Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

If you think Calvin killed Servetus, then that is your belief, and I cannot take that away from you.

 

HP: To conclude otherwise would take a complete rewriting of history and an ignoring of the facts.

 

And the saga continues.

 

HP: Put an end to the saga. Show us hard evidence that will refute the historical facts surrounding Calvin’s crucial role in not only desiring that he be murdered, but in the actual murder itself.

 

Here's the grind: If Calvin had a hand in Servetus death, Calvin will have to answer to God.

 

HP: I will fully agree, but in this world we are well capable of arriving at safe and reasonable conclusions as to ones involvement in murder, even to the point that God ordains just government to put to death those that would be involved in such actions.

The grind that I see is the blatant disregard of the facts by some (not necessarily you) surrounding his direct involvement in the murder of Servetus. I see no purpose in the ignoring of the facts other than to provide some semblance of cover for the theological notions he imposed upon the Church of his day that persist in ours today.

 

I am a Christian and follow Christ. If you are a Calvinist then who do you follow?

 

I know of many who are Calvinists who have never read anything of Calvin, so how can we say that they are following Calvin?

I too follow Christ and Him alone.

 

How did Calvin imposed his teachings on the church today? Did Augustine impose his teaching on the church?

Tell me, who has imposed his teaching on the church?

 

Btw, I've never been impressed with anyone who has attacked the doctrines of grace by traveling the ad hominem broken path.

 

HP: By the contemplation of and carrying out murder as a result of his political and theological position of power and influence would be one way for starters. Anytime men rule in such a way as to be able to influence and or command men to carry out deeds of atrocity and murder of others, they are inflicting their teachings upon others and the Church are they not?

HP: I suppose it happens largely over time as fear of retribution is struck deep into the psychic of men and women as they see wit their eyes and ears the end of those that dare raise a voice of opposition against the ruling authorities of their day. Such remnants and attitudes of subservience to such oppression lasts for centuries.

I believe that such sentiments exists clearly yet today. When the governmental blessings and protection we have enjoyed in this great country cease to exist, such persecution will again return in full bloom.

The problem is not all about Calvin or anyone else in particular. The problem is that we are so much like sheep, coupled with a bent towards evil, that we are easily led astray by the powers to be and few possess the character to stand firm in the face of evil especially when it is in power. Most are intimidated and few willing to face the risk of simple persecution, let alone death by a martyr’s fire.

Most are willing to quickly trade the convenience of simply accepting the status quo, rather than to risk the slightest pressure of rejection. I suppose it has to do with our being social beings, and our desire to be accepted and liked by those around us, and fear of reprisal. I am reminded even in our society how when even violent acts upon others are perpetrated in our presence, that more often than not our response is to simply distance ourselves from it rather than to get involved to stop or change the situation. Possibly if you have some answers for this obvious and well recognized trait of human behavior, we might be well on our way to understanding the influence men like Calvin had on imposing his beliefs and attitudes upon subsequent generations.

 

1. The tenets of Calvinism predates the pen of Calvin.

2. HP, you can do better than that.

3. Are making Calvinism an American product, now?

4. Do you remember the Crusades and the persecutions by Rome against those who defied her teachings?

5. So who is going to order my murder if I were to give up Calvinism?

HP, you have missed the point in a big way.

 

Wat was that called?

 

How could anyone blindly call themselves a Calvinist when they are so ignorant of what Calvin taught?

 

Then you have little understanding of what Calvinism really is.

Let me kindly encourage that before you continue in this discussion of Calvinism, please, do some research.

If you're not willing to research what is Calvinism, then what is the point debating?

 

In 4 point Calvinism the Bible doctrine on Perseverance is rejected entirely.

In 3 and 5 point Calvinism it is embraced - at least in some form.

The Arminian acceptance of the bible position on perseverance is obviously the best once since it does not require OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I would still argue that the doctrine of Calvinism stands or falls on its support (or lack thereof) from scripture "sola scriptura". No matter how "good" Calvin was as a Christian it does not "prove" Calvinism to be correct and nor matter how "intorant or evil" Calvin was - it does not prove the doctrines of Calvinism to be wrong unless scripture shows that to be the case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I read what the man wrote himself and realize the lies others attach to his name.

What works of his have you actually read?

Let me kindly encourage you to read what he wrote not what someone else said about him. It is always better to read primary sources than secondary sources of opinion.

 

I've read large portions of his Institutes, and I've read from some of his commentaries. But I'm no Calvin scholar.

In his Institutes Calvin makes several arguments for pedobaptism, but I'm no pedobaptist.

 

All,

I think what TC is saying is that he uses Calvinism as the "model" of his own theology. Then he can say that that "model" (+/- a few parts) can be passed on without the name of Calvinism, or its earlier name Augustinianism, attaching to it necessarily. This has the added advantages of 1) not "attaching" to one man and his life and 2) being able to use highly developed defenses of the theology in support of his own thinking.

Basically, TC has chosen to believe in the sovereignty of God and election unto salvation model. The cross here is only "discovered" as a necessity after regeneration/rebirth/salvation has already been delivered to the "elect" -- in their parlance, after the "elect" has been "drawn" and "given" by God to Christ.

Please correct me if or where I am wrong, TC. I know you don't "follow Calvin" nor "believe on" him. I believe that is your salvation model, right?

skypair