Calvin's defense?

[mikebr]

The three arguments that Calvin used to defend his doctrine?

1.Anyone who disagreed with Calvin were accused of being against God.
2.He insisted that anyone who disagreed with him were “very wicked”
3.He denied that anyone can judge his doctrine “according to our own understanding”

Is this the way we still defend doctrine? Is this the Christian way of defending doctrine?

[watchinginawe]

The three arguments that Calvin used to defend his doctrine?

1.Anyone who disagreed with Calvin were accused of being against God.
2.He insisted that anyone who disagreed with him were “very wicked”
3.He denied that anyone can judge his doctrine “according to our own understanding”

Is this the way we still defend doctrine? Is this the Christian way of defending doctrine?

Do you have a reference for the above defense?

The defense works if you substitute "the Truth of God" for "Calvin" in the above. Consider:

1.Anyone who disagreed with the Truth of God were accused of being against God.
2.He insisted that anyone who disagreed with the Truth of God were “very wicked”
3.He denied that anyone can judge the Truth of God “according to our own understanding”

Of course, any doctrine can be defended by claiming it is the Truth of God. If this is how Calvin defended his "doctrines of Grace", then I would suggest that he was wholly convinced of the truth of those doctrines, even though I disagree with him.

We could find passages in the Bible that support such a defense where it concerns Jesus.

Is Calvin's defense becoming of a Christian? Not to me since I disagree with him and I am not God's enemy.

God Bless!

[reformedct]

John Calvin did have a reputation of being harsh. Though i agree with TULIP i dont agree with how he handled critics. But also i understand that he thought he was correct in his interpretation and therefore those who opposed him were seen as enemies of God in his eyes. Doesnt justify how he acted though.

[BrckBrln]

John Calvin did have a reputation of being harsh. Though i agree with TULIP i dont agree with how he handled critics. But also i understand that he thought he was correct in his interpretation and therefore those who opposed him were seen as enemies of God in his eyes. Doesnt justify how he acted though.

I fully agree.

Calvin bashers need to realize that he was human.

[mikebr]

Do you have a reference for the above defense?

The defense works if you substitute "the Truth of God" for "Calvin" in the above. Consider:

1.Anyone who disagreed with the Truth of God were accused of being against God.
2.He insisted that anyone who disagreed with the Truth of God were “very wicked”
3.He denied that anyone can judge the Truth of God “according to our own understanding”

Of course, any doctrine can be defended by claiming it is the Truth of God. If this is how Calvin defended his "doctrines of Grace", then I would suggest that he was wholly convinced of the truth of those doctrines, even though I disagree with him.

We could find passages in the Bible that support such a defense where it concerns Jesus.

Is Calvin's defense becoming of a Christian? Not to me since I disagree with him and I am not God's enemy.

God Bless!

I think the point is that He would have said that you were.

Now I could agree with the rephrasing of the statements, but my focus is on John Calvin in particular. Would you say that he defended his doctrine in a Christian way? If not what does it say about him?

[mikebr]

I fully agree.

Calvin bashers need to realize that he was human.

Am I bashing him by pointing out what he said and taught? At least half of Christendom believe that he was wrong. He would have said that those particular people were "against God," "very wicked," and creating doctrine "according to their own understanding." If he was wrong could Arminianist say the same thing about him? I think, and could be wrong that he believed those exact things about Jacobus Arminius. Do his followers say those things about Arminius' followers?

[BrckBrln]

Am I bashing him by pointing out what he said and taught? At least half of Christendom believe that he was wrong. He would have said that those particular people were "against God," "very wicked," and creating doctrine "according to their own understanding." If he was wrong could Arminianist say the same thing about him? I think, and could be wrong that he believed those exact things about Jacobus Arminius. Do his followers say those things about Arminius' followers?

Let me ask you something. Is calling the 'Calvinist god' a 'sadistic tyrant' a Christian attitude? I know you didn't say this but others have. Is that any more different than a Calvinist saying Arminians are 'against God'?

[mikebr]

Let me ask you something. Is calling the 'Calvinist god' a 'sadistic tyrant' a Christian attitude? I know you didn't say this but others have. Is that any more different than a Calvinist saying Arminians are 'against God'?

No, I believe that both are wrong on some points. But are you using the same tactics that he used by saying "If you call the Calvinist god a stadistic tyrant you are un-christian?"

[watchinginawe]

Would you say that he defended his doctrine in a Christian way? If not what does it say about him?

Can you give me a reference to read over so that I can develop a more informed opinion?

As presented I don't think the defense is very Christian. But Calvin's doctrine left grace entirely up to God and that the elect were already determined so there could be no discouragement by such a defense. His defense is an extension of his belief in the veracity of his doctrine. He didn't hold it as just a "theory". He fully considered the implications of his doctrine and defended it from the most extreme positions.

Because of his doctrines, Calvin must not have believed that he could change someone's beliefs but rather believed that the elect would see the truthfulness of his doctrines and could then be identified as such. A fruit of election is belief in the doctrines of grace. (There are those who still believe that.)

God Bless!

[BrckBrln]

No, I believe that both are wrong on some points. But are you using the same tactics that he used by saying "If you call the Calvinist god a stadistic tyrant you are un-christian?"

I would never call an Arminian a non Christian.

[mikebr]

I would never call an Arminian a non Christian.

John Calvin would have.

Foolish men contend with God in many ways, as though they held him liable to their accusations. They first ask, therefore, by what right the Lord becomes angry at his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomever he pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge. It therefore seems to them that men have reason to expostulate with God if they are predestined to eternal death solely by his decision, apart from their own merit. If thoughts of this kind ever occur to pious men, they will be sufficiently armed to break their force by the one consideration that it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God's will (Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. XXIII, Sec. 2).

[Emanate]

I fully agree.

Calvin bashers need to realize that he was human.

I wonder if his skin would crawl to know that people wear the term "calvinist" now.

[Pilgrimtozion]

Thread closed for Mod review