Featured A Tale of Two Faiths

Icon
The post really was refreshing especially the comment about being more relaxed. I suppose the Lord has worked on me. I am an admin elsewhere and that kind of cooled my heels. The longer I was there the more I realized what a pain I had been here. Some posts were just to irritate. My Dad recently died and then this thing with Tom Butler. There is always time to debate, but time is too short for angry posts.

 

We should be about helping each other.....Threaten Tom that if he does not recover soon...I will show up and talk his ear off:laugh:

 

And he is correct, but the dirty accusation that he is Pelagian is wrong, but then you may be a follower of the pagan Emperor Constantine who influenced Augustine who also highly influenced Calvinism. Either way your beliefs stem from idolatry.
So you are not in a place to throw around names.

Absolute nonsense with no scriptural connection whatsoever. Where does the account say that Jesus sprinkled/poured/immersed or in any way shape or form baptized these children? Just utter nonsense on your part.

What is "saving faith"? Show me this phrase used in the bible? Is there even one mention of it?
Faith is faith. What is important is the object of the faith. I fear that the object of your faith is Calvin and not Christ. Am I right?

It doesn't have to be. Little children are known for their child-like faith.
They are also known for the silly things they do. Do you think Jesus was teaching that unless you do silly things you cannot enter into the kingdom of God? Is that your belief?

I examine the text in the light of the context; something you refuse to do. Therefore you force the meaning into your presuppositions and come to a false conclusion. Sad.

You have never had children??
My children are not docile, meek, etc. They are full of energy--running here and there.
What do they need to be taught? They need to be taught to tell the truth, and not to lie. You are speaking lies that go against your own doctrine of the depravity of man to try and justify another of Calvin's doctrines, but in doing so you contradict the first of Calvin's doctrine in TULIP. Hilarious!! :laugh::laugh:

The virtue that they exemplified is simplicity of faith--the same faith that they put in their parents and not in strangers. It is obvious. The blind will not see; they only lead the blind.

 

Thanks for your civil post.

I have said it before and will say it again: The Anabaptists lived in the same time as Calvin and shared the same culture, yet they did not persecute and murder other Christians. They recognized that these things were not what Jesus taught. So, Calvin and other persecutors can't be excused. Calvin was in favor of persecution and putting others to death because of their beliefs, Just because it was lawful does not mean it was right. The same applies to abortion; it's legal, but it's still murder. So, you can't fault a man for doing his job? Really? So, abortionists are not guilty of murder?

I don't see anything that Calvin believed that lines up with scripture -- absolutely nothing. So, taking all of that together, I believe his contributions were nil. And in fact, he set back Christianity, or his part of it, into the Dark Ages.

I just want to be clear, though, that I hold no animosity toward Calvinists, except the really nasty ones.

 

And there is overwhelming evidence to support what we have been saying. All anyone has to do is be objective and look.

And Rippon dares to call this demon "godly".

 

Of course I am familiar with the people you listed. So what?

We cannot have an honest discussion for two reasons: It would require more than just myself being honest, and you have a long way to go before you have studied as much as I have. Come back in a few years, change your attitude, and we'll see.

BTW, what other Reformer would you like to know about? Luther? Zwingli? Melanchthon, Bucer, Cranmer, the radical reformers? There are lots more.

You still haven't said how you think you would have fared in Calvin's Geneva with your supposed Baptist views. How long do you think you would have lasted before you were banished (if you were lucky), imprisoned, burned at the stake, or guillotined? Woudl you have been praising your idol while he and his theocracy put the torch to you?

 

Rebel
We cannot have an honest discussion for two reasons: It would require more than just myself being honest, and you have a long way to go before you have studied as much as I have. Come back in a few years, change your attitude, and we'll see.

looks like you cannot answer him at all.....your excuse is just that an excuse......no facts...no scripture. ...nothing.

 

You can't possibly be that dense. You have claimed that the great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in hyper-Calvinism. That has been your thesis.

The largest single group of "Presbyterians" is the PCUSA. If you claim the great majority then those are the folks you need to examine. They are quite liberal and the Westminster Confession of Faith is not something close to their heart. They are Presbyterian in name only. Don't you know what nominal means?

Of course the OPC and PCA are Calvinistic. But that is not the point. Their numbers are small. It is simple arithmetic. For you to cling to your old wild assertion you would have to address your hyper-Calvinistic charge against the PCUSA. Your accusation holds no water.

And I hope you can distinguish between Calvinistic and hyper-Calvinistic. If you want to lump the two together then you'll be dealing in falsehood once again.

 

I was going to post links to all the most recent posts of yours that was void of Scripture, but alas, I lost count!
Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

You obviously are not the least bit familiar with the historians and Calvin scholars that I listed. Why do they all have a more well-tempered view of the man? Why are you into using vile language? You can't communicate without resorting to gutter-talk. If that's how you go about your daily life that's nasty. If you just do it on forums and conduct yourself properly in your life off forums then you are a hypocrite.

Your "historical" view of Calvin is against every single one of the men that I cited. And there are plenty more who are in agreement with them.

Your "specialty in history" is seen as a sham by the kind of posts you make here.

 

You argue just to argue even if you are wrong you will continue.
"Hyper-Calvinistic" has become a very relative term depending on who is using it. Ask six different "Cals" on this board and you will get six different answers. Those that are three and four point "Cals" will call a five point Cal, a hyper, whereas a five pointer will say that the three and four pointers are not Cals at all. Those that call themselves "moderates" differentiate themselves from those who they call "hyper," but in reality have not taken Calvinism to its full conclusion. They are inconsistent. And on it goes.
Even the five pointers are often not consistent. No five pointer would ever go witnessing. After all God does all the electing, and for that matter the saving. They will be saved whether you tell anyone the gospel or not. They have to be. They are the elect of God. Calvinism is fool-proof with or without you.
It is a system that dies without any evangelistic outreach whatsoever if left to its logical outcome.

 

Everything I said in my post was true and you want to save face by your gibberish.

There is no widespread hyper-Calvinism within Presbyterianism. The largest group identifying themselves as Presbyterian is the PCUSA. It is Presbyterian in name only. They are not known for their loyalty to the Bible or the WCoF.

By sheer numbers the PCUSA are the majority of Presbyterians in America. Yet it is laughable in the extreme for them to be called hyper-Calvinists.

The PCA and OPC are biblically conservative Calvinists. By no stretch of the imagination can they possibly be called hyper-Calvinists.

You are dishonest by continuing your vain campaign of maligning Presbyterians with the term hyper-Calvinist. You are incapable of admitting that you were wrong to make your reckless charge in the first place.

 

Rippon, everything you just said in this post is true. To say otherwise is to parade one's ignorance.

 

This is a flat out lie.

 

No, Philibert Berthelier was the prosecutor. Beza described him as "a man of the most consumate impudence and guilty of many iniquities."

Again, during the trial of Servetus the Patriots and Libertines were antagonistic toward Calvin. They hated him. They wanted to embarrass him. But they were stuck. The Christian world was focused on Geneva. Would Servetus be absolved or be condemned? Geneva would not be taken seriously if Servetus was simply let go.

I agree. But the facts that you have presented are simply brushed aside by those with an agenda that does not include telling the truth.

 

Calvin did not have the authority to arrest, torture or execute anyone. He did not do any of those things.

As long as any of you continue in lying about this subject your testimony as Christians is suspect.

Philip Schaff :

"It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense."

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec, and Servetus do not even appear in its records. Calvin wrote to the ministers of Zurich, Nov. 26,1553: 'The Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only the right to reprove according to the Word of God and its severest punishment is excommunication.' "

 

I am not saying they don't. I am saying that if they take all five points to their logical conclusion they would not go out witnessing. They wouldn't have a need to.

It is the same as the type of environment that William Carey lived in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)
Though some dispute the statement, it is still an example of the type of environment that Carey lived in, and that he had to fight against to get to the mission field.

 

Yes it is. Some still do not understand the Calvinistic view. I hold to 5 points. I carry a personal evangelism bible with me almost every time I leave the house. I have been door to door.. .doing my "Jehovah witness impersonation" many of times.
The elect still must make a choice....and they need to hear what that choice is.

 

Facts don't lie:

http://bible-truth.org/IsCalvinismBiblical.html

Where there is no fruit there is no Christianity.