What is the source? I'm only interested in Calvin's own words; not what someone has said he said. I can discern the rest.
5 Points of Arminianism
- Thread starter NOV25
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Even claims Calvin was shameful. What did Calvin do to be so shameful?
Clearly when you claim to be a follower of God you should not be caught in a barn making another man have pleasure.
Clearly when you claim to be a follower of God you should not be caught in a barn making another man have pleasure.
Read the Institutes, that is the title of the doctrine Calvin created.
And remember the document I had you read and you see the direct connection.
Are you saying that in The Institutes that Calvin says God coerced him into sodomy?
No, it's where he writes God makes all humans including Satan sin and do things.
But think here, why would Calvin want us to believe our sins are caused by God?
What sin did Calvin commit he wants us to believe it's because God made him do it?
I think Calvin's reasoning was far more nuanced than you do. I know he recognizes God as first cause of all things in one sense because of creation. But I don't believe he believed God was the cause of sin. His understanding would be inline with the Westminster Confession.
Be careful here, because this is how you begin justifying sins with an umbrella of OSAS.
There's so many angles to OSAS, and Calvinism makes the perfect fit.
If we go by Calvin that God makes us SIN, that's the best form of OSAS possible.
If God makes me SIN, I am guaranteed Eternal Heaven because I never really sinned, God sinned through me.
This is why I am against anything Calvin.
If God makes me SIN, I am guaranteed Eternal Heaven because I never really sinned, God sinned through me.
This is why I am against anything Calvin.
Romans 1 renders man unexcuseable.
I'm just telling you that your understanding is tainted from what Calvin actually means.
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/
Read the article
It’s an old rumor likely started by Calvin’s enemies, the Catholic Church and Arminians. Truth is it was a Roman Catholic priest who was charged with sodomy.
@The_Watchers_2017 has an agenda, when all else fails resort to gossip and slander.
I believe OSAS is true, but not because of anything Calvin had to say about it. When a person hears the gospel and decides to believe it, he is sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13), which is the "earnest," or guarantee, of salvation (Eph 1:14; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). He becomes a son of God (1 John 3:1-2). Getting saved is no guarantee that a person will always act like a Christian, and is not a guarantee that a person will not walk away from the faith (Demas, for example. Calvinists will tell you that Demas was not really saved). But even if every "work" that Christian does is burned up, he will still be saved (1 Cor 3:10-15). The difference between a faithful, dedicated Christian and a Christian who does basically nothing for God will be the rewards they receive at judgment. A faithful Christian will be "richly welcomed," an unfaithful Christian will be let into the kingdom "as one escaping through a fire." Rewards will matter.
I appreciate the resource but it matters little to me one way or the other about Calvin's personal life. But some of what he understands about Calvin's writings are merely extrapolations of his own thinking processes, and not the correct understanding of what Calvin actually meant.https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/
Read the article
It’s an old rumor likely started by Calvin’s enemies, the Catholic Church and Arminians. Truth is it was a Roman Catholic priest who was charged with sodomy.
@The_Watchers_2017 has an agenda, when all else fails resort to gossip and slander.
Without knowing Calvin how would you think if someone said to you the sins I commit are God doing them...
Or best one yet,
Satan has no will to be God's enemy. God needed a enemy and chose Satan to be it. And nothing Satan did was actually Satan doing them but rather God doing them and blaming Satan.
You use Romans 1 but I clearly see someone at fault but claims someone else is the reason they did sin.
You have missed the OBVIOUS point that Calvin is a person where it's always someone else who is at fault.
If the joint verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit, by way of making up full weight.
When archbishop Laud’s papers were examined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate’s own hand: “March, 1628. A Jesuit’s Letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament.” The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall hear subjoin:
“Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and bears fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke: – Our foundation is Arminianism. The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments.”
(Hidden works of darkness, p.89,90. Edit. 1645).
It seems Arminianism was a Jesuit scheme to destroy the Protestants. And it worked, the entire world now flocks to the false gospel of man’s ability.
When archbishop Laud’s papers were examined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate’s own hand: “March, 1628. A Jesuit’s Letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament.” The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall hear subjoin:
“Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and bears fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke: – Our foundation is Arminianism. The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments.”
(Hidden works of darkness, p.89,90. Edit. 1645).
It seems Arminianism was a Jesuit scheme to destroy the Protestants. And it worked, the entire world now flocks to the false gospel of man’s ability.
Arminianism: A Jesuit Drug
https://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Arminianism-a-Jesuit-Drug.pdf
https://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Arminianism-a-Jesuit-Drug.pdf
I understand your point. I'm trying to tell you that what you think Calvin is saying is not what he is saying. He actually believed people are accountable for their sins. You are making assumptions about what he believed and extrapolating your own understanding to come to your conclusion.
Please pay close attention to this from the Westminster Confession, which is simply a dodge. "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Another way of saying the above is that God decreed (predetermined, unchangeably ordained) everything that happens on earth, yet He cannot be held responsible for all the sin an evil. So how is that even possible? Does the Bible even suggest such a thing? There is a huge difference between God ALLOWING sin and evil to exist and God UNCHANGEABLY ORDAINING all the sin and evil. And we know that God allows sin, evil, wickedness, and iniquity for a season, but not forever.
It is a real shame that the Westminster Confession failed to present Bible Truth and Gospel Truth as found in the Bible. Had those men who compiled it refused to be swayed by Reformed Theology, every Christian could have given full consent to that document. People should also understand that (at least) the conservative Presbyterian churches expect their members to give full consent to the Westminster Confession. Possibly the Reformed Churches also. The liberal Presbyterians probably don't care one way or another.
You’re absolutely correct, the liberal Presbyterians, as well as the liberal Methodists, liberal Pentecostals/Charismatics, liberal Baptists etc. etc. “do not care either way”.
“Coincidentally” they’re all guilty of heresy as well, gay pastors, women pastors, supporting abortion… They’re all some form of Arminian.