Calvin did not invent the doctrines of grace
- Thread starter IsaiahA
- 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.
So did God change His Mind here with this King who He said shall die ? Isa 38:1-6
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the Lord,
3 And said, Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4 Then came the word of the Lord to Isaiah, saying,
5 Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.
6 And I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria: and I will defend this city.
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the Lord,
3 And said, Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4 Then came the word of the Lord to Isaiah, saying,
5 Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.
6 And I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria: and I will defend this city.
I don't care what you think. Really I don't. shrugs The info is all out there. It seems, since you call one incidence a 'legend', you and I don't agree anyway. This onus is on the one that said whatever is old. Anyone who really wants to know something will do so of their own accord...I know that is what I do. 
Yes, the onus being on the claimant is old. Because it is a long lasting fact when someone makes a claim they do not substantiate at the same time.
I know if someone accused someone of being a murderer they have to prove it.
You can't and even make a protracted excuse as to why that is.
Bearing false witness is a sin. Christians know that too.
Shame on you.
Like I said, don't be discouraged. People that haven't read those passages are not going to believe those who have.
God could not be called merciful if God was incapable by nature of changing his mind.
God does not change from being all that defines God. That does not mean God cannot relent or change his mind. The Bible shows he does.
Those who have not read that fact don't know it as fact.
And I've been here a short time but long enough to know, don't discount the possibility some argue contrary to scripture just to keep an argument going and see how long someone will try to change their mind. When they appear and post as one who is immutable. 😉
God could not be called merciful if God was incapable by nature of changing his mind.
God does not change from being all that defines God. That does not mean God cannot relent or change his mind. The Bible shows he does.
Those who have not read that fact don't know it as fact.
And I've been here a short time but long enough to know, don't discount the possibility some argue contrary to scripture just to keep an argument going and see how long someone will try to change their mind. When they appear and post as one who is immutable. 😉
N
Just a few highlights of Calvinism:
1. god hates the non-elect
2. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; (John Calvin)
3. Jesus did not die for the sins of all mankind
4. god drags people to regeneration and they do not need to know the Gospel, since they are the elect.
5. god plays favorites
6. god is the author of evil in the world for his purpose to magnify and glorify himself as the ultimate puppet master.
7. god holds men accountable when they never had a choice
well, perhaps not as Christian as you think if you make comments like you have to me. I wrote about Calvin (I'm not done) but directly attack me and continue to do so. smh...remember now that you are not posting to me anymore (YAY)
1. god hates the non-elect
2. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; (John Calvin)
3. Jesus did not die for the sins of all mankind
4. god drags people to regeneration and they do not need to know the Gospel, since they are the elect.
5. god plays favorites
6. god is the author of evil in the world for his purpose to magnify and glorify himself as the ultimate puppet master.
7. god holds men accountable when they never had a choice
well, perhaps not as Christian as you think if you make comments like you have to me. I wrote about Calvin (I'm not done) but directly attack me and continue to do so. smh...remember now that you are not posting to me anymore (YAY)
N
Calvin did not play nice.....he simply put aside any scripture he disagreed with. (somewhat like what is going on in this thread)
John Calvin’s interpretation of the Bible justified the murder of his theological opponents. He himself did not cut off any heads or light any fires that burned human heretics alive, but John Calvin’s preaching from the Old and New Testaments claimed those capital punishments aligned with God’s interests.
How so? Calvin did not believe all Old Covenant laws had been set aside by the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated. He didn't buy into the plain sense of Hebrews: “God has made the first covenant obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). He maneuvered around Paul’s conclusion: “the Law became a tutor to lead us to Christ and now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:24-25; cf. Rom 10:4). Calvin dismissed this data from the New Testament and decided the moral laws in the Old Covenant laws of the Torah still applied. And killing people who perverted his pure doctrine was a moral necessity.
Calvin specifically justified capital punishment of heretics with Leviticus 24:16. “The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord should be put to death; all the congregation must stone him. Any foreigner or native who blasphemes the Name should be put to death.”
Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies” didn’t stop Calvin from approving and promoting the death of his theological enemies. And Paul’s instructions for dealing with people who theologically disagree with you were equally ignored: “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24-25). Calvin did not patiently discuss his differences with people who promoted competing ideas. Calvin requested beheadings, made death threats, and praised God for orchestrating the torture of heretics.
Calvin spelled out his theologically reinforced vengeance in a personal letter:
(ouch...my comment)
John Calvin’s interpretation of the Bible justified the murder of his theological opponents. He himself did not cut off any heads or light any fires that burned human heretics alive, but John Calvin’s preaching from the Old and New Testaments claimed those capital punishments aligned with God’s interests.
How so? Calvin did not believe all Old Covenant laws had been set aside by the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated. He didn't buy into the plain sense of Hebrews: “God has made the first covenant obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). He maneuvered around Paul’s conclusion: “the Law became a tutor to lead us to Christ and now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:24-25; cf. Rom 10:4). Calvin dismissed this data from the New Testament and decided the moral laws in the Old Covenant laws of the Torah still applied. And killing people who perverted his pure doctrine was a moral necessity.
Calvin specifically justified capital punishment of heretics with Leviticus 24:16. “The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord should be put to death; all the congregation must stone him. Any foreigner or native who blasphemes the Name should be put to death.”
Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies” didn’t stop Calvin from approving and promoting the death of his theological enemies. And Paul’s instructions for dealing with people who theologically disagree with you were equally ignored: “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24-25). Calvin did not patiently discuss his differences with people who promoted competing ideas. Calvin requested beheadings, made death threats, and praised God for orchestrating the torture of heretics.
Calvin spelled out his theologically reinforced vengeance in a personal letter:
“I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.” - Calvin's letter to Farel on 24 July (for more words directly from Calvin’s pen, read Selected Works of John Calvin)
Calvin believed God made sure criminals didn’t die quickly when tortured. This vengeful attitude and his support for outdated Old Covenant laws that legislated capital punishment for competing theologians that challenged his preferred doctrines look more like ISIS than Jesus.(ouch...my comment)
N
con't
Personal correspondence and city council records betray John Calvin’s extraordinary influence in Geneva. Although he was asked to leave in 1538 when he enforced his strict moral standards and pushed for the church’s independent power to excommunicate people, Genevan officials invited him to return in 1541 to resolve church divisions. Upon his return, the city council approved his Ecclesiastical Ordinances that included the establishment of the Consistory. The Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva, met every Thursday to review cases (This book is a chronicle of the Consistory’s records from 1542-1544.) John Calvin led the court. Although the Consistory did not have the power to imprison, exile, or kill those who were guilty, Calvin could still convince the city magistrates to wield such power when his theological opponents contradicted him.
When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.
Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, suffered a worse fate. He was Calvin's longtime acquaintance who resisted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However, he angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins. So what did Calvin do? You can read his resolution from a personal letter he wrote to a friend:
Personal correspondence and city council records betray John Calvin’s extraordinary influence in Geneva. Although he was asked to leave in 1538 when he enforced his strict moral standards and pushed for the church’s independent power to excommunicate people, Genevan officials invited him to return in 1541 to resolve church divisions. Upon his return, the city council approved his Ecclesiastical Ordinances that included the establishment of the Consistory. The Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva, met every Thursday to review cases (This book is a chronicle of the Consistory’s records from 1542-1544.) John Calvin led the court. Although the Consistory did not have the power to imprison, exile, or kill those who were guilty, Calvin could still convince the city magistrates to wield such power when his theological opponents contradicted him.
When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.
Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, suffered a worse fate. He was Calvin's longtime acquaintance who resisted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However, he angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins. So what did Calvin do? You can read his resolution from a personal letter he wrote to a friend:
“Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546
The next time Servetus attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on a visit, Calvin had him arrested and charged with heresy. The 38 official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. The city magistrates condemned him to death. Calvin pleaded for Servetus to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but to no avail. Some people see Calvin’s compassion in pursuing a more humane method of death, but ultimately he supported killing Servetus and all such heretics.
from snoop:
from dogg:
Absolutely.
Cain had a choice to make.
You are right, if he were a corpse and unable to make a decision God would not have demanded it.
Calvinism missed it on this.
Gen 4:5-7
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
KJV
Note: Cain is angry so much so you can see it on his face (countenance fell). His anger is with both God and his brother Abel. Cain is also fallen man and corpse like dead according to Calvinism. So I ask why is God reasoning with Cain by His Words alone? Doesn't God know His Own doctrine
According to Calvinism God must regenerate a person before He can respond to God's Words... yet God is reasoning with him in Word only... This precedent is followed throughout Scripture = the Word of God is proclaimed to the hearer and the hearer is responsible to respond to that truth...
God even proclaims the pros and cons to obeying His Word to a corpse like dead person
Pro
Con
It is clear that God has proclaimed Cain had choice or was response abled to adhere or ignore God's Word...
from dogg:
Absolutely.
Cain had a choice to make.
You are right, if he were a corpse and unable to make a decision God would not have demanded it.
Calvinism missed it on this.
N
con't
On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward. For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:
John Calvin followed Augustine’s biblical justification for burning heretics. Augustine excused extreme measures through his interpretation of Jesus’ Great Banquet parable in Luke 14:16-24. When the master could not fill up his banquet in the parable, he commanded his servants in Luke 14:23 “to compel people to come so that my house will be filled.” Augustine and Calvin believed burning heretics would “compel” more people to enter their house of God. Interpreting “compulsion” as a license to kill without consideration for Jesus’ other teaching to “love your enemies” is a major hermeneutical error. Any part of Jesus’ teaching should be interpreted in light of the whole.
Nothing funny about the way Calvin handled those who did not agree with his interpretation of scripture. There is so much about Calvin that can be found. I don't need to post it all nor do I need to prove it when Calvin's own letters and degrees prove it.
On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward. For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:
“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin
How could such torture be condoned? In November 1552 the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Disagreeing with Calvin’s view of God was a violation warranting the death penalty according to the way John Calvin interpreted Leviticus 24:16. The Geneva city council records describe one verdict where a man who publicly protested against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the city’s main intersections and then expelled (“The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59,” translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy). You did not get to disagree with Calvin in this town.John Calvin followed Augustine’s biblical justification for burning heretics. Augustine excused extreme measures through his interpretation of Jesus’ Great Banquet parable in Luke 14:16-24. When the master could not fill up his banquet in the parable, he commanded his servants in Luke 14:23 “to compel people to come so that my house will be filled.” Augustine and Calvin believed burning heretics would “compel” more people to enter their house of God. Interpreting “compulsion” as a license to kill without consideration for Jesus’ other teaching to “love your enemies” is a major hermeneutical error. Any part of Jesus’ teaching should be interpreted in light of the whole.
Nothing funny about the way Calvin handled those who did not agree with his interpretation of scripture. There is so much about Calvin that can be found. I don't need to post it all nor do I need to prove it when Calvin's own letters and degrees prove it.
from snoop:
from dogg:
Absolutely.
Cain had a choice to make.
You are right, if he were a corpse and unable to make a decision God would not have demanded it.
Calvinism missed it on this.
Gen 4:5-7
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
KJV
Note: Cain is angry so much so you can see it on his face (countenance fell). His anger is with both God and his brother Abel. Cain is also fallen man and corpse like dead according to Calvinism. So I ask why is God reasoning with Cain by His Words alone? Doesn't God know His Own doctrine
According to Calvinism God must regenerate a person before He can respond to God's Words... yet God is reasoning with him in Word only... This precedent is followed throughout Scripture = the Word of God is proclaimed to the hearer and the hearer is responsible to respond to that truth...
God even proclaims the pros and cons to obeying His Word to a corpse like dead person
Pro
Con
It is clear that God has proclaimed Cain had choice or was response abled to adhere or ignore God's Word...
from dogg:
Absolutely.
Cain had a choice to make.
You are right, if he were a corpse and unable to make a decision God would not have demanded it.
Calvinism missed it on this.
There's only Snoop Dog.
-
1
- Show all