but who else was there in Geneva? I have heard of Severtus only.

Furthermore, If our dispute hinges on the "one who committed more sins is wrong" argument, then as I stated earlier, a long list of Biblical heros could be condemned long before Calvin. I challenge you to read the biography on Calvin, and you will see a man devoted to piety, preaching daily, training missionaries, condemning moral laxity, given to prayer, and ultimately wrapped up in devotion to his Sovereign God. Part of the times in which he lived was the union of church and state. Maybe 300 years from now, believers will look back and condemn us for living in an era when so many of us commmit the sin of gluttony. "How dare those people, what were they thinking! They knew that their bodies were the temple of the Holy Spirit, and yet look how they lived!"

Ask yourself honestly if your venom against Calvin is more closely tied to your being repulsed by Calvin's teachings that God is sovereign, totally depraved men are dead, God elects and regenerates (using irrisistible grace) dead men that will persevere to the end? Are you really being fair to Calvin the person?

Chick

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Chick,

If it will make you feel better, I can tell you that I don't have a high opinion of Roman Catholicism or ANY of the Magisterial Reformers.

 

Does God predestinate some people to be saved and go to Heaven and others to be lost and go to Hell so that they have no free choice? The answer is no! A person is predestinated to be saved only as he chooses by his own free will to repent of sin and receive Christ as personal Saviour.

Revelation 22:17 "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Matthew 23:37 "...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!