Featured A Tale of Two Faiths

DHK has posted the same old tommyrot from Cooper Abrahams that he did in the past.
C.A. is clearly outclassed by the scholarship and honesty of the following men.

Bernard Cottret: Calvin: A Biography

"Geneva, in fact, was never a theocracy...the ministry and the magistracy, were never one and the same...To sum up, Calvin did not take over the state; he was neither a commanding general nor an ayatolla." (p.159)

"The consistory therefore could not inflict any penalties; it had only limited doctrinal competence." (p.166)

"We must avoid the simplistic idea of a religious reformation controlling the civil power to erect a theocratic, indeed fundamentalist state. In fact, it was almost the opposite." (p.114)
________________________________________________________________________
McGrath Life of Calvin

"The image of Calvin as 'dictator of Geneva' bears no relation to the known facts of history." (p.119)
_____________________________________________________________
Basil Hall

...the records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand Calvin's wishes..."
______________________________________________________________
J.I. Packer

"Yet all serious Calvin-scholars now know that the Calvin of legend --the slobbering ogre, the egotistical fanatic, the doctrinaire misanthrope, the inhuman dictator with a devilish god --is a figure of fancy --not fact."

 

False. You obviously have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

You should read Romans 10:14-17.

These recent comments of yours are, quite possibly, the stupidest things you've ever written--and that's saying something.

You want your opponents to rightly describe your position, yet you refuse to do so with us. We have told you time and time again that we--5-pointers--do believe in evangelism because the Bible commands us to do so. And, since you mentioned William Carey, you ought to know he was a 5-point Calvinist.

Your hypocrisy and asininity simply know no bounds.

The Archangel

 

There is a definite pattern with your posts. When it is all said and done, it really has nothing to do with the issue of where saving faith originates, or if God predestinates by decree or choice of the individual. Those can be discussed by back and forth exchanges of ideas. The term for that concept is called civil debate.

No, this goes way beyond that. Your quote above sums it all up. Post after post has shown that Presbyterians spend heavily in the area of outreach and missions. By the way, I am a Baptist. Even if they did not spend one cent, and you know this in your heart, that lumping hyper Calvinists with 5 point and below categories of Calvinists is a deliberate and mean insinuation that has no place in a Christian forum. Hyper Calvinism is not Biblical. People are not predestined to hell like they believe. People end up n the Lake of Fire because they died in their sins without Jesus Christ as their Savior. The second point of hypers is that they do not believe in outreach or missions. Ignoring the PCUSA, you know 95+% of Presbyterians support missions. Their doctrine is unbiblical and in grievous error. But then again, that should not be a new fact to you. Since you seem to know all the ends and outs of Calvinism, you know that the hypers share nothing or not much with believers of TULIP and all the various stripes of that.

The purpose of debate is to not only get a point across, but to teach. Folks change their minds all the time. I believe convicted1 is a good example. The purpose of debate is not to interject obviously false facts like the one above. That is a sign one cannot defend his or her own stances on a given issue, and has to make false statements or create strawman arguments to continue their posts because there is nothing else to say.

Another point of civil debate is to discuss the issue not the person. One might say this fact is a lie, or that is a strawman argument. One might even say a certain concept is heresy or borders on heresy. However, when the issue stops becoming the object of discussion, and the poster starts becoming the object of discussion, names like heretic, fool, and liar take the place of labeling the idea. I am sure I missed a few choice names but think that conveys the concept. In addition to the name calling, quotes like that one above shows total disrespect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty and to those who believe in it.

So what is it inside a person that drives him or her to go from debate to anger? Why does the fact that some disagree with you about faith and the salvation process evoke angry responses instead of rational posts? These posts should be a reflection of what comes out of our mouths day to day. For example, if a pastor, leader of a New Testament church, talked to his congregation or delivered a sermon in the tone of some of the posts in this thread, I would guess the congregation would not put up with that very long.

 

The saying of the 21st century....


:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

Calvinist's don't witness? Really? This nonsense still?

I guess the group of mostly Calvinists I went witnessing with in Baltimore on Saturday was a figment of my imagination...

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: very shameful...a disgrace

 

DHK

If anyone stills thinks that you have any idea what you are talking about this should make them come to their senses..get well soon.

 

Others are ignorant (uninformed )of Church History. DHK does not fall in that category. He has been presented with historical facts for the past 12 years or so here on the BB. (i've done my best with him for nearly a decade.)

DHK willfully sides with falsehoods regularly.

DHK has stated that Spurgeon "did not believe in limited atonement." He has siad Spurgeon's "position was not TULIP." He has claimed that CHS "was conflicted in his views."

He feigns ignorance that the great bulk of Christian scholars/authors/preachers/missionaries in the past 400 years have been Calvinists. DHK takes the proverbial cake.

 

[QUOTE=Rippon;2200827]Others are ignorant (uninformed )of Church History. DHK does not fall in that category. He has been presented with historical facts for the past 12 years or so here on the BB. (i've done my best with him for nearly a decade.)

DHK willfully sides with falsehoods regularly.

DHK has stated that Spurgeon "did not believe in limited atonement." He has siad Spurgeon's "position was not TULIP." He has claimed that CHS "was conflicted in his views."

He feigns ignorance that the great bulk of Christian scholars/authors/preachers/missionaries in the past 400 years have been Calvinists. DHK takes the proverbial cake.[/QUOTE]

yes...it is premeditated :applause::applause::thumbs:

 

And yet Carey had to make a break from the "type of Calvinism" that his other "five point" Calvinist brothers held to. They didn't want him to go to field because God would elect them any way "with or without his help." According to Calvinism they were the ones that were correct in taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion. That is all I am saying.

I am not saying that there are five point Calvinists on this board who do not evangelize. I never said that. I know very well that some of your churches are very evangelistic. What I am saying is that when Calvinism is taken down its proper road then the obvious conclusion is that there is no need for evangelism, as those in Carey's day believed.

What does predestination and predetermination mean?
What does reprobation mean?
In spite of what you do God has selected some to heaven and has appointed the rest to an eternal torment in the Lake of Fire. It is a horrible doctrine, but one that Calvin (not the Bible) taught. Why, therefore, witness?

This doctrine of the election of the elect to salvation and the damnation of the wicked came at great cost to Calvin, leading him into doctrinal error:

(Institutes, III: xxii, 1)
Was Christ the eternal Son of God or not? Not according to Calvin.
In fact He was "presented this honor" of being the Son. What heresy!
It is a denial of the co-eternal and oneness of the triune Godhead.
And then in typical fashion he berates anyone who dares to contradict or question the "inspired truths" that come from his imagination.
What "inspired truth" now follows--that God freely elects some to salvation while reprobating others to damnation. That is his right. His logic is based on the reasoning that Christ was given "the right" to become the Son of God.
What foolishness.

 

Gotta' love the personal attacks on the board here. You know what that is indicative of? It is what people resort to when they don't know how to debate or don't have any response or reasonable arguments left. Your answers have already left you exposed.

Concerning Spurgeon, here is a direct quote:

That is a direct denial of reprobation at the very least, if not limited atonement at the most. It is found in his sermon:
New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 6, 28-29 preached Dec. 11, 1859.
It was statements like that, that Spurgeon was sometimes accused of "Armianianism." He often urged all unsaved to come to Christ, and with great earnestness, never giving any hint that the number for which he died was a limited number. "Whosoever will may come."
Thus: Calvinist, yes; conflicted, yes. If Calvinist, he certainly was not consistent in his Calvinism. Anyone who has thoroughly read Spurgeon can see this quite readily. Any Calvinist who has seen this will probably, out of their own pride, never admit it.

 

This must indeed be the end times because I never thought I'd see supposed Baptists defending, making excuses for, praising, idolizing, and lying about a fanatical, demonic, state-church, persecuting murderer.

You are the very ones who would have suffered and died under Calvin's hands had you lived in his Geneva at the time.

 

Vile language? Gutter-talk? Nasty? No, that's what you do all the time as evidenced by your posts here. You must have been looking into a mirror when you wrote those lies about me. I have simply stated what the historical facts are about Calvin. Everything I said about him is 100% truthful.

I don't have a specialty in history. I have it in church history and theology.

You haven't answered what I wrote about earlier: What would you have said to your idol Calvin had you lived in his time and held to your Baptist beliefs? What would you have said when they were putting the torch to you? Would you have cried out, "How can you do this to me? I admire Mr. Calvin so much and highly esteem him as a man of God, even though I hold to religious liberty and believer's baptism!" -- as the flames were engulfing you.

 

Please read ALL the posts. A great many here refuse to be civil.

What they do and what they believe are two different things.
What is their outreach in? Is it in actual "bringing the lost to Christ," or is it more in "social causes"? See the official site of PCUSA.
BTW, which Presbyterians are you talking about? The same ones that Rippon is ranting about? According to him they are mostly apostate. So how much missions would they be involved in?
I personally watched a Presbyterian church dwindle down to a dozen or so elderly people for lack of evangelism, and then die completely closing their doors. I do speak from some experience.

I have defined Hyper-Calvinism by what I have read on this forum, and by what I have read in other materials. Others disagree with me because of the very same reasons--by what they have read. It is a relative term, according to what you believe. Let me give you a quote from another non-Cal.

http://bible-truth.org/IsCalvinismBiblical.html
--Basically the five-pointers are the hyper-Cals according to him.
And that is what I said.
The same author, later on in his book, gives the reason why:

It is simply a logical outcome of the five points of TULIP.

Agreed.

What I know of TULIP, is that it does not lead to evangelism. I do know that there are Calvinistic churches on this board that evangelize. I never denied that. But their belief in evangelism and their belief in TULIP are contradictory. They fail to see that.

I have tried to quote from factual sources. Many of them have been ignored.

I am not sure which quote you are referring to.

Keep in mind this is not a church but a debate board where arguments often get somewhat heated. Again, I urge you to look not at just my posts.

 

I was advised by a Antinomian Calvinist when I was ordering the complete set of Spurgeon sermons to only order the New Park Street pulpit as those were more doctrinal than the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. I ordered them all. I was told by this same preacher a few years ago that Spurgeon was weak in a lot of his beliefs. I do believe that Spurgeon had a burden for lost souls that very few preachers today has regardless of their denomination. There are some Calvinist of today that will give forth the call in their messages to believe, and some will not.

 

Micheal Servetus was executed by the civil government of Geneva. Not Calvin. Why I do think the crime was not worthy of capitol punishment. The government of Geneva made the call under their authority, not Calvin's.

Of course this took place under the civil of the 1500's. I guess a question for us, if we were in the authorities place.....raised as them under that time.....how would we have handled an extreme heretic that launched an assault on God himself???? Servertus attacked God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As a civil government we would, if convicted, hand out the punishment that fit the crime. Of course that last statement is relative to the government issuing the punishment.

In today's U.S.A Servetus would have kept his life. Which I agree with. The Geneva execution was a product of the time and civilization it occurred in.

 

What is it about a church-state union that you and some others can't understand or won't admit? When church and state are united, the civil and religious are tied together.

And I guess I need to keep repeating what I wrote before: "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..."

 

Are you against all forms of capital punishment carried out by government?

 

I don't see how that's relevant to our discussion. Aside from my view, the point that is relevant is this: In a united church-state system, the government is the secular arm of the religious authorities, and the religious authorities, the "Church", is the religious arm of the government.

That's why all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers, including Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. They sanctioned and approved of persecution, torture, and killing of religious dissenters. The Anabaptists were almost wiped out by the state churches -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. And Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli approved of it and participated in it. Luther by his words sanctioned it. If you doubt it, research it. And yet Luther was not nearly as bad as Calvin.

It is simply astounding to me to see supposed Baptists defending such. Our spiritual ancestors were persecuted, mutilated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by state churches. Like I said, this must be end times.