What is the purpose of Calvinism?

No,I am not.Calvinists do not need to read the works of Calvin.

Am I to assume that you are not willing to ask mature questions?

Keep it up.Your foolishness is growing by leaps and bounds.

What were you saying about ignorance earlier?

You are making the outrageous claim that no genuine Calvinist can possibly be a genuine Christian.Your post will be duly noted and flagged.

Who exactly is making a claim about following a person?Now obviously Calvinists who have read little to nothing of Calvin's works still are aware of some distinctive teachings of that servant of God.

I have already responed to this kind of stupidity of yours earlier.

Glory in your ignorance then.

John Calvin was not infallible.But no,I am not familiar with what you are referencing unless you are speaking of remarks of his regarding his life before being a Christian.

At this point replying to your many insulting and degrading remarks I think you need to cool your heels,get into the Word of God and pray boy,pray.

 

ILMHO the purpose of Calvinism is to explain the unknowable features of God Almighty. Needless to say, 'unknowable' means 'cannot be explained'. This is why the explanations of Calvin always falls flat on their face.

Praise the Lord, Jesus dying for our sins if we will but Believe :jesus: - now that is simple to understand part of (but not all of, How Could God Love me That MUCH?)

 

No.Calvinism does not seek to know the unknowable.That's logically laughable.John Calvin even cautioned those who would dare go beyond Holy Writ in their speculations.

Your post is evidence that you haven't read much of Calvin's material.


And Ed,when you make an absurd claim that all of Calvin's explanations of Scripture always fall flat -- you simply need to reflect before you type such twaddle.Ask PlainOldBill,a non-Cal here whether all of Calvin's explanations fall flat.If you'd actually read some of Calvin's works you'd have to retract your rash statement.You'd have to eat your hat after actually reading some of his books -- you'd be surprised how much you'd agree with.

Please use the kind of logic you employ against KJVOism and think more clearly.I like you.But here you are very wrong.

 

IOW,you don't have an argument -- you just want to be inflammatory.Shame on you.

 

Is that much like saying you do not need to read your Bible as a Christian?

Your statement clearly proves what I wrote earlier about Calvinists not reading what Calvin wrote yet making claims of being a Calvinist.

Is it too much to ask about what works of Calvin you had read?

Outrageous? Nobody can serve two masters. Do you know of any other way to say it? How can you make such an outrageous claim to even adhere to Calvin’s theology when you do not know what he stood for and what he stated as the limitations of his own theology?

If you had read any of Calvin’s works you would easily know that a lot of things are attributed to Calvin that he never wrote. Is your understanding through the commentary of another? Truth and opinions mixed together do not make it the truth.

Then do not make claims for which you have no basis of understanding. If you have not read the Institutes or anything else Calvin wrote then how can you make claims of being a Calvinist when you do not have a clue of what Calvin stood for? Your claim perfectly explains my point well about those who claim to be Calvinists and have not read any of Calvin’s works.

 

No,it's not.But you continue to ask these kind of "questions".All Christians,Calvinists or not need to read,study,meditate and apply the Scriptures.

I have been as plain as I know how to be -- one does not have to read the works of Calvin to be a Calvinist.He was not the only one in Church History to believe what he did.But an important thing worth noting is that he was a careful scholar and exegete of the Scripture.

One coming to the Word of God can become what is known as a Calvinist.We are not dependent on the man from Geneva to be what is nicknamed a Calvinist.

I am not serving two Masters -- and I am giving you a warning not to use that kind of stuff again.I do not claim to adhere to John Calvin's theology.His theology is not the standard -- the doctrines from the Word of God are what I yield to.If you'd pay better attention to what I post you wouldn't need to go over the same ole' ground that has been plowed.

Please be specific.What leads you to believe that?

My understanding of what?I do not follow what you are trying to say here.Please explain in more detail.

I have read The Institutes and some of his commentaries.I have a book of his letters and other miscellaneous things of his.I am sorry that I can't recite the entire catalog of his books which I own.So I do have a clue as to what he stood for.

How many times does this make it that I have told you? A person doesn't have to read Calvin's works to be what is known as a Calvinist.It's a handy nickname to identify our beliefs despite the misrepresentations folks like you love to engage in.

Many Christians who adhere very closely with Arminianism haven't read a lick of the material written by James Arminius.Of course most Arminians would recoil in horror if they were called Arminians.

 

I will repeat myself in order to make a point, I am not seeking unity with my non-Calvinist brethren. If anything I want our differences to increase. I want there to be such a difference between us that it cannot be confused or conflated with the areas in which we share agreement. This Baptist considers the doctrines of grace, God's holiness and His absolute sovereignty to be that important. When a Christian makes a choice of which camp he wished to join with, I want there to be such a clear and unmistakenful difference that there is no way he can be confused. But while I seek our differences to be magnified, I do not seek to vilify.
__________________


And, such is the sad commentary of the calvinist movement. They do not want unity. They only want to divide and conquer. Surely there is common ground. I believe it is called the gospel or the Great Commission. Already the U.S. is falling further and further behind. The church is declining. People are dying and going to hell and all we want to do is argue over the merits of TULIP. Satan is laughing. (Or could it be that the number of the elect are declining rapidly the U.S. The predetermined number of converts chosen from the U.S. population is decreasing and that number is increasing in other parts of the world. Baloney/ we are not sharing our faith. We are arguing amongst ourselves. We are becoming more and more polarized. God help us)

 

It appears to me that the non-calvinists are the leaders in the debate against calvinism. Must be their guilt in ignoring the teachings of scripture.

I differ greatly with dispensationalism, but I doubt you have read many such posts in my name. I simply state the positive things of calvinism that lifts the Saviour high, lays the sinner low, remembering that I am but a sinner saved by His grace.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I am curious as to why some of you think someone needs to read Calvin to be a Calvinist? Do you not understand that "Calvinism" is a label for a particular understanding of Scripture? It has nothing to do with following a man. I am not sure why that is confusing to some.

Someone help me understand.

 

Because Calvinsts themselves have labeled it "Calvinism", which is the name of a man who taught the doctrine that Calvinists believe in.

If you were to say you were a Stanleyist, it would be assumed that you follow the teachings of Charles Stanley.

 

The so-called TULIP was written after Calvin's death.

Having read Calvin's history, I would not want to walk in his footsteps. If we named ourselves, why not use the name Augustine? Calvin copied him in theology.

If you have read Calvin's original Institutes, you will find he changed some of his views when he wrote his book on Romans. The Institutes have also been revised. Calvin also taught infant baptism. More than just the amount of water, he included the value of the covenants in relation to soteriology.

If you study baptist history, you will learn that we differ substantially to "Calvinism".

Cheers,

Jim

 

First, I don't think Calvinists named it Calvinism.

But regardless, the name is a label for a set of doctrines. What "Calvinism" conveys is not loyalty to a man, but rather adherence to a view about what the Bible teaches.

Why not Ralph Stanley? Or Morgan Stanley? Furthermore, you admit that it is about following teachings, not a man. So why does it all of the sudden change when Calvinism is invoked? If "Stanleyism" is following the teachings of someone, then Calvinism too is about teachings.

The only question is where the teachings come from. In the case of Calvinism, the teachings existed long before Calvin. Many people seem to think that Calvin invented these things.

So I continue to wonder why people confuse this.

 

I see no value in a theology label. What Calvin wrote is not God's word but rather an opinion of what he thought scripture taught. While I have great respect for Calvin and have been challenged by his discipline, I am not challenged to study what he believed. A long time I ago I settled on the idea that God's word is eternal and not any other man's words are. Therefore I must study that which is eternal. God's word has power but Calvin's word does not. When I share my faith and use my Bible to show a person how the Bible deals with issues it reaches the heart. No other word or book has that kind of power.

At one point in my life I tried to read many books in an effort to understand the Bible better. I read about one book per week. At the end of two years I realized that I knew very little about what scripture taught. I knew what authors said about the Bible but I did not know my Bible. Since that time I sought to spend more time reading and studying my Bible in light of its historical context.

I also happen to believe that Calvin has misinterpreted some passages. Studying Calvin does nothing to help me get at the correct meaning of passages in scripture. I do not care what he writes so much as what the author of scripture inspired.

For example when I was reading 1 John yesterday I noticed that the word for "know" was a perfect active subjunctive. I was surprised and was challenged to see if I could find other usages in scripture and other documents to try and get at the full meaning of that word in its context.

When I studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary I cannot remember one time when we discussed Calvin or any other writer to get at the meaning of words in their context. However I can remember many times when I reflected back on a sermon I had heard years earlier and sometimes not so far back only to realize how the preacher was ignorant of what the text actually taught and how he was most likely preaching something he had heard elsewhere. If we keep teaching and speaking what we have heard taught somewhere else then we do not allow a study of God's words to have the power it has to correct. All we do then, is to perpetuate another's teaching.

I am willing to spend time studying that which is eternal at the loss of that which is temporal.

 

Unity among believers is taught in scripture. I do not see that as an option. There are to be no divisions. Unity is a choice. Churches often divide over issues that are essentially about as important as the color of the carpet. Once that happens they become ineffective.

Unity is not conformity. In unity there can be great diversity. In fact if there is not much diversity then you have conformity and lack the diversity of various gifts. If there were little or diversity then you may have a lot of agreement but everyone would have the same focus of ministry. Imagine what a church would look like if everyone were focused on showing mercy and nobody was focused on teaching. Imagine what a church would look like if the people were focused on teaching and no focus was on showing mercy.

People who are focused on winning people to Christ and making disciples have little time to focus on anything else outside of knowing Christ and making him known.

When I take a look at things I must consider the outcome of their faith before I will consider them focused on Christ.

Heb. 13:7 "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."

 

It is bewildering to me why one would make a claim of being a Calvinist and saying that one agrees with Calvin when one has never read what Calvin wrote. If one has never read what Calvin wrote then how can he name himself among those who subscribe to Calvin's teachings.

What I also find interesting is that most Baptists claim to be people who use their Bible as their sole standard for faith and practice, yet quite a number call themselves Calvinists. When I read 1 Cor. I do not see labeling as being a good thing commended by Paul, but rather addressed as a negative issue. Isn't that what the Bible teaches?

 

Your last sentence contracts your first. If you do not desire unity then you desire the opposite of it. If there is no unity then one is in fact a villian and your desire to 'magnify' these differences only re-enforces this fact.

Secondly, I would suggest you re-read the scriptures which states God desires us (believers) to be in unity not only with Him but with each other. God has some very severe words for those who will bring division to His people. I will also state that it is sad you will make that which is secondary that which is primary and thus placing that which is truly primary out of the way for your particular theological view.

 

The above is what scripture calls 'immature christians'. It is all about what they want. it is only polarizing when one or both sides state my view is right and that the other is does know how to read, understand, or study the scriptures. It becomes polarizing when you start belittling, condecending, and bringing ad-homs in.

But no, it isn't a 'pipe dream' except for those who seek to destroy the unity of the brethren. I will agree that it is something that takes great love to do however and thus many will divide because they are still children who have yet to understand and practice this spiritual fact.

No your switching to a completely different topic that IS a polar opposite to what is being discussed. This is not about changing doctrine or deny immutable truths. This is speaking of those who hold to the same immutable truths but see some differences in the process of how they are accomplished.

None of these are primary doctrinal things but tertiary and only become a problem when people want their view exhaulted above others.

The only time a church split is healthy is when sin is removed from the body. If a church splits for theological of polity issues it is because a problem has been allowed to festur for far to long and has become sin in the church as a whole. The church already has a theolgical view and if some do not agree why try to oust those who have already established a body there. WHy not seek to create a new Church with different views rather split a church? ANswer typicially is because they want power and predominance not truth and unity.

To this we will agree.

I have yet to find ANYONE confused about the debate.
Some might not know about it but anyone who knows even a little is not confused concerning what each believe.