Featured is calvinism based upon John Calvin, Or Upon Jesus And the Gospel?

Which makes calling one's self a Calvinist even sillier.

 

More misdirection, no light

1) Is the fall a distinctivie of Calvinism, of do Non-Calvinists embrace the fall? Thus this is not Calvinism, the TULIP is.

2) Some do seek after God to get saved. Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33. So a straight-up falsehood.

3) Jesus died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. So a second straight-up falsehood.

4) Yes, eternal security is taught by Calvinism, so they got one right out of 5. Yet many Non-Cals also firmly embrace once saved always saved, so yet another non-distinctive of Calvinism. Thus the distinctive doctrines are the TUL and I of the tulip. There is no support whatsoever in scripture for these mistaken doctrines. They are read into the text.

5) And finally, the doctrine of progressive sanctification, as we grow more mature in Christ is not a distinctive of Calvinism but is embraced by Non-Cal.

Bottom line, an effort at misdirection, deflection and deception.

 

Yet another falsehood, I admit mistakes many times. Yeshua1 simply advances logical fallacies, attacking the opponent rather than his or her views. His goal seems to be to stir up turmoil, rather than enlighten. Note the lack of referenced verses. Why bury the light under an avalanche of falsehoods?

 

.
I will agree that he was occupied alright.

"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak...." Paul 2 Cor 11

Matthew Henry did it. Kittel did it. Rice did it. Need I go on! Yet he found time to write one from Matthew to Jude. hmmmmm. Martin Luther failed there also. Coincidence?

Which ignored exegesis on Revelation.

 

They have falsely accused Dr. J. of "Blasphemy".............
you are now then one who piles on

You have officially false accused the brethren of Blasphemy.

You have borne false witness, and you have falsely accused your brother of blasphemy as you place yourself in that camp congratulations to you.

You have spoken idle words of false accusation, and you will answer to God for them.

 

Yeshua, I accuse publically, as a man who has borne false witness against his brethren in a false accusation of "blasphemy"...

Let him then prove the accusation of "blasphemy" is true, or then, he must repent of his false accusations.

 

And yet Spurgeon was pre-mil. If he was convinced that Augie and Calvin preached the truth, why didn't he adopt either one of their eschatological views?

 

No,you are wrong yet again. Matthew Henry only completed the books up to Acts. Matthew Poole and John Gill, both ardent Calvinists completed the task because they were granted longer lives.

 

Wrong again, it was through to the start of the book of Romans.

 

John Calvin was apperently the only "divine" (as they called them) in Geneva to have insufficient time to visit the sick............even though every other divine found the time to do it. (As Castellio quotes him). Calvin insisted that it was not appropriate that the Church be robbed of his ministry while he ministered to the sick................and similarly, Calvin didn't think it was fair that he (as Servetus's official accuser) spend time in prison AS his accuser (according to Genevan law at the time) and instead sent a proxy of his tp suffer in prison to level his accusations instead.

 

Like you have ever read Matthew Henry! Romans through Revelation were done by other non-conformist ministers.

 

isms and schisms

When two do not agree, they both cannot be right. They could both be wrong.

What is the standard? The holy fathers and post Reformation commentators are all in the same category: subject to human error from their depravity. Yep, Augustine and Chauvin were not infallible. They were also pedobaptists.

Why do many insist on putting extraneous biblical doctrine on the same level as the whole counsel of the infallible Word of God?

The fact that Jon Chauvin, aka John Calvin, was a pedobaptist, a practice he got from his childhood religion, should tell us he is not worthy of a pedestal.

There is only one worthy-- we crucified Him.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I was reading Matthew Henry before you were born. Go back to your day job as court jester.

 

Hmm...what a prodigy you must have been at a mere 10 months.

 

Not an impartial source.

Calvin had to obey the law as everyone else. He was not a magistrate, as I have said over and over again. He was a member, the leading member of the consistory. He was not serve in a civil capacity.