The Case for Arminianism

Hardly born again? Are you saying Calvin was a lost man? Why the vehement accusations?

All these angry posts by you calling names, calling others arrogant who quote Scripture, and claiming people on this thread of twisting Jesus' words.

And you judge Calvin as not saved?

 

Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Jesus said you can know a tree by the fruit it bares.

You tell me, is the fruit of the Spirit burning dozens of people at the stake simply because they disagreed with your views?

 

For the record...it was not dozens.

Also, this is really in the realm of church-state problems. Calvin's theology of church-state is, apparently, authoritarian. This is something completely different than his systematization of theology.

Had Servetus been in Calvin's position and Arminianism the official position of the church-state, Calvin would have likely been burned as the heretic. These actions do not cast dispersion on his theology as much as they do his understanding of the relationship between church and state. Also, it goes to show that Calvin was a flawed man. Any American Calvinist will tell you that Calvin was wrong to have Servetus burned. But Calvin's agreement with this execution was based, not on his theology, per se, but on his understanding of the separation between church and state (or, more precisely, lack thereof).

But, I suspect you don't mistrust the entire police force based on certain police persons have been proven to be flawed individuals by taking bribes and miscarrying justice. I know this because if your home were being burglarized (God forbid) and you were home, you would call the police, not a plumber. So, the "throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater" approach to Calvin because of his improper understanding of church-state functioning is laughable.

I wonder...when people examine your fruits...what will they see? Will all the fruit be perfect? Certainly not. Will good fruits and bad fruits be mixed in together? Certainly. I suspect you will want persons to disregard the less-than-holy times of your life in favor of what I am sure is a larger crop of healthy fruits. So...do unto others.

By the way, here is a good article to help you (and others) get their facts straight: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/06/22/calvin-and-servetus/

The Archangel

 

Then you must be of the mind man is randomly chosen which means our choosing depends entirely on fate. That would mean you believe in fatalism.

 

Not buying it. Before Paul was converted, he rounded up Christians, throwing many into prison, and having some put to death. After being converted, how many did he persecute that disageed with him? Zero.

There are many books on Calvin, all exections were carried out under his authority. Historians have recorded at least 58 executions under his reign in Geneva, with many hundreds who were imprisoned or banished.

Writing books on theology makes this ok? This proves he was saved?

If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, I'll give you a good deal.

 

Yes. I agree. So when you attacked me as arrogant and as a twister of Jesus' word, for saying the same things you have said, what does this make you for bearing fruit like this?

 

Baloney. He persecuted the Judaizers for disagreeing with him, and said he wished they were even cut off. So your "zero" is moot.

Calvin sinned after salvation. Have you?

 

Sorry Preach but I don't see that Paul "persecuted" the Judaizers. He strongly rebuked them. That is not persecution. And Paul did not sin in doing it.

 

Yes.
________________

 

If civil law demands the execution of heretics then the execution of heretics is warranted. Calvin was OBLIGATED by his civil duties to fulfill the civil laws which protected the people.

The Bible does NOT condemn the execution of heretics- anywhere. That ought to be enough.

But there is more- the Bible actually COMMANDS the Jews to execute heretics.

You may not be for it today, and I might not support it in our culture either, but let's be honest- the Almighty commanded such in a certain culture. He must not be totally opposed to the idea of executing heretics.

Can you show a verse that says he is?

Who are we to condemn what Calvin did when we have NO Bible to call on for support while he certainly DOES have Bible for doing what HE did?

This is what happens when we act out of emotion rather than based upon reason and Scripture.

 

You have to be kidding me? This man Calvin who is treated almost as a god by some here did all that? Really? C'mon this is a joke right? These people here quote Calvin more than they do Jesus, and he put people to death? All right somebody let me in on this it can't be true.

 

Observation: This is exactly the same logic used by the Muslim fanatics.

 

When Jesus was born, God said peace on earth, goodwill toward men. Jesus said He did not come to condemn the world, but to save it. This is quite the opposite of executing heretics because of civil law. Did Calvin not know that Jesus is Lord, and it's better to be Christlike than civil obedient? He missed a great opportunity to be persecuted for following Christ. Kinda show's Calvins heart in his actions. What a weak man.

 

I bet you can't find FIVE quotes by Calvin on here.

I give Calvin as much respect as ANYBODY and I don't treat him like a god.

This kind of language is silly, infantile, purposefully manipulative, patently false and terribly inappropriate.

 

So?

__________

 

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. In the context of the passage, it's part of a set of instructions given to the reader on holding fast. By itself, a principle can be derived that the appearance can be damaging.

If you see someone walking into a liquor store, there is an assumption they're there to buy liquor. That is an appearance made by associating the person with the establishment.

If you see someone continually making statements about Calvin, making specific comments regarding those that don't esteem Calvin the same way, etc., etc. -- there may be an appearance that could be interpreted a certain way.

The person walking into the liquor store isn't necessarily there to buy liquor; it may actually be an inspector going in to ensure they're abiding by all city, state, and federal laws. But an assumption is made based on an appearance.

The person making statements about Calvin may not "worship" the man -- but assumptions may be made based on appearance.

Just sayin'.

 

As stated: Just an observation. If it sparks conversation, or it doesn't, so be it.

 

Luke

It is in this arena that the "militant athiests" eat our lunch. (Theodicy). From your thoughts it almost sounds like we today are viewing God in two different personalities, i.e. Old Testament God and New Testament God. This does require some clear and articulate thinking on our part or we must exit the world of debate with the committed unbelievers. I am not willing yet to do this.

I am currently reading a book on Theodicy and wish to do more reading and study. Until, I personally resolve it for myself, I will resolve "judgement" on Mr. Calvin, save for the natural distaste it brings me in my 21st century mindset.