Why must I be a Calvinist

The answer is very simple. It is because you have no choice. God chose you from the foundation of the world to be a Calvinist.

God must not have chosen the rest of us to be Calvinist though. So I guess we'll have to go on being second rate Christians because that is what God chose for us right...

Joseph Botwinick

[ April 03, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

But take heart. You too will be a Calvinist one day. After all, God has presdestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son, and based on Christ's statements, he is clearly a "calvinist" (though back then the name would have not been recognized).

 

By calvinist do you mean hold a certain theology or do you mean burn people at the stake if they disagree with you?

 

Calvinism as you say is a conviction but where do you get that conviction? Do you wake up one morning and say today I am a Calvinist? What brought you to that conclusion? Did you bring yourself?

Calvinism to me is the only biblical answer but because of an innner conviction. Why don't others not of the Calvinist mindset see those things we who claim to be Calvinistic see?

I had that thread on the TULIP Doctrine and everyone had a chance to voice their opinion either for or against the Calvinistic Theology some embaced it some did not. Why?

IMHO those who are not Calvinist are legalist as they look to a works doctrine as a means to Salvation. I also look to a legalist whose name was Saul and we all know about him and how he thought himself higher than those in his circle of Jewish brethren. We all know the story so I won't go into it here. Talk about a conviction!

The way I understand it you are either a Calvinist or a Legalist!... I've never heard of a Calvinistic/Legalist have any of you brethren?... Brother Glen

 

Calvinism is a term that has come to be shorthand for what a person believes about soteriology. Historically, calvinism has been associated only with soteriology and not with some of Calvin's other abberant doctrines and practices.

 

Calvinism is a term that has come to be shorthand for what a person believes about soteriology. Historically, calvinism has been associated only with soteriology and not with some of Calvin's other abberant doctrines and practices.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, many moderates like myself do associate calvinism with Calvin. Calvin's torture and murder of fellow Christians who would not place his doctrines above the place of scripture is an eerie reminder of how many moderates have been ousted during the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC for refusing to accept current calvinist's doctrines that supplant scripture and remove our Lord Jesus as the criteria for judging scripture. I guess we are to use the doctrines of Calvin-the murderer and torturer-as our guide for interpreting scripture instead of the perfect revelation of God, Jesus Christ.
I am amazed that anyone would want to be associated with that man, much less use his ideas about God instead of Jesus'.

 

Whether this is tongue-in-cheek or not, there is a misconception of Calvin as a heretic-hunting tyrant. The facts of Calvin's days at Geneva are somewhat different. In fact, only one person was burned at the stake during Calvin's service in Geneva, a Unitarian named Michael Servetus, and this was done over Calvin's protests that a more humane method of execution be used. A good article that brings out the surrounding context of some of Calvin's actions is Does Calvin Get A Bad Rap?

 

Whether this is tongue-in-cheek or not, there is a misconception of Calvin as a heretic-hunting tyrant. The facts of Calvin's days at Geneva are somewhat different. In fact, only one person was burned at the stake during Calvin's service in Geneva, a Unitarian named Michael Servetus, and this was done over Calvin's protests that a more humane method of execution be used. A good article that brings out the surrounding context of some of Calvin's actions is Does Calvin Get A Bad Rap? </font>[/QUOTE]I've read that Calvin presided over the executions of 58 people, all by stake burning, including 34 women. As I understand it, many of the women were burned for practicing witchcraft -or maybe it was feminism, who can say for sure?.

 

David Cooke said:

From the Funk Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 entry on John Calvin:

Calvin was hardly murdering "fellow Christians who would not place his doctrines above the place of scripture."

 

From the Funk Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 entry on John Calvin:

Calvin was hardly murdering "fellow Christians who would not place his doctrines above the place of scripture." </font>[/QUOTE]Depends upon whose account you read. Of course, maybe F&W is right-and all he did was murder a Unitarian. Nothing wrong with that, right?

 

David Cooke:

No, it depends upon the historical facts, which are clear that Calvin participated in the execution of one heretic.

I'm not excusing what Calvin did, although, like the encyclopedia said, he was a man of his time period. There is a drastic difference, however, between painting him as a bloodthirsty, torturing sadist who wiped out anyone that disagreed with him, and a civil leader who was reluctantly exercising his authority in one extreme case.

 

Actually, Servetus was not even really a unitarian. His view was actually close to the pre-Nicene fathers, and while at first he did express Christ in an adoptionist fashion, similar to the ancient unitarians (Christ the Son was the union of the divine Word with the human Jesus), he later changed his view to affirm that the Word was Christ. But to no avail. Calvin (in association with the Catholics) persecuted him just for disputing Nicene theology.

Once again, the caricature of people who believe they can choose effectively doing a "work" to save themselves. This is also echoed in the article ("God saves sinners; he does not help them save themselves"). Some hyperfundamentalists may be like this, but then so are many Calvinists. A loophole lies in the 5th point, for people are warned that if they don't persevere in holiness then they are going to Hell whether they think they believe or not, and this has the same effect as the old revivalism of Finney, Jones, and others, where people were scared into being good to escape Hell, and this was the whole motivation for the Christian life. It was in Calvinist churches just as much as revivalistic. People here have admitted that their "belief" may have been "in vain" and their "faith" "fallible". What encouraged Calvin to go into ministry in the first place? Threats of hellfire from Farel! (If he was preelected, then hellfire would have been impossible for him) And many Calvinists were just as hard and hostile to the sinful world as anyone else.

And what's with this "covenant"?:

Does this override the "whomever he will" process (i.e. randomly among different people), or are all children of Calvinists autmoatically elected? (The whole point of the misused Rom.9 is that not all who we think are of a "chosen people" are in fact elect.) Of course, they will try to raise their children as Christians, but not all children of Christian families will persevere.

 

Eric B said:

That is the problem I find is it our duty to determine who are the elect of God and who are not?

If you were my brother in a church capacity, you had been baptised, followed the Lord as a disciple and suddenly you comitted a sin and I saw you or the reverse and you saw me. Do any of these senarios say that we are no longer of the elect? Some would say well because you did that you were never of the elect in the first place! That brethren is a bald faced lie! We do what we do because of the sin that dwells in our mortal bodies. That elect spirit that dwells in you can never sin!

You may do something to bring shame to your family but can they say that you are not their son or daughter? They can do a DNA test today to prove your blood line. Your biological father can never claim you are not his because his blood does not lie. Neither can your Spiritual Father claim you are not his because of another DNA test the Divine Nazarene Atonement will prove your elect blood line.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. I never worry who Gods elect are as it is none of my concern. God knows who his people are and who his Son died for and thats all that matters to me... Brother Glen

[ April 03, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

No, it depends upon the historical facts, which are clear that Calvin participated in the execution of one heretic.
</font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't there, and neither were you. Most historical accounts I have read say the guy murdered alot of people. My point: the guy was a murderer, who killed at least one child of God(and probably more) simply because the guy had the nerve to worship God according to his own conscience. Calvin murdered a man for a "THOUGHT CRIME", get it? And people actually promote the theology of this murdering lunatic. This guy was evil and for the life of me I cannot imagine why folks who profess to be christian promote his ideas. His ideas ultimately lead to evil and destruction-whether it was burning some poor soul at the stake or firing a seminary professor. By their fruit you shall know them. Amen.

[ April 03, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

Didn't Saul also participate in the execution of Stephen who he considered a heretic? I don't accept the doctrine because its from Calvin but because its scriptural doctrine. If Calvin never coined the term TULIP I would still accept it!... Brother Glen

 

If we're thinking of the same Saul, I seem to recall he later met a guy named Jesus while he was on a trip to Syria (Damascus?). Seems he had a change of heart, renounced his former life, and I want to say became a Christian. Didn't he write a few letters that people liked? Maybe the guy of thinking of was named Paul?
I wonder-did Calvin ever change his stance on murdering fellow children of God?

 

Well then stop because no one in theology does. Calvinism refers to a soteriology. Furthermore, I would prefer not to use the name calvinism. I usually just talk about biblical soteriology or what Jesus preached or what Paul preached.

This shows no understanding of the issues of bibliology. I am not in the SBC and those in the leadership of the SBC are not fundamentalists by the historic meaning of the term. However, you have a faulty bibliology. You assert that Christ is the standard for interpreting Scripture but you seem not to recognize that you do not know anything about Christ apart from Scripture. You do not interpret Scripture by Christ. If you did, you would accept the Mosaci authorship of the pentateuch because he did. You would accept the inerrancy of Scripture because he did. You would stand against apostasy and compromise because he did. This hermeneutic of yours is a thinly veiled attempt to sound pious while being able to reject God's revelation to us.