Featured A Tale of Two Faiths

So you are not the least bit familiar with any of the 14 scholar/historians I listed. And you probably have not the slightest clue about any others I could list. Yet you make the ridiculous assertion that I am not being factual. The 14 that I have itemized are from different time periods,countries and denominational affilations. There has been no collusion among them.

You have boasted that you specialized in history in your educational background. But there is not the least bit of evidence that you even know the basics of Calvin's life. I really doubt that you know much of the other Reformers.

So why would you want to discuss anything with me? You'd better hightail it to a decent library and stay away from poisonous websites. Then, after researching actual history we could have an honest discussion.

 

You fit neatly into the category of a semi-Pelagian.

You do not "exchange thoughts" Reb. You throw junk around --unlearned hateful junk.

You are quite content to be in the muck and mire of the filth you spew. How about washing up for a change?

 

Yeah, things that did not pertain to Calvin. Schaff never laid any blame on Calvin for anything you cited. Otherwise, how could he call John Calvin "the Christian Elijah" ---hmm? How could Schaff say that "all impartial writers admit the purity and integrity, if not the sanctity of his character."? How is that DHK? You need to admit all this.

Yes, I am very serious. You have tried to malign Augustine's character. You have worked double-time on Calvin. You have misrepresented John Gill. On and on you go prevaricating all the way home to grandmom's house.

Kids like you say the silliest things.

And that qualifies as worship? You are being trashy.

He quoted Chrysostom almost as much as Augustine. Do you have a problem with that? Are you going to call that plagiarism too?

Calvin freely disagreed with Augustine about one third of the time according to my estimates. Your theories have to align with the truth at some point. So far you are batting zero.

You regularly say the most unfounded things. Why would he hide anything? Why would he need to do that?

You want to make Erasmus into your own image; don't you? No historian would agree with you about your crazy belief that he wasa virtual Baptist. Stop publishing such tripe.

You don't know what you are talking about. Most Presbyerian churches are liberal. The biggest group is PCUSA! For crying out loud.

A fraction of the Presbyterians are members of the PCA and OPC. They are Calvinistic, but certainly not hyper-Calvinistic. You say the weirdest things.

Your past links gave no support whatsoever to your wild assertion :"The great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in their hyper-Calvinistic beliefs." Your links did not even once mention the term hyper-Calvinism. You are so far off the beam it is sick.

I will not dignify your filthy concluding remarks. Your designation as a "moderator" seriously needs to be re-evaluated.

 

Yes, and the Jews did not put Jesus to death either, it was the Roman government...........

 

Why would the state or government at the time care about torturing and killing perceived offenders of the Christian faith? The whole thing looks like Calvin using the state to carry out his dirty works for him so he can basically act as the Jews did with Pilate when they took Jesus to be murdered.

 

:thumbs: :wavey: Thank you for your solid posting and sticking with the facts!

 

Birds of a feather stick together. You are both from the albatross family.

You, have inverted the meaning of "facts" just like DHK. How clever of you.

Meanwhile, I will keep telling the truth for those who lurk and don't post.

"The idea that Calvin was 'the dictator of Geneva' is utterly unfounded." (J. Steven Wilkins)

"Far from ruling as a religious despot, Calvin was continually frustrated by the Geneva city council's unwillingness to implement many of the social reforms he advocated." (B.G.Armstrong)

"It was the Small Council alone which had the power of the supreme penalty of capital punishment." (Mark Larson)

"Calvin was not the ultimate authority in Geneva. He certainly was no dictator as he is often portrayed by the misinformed." (Geoff Ashley)

"He gladly served in the church and did not aspire to political or corporate power. He did not design a system of corporate governace that gave him more authority than others." (The Legacy of John Calvin by David Hall,p.76)

"Research of the archives of Geneva has revealed that Calvin definately did not have the decisive power in this city..." (The Calvin Handbook by Herman J. Selderhuis,p.5)

 

Just as the wolf-pack erects strawmen against a fictional Calvinism --So too do they
manufacture an army of false Calvin figurines. These nay-sayers, will at any cost, go into reflex mode to try and kill their fictional Calvin. No holds are barred.

"We all know that the internet is a treasure-trove of well-researched, reliable information, and it is not at all populated with armchair historians with a theological axe to grind against John Calvin." (Ransom 12/01/2005)

"You are not driven by a love of the truth, but a desire to vilify a departed brother in Christ by raising any possible calumny against him you can find, no matter whether it is true or false." (Ransom 12/01/2005)

 

Rippon
Great job as usual exposing this gaggle of clown posts....lol

Having failed scripturally at every turn....lies and unfounded charges are all that remains for these opposers.

Not only is there a lack of biblical acumen. ...there is a dishonesty which is even more troubling.

 

Rebel

Unless you begin to attempt a scriptural case you posts have little value to anyone. Back up what you say.I do not think you can....:thumbs:

 

Rebel,
There was a time in the not too distant past that I literally hated John Calvin, which was quite awkward since I firmly believe God is sovereign. It is not that I have totally changed my mind, but you have to look at what he contributed to our understanding of doctrines like grace, sovereignty, depravity, faith and atonement among others.

You have to recognize that he was a flawed human being as any of us are. You also have to realize the culture back then is not America in 2015 and cannot judge by our standards. Back then heresy was considered a capital crime. Given if Calvin lived today he would not have fared well. He might of ended up behind bars or worse. So we have to look at the man in the 1500s culture. In the Servetus case, Calvin was the prosecutor. He was not the judge or executioner. That was his job and he was upholding the law as it existed at the time. Now I am thankful I did not live back then. But I cannot fault a man for doing his job.

Calvin is raked over the coals because he believed in infant baptism and wrote favoring seperation of church and state but did not practice it. One dies not have to dismiss all he accomplished because you disagree with some of his stances.

If you look at Calvin for what he did that lines up with Scripture and forget the rest, you will see the value of his contribution to church history.

 

When culture changes Christ does not, the new nature of a Christian does not, and the Bible does not.
The demonstration that a person is "in Christ" is that he shows "the fruit of the Spirit" in his life, no matter what culture he is in. The culture doesn't matter. There is no excuse, ever, for one to take on the culture of the heathen.

Considering the above, is there ever any reason to execute a person because he holds a doctrine different than you, even if you consider it heresy? Culture aside, Is there ever any reason for murder just on the basis of a difference of doctrine?

 

Why do you say that? He would put most of us to shame with his godliness.

No, he was not. Philibert Berthelier was the prosecutor. Calvin was only a theological witness. He was deliberately kept on the sidelines by the Libertines who hated him.

True.

He was no hypocrite. He went further than anyone else of his time in that regard. He never believed that ecclesiastical authorities should rule over civil authorities and he certainly wanted the civil authorities to stay out of church matters. and he didn't believe that the Church had any right to impose punishments for those who broke civil laws.

Aside from real history, which some here are intentionally neglecting --they need to read his sermons, lectures, commentaries and letters. That would humble them and put their faces toward God.

 

Presbyterian are by definition Calvinist. The founders of their faith are both Knox and Calvin. You show your ignorance on this subject so plainly and then post so arrogantly that you are well informed. Let me state plainly: You are not!

Let me give you an example using the Baptists. There are liberal Baptists; perhaps some are on this board. I used to drive by an American Baptist Church almost every day that had a female pastor. That church was very liberal. What made the church liberal? What made the church Baptist?
The church remained Baptist because it adhered in principle to the Baptist distinctives. It didn't deny its heritage as a Baptist church. It may have denied some other fundamentals or things that Baptists would have deemed fundamental, but not their Baptist heritage or their distinctives.

In general the liberal Presbyterians still remain Calvinistic, and have not repudiated outwardly those distinctives that make a Presybyterian church "Presbyterian" in nature--its particular form of church government, its basic constitution, etc. It still remains basically Calvinistic in nature. It has not repudiated Calvinism in its entirety. It still has the Westminster Confession of Faith, though some of its leaders may disagree with some parts of it (as I do). That doesn't put it out of the Presbyterian Church as a whole. Whether you like it or not it is still Presbyterian, bears the name Presbyterian, and is still Calvinistic in nature--just not as Calvinistic or as faithful to Calvin's precepts as you would like to see them. The WofC. is still officially there.

 

It is very easy to find information on Calvin.
The internet abounds with it, as do other historical books. For example:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e034rpCalvin_Franca05.htm

Need one say more?

 

Silly you. The PCUSA are by far the largest group of "Presbyterian" churches in America. They have strayed far from their moorings. To deny that would be absurd.The more "consservative" among them would be considered liberal by most Christians. The WCoF is not on their radar.

So just because a church or a grouping of churches call themselves Presbyterian in and of itself means squat. There are "Baptist" churches which might as well be United Methodists. There are "Christians" who deny many cardinal doctrines of the Faith.

The PCUSA, to be specific is a mere shell of anything resembling Calvinism. It would not be recognizable as Presbyterian to past generations of conservative Presbyterians. You need to wake up to reality DHK. The WCoF is not adhered to. It is just an antiquated relic having nothing to do with the lives of its members. They repudiate many Bible doctrines --and to do so is certainly not true Presbyterianism.

I will say this slowly for you --It is largely A-P-O-S-T-A-T-E. Do you understand?

And the whole point is that you have not provided one scintilla of evidence that the great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in hyper-Calvinism. You are trying to be evasive --but you have absolutely no proof. It is laughable.

 

The American Dream

.

I have noticed a more relaxed attitude in your posts AD....as if God has been dealing with you in a positive way:wavey::thumbsup:

This is the key thing with any trusted guide the church has used to get benefit from.

We were not there. we do not understand what it was like to live and confess Christ at that time. Squire R posted a short thread a few weeks ago and also got at this idea. Some of the violence and killing I just do not understand...but I was not alive then. Many things were done by many groups back then.
We do not understand all of the thoughts and motives but we do not need to either. We are called to be saints now...in our time.
They lived their life before God and have already entered the eternal state having left their bodies before us. God is the judge of us all;
rom14;12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God


To hide behind names of persons from church history as if it negates scripture being discussed today is a disingenuous tactic. That is how these names and persons are used by those who oppose scripture.

when they get pinned down scripturally...play the Calvin is evil card :laugh:

 

:wavey: He has been exposed and undone but does not believe that to be the case:thumbsup: He makes things up about scripture also even the greek words as we have seen AA and others offer correction and he flees from it.

If someone posts a good link he dismisses it because he cannot answer to it.

many times we have seen him admonish others to stay on topic.....yet Calvin and Augustine are not the topic here....but a smoke screen to cover his error.

 

http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/
What We Believe

For God’s Plan of Salvation, click here: THE GOOD NEWS
For the Westminster Standards, click here: WCF
For the Book of Church Order, click here: BCO
If you are looking for the PCA’s position about a specific topic, please visit the PCA Historical Center’s collection of PCA Position Papers here: PCA POSITION PAPERS
A good summary of what the PCA believes can be found in the Preface to the Book of Church Order:[/quote]

And again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.)

The average Presbyterian Church IMO, is Calvinistic. Your focus seems to be on liberalism. Too bad. Maybe that has been your focus all along. Is that what you believe about Baptists as well?

 

Rippon,
I thought in all my readings Calvin was prosecutor. Could be I misread. Other than that agree with your post.

To the other side
What I do not like is posters who have never been Presbyterian or studied the denomination. First of all, Presbyterians do not like what the PCUSA has become. They betray what the name Presbyterian stands for.

Even more outrageous is lumping hypers with the whole denomination. Hyper is not Biblical. The PCA spends a large share of their budget on supporting missionaries. The Cumberland Church also does. How dare anyone, especially those claiming to be well versed put out the idea that the vast majority of Presbys do not believe in telling others the Good News. Presbys have doctrines that I do no agree with, but sovereignty and salvation, they are spot on. I would suggest you go back and read Rippons and Icons posts. They are excellent summaries.