More questions unanswered by Calvinist. Hear they are-
1. What did John Calvin trace his conversion too?
2. Do you agree with Calvin that infant baptism is good and right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By the grace of God, I am honored to be in full time ministry. I also have three children and a wonderful wife. If I allow it, my time could be exhausted by this blog. That would be detrimental to all that God has given me. I will post, Lord willing, every Sunday and spend the next week preparing the next post and responding to the previous one. Feel free to drop a line, but please understand if it takes a day or two to respond. Something I will not do is continue to carry on a post forever.
By the grace of God, I am honored to be in full time ministry. I also have three children and a wonderful wife. If I allow it, my time could be exhausted by this blog. That would be detrimental to all that God has given me. I will post, Lord willing, every Sunday and spend the next week preparing the next post and responding to the previous one. Feel free to drop a line, but please understand if it takes a day or two to respond. Something I will not do is continue to carry on a post forever.
27 comments:
1. What did John Calvin trace his conversion too?
No idea, but I doubt it's relevant to my beliefs.
2. Do you agree with Calvin that infant baptism is good and right?
Since I don't think baptism saves people apart from belief (1 Peter 3:21), I don't think infant baptism does anything helpful. It's heretical if one thinks it saves, it's fine by me if it's just a sign the parents are committed to sharing the gospel with their child. My parents baptized my baby sister last year for that reason.
I hope you read the comments I left for the other topics, btw, even if you don't respond to either. I don't even know if you got either of them, since you didn't publish either of them i.e. I don't know if they got through). Anyways... yea:)
Yeah Ryan, I got your ideas. Basically, it boils down to this. I must stop after 2 or 3 responses from the same person for the same post. Typically, people put their best counter argument forward, it seems. So to carry it on, most of the time the topic drifts from what the post was about in the first place. It takes time , also. A lot of time.
Calvin traced his conversion to his infant baptism in the Catholic Church.
I will not 'argue' about your parents desire for their child. If they did that trusting it would save her, I would have to say something. I am curious though, are they Calvinists?
That's fine, it's just that you kept saying "not one Calvinist will do such and such," and I thought I had done so in those posts.
Oh did he? Well, that's his deal then.
No, my parents are not Calvinists. My mom's sister thought I had joined a cult or something similar that happened to her husband when he was my age, so we had a little debate - i.e. she would send me links to web sites "refuting" Calvinism, and I would explain their errors and misunderstandings. She stopped, so I think we're ok. They're aware that I'm a Calvinist, and we talk about it sometimes, but never like this. They're ok with it, although I doubt they understand the full weight of the matter. Nobody in my family is openly Calvinist, if that's what you're wondering. I came to the conclusion on my own last May.
Fighting Calvinism by exposing the fallibility of a man connected with the doctrines of Grace would be like my fighting the KJV on the basis of Peter Ruckman.
Augustine was discussing the doctrines of grace long before Calvin was, and Luther wrote more on the subject than Calvin did.
One man does not make or break a doctrine. My theology is not based on any of Calvin's work...it's based on Scripture.
I can understand what you mean by the KJV and Ruckman. However, I wish to explain why I choose to expose Calvin for the heretic he was.
Note: The KJV is not called the Peter Ruckman Version. Besides, I thought the KJV was you preferred translation.
Calvinism is called CALVINism for a reason.
I have not heard of the first Calvinist that wished to not be called one. They are not called Lutherites. They are not know for being called Augustineites. The theory is called Calvinism, and those that follow it are called Calvinists. I know of no Calvinist that does not hold Calvin's Institutes in high regard. The leading Calvinist of the day do, so even if some care not for Calvin's work, they still follow someone who follows Calvin. Sure Calvin basically worshiped Augustine. Sure he agreed with him most of the time. However, one wonders why the so-called "doctrines of grace" were not written about or spoken of until Augustine.
Calvinism is called Calvinism for a reason. Anyone who claims " I am a Calvinist" admits they follow Calvin- just how far remains to be seen.
If any Calvinist's theology is based on Scripture, how does this versed fit with TULIP:
2 Peter 2:1- But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
I have offered the challenge to many a Calvinist- Is there any one verse in the entire Bible that clearly proves any one point of TULIP. The answer is no. The Bible must be reworded to fit Calvinism. Verses must be skipped over to fit Calvinism. This is not Biblical. Calvinism is not Biblical.
"Is there any one verse in the entire Bible that clearly proves any one point of TULIP."
Sorry....my side doesn't revel in prooftexts.
I'd love to discuss 2 Peter 2:1 with you, but only under the promise that every comment gets posted.
"Calvinism is called CALVINism for a reason."
Yes, but do you know it? It's NOT because we believe everything Calvin did, it's because it's a useful categorization of some of my basic beliefs regarding soteriology. It gives us a starting point. I would rather be called a Reformed Christian, but I don't mind Calvinist as long as the parties understand the connotations that go along with it, i.e. that I do NOT believe everything Calvin believed, but rather believe as most "Calvinists" do:
- that unregenerate man is radically depraved
- that we must thusly be regenerated before we can break from our depravity
- that God makes this choice alone,unconditionally
- that He chooses a particular people whom He foreknew
- that this particular people will not fail to come
- and that this particular people will be preserved by their Savior
Any claim that all Calvinists believe more than this is unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
"Calvin basically worshiped Augustine."
False.
As for 2 Peter 2:1, I wonder if you will read the whole article and respond to its points, or simply dismiss it as bias (who doesn't have bias anyways) and continue to post 2 Peter 2:1 as though it refutes the doctines of grace.
http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html
"I have offered the challenge to many a Calvinist- Is there any one verse in the entire Bible that clearly proves any one point of TULIP. The answer is no."
You were who stopped responding to John 6:44, not I. If you'd like to make a topic dedicated to debating this verse and context, I'd be more than happy to accept your challenge.
Richard- I know your side doesn't revel in prooftexts.
Folks, this is Calvinism. The theory that is suppost to be Biblical. Yet there are those that are part of it that boast of not "reveling" in proof texts. I ask why? A sad statement indeed...
Sorry, but only a great fool will promise to publish everything someone else writes. I have to wade through 10,000 words of someone elses explaination of the verse first. Please feel free to respond anyway.
"my side doesn't revel in proof texts......."
I would probably try to reword that statement. That's just me, though.
Ryan, I have gone to great lengths to state that not all Calvinist believe the some. Several times I write " some Calvinists, not all Calvinists" etc. etc. I have not made any, as you call it "unsubstantiated and irrelevant" claims.
My next post(midweek, no comments) will be on the influence of Augustine on young immature Calvin. It should be enough for our readers. My next Sunday post will be on John 6:44. Tell all your friends and pack a lunch :)
Um, a prooftext is a verse taken by itself, with no context, and used to prove or disprove something.
I say my side doesn't care for them because we believe the doctrines of grace to be reflective through the whole of Scripture, regardless of the proof-texts that counter that idea, such as 2 Peter 2:1. We don't seek verses that individually explicitly state a fact that we can derive logically from other Scriptures that allude to it.
For example, let us say that the Bible teaches that:
1. Joe has a seeing eye dog.
2. Joe has a walking stick.
3. Joe bumps into objects frequently.
4. Joe walks around in the dark as well as he does in the light.
Now, I can take this data and know that Joe is blind. However, your side would refuse to unless I can present a verse that specifically says, "Joe is blind".
Likewise, we that hold to a Reformed soteriology can read the facts and grasp the big picture, even if we cannot present a verse that says, "The natural man is so dead that he cannot respond to spiritual stimuli."
As Ryan has already initiated conversation concerning this passage, I'll stay back for the time being.
Basically you wrote all of that and said the final authority is logic. Specifically the logic utilized by Calvinist. More specifically, not the logic used by anyone that has studied Calvinism and has rejected it.
I like the idea of Joe, but if those "verses" were even there, they would still show more about the blindness of Joe than any show about TULIP.
Humanistic reasoning regardless of clear Bible passages is why you believe Calvinism. Who, or what , is your final authority? Is it logic, or is it clear Bible passages?
The big picture is that God has created billions and damned most of then for not repenting, when He alone could give them the ability to repent?
The big picture is that God pleaded with and cried over people that He did not give the ability to come to Him?
The big picture is that God, who is love, damned the very ones He could have saved?
Nice appeal to emotion.
Rather than logically tie scripture together, you would rather cling to a prooftext that has valid support even for my side of the argument.
My final authority isn't logic; it's scripture. However, it's not in prooftexts, but rather in the story of redemption beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation.
You keep referring to logic and reasoning as bad things....from where do you think we get such things? Satan?
Without logic and reasoning, men would believe that baptism is required for salvation and that we should baptize for the dead. You only object against the use of reason and logic when reason and logic disprove your position.
The big picture of Calvinism is that God has created a race that fell with Adam. Rather than let them all be damned to Hell like they deserve, He chose to save some of them. Killing His own Son in that group's place allowed justice to be exercised as well as mercy.
Your big picture is one of God allowing the human race to try to save themselves, though most people are stronger than God and can resist His every move to save them.
As to your last picture....this is fact:
God could save the entire race if He wished.
He chose not to, thus damning billions to Hell.
This is a reality we all have to face, Calvinistic or not.
I will sit here and cry out in praise to God for saving me.
You, I guess, can sit there and thank yourself for making the right choice.
On a side note (lol), Boice and Ryken have written a book called "The Doctrines of Grace". I recommend it for reading.
On another side note, you're the third James Boy/ice to go into the ministry. Must be the name.
You refer to emotion as if it is bad. Where do we get it from- Satan? HA Nice, huh?
Emotion or not, you and I know that is what Calvinism teaches.
Most of the verses "your side" and "my side" use are reworded by Calvinists.
I object to logic when it usurps Bible.
The trouble with "your big picture" is this: God is love. If God choose as you believe, to save a few, where does His love come in? What kind of love would seal the fate of billions to hell? What kind of love would hold His Spirit back to warn billions of their sin? How did God show His mercy to those billions damned?
One of Calvinisms many straw men is the belief that non-Calvinist sit around and pat themselves on the back. This is like me saying that all Calvinist sit around with big heads and brag " God choose me."
You said Calvinism or not, God damned billions. Wrong, sir. Man has damned himself. John 3:18 B- he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
If God wanted, could He orchestrate mankinds circumstances so that every one of them would recognize their need for a Savior and cling to said Savior?
Yes...He could.
But He chose not to.
Therefore, the damning of mankind was completely at the choice of God.
If God didn't do everything in His power to save a man (as you admit elsewhere He doesn't), than where does His love come into play there?
I don't care how you look at it...as Sovereign ruler of the human race, it was God's choice to not save all men.
You ask where the love of God is in my system. It is in God giving man the choice to reject or accept Him. That gives man a chance. That would explain the pleading and crying Christ done that Calvinism turns into a mockery. You see, if man really did not have a choice, all the offers of salvation to all mankind is a mockery and charade. The Biblical system that I believe in makes all the offers of God, pleadings of God, and tears of Christ real, and not just a show. Sure God did not choose to save all mankind. However, in my world He made it possible, contingent upon what Christians do with the gospel. In your world, you turn a God that is love into a actor, asking man to turn to Him when He alone has decreed they cannot. The love of your God is akin to one that breaks a horse's leg and then puts it down for not running. Slice it anyway you like- in your world God has only shown love to a few. In mine, He has shown it to all.
"Ryan, I have gone to great lengths to state that not all Calvinist believe the some. Several times I write " some Calvinists, not all Calvinists" etc. etc. I have not made any, as you call it "unsubstantiated and irrelevant" claims."
Great, then my comment doesn't apply to you.
"My next post(midweek, no comments) will be on the influence of Augustine on young immature Calvin. It should be enough for our readers."
I hope this quote you've posted:
"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God"
is not the evidence you have that Calvin worshipped Augustine.
"My next Sunday post will be on John 6:44."
can't wait :)
Brother Ryan, I have no comments allowed on that post for a reason.
Man. You don't know how much it pains me not be able to show you your own words. Nonetheless, I will try. A word of caution, though, from a brother to another. Be careful not to let your blogging interfere with your family time.
That said, let me disect your post and point some things out to you...
"You ask where the love of God is in my system. It is in God giving man the choice to reject or accept Him. That gives man a chance. That would explain the pleading and crying Christ done that Calvinism turns into a mockery."
I disagree with none of this. God does give man the choice. However, man is DEAD and will not choose to accept Him. I know you disagree with this last part, but do know that most Calvinists would all agree that whether or not to repent and believe the Gospel is indeed man's free will. We just also believe that man's will was completely and radically corrupted in the fall, thus making it impossible to accept Christ apart from the intervention of God.
"You see, if man really did not have a choice, all the offers of salvation to all mankind is a mockery and charade. The Biblical system that I believe in makes all the offers of God, pleadings of God, and tears of Christ real, and not just a show."
This is pure straw man on your part. Salvation is offered to all that will repent and turn to God. However, no one will do this. The Biblical system you believe in would leave the human race in its fallen state, all to perish to Hell. When you realize that salvation is a work of God, not merely a work of man's decisions, you'll be able to appreciate your spiritual life more.
"Sure God did not choose to save all mankind. However, in my world He made it possible, contingent upon what Christians do with the gospel."
You serve a God unable to save you without your cooperation. I know you don't see this, but it's a reality. You just said that your salvation was only possible with YOUR actions. Perhaps Jesus should have said "It is almost finished...now Jerry just needs to make that decision and make my death actually worthwhile." I dunno, bro. Your theology revolves around you more than it does God.
"In your world, you turn a God that is love into a actor, asking man to turn to Him when He alone has decreed they cannot."
Um, did He not do this with the issuance of the Law? He demanded perfection while knowing that is was impossible. Likewise, He can demand repentance, though He knows that we of our own volition will never repent. That doesn't make Him an actor; that makes His the rightous judge of mankind.
"The love of your God is akin to one that breaks a horse's leg and then puts it down for not running."
It wasn't God that broke the horses leg; it was the horse. No one made Adam fall but Adam. Likewise, no one makes us sin but our nature inherited from our representative ancestor. Mankind broke its own leg. NOW God has every right to put us down for not running. And He would, too, were it not for His loving decision to save some of us.
"Slice it anyway you like- in your world God has only shown love to a few. In mine, He has shown it to all."
In my world, God has shown His love to all mankind by promising salvation to anyone repenting and believing upon Him. However, though we all chose not to, God even more demonstrated His love by electing individuals to receive a new heart by which they would gladly receive a Gospel they otherwise hated. Now, men will be saved.
In your world, God offers love to those individuals whose lives He's manipulated so that they will accept Him while the majority of everyone else rejects Him.
In your world, God leaves salvation up to the work of an individual.
In your world, nothing actually happened on the cross.
In your world, mankind is sovereign...not God.
This is exactly the kind of double talk and web of confusion one would expect from a Calvinist.
Double talk #1-You say God gives man the choice. Richard, you also said God has choosen before the world began who will be saved. You cannot have it both ways. Either God has choosen, or man has. Which one is it?
False straw man #1- You say it is a pure straw man on my part to point out that the pleadings of God are a farse. Your theory has made that a fact in your world. We both know God pleaded with mankind and cried over them. I would be careful to call Biblical fact a "straw man"
Double talk #2- You say you agree with man having a choice. You say that man can use his will to accept or reject Christ. Then you proceed to write that having a part in one's salvation is wrong and that man's actions in salvation means that same man's theology is centered on himself. This is classic Calvinism -double minded and double speech. Hello Richard- surely you can see this. We both know that Calvinism teaches man has "NO SAY" in his salvation- lest he (gasp) boast about it. You may say you believe man has a geniune choice, but we both know you don't.
Correction #1- Why did God give the Law? You studied the OT, yes? WHy did God give the Law? Even if one could twist and stretch ( as I am sure you are use to) the giving of the Law to equal pleading, crying etc. they are still apples and oranges. God telling someone to follow His rule is slighty different that God pleading, crying, asking for man to repent. You see, man could not obey the Law 100% of the time due to mankind's wickedness. But according to Calvinism, those very ones that Jesus cried over could not repent because God would not let them. According to you, the only way they could repent is if God decreed before the world began that He would make them.
Plain ignorant statement #1- God showed love to all mankind. He further showed love by electing some to salvation. The love of God you speak of is a smack in the face of a Holy, Righteous God. What kind of love would send billion to Hell that He could otherwise save? Did God take pleasure is choosing so few, out of His love? Do you mean to say the love of God was not enough to save those billions He sent to Hell?
" Many years ago, before eternity began, God knew everyone that would ever be born. This God, who is Love, decreed that because He is Love, He will not allow mankind to suffer in Hell. Therefore God decreed that most of the people will suffer in Hell, and that He would see to it that only a few would spend an eternity with Him. He could have choosen all of them. But this God of love took pleasure in sending those deserving right where they belong. He will then in the future force those elect to choose Him."
Hmmmm, uhhh no. Not only does Calvinism belittle the love of God, it belittles His glory. It seems to me that God get more glory when He gives man a genuine choice, instead of turning man into a machine. Speaking of my family, I would hate to have prayer with my kids and kiss them good night thinking that God has either sent them to hell or not.
Anyways, thanks for the thoughts.
You're hopeless bro.
God could have saved everyone He damned. Bottom line. He didn't. "What kind of love is that??"
You need to lay off the Hunt and actually read a book from the Reformed side of the house.
I say this with love...you still have no grasp of Calvinism. In your head you have a misconception that you refuse to let go off. There's a fog over your eyes that you cling to while being hostile to all things Calvinistic. I pray for the day you call me weeping with the realization of the truth.
Than again, you probably have the same sentiment.
:-)
I won't waste our time correcting your corrections of my corrections of your mistakes. There are quite a few, though.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
How were we not chosen unto salvation "before the world began"?
Predestination and election are not mentioned in salvation, but rather Christ-likeness. Futhermore, where in this passage do you find "unconditional election" as defined by Calvinistic terms? The basis of this election is not stated, and the role of God's foreknowledge in HIs election is not mentioned.
Richard- fair enough. I am use to the catch phrase "misunderstand Calvinism". If I called you weeping admitting the truth, would it be like the weeping Christ had over Jerusalem, a farse and charade? Thanks for the try, brother.
"I am use to the catch phrase "misunderstand Calvinism"."
THat should tell you something, Knucklehead.
:-)
If every Ford mechanic I know tells me that I don't have a proper understanding of how the fuel pump works, I think I might just have to believe them, regardless of my persistent claims to really know what I'm talking about.
(Now, if I did understand it and wanted to improve the design, that's something else entirely. But I have to know how it works, first.)
Anywho, saw a dozen deer loafing around Ft. Benning this past weekend. Had I seen antlers I was going to give the ole' M16 an impromptu workout, lol.
Oh, and 44 out of 240+ soldiers qualifed on the range this month. Good to know the country is in good hands, huh? Haha.
Scary indeed. I guess that is why they developed the auto-shotgun found here-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0
antlers have been shed- go back this summer ahahahaha
The greatest deer fight caught on film was on a military base. Huge 200 point class deer at it for over 24 hours. They wore each other down until people could cut the antlers and free them. The deer were painted to know if they would be shot later, but they never surfaced again. This was in the black and white days.
Jerry,
I know this is an old post, but couldn't help myself. You stated up there at the top that Calvin traced his conversion to his Roman Catholic Baptism. This statement is either one of two things, 1) A bold-face lie or 2) A demonstration of a deep ignorance of Calvin's writings. I refer to you the following. In his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin said concerning his conversion:
"By a sudden conversion, God subdued and reduced to docility my soul, which was more hardened against such things than one would expect of my youthful years."
"Like a flash of light, I realized in what an abyss of errors, in what chaos I was."
The time period of which he writes takes place between 1532-1533, when Calvin was already an adult.
To answer your second question about infant Baptism, yes. I do think infant baptism is good and right. Believing in Covenant theology of course I do.
Calvin also wrote in his Institutes the following :
...at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole life...we must recall our baptism so as to fell certain and secure of the remission of sins...
Since Calvin was baptised as an infant, one can conclude by said statement that he trusts in that for his salvation.
What I wrote is neither a lie or a misquote. It is proof of what Clavinism's hero really believed.
I find it interesting you believe in infant baptism, since it is unBiblical and infants cannot believe and be saved. This is not a post to debate Covenant Theology, but I just wanted to plug that in.
Post a Comment