PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Theological Chart



Abiding
Jan 23rd 2011, 07:53 PM
Curious as to where everyone stands according to the chart?


1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

Butch5
Jan 23rd 2011, 08:01 PM
Curious as to where everyone stands according to the chart?

The closest would be Arminianism, but I am not Arminian because I do not hold to several his positions either.

Bandit
Jan 23rd 2011, 09:10 PM
Out of those 8, number 8 (Arminianism) would come closest to my understanding.

Slug1
Jan 23rd 2011, 09:20 PM
8 would be closest to my understanding of scripture. I don't know all about Arminianism but in what little I know, seems closest to God's meaning of the scripture(s) we read in the Word of God in all those examples.

-SEEKING-
Jan 23rd 2011, 09:41 PM
Curious as to where everyone stands according to the chart?

Outside the box apparently..............

Slug1
Jan 23rd 2011, 10:46 PM
Outside the box apparently..............HA... thats a better way to put it instead of picking a "closest" to the Word of God. Just step right out of the boxed "isms" that try to explain the Word of God and simply follow the Word of God and it's meaning instead of any "ism" and it's attempt to explain the Word of God ;)

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 12:24 AM
HA... thats a better way to put it instead of picking a "closest" to the Word of God. Just step right out of the boxed "isms" that try to explain the Word of God and simply follow the Word of God and it's meaning instead of any "ism" and it's attempt to explain the Word of God ;)

Very wise words my friend.

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 01:54 AM
Where's Pelagian?

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 03:04 AM
Where's Pelagian?

I'm pretty sure he's dead.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 03:06 AM
I'm pretty sure he's dead.

But his legasy live on.

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 03:18 AM
But his legasy live on.

Well if you want to call this legacy.................

"Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). " (From Theopedia.com)

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 03:25 AM
Well if you want to call this legacy.................

"Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). " (From Theopedia.com)Oh, I'm aware of Pelagianism and what it teaches. Heresy!

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 03:26 AM
Oh, I'm aware of Pelagianism and what it teaches. Heresy!

Oh ok. Wasn't sure. That's why I posted that. Thanks for clarifying.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 03:29 AM
Oh ok. Wasn't sure. That's why I posted that. Thanks for clarifying.No problem. Thank you for taking the time to post what you did, as a reminder and for those who may not know. :)

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 03:33 AM
Well if you want to call this legacy.................

"Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). " (From Theopedia.com)

However, Augustine wasn't really in any position to call anyone a heretic, since he himself had teaching that was rejcted by the church.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 03:37 AM
However, Augustine wasn't really in any position to call anyone a heretic, since he himself had teaching that was rejcted by the church.
Actually the Catholic Church didn't reject much until he wrote his retractions. That's when they really pounced on him.

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 03:42 AM
However, Augustine wasn't really in any position to call anyone a heretic, since he himself had teaching that was rejcted by the church.

Good point. But he wasn't the only one. And eventually Pelagius was excommunicated by the church.

http://theresurgence.com/files/2010/03/15/20100315_pelagius-know-your-heretics_poster_img.jpg

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 04:15 AM
I'm pretty sure he's dead.I said Pelagian not Pelagius.

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 04:16 AM
But his legasy live on.Then why did you leave it off? Your choices are all Calvinistic. Not much of a choice.

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 04:18 AM
Well if you want to call this legacy.................

"Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). " (From Theopedia.com)This is incorrect. That you have to go to theopedia tells me you didn't know that.

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 04:20 AM
Good point. But he wasn't the only one. And eventually Pelagius was excommunicated by the church.

http://theresurgence.com/files/2010/03/15/20100315_pelagius-know-your-heretics_poster_img.jpg
Brilliant. Excommunicated by heretics.

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 04:24 AM
This is incorrect. That you have to go to theopedia tells me you didn't know that.

That was the first place I found. the fact that even Theopedia knows it should tell you something. I could post more sources if you like but it doesn't seem it will get through to you.

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 04:27 AM
You can post a lot of sources that simply regurgitate what they hear others regurgitate. Until you have read Pelagius, stop regurgitating.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 04:31 AM
Good point. But he wasn't the only one. And eventually Pelagius was excommunicated by the church.

http://theresurgence.com/files/2010/03/15/20100315_pelagius-know-your-heretics_poster_img.jpg


Yes, but by who? You see it is the winners who write history. Calvin said that if Steven Servatus ever came to Geneva he wouldn't leave alive. Servatus was one who criticized Calvins doctrines. He was correct in his criticisms. Well, Servatus did actually go to Geneva and saw Calvin preach. Calvin found out who he was and Servatus did not leave Geneva alive. Calvin had the power to stop the death of Servatus but didn't. So, just because Pelagius was excommunicated does not mean that Augustine was right. Austine's doctrine are seen in the reformation. Martin Luther was a Augustinian monk and revived many of Augustine's doctrines. However, a simple look at the Scriptures will quickly show that Calvin was off base on many of his doctrines. Remember John Wycliffe was also deemed a heretic. It all depends on who the accusers are.

Vhayes
Jan 24th 2011, 04:32 AM
There should be another choice -

Calvarminian

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 04:36 AM
Let's start with a simple point that Pelagius taught. Pelagius believed that man could live a sinless life and merit salvation.

Do you believe that's true Butch and dagar?

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 04:41 AM
That was the first place I found. the fact that even Theopedia knows it should tell you something. I could post more sources if you like but it doesn't seem it will get through to you.

Hi Seeking,

Let me suggest you read the writings of Pelagius. This will give you an understanding of what he really believed. We can read what others write such as Theopedia, however, all we get is someone else's opinion. Many times these are incorrect. This info then gets passed around and before long is accepted as fact simply because it is repeated. A good example of this is the claim that the head covering that Paul says women should wear is based on their not being mistaken for prostitutes. You can find this in commentaries, however, try to find some actual historical evidence to support such a claim. My point is that if we want to know the truth we need to go to primary sources, which in this case would be the writings of Pelagius himself. Whether he is right or wrong you can decide for yourself but at least you will have accurate, unbiased information for the basis of your decision. There is so much inaccurate information out there that one must do the research in order to find the truth.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 04:43 AM
Let's start with a simple point that Pelagius taught. Pelagius believed that man could live a sinless life and merit salvation.

Do you believe that's true Butch and dagar?

It doesn't matter what we believe, can you supply his writings stating that that is what he believed? If you have evidence showing that he believed that, then we have a starting point. Otherwise all we have is opinion.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 04:43 AM
There should be another choice -

Calvarminian

Hi V,

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Vhayes
Jan 24th 2011, 04:46 AM
Hi Butch - always good to see you (even though we disagree on most things :-))

BrckBrln
Jan 24th 2011, 04:55 AM
Calvin had the power to stop the death of Servatus but didn't.

This is a lie. The Genevan Council condemned Servetus and Calvin tried to change the method of execution from burning at the stake to death by sword.

After saying that Calvin probably wanted Servetus dead Bruce Gordon writes, 'But Calvin could not have Servetus executed. That was the decision of a council not well disposed towards the Frenchman and with which he was locked in battle over excommunication. Servetus provided an opportunity for the magistrates to demonstrate their authority over Calvin, and that is perhaps why his request that the condemned man be put to the sword was rejected.' Bruce Gordon, Calvin, p.224

Vhayes
Jan 24th 2011, 05:01 AM
Hey Butch - I DO want you to know that I always learn from you. And I find your disagreements with me to be polite and well thought out. I was quite sincere when I said that I was glad to see you.
V

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 05:01 AM
This is a lie. The Genevan Council condemned Servetus and Calvin tried to change the method of execution from burning at the stake to death by sword.

After saying that Calvin probably wanted Servetus dead Bruce Gordon writes, 'But Calvin could not have Servetus executed. That was the decision of a council not well disposed towards the Frenchman and with which he was locked in battle over excommunication. Servetus provided an opportunity for the magistrates to demonstrate their authority over Calvin, and that is perhaps why his request that the condemned man be put to the sword was rejected.' Bruce Gordon, Calvin, p.224

So, what I posted is a lie because Bruce Gordon says something different??? If you do some research you will find that Calvin was asked to lead the reformation in Geneva. You will also find that he had a lot of power there. If you take notice to my post, I did not say that Calvin had Servetus killed, I said he did nothing to stop it. Having the method of execution changed is not doing something to stop it.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 05:04 AM
Hey Butch - I DO want you to know that I always learn from you. And I find your disagreements with me to be polite and well thought out. I was quite sincere when I said that I was glad to see you.
V

Hi V, thanks, yes you also have always been polite. Believe me I appreciate it!

BrckBrln
Jan 24th 2011, 05:08 AM
So, what I posted is a lie because Bruce Gordon says something different??? If you do some research you will find that Calvin was asked to lead the reformation in Geneva. You will also find that he had a lot of power there. If you take notice to my post, I did not say that Calvin had Servetus killed, I said he did nothing to stop it. Having the method of execution changed is not doing something to stop it.

Yes. I will believe Bruce Gordon, professor of Reformation history at Yale Divinity School, over you on matters of, you guessed it, Reformation history. Calvin leading the Reformation in Geneva does not mean he ruled Geneva, heck, he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time. And as the quote I posted showed, he was at odds with the Genevan council so he had no influence over them. So yes, what you posted is a lie. You can still hate Calvin without repeating lies, you know?

dagar
Jan 24th 2011, 05:56 AM
Let's start with a simple point that Pelagius taught. Pelagius believed that man could live a sinless life and merit salvation.

Do you believe that's true Butch and dagar?Much more applicable question......How did Pelagius say that was possible (man not sin) and does it contradict Scripture (minus the merit salvation part, which he did not teach)?

Realist1981
Jan 24th 2011, 08:11 AM
Let's start with a simple point that Pelagius taught. Pelagius believed that man could live a sinless life and merit salvation.

Do you believe that's true Butch and dagar?

It's possible the Lord himself proved it.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 24th 2011, 12:20 PM
Pelagius, took his doctrines a little too far but he went through several counsels and until St Augustine was pretty much able to stack the counsel with people on his side, Pelagius was found to not be heretical.

If I remember correctly he went through 3 counsels/trials and the first 2 found him to be ok, needed to work his stuff out a little more, but not heretical. It was at the last one after a new Pope was elected and St Augustine got some people together that he was found to be heretical.

I would say that Pelagius was wrong on many points and took a few points of his doctrine into dangerous areas, but he was not a heretic, St Augustine was just a big ol' meanie to him, and many other people (see some of his letters to St Jerome, the most crotchety of the saints).

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 01:02 PM
Then why did you leave it off? Your choices are all Calvinistic. Not much of a choice.I didn't make the chart. Besides, Lutheran and Arminianism are hardly Calvinistic.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 01:06 PM
There should be another choice -

Calvarminian
Interesting. Care to explain your position?

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 01:17 PM
Pelagius, took his doctrines a little too far but he went through several counsels and until St Augustine was pretty much able to stack the counsel with people on his side, Pelagius was found to not be heretical.

If I remember correctly he went through 3 counsels/trials and the first 2 found him to be ok, needed to work his stuff out a little more, but not heretical. It was at the last one after a new Pope was elected and St Augustine got some people together that he was found to be heretical.

I would say that Pelagius was wrong on many points and took a few points of his doctrine into dangerous areas, but he was not a heretic, St Augustine was just a butt hole to him, and many other people (see some of his letters to St Jerome, the most crotchety of the saints).Jerome? I admire Jerome. RC's have a problem because he stated the Apocrypha should not be part of sacred scripture, but has historical value only.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 24th 2011, 01:33 PM
Jerome? I admire Jerome. RC's have a problem because he stated the Apocrypha should not be part of sacred scripture, but has historical value only.

Oh he is a great guy, but he was just crotchety, he was born to be an old man. Read his letters to St Augustine. St Augustine said he should not be translating the OT from Hebrew into Latin, he like many others at the time thought it should say in Greek (I have no idea why since Augustine did not know Greek well, see Confessions). Jerome writes back saying that he is just saying this because he is a young theologian and just trying to make a name for himself and should not be interferring with the work of his older and wiser superiors.

Jerome had a lot of letters like that, where he just called people stupid or that their view was dumb and then told them why they were wrong. In the world of Early Church history he was the mean old man neighbor down the street, who yelled at kids to stay off his lawn. He had a lot of great insight once you got to know him.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 01:45 PM
Oh he is a great guy, but he was just crotchety, he was born to be an old man. Read his letters to St Augustine. St Augustine said he should not be translating the OT from Hebrew into Latin, he like many others at the time thought it should say in Greek (I have no idea why since Augustine did not know Greek well, see Confessions). Jerome writes back saying that he is just saying this because he is a young theologian and just trying to make a name for himself and should not be interferring with the work of his older and wiser superiors.

Jerome had a lot of letters like that, where he just called people stupid or that their view was dumb and then told them why they were wrong. In the world of Early Church history he was the mean old man neighbor down the street, who yelled at kids to stay off his lawn. He had a lot of great insight once you got to know him.
Interesting. I always admired Jerome.
Augustine as well.

RabbiKnife
Jan 24th 2011, 02:16 PM
I believe in RabbiKnifianism. Hasn't failed me yet.

PilgrimPastor
Jan 24th 2011, 04:41 PM
I think that the Bible teaches something like moderate Calvinism (my position and understanding is basically consistent with that) but the emphasis must remain upon what Scripture affirms as a basis for any systematic theology. The trouble is that the articulation of these positions are all highly nuanced in their fullest forms and most are too lazy or too prideful to parse out the nuances and articulate them clearly, rightfully divide the Word of Truth.

The Bible affirms that God loves all of His creation but it also affirms that Christ died for the elect, God cannot have two wills, He is one, so we are left with what J.I. Packer calls an antinomy, two truths that seems contradictory but in fact, are only so because of our limited understanding of the mind of the God of the universe.

However, to say that we cannot know anything for sure is equally fallacious. If we are to be left in darkness, then why did the light of the world come and why do we have Scripture?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 24th 2011, 04:45 PM
I believe in RabbiKnifianism. Hasn't failed me yet.

It's just a matter of time.... :) Sorry RK, the door was wide open and I had to walk through it

Br. Barnabas
Jan 24th 2011, 04:47 PM
I think that the Bible teaches something like moderate Calvinism (my position and understanding is basically consistent with that) but the emphasis must remain upon what Scripture affirms as a basis for any systematic theology. The trouble is that the articulation of these positions are all highly nuanced in their fullest forms and most are too lazy or too prideful to parse out the nuances and articulate them clearly, rightfully divide the Word of Truth.

The Bible affirms that God loves all of His creation but it also affirms that Christ died for the elect, God cannot have two wills, He is one, so we are left with what J.I. Packer calls an antinomy, two truths that seems contradictory but in fact, are only so because of our limited understanding of the mind of the God of the universe.

However, to say that we cannot know anything for sure is equally fallacious. If we are to be left in darkness, then why did the light of the world come and why do we have Scripture?

The Gospel of John affirms that Jesus died for the world, not just the elect.

-SEEKING-
Jan 24th 2011, 04:49 PM
It doesn't matter what we believe, can you supply his writings stating that that is what he believed? If you have evidence showing that he believed that, then we have a starting point. Otherwise all we have is opinion.

Great point Butch. I have no first hand knowledge of Pelagius writings myself. I shall see where I can find his writings so I can have an informed point of view. Thank you Butch. Your always very gracious in your posts. Perhaps the late last night was not the most wise time to start this conversation. Forvige me if I've offended anyone. Especially you Butch and dagar.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 04:59 PM
The Gospel of John affirms that Jesus died for the world, not just the elect.Actually the gospel of John affirms that "whosoever" believes.

Slug1
Jan 24th 2011, 05:02 PM
Actually the gospel of John affirms that "whosoever" believes.Context of the scripture helps:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Clearly, "whosoever" = "the world"!

Otherwise, those who believe in only the "elect" tend to believe that "whosoever" = "the elect in the world"... sad what calvinism has done to the Body of Christ.

RogerW
Jan 24th 2011, 05:45 PM
Context of the scripture helps:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Clearly, "whosoever" = "the world"!

Otherwise, those who believe in only the "elect" tend to believe that "whosoever" = "the elect in the world"... sad what calvinism has done to the Body of Christ.

Is not the passage speaking of the effect of God's love (1Jo 4:9-10)? The tense of His love for those who believe...He always has love them. It is an everlasting love (Jer 31:3; Ro 5:8). The magnitude of His love. It is an infinite love (Jo 15:13). The scope of His love. His love is not limited to the Jews only, but is extended to all the world (Rev 5:9). The nature of His love. Real love ever seeks the highest interest and wellbeing of its object. Love is unselfish; it gives! God gave the greatest gift to those who believe. The sacrificial character of His love. He not only gave His Son to live on earth among men, but to die the death of the cross (Ph 2:6-8). The design of His love. God has a people (whosoever believes) who will not perish. No condemnation nor judgment will come to them (Ro 8:33-34). The beneficence of His love. This is what our Lord imparts to His own - eternal life and glory to all who believe (1Jo 3:1-3)...not to every human, but to whosoever believes!

The coming of Christ was not to condemn the world; the world was already condemned (Ro 5:18). But He came so His people throughout all the world would be saved. He came "in order that" the world might be saved. His person and work for sinners enabled God to be both just and justifier of those who believe (1Pe 3:18).

Slug1
Jan 24th 2011, 05:54 PM
...not to every human, but to whosoever believes!

This is where the meaning you want came into your reply. God says that "whosoever" believes. This means all in the world HAVE the option to believe and it's not limited except by the word... world (John 3:17).

Those who believe isn't limited, the option to believe is for ALL in the world as they exercise their will to choose God or not choose God. This is why we are commanded by Jesus to take the Gospel to all the nations/world... so ALL in the world are given the opportunity to choose Him. Jesus came for the world... which means ALL in the world.

John146
Jan 24th 2011, 07:57 PM
This is where the meaning you want came into your reply. God says that "whosoever" believes. This means all in the world HAVE the option to believe and it's not limited except by the word... world (John 3:17).

Those who believe isn't limited, the option to believe is for ALL in the world as they exercise their will to choose God or not choose God. This is why we are commanded by Jesus to take the Gospel to all the nations/world... so ALL in the world are given the opportunity to choose Him. Jesus came for the world... which means ALL in the world.Exactly right. He died for the sins of everyone in the world, as scripture teaches.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Calvinism says He died for the sins of the elect only, but 1 John 2:2 says "not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world".

However, not everyone accepts Him for what He did for them.

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.

Because of their choice to reject Him despite what He did for them this is what will happen to them:

2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to take vengeance on people for not obeying the gospel if they did not have the ability to do so. They do have the ability but choose not to accept it and accept Him and therefore they will "be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.".

Vhayes
Jan 24th 2011, 08:51 PM
I'll add this one to the mix:

I Timothy 4
10 - For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

RogerW
Jan 24th 2011, 08:53 PM
This is where the meaning you want came into your reply. God says that "whosoever" believes. This means all in the world HAVE the option to believe and it's not limited except by the word... world (John 3:17).

Those who believe isn't limited, the option to believe is for ALL in the world as they exercise their will to choose God or not choose God. This is why we are commanded by Jesus to take the Gospel to all the nations/world... so ALL in the world are given the opportunity to choose Him. Jesus came for the world... which means ALL in the world.

Look at the passage in question more closely! It clearly states "whosoever believes has eternal life"...I don't doubt the Word of God, do you? So who are those that are condemned already because of unbelief? Is it not men who love darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil? "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

You argue that all men without exception are given the opportunity to believe of their own free will. Who are they? Surely not those who hate the light and refuse to come to the light, lest their deeds be exposed? Are they not in fact, of their own free will choosing not to turn to the Light for life? So how can it be argued that "world" in this context means every single human without exception? Answer...it cannot! Clearly if some, according to their own free will refuse to believe, then they are not among the "whosoever will believe", who are given (not offered) everlasting life.

Of course we don't know who will believe and who will freely choose to remain in unbelief. Therefore we proclaim the gospel unto all the nations of the world, and whosoever believes, not by free will, but by grace through faith have everlasting life. Salvation is of the LORD, for He will save His people from their sins.

Slug1
Jan 24th 2011, 09:09 PM
Look at the passage in question more closely! It clearly states "whosoever believes has eternal life"...I don't doubt the Word of God, do you? So who are those that are condemned already because of unbelief? Is it not men who love darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil? "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." Your perspective is that of finality. With such a perspective, what about yourself when you were an "unbeliever"? What about me? Until I accepted Christ and went from a lover of darkness to one who is in the light, would you have written me off like it seems you do whosoever is NOT those who are the "whosoever's" that we read about in scripture? How can you choose the whosoevers? You can't... ALL in the world are whosoevers, even each of those who are presently lovers of darkness. Once you was one, there was a time I was one and it's like that for EVERYONE in the world until they choose God.


You argue that all men without exception are given the opportunity to believe of their own free will. Who are they? Surely not those who hate the light and refuse to come to the light, lest their deeds be exposed? Are they not in fact, of their own free will choosing not to turn to the Light for life? So how can it be argued that "world" in this context means every single human without exception? Answer...it cannot! Clearly if some, according to their own free will refuse to believe, then they are not among the "whosoever will believe", who are given (not offered) everlasting life.I answered this in my first reply to the quoted portion... again, YOU were once a person in darkness and this lasted until you CHOSE God. Just like it will be for ALL in the world.


not by free will, but by grace through faith have everlasting life. Salvation is of the LORD, for He will save His people from their sins.You have once again put your meaning to scripture into a reply. This is not God's meaning... God didn't create hell for us, only for satan and demons. ALL of us have the choice to choose Him and it is our will to choose... just like YOU consciously made a WILLFUL choice to accept Jesus as your Savior.

You weren't forced as it seems you believe based on what appears to be a doctrine you are following instead of the Word of God.

Ya really need to stop and put aside your doctrine and face the truth of the Bible.

ALL people have a choice and they also willfully choose either to be with God or not to be with God.

PilgrimPastor
Jan 24th 2011, 09:20 PM
The Gospel of John affirms that Chris death is sufficient for the sins of all humanity (God so loved the WORLD) but that does not imply that all will be saved. God loves and desires all would repent, but not all repent, that is because not all are drawn. "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14 ESV) The broader context of biblical doctrine clarifies the nature of the atonement. ALL Scripture is inspired and doctrine is built on the whole of Scripture.

"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6 ESV)

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10 KJV)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 10:37 PM
Context of the scripture helps:Yes, your right.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


Clearly, "whosoever" = "the world"!No slug, it does not. Clearly whosoever means, whoever, or anyone. It does not mean world, nor can you (as much as you would like to) make it mean world.
ESV. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him.......
CEV: God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who

It simply means out of everyone in the world, "whoever" believes in Him will not perish.....


Otherwise, those who believe in only the "elect" tend to believe that "whosoever" = "the elect in the world"... sad what calvinism has done to the Body of Christ.I don't know about what Calvinism has done to the body of Christ, that's not the issue. Your trying to fight something that is etched in stone and cannot be changed, It also does not matter what people tend to believe, facts are facts.
When you were in school did they teach you the definition of whosoever = world?

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 10:38 PM
Yes. I will believe Bruce Gordon, professor of Reformation history at Yale Divinity School, over you on matters of, you guessed it, Reformation history. Calvin leading the Reformation in Geneva does not mean he ruled Geneva, heck, he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time. And as the quote I posted showed, he was at odds with the Genevan council so he had no influence over them. So yes, what you posted is a lie. You can still hate Calvin without repeating lies, you know?

First of all, I did not ask you to believe me over anyone, I simply said, if you do the research. You quoted Bruce Gordon, what weight does he carry? Is he infallible? Is he perfect? Or, is it possible, that like the rest of humanity there is the possibility that he could be wrong or have a biased opinion. If you would want to prove that Calvin was at odds with the council, please post the writings of Calvin or the council stating that they were at odds. Giving the opinion of a third party does not carry much weight. This is a major problem in Christianity, someone has a few letters after their name and all of sudden they are on the same level with Scripture. I'm sorry my friend but no matter how many letters are after ones name, they still are not infallible, they still are capable of bias. There is a multitude of Ministers out there with letters after their names that propagate unbiblical doctrines week after week, does that change the doctrine and make it right? What about the Arminian preacher with letters after his name who is preaching doctrine that are the exact opposite of the Calvinist preacher with letters after his name? Which one of them is right, if having letters after your name makes you right???

You also said,


And as the quote I posted showed, he was at odds with the Genevan council so he had no influence over them.

You have not said or shown anything in either this post or you previous post that validates this statement.

You also said,


So yes, what you posted is a lie.

Again, nothing that validates this statement. I'm sorry but Bruce Gordon just doesn't carry any weight as a secondary or tertiary source. How about some prime sources? Produce them then you can show my post as incorrect.

You also said,


You can still hate Calvin without repeating lies, you know?

I don't hate Calvin, I think his doctrines are wrong, or actually I know his doctrines are wrong. I also question someone who says that they received their doctrine directly from God, unless they are an apostle of Jesus Christ. And, I also question someone who never changed their position on any point of Scripture. Do you agree with Calvin that he was 100% correct in his understanding of all of the Scriptures the very first time he read them??do you really believe that? Let me ask you question since you feel the need to defend Calvin, do you hold the same doctrines that he did? Do you hold the doctrine of "Double Predestination"?? What about the doctrine of the "Intermediate State"?

As for the lies, you should know, having been here long,that I don't go around repeating lies.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 10:45 PM
Actually the Catholic Church didn't reject much until he wrote his retractions. That's when they really pounced on him.

My whole point was that what Augustine taught was not what was taught by the Ante-Nicene church. Several of the doctrines that Augustine held were labeled as heresy by the Ante-Nicene church. Men such as Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian fought the Gnostics over these doctrines and eventually overcame them. Fatalism and dualism were both soundly rejected by the Ante- Nicene church.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 10:52 PM
Quote Originally Posted by RogerW View Post
...not to every human, but to whosoever believes!

This is where the meaning you want came into your reply. God says that "whosoever" believes. This means all in the world HAVE the option to believe and it's not limited except by the word... world (John 3:17).Slug, your twisting what he said. He did not deny that everyone has the option to believe.
Forget about the Calvinism thing, it seems that's what your hung up on.


Those who believe isn't limited, the option to believe is for ALL in the world as they exercise their will to choose God or not choose God.Where is that written in scripture?


This is why we are commanded by Jesus to take the Gospel to all the nations/world... so ALL in the world are given the opportunity to choose Him. Jesus came for the world... which means ALL in the world.Jesus came to the world, simply means, "Jesus came to the world." And in the world, whoever believes in Him, will not perish.....If the father, Son and Holy Spirit, before the world began, wanted to save some people from this world, then wouldn't it make sense He came to "this world?"

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 10:52 PM
Oh he is a great guy, but he was just crotchety, he was born to be an old man. Read his letters to St Augustine. St Augustine said he should not be translating the OT from Hebrew into Latin, he like many others at the time thought it should say in Greek (I have no idea why since Augustine did not know Greek well, see Confessions). Jerome writes back saying that he is just saying this because he is a young theologian and just trying to make a name for himself and should not be interferring with the work of his older and wiser superiors.

Jerome had a lot of letters like that, where he just called people stupid or that their view was dumb and then told them why they were wrong. In the world of Early Church history he was the mean old man neighbor down the street, who yelled at kids to stay off his lawn. He had a lot of great insight once you got to know him.

Jerome should have stayed with the Greek and left the Hebrew alone. The Hebrew that he used differed from the Greek Septuagint. That is why in most modern English Bibles, the OT passages quoted by the NT writers don't match. It is because the NT writers were quoting from the Septuagint.

Abiding
Jan 24th 2011, 11:15 PM
Exactly right. He died for the sins of everyone in the world, as scripture teaches.That's not what scripture teaches.



Calvinism says He died for the sins of the elect only,Arminianism says, He died for everyone's sins. Sadly (Arminianism), there will be many blood bought people burning in hell for eternity.
Why not lay aside this Calvinism and Arminianism stuff and look what scripture teaches?


but 1 John 2:2 says "not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world".You destroyed the meaning of this passage by cutting it in half. This verse actually reads: and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Could you define propitiation for me? This will help you understand.

Christ made a full and complete atonement for all the sins of those that do, or hereafter believe, not only Jews but gentiles scattered everywhere in the world.


However, not everyone accepts Him for what He did for them.Well at least not until they come to their senses. I don't think someone can be a believer unless they accept what Christ has done for them.


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. Peter is warning them just as there were false prophets among their Jewish ancestors, there will be more among the Jewish nation now.


Because of their choice to reject Him despite what He did for them this is what will happen to them:John, because of their choice to reject Him is fine. But, to reject Him for what He did for them? That's your addition.


2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; Hmmm, I don't see anything in this passage about rejecting Christ for what He did for them, do you?


It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to take vengeance on people for not obeying the gospel if they did not have the ability to do so. They do have the ability but choose not to accept it and accept Him and therefore they will "be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.".It does not mention anything in this passage about an ability to obey the gospel. Your assuming things.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 11:21 PM
Great point Butch. I have no first hand knowledge of Pelagius writings myself. I shall see where I can find his writings so I can have an informed point of view. Thank you Butch. Your always very gracious in your posts. Perhaps the late last night was not the most wise time to start this conversation. Forgive me if I've offended anyone. Especially you Butch and dagar.

Hi Seeking,

I was not offended in the least. I was just trying to make the point that much of what is in books today is misinformation. Unless we go to the primary source we are only getting someones opinion. I mean suppose some writes a book about Pelagius, yet he is a proponent of the doctrines of Augustine, I think there is better than average chance that his opinion will be biased. I mean he may begin the book with the understanding that Palgius is a heretic. If that is the case, how accurate is that information? It's probably not very accurate, and most likely the reader will never know of this bias. The reader may assume the writer is writing it without any bias. That's why it is best to go directly to the writings of the person himself, that way you are getting first hand information from the person you are seeking. No one can better explain what Pelagius believed than Pelagius himself.

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 11:23 PM
I'll add this one to the mix:

I Timothy 4
10 - For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

It doesn't get much clearer than that!

Butch5
Jan 24th 2011, 11:31 PM
Look at the passage in question more closely! It clearly states "whosoever believes has eternal life"...I don't doubt the Word of God, do you? So who are those that are condemned already because of unbelief? Is it not men who love darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil? "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

You argue that all men without exception are given the opportunity to believe of their own free will. Who are they? Surely not those who hate the light and refuse to come to the light, lest their deeds be exposed? Are they not in fact, of their own free will choosing not to turn to the Light for life? So how can it be argued that "world" in this context means every single human without exception? Answer...it cannot! Clearly if some, according to their own free will refuse to believe, then they are not among the "whosoever will believe", who are given (not offered) everlasting life.

Of course we don't know who will believe and who will freely choose to remain in unbelief. Therefore we proclaim the gospel unto all the nations of the world, and whosoever believes, not by free will, but by grace through faith have everlasting life. Salvation is of the LORD, for He will save His people from their sins.

Roger, God loves the unbeliever also. And, John has at this point already stated that as many as received Christ had been given the authority to becomes sons of God. John did not says they were made sons of God, in 1:12, he said they were given the authority to be sons of God.

John 1:12-13 ( KJV )
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is the definition of "exousia"

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1849 ἐξουσία exousia ex-oo-see'-ah From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:—authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

RogerW
Jan 25th 2011, 12:44 AM
Your perspective is that of finality. With such a perspective, what about yourself when you were an "unbeliever"? What about me? Until I accepted Christ and went from a lover of darkness to one who is in the light, would you have written me off like it seems you do whosoever is NOT those who are the "whosoever's" that we read about in scripture? How can you choose the whosoevers? You can't... ALL in the world are whosoevers, even each of those who are presently lovers of darkness. Once you was one, there was a time I was one and it's like that for EVERYONE in the world until they choose God.

You're not reading the passage carefully, instead you are reading through your bias against certain theological positions. I never said I know "whosoever" would believe...in fact I stated it is because we do NOT know who will believe that we proclaim the gospel of salvation indiscriminately unto all the peoples of the world. Clearly when we turn from unbelief to faith we are among those "whosoever believeth", who have eternal life. This is how, or it is in this manner that God so loves the world.


I answered this in my first reply to the quoted portion... again, YOU were once a person in darkness and this lasted until you CHOSE God. Just like it will be for ALL in the world.

Exactly! Every human, born in Adam, is born under the condemnation of death. There are no exceptions! As natural, fallen man we willfully refuse to turn to Christ for life. We hate the light of Christ and will not come to Him. We have no desire for Christ until we hear the gospel, and through hearing believe through the power of God, not our free will. Faith comes by hearing the Word, so after we are given ears to hear we freely choose to turn to the Light and life in Christ. But others will hear the gospel and willfully choose to turn away, refusing the Light and life in Christ. You cannot say we have free will to choose Christ for life without acknowledging we also freely choose to reject Him. Those who remain in unbelief are NOT among "whosoever believes." Therefore it cannot be argued that "whosoever believes" equals every human (world) in Jo 3:16.


You have once again put your meaning to scripture into a reply. This is not God's meaning... God didn't create hell for us, only for satan and demons. ALL of us have the choice to choose Him and it is our will to choose... just like YOU consciously made a WILLFUL choice to accept Jesus as your Savior.

But whosoever will? Like you have already acknowledged, we are all in darkness and unbelief until we believe...do you now deny this? And the text you reference tells us "everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his messengers (angels)". Mt 25:41 Who are messengers for the devil?

1Jo*3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jo*3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jo*3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


You weren't forced as it seems you believe based on what appears to be a doctrine you are following instead of the Word of God.

Forced to what? Are we forced to willfully remain in darkness and unbelief? Are we forced to turn to the Light when our ears are opened to hear, and our hearts are turned from unbelief to faith? There is no force we freely do whatever our nature desires. In unbelief, we freely choose to refuse the Light of Christ. In faith we freely choose to turn to Christ for life. Again I ask, what force?


Ya really need to stop and put aside your doctrine and face the truth of the Bible.


Perhaps! But are you certain your doctrine is not keeping you from accepting the truth of the Bible?


ALL people have a choice and they also willfully choose either to be with God or not to be with God.

I certainly cannot argue against this! Absolutely true, every human in darkness and unbelief freely chooses to refuse to come to Christ for life. And every human who believes according to God's grace freely chooses Christ for life!

dagar
Jan 25th 2011, 12:46 AM
Lutheran and Arminianism are hardly Calvinistic.Then you obviously do not know them.

dagar
Jan 25th 2011, 12:48 AM
Great point Butch. I have no first hand knowledge of Pelagius writings myself. I shall see where I can find his writings so I can have an informed point of view. Thank you Butch. Your always very gracious in your posts. Perhaps the late last night was not the most wise time to start this conversation. Forvige me if I've offended anyone. Especially you Butch and dagar.No offense taken. God bless your studies.

dagar
Jan 25th 2011, 12:51 AM
Hi Seeking,

I was not offended in the least. I was just trying to make the point that much of what is in books today is misinformation. Unless we go to the primary source we are only getting someones opinion. I mean suppose some writes a book about Pelagius, yet he is a proponent of the doctrines of Augustine, I think there is better than average chance that his opinion will be biased. I mean he may begin the book with the understanding that Palgius is a heretic. If that is the case, how accurate is that information? It's probably not very accurate, and most likely the reader will never know of this bias. The reader may assume the writer is writing it without any bias. That's why it is best to go directly to the writings of the person himself, that way you are getting first hand information from the person you are seeking. No one can better explain what Pelagius believed than Pelagius himself.This should also be done for the ECF's!

BrckBrln
Jan 25th 2011, 01:18 AM
First of all, I did not ask you to believe me over anyone, I simply said, if you do the research. You quoted Bruce Gordon, what weight does he carry? Is he infallible? Is he perfect? Or, is it possible, that like the rest of humanity there is the possibility that he could be wrong or have a biased opinion. If you would want to prove that Calvin was at odds with the council, please post the writings of Calvin or the council stating that they were at odds. Giving the opinion of a third party does not carry much weight. This is a major problem in Christianity, someone has a few letters after their name and all of sudden they are on the same level with Scripture. I'm sorry my friend but no matter how many letters are after ones name, they still are not infallible, they still are capable of bias. There is a multitude of Ministers out there with letters after their names that propagate unbiblical doctrines week after week, does that change the doctrine and make it right? What about the Arminian preacher with letters after his name who is preaching doctrine that are the exact opposite of the Calvinist preacher with letters after his name? Which one of them is right, if having letters after your name makes you right???

Bruce Gordon carries the weight of a Reformation historian. Yes, we all have our biases, but if you read the biography you would realize that Gordon is no Calvin apologist. He plainly states that Calvin was a hateful and vengeful man among other not so nice things. You have no basis for your lie or your criticism of me posting a quote from a historian relevant to the subject.


Again, nothing that validates this statement. I'm sorry but Bruce Gordon just doesn't carry any weight as a secondary or tertiary source. How about some prime sources? Produce them then you can show my post as incorrect.

It's ridiculous to say a Reformation history professor carries no weight. Besides, you've given no backing for your statements, you simply repeat as fact a demonstrated lie.


I don't hate Calvin, I think his doctrines are wrong, or actually I know his doctrines are wrong. I also question someone who says that they received their doctrine directly from God, unless they are an apostle of Jesus Christ. And, I also question someone who never changed their position on any point of Scripture. Do you agree with Calvin that he was 100% correct in his understanding of all of the Scriptures the very first time he read them??do you really believe that? Let me ask you question since you feel the need to defend Calvin, do you hold the same doctrines that he did? Do you hold the doctrine of "Double Predestination"?? What about the doctrine of the "Intermediate State"?

Whether I agree with Calvin on everything he believed or not is not the issue here. The issue is correcting a lie you stated.

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 01:47 AM
Roger, God loves the unbeliever also.Butch, I don't see where Roger said otherwise.



And, John has at this point already stated that as many as received Christ had been given the authority to becomes sons of God. John did not says they were made sons of God, in 1:12, he said they were given the authority to be sons of God.Yes, they have been set free, delivered from the devil and his kingdom.


John 1:12-13 ( KJV )
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Butch, this does your position more harm then good.
First they received Him: given, not taken. Second:They were not born of their own will, but of God.


Here is the definition of "exousia"

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1849 ἐξουσία exousia ex-oo-see'-ah From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:—authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.How does this prove your theory?

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 01:51 AM
You're not reading the passage carefully, instead you are reading through your bias against certain theological positions. I never said I know "whosoever" would believe...in fact I stated it is because we do NOT know who will believe that we proclaim the gospel of salvation indiscriminately unto all the peoples of the world. Clearly when we turn from unbelief to faith we are among those "whosoever believeth", who have eternal life. This is how, or it is in this manner that God so loves the world.Admirable! Thanks Roger, nice job explaining that. :)

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 01:53 AM
Then you obviously do not know them.Oh but I do. Do you know the difference in the three theologies? Calvinism and Lutheran have much in common, compared to Arminianism. Care to show otherwise?

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 02:44 AM
You're not reading the passage carefully, instead you are reading through your bias against certain theological positions. I never said I know "whosoever" would believe...in fact I stated it is because we do NOT know who will believe that we proclaim the gospel of salvation indiscriminately unto all the peoples of the world. Clearly when we turn from unbelief to faith we are among those "whosoever believeth", who have eternal life. This is how, or it is in this manner that God so loves the world.
You now seem to be saying what I understand scripture to mean :P

Earlier you said this:


and whosoever believes, not by free will, but by grace through faith have everlasting life. Salvation is of the LORD, for He will save His people from their sins. So which is it? We don't choose because God has those He chose (you call them "His people) OR all in the world (whosoever) chooses to believe of their OWN free will?

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 02:50 AM
Earlier you said this:


and whosoever believes, not by free will, but by grace through faith have everlasting life. Salvation is of the LORD, for He will save His people from their sins.So which is it? We don't choose because God has those He chose (you call them "His people) OR all in the world (whosoever) chooses to believe of their OWN free will?The whosoever, are those that believe.

How do you find those statements to be in error with scripture? You don't understand scripture to mean that?

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 02:59 AM
The whosoever, are those that believe.

How do you find those statements to be in error with scripture? You don't understand scripture to mean that?I know what it means... is the word "whosoever" limted to only a select few as RogerW initially stated with calling them "His people"... He will ONLY save His people from their sins as if there are those who are not His and He has no plan to save.

If that was the case, what happens when one who is NOT "His people" decides that they want to be one of His people? See, that's where RogerW isn't clear... his words seem to mean that there are only a specific group of people that can actually be one of the "whosoevers" of this world. Jesus came for all in the world... so ANYONE can be a whosoever, IF THEY choose God.

dagar
Jan 25th 2011, 03:03 AM
Oh but I do. Do you know the difference in the three theologies? Calvinism and Lutheran have much in common, compared to Arminianism. Care to show otherwise?Oh, now "Calvinism and Lutheran have much in common". Why did you say "Lutheran......... hardly Calvinistic."? As for Arminianism? They believe in Total Depravity, without which TULIP crumbles. That's more than enough to be considered Calvinistic.

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 03:07 AM
I know what it means... is the word "whosoever" limted to only a select few as RogerW initially stated with calling them "His people"... He will ONLT save His people from their sins as if there are those who are not His and He has no plan to save.Well in this world are all people, and we both know not everyone comes to salvation, statistically it is limited to only a few, isn't that obvious. Only those who believe are saved.


What happens when one who is NOT "His people" decides that they want to be one of His people?What do you think happens?


See, that's where RogerW isn't clear... his words seem to mean that their are only a specific group of people that can actually be one of the "whosoevers" of this world. Jesus came for all in the world... so ANYONE can be a whosoever, IF THEY choose God.The heart of it is, why would one who is not His, choose Him?

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 03:09 AM
Oh, now "Calvinism and Lutheran have much in common". Why did you say "Lutheran......... hardly Calvinistic."? As for Arminianism? They believe in Total Depravity, without which TULIP crumbles. That's more than enough to be considered Calvinistic.
Do you understand the difference between the two concerning Total Depravity? There is a difference you know.

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 03:19 AM
The heart of it is, why would one who is not His, choose Him?You weren't one of His at one time in your life and you can't convince me otherwise. We ALL made a choice to accept Christ or not to accept Christ. There are some who make a conscious choice AGAINST Christ many times in their life until they decided to choose and accept Christ or they never make the choice and die in the fact they didn't choose Christ.

How do you know you are His now? Maybe because you made a willful choice to accept Christ!! If that is your answer, then it's gonna be the same for all those who aren't His right now. Someday they either choose Christ, or not.

Choice and our free will is so strong that a person can actually see a miracle before their eyes and STILL not choose to accept Christ. Heck, some Christians today have accepted Christ and someday see a miracle before their eyes and they CHOOSE to not believe it's God. Our free will is THAT strong.

dagar
Jan 25th 2011, 03:24 AM
Do you understand the difference between the two concerning Total Depravity? There is a difference you know.Resulting implications are irrelevant.

Diggindeeper
Jan 25th 2011, 04:35 AM
Here we go again...another one has arrived to tell us all how wrong we are. Because we are not TULIPs.

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 04:39 AM
Here we go again...another one has arrived to tell us all how wrong we are. Because we are not TULIPs.It sure looks that way :lol:

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 04:08 PM
You argue that all men without exception are given the opportunity to believe of their own free will. Who are they? Surely not those who hate the light and refuse to come to the light, lest their deeds be exposed?What is your basis for saying that? How can someone refuse to come to the light without freely choosing to do so? Where does it say they didn't have the ability to choose to believe in Christ instead?


Are they not in fact, of their own free will choosing not to turn to the Light for life?Yes. They choose that instead of choosing to turn to Him for eternal life. They had two choices there, not one. You act like they couldn't help but make the choice they made, which is not the case. Human beings are not robots.


So how can it be argued that "world" in this context means every single human without exception? Answer...it cannot!Why not? He loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, but the only ones who obtain eternal life are those who choose to believe in Christ. God makes all people responsible to put their faith and trust in His Son for eternal life.


Clearly if some, according to their own free will refuse to believe, then they are not among the "whosoever will believe", who are given (not offered) everlasting life.Obviously, but that doesn't mean they are not part of "the world" who has the opportunity to believe and receive eternal life.


Of course we don't know who will believe and who will freely choose to remain in unbelief.Why do you word things this way when it's not what you really believe? You don't believe that the non-elect freely choose to remain in unbelief. That implies that they could have instead chosen to believe, but you don't believe they had the ability to make that choice. So, in your view, they don't really have a choice at all since they have only one valid option to "choose" from.

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 04:26 PM
That's not what scripture teaches. Yes, it is and I showed where it teaches that. It's quite noticeable that you did not even attempt to show that those verses teach something else besides what I'm saying they do.


Arminianism says, He died for everyone's sins. Sadly (Arminianism), there will be many blood bought people burning in hell for eternity.
Why not lay aside this Calvinism and Arminianism stuff and look what scripture teaches? That's what I did. I quoted scripture to support my view. Something that you did not do in your post.


You destroyed the meaning of this passage by cutting it in half. This verse actually reads: and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Could you define propitiation for me? This will help you understand.It means atoning sacrifice. What is that supposed to help me understand? His atoning sacrifice was made for all people but only covers the sins of those who choose to believe in Him.


Christ made a full and complete atonement for all the sins of those that do, or hereafter believe, not only Jews but gentiles scattered everywhere in the world. That's how you interpret "the whole world", eh? I'm not convinced. Tell me, who does God command to repent?

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Are you going to try and say He only commands some people to repent and not all people? If not then do you believe He commands some people to repent who are not able to repent?


Peter is warning them just as there were false prophets among their Jewish ancestors, there will be more among the Jewish nation now. He said false teachers would come and would deny the Lord who bought them. That means He died for them and paid the price for their sins but they deny Him so their sins are not forgiven.


John, because of their choice to reject Him is fine. But, to reject Him for what He did for them? That's your addition.
Hmmm, I don't see anything in this passage about rejecting Christ for what He did for them, do you?Yes, I do. What else does it mean to not obey the gospel of Christ? I think it makes perfect sense for people to be condemned for choosing not to do what God required them to do, but you believe people will be condemned because that's what God arbitrarily chose for them without them having any choice in the matter.


It does not mention anything in this passage about an ability to obey the gospel. Your assuming things.I'm making conclusions based on what scripture says. You are not backing up anything you're saying with scripture so I find your arguments to be completely unconvincing.

Firefighter
Jan 25th 2011, 04:32 PM
Here we go again...another one has arrived to tell us all how wrong we are. Because we are not TULIPs.

I was thinking "Here we go again, hopeless dragging another seemingly innocent thread off the tracks and down the unrecoverable OSAS/NOSAS debate road."

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 04:38 PM
I was thinking "Here we go again, hopeless dragging another seemingly innocent thread off the tracks and down the unrecoverable OSAS/NOSAS debate road."I think it's leaning more towards the meaning, "you're mine, whether you want to be or not!!!!!!!" type of thread :P

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 04:38 PM
You're not reading the passage carefully, instead you are reading through your bias against certain theological positions. I never said I know "whosoever" would believe...in fact I stated it is because we do NOT know who will believe that we proclaim the gospel of salvation indiscriminately unto all the peoples of the world. Clearly when we turn from unbelief to faith we are among those "whosoever believeth", who have eternal life. This is how, or it is in this manner that God so loves the world.Does God only love believers, Roger? What does He think of those who have died in their unbelief? Did He never care about them? Do you think He did not want them to repent instead of remaining in their unbelief?


Exactly! Every human, born in Adam, is born under the condemnation of death. There are no exceptions! As natural, fallen man we willfully refuse to turn to Christ for life. We hate the light of Christ and will not come to Him. We have no desire for Christ until we hear the gospel, and through hearing believe through the power of God, not our free will. Faith comes by hearing the Word, so after we are given ears to hear we freely choose to turn to the Light and life in Christ. But others will hear the gospel and willfully choose to turn away, refusing the Light and life in Christ.I don't think you understand what the word "choose" means, Roger. For someone to have a free choice means they have at least two options to choose from with each option being a valid possibility. But that isn't how you see it. You believe those who "choose" to reject Christ had no ability and no opportunity to accept Him. That is not a choice at all.


You cannot say we have free will to choose Christ for life without acknowledging we also freely choose to reject Him.Where does it say that those who freely choose to reject Him could not have freely chosen to accept Him instead?


Those who remain in unbelief are NOT among "whosoever believes." Therefore it cannot be argued that "whosoever believes" equals every human (world) in Jo 3:16. No one is making that argument, Roger. Among "the world" are believers and unbelievers. Only those among "the world" who choose to believe are given eternal life while those who choose not to believe are condemned.


Forced to what? Are we forced to willfully remain in darkness and unbelief? Are we forced to turn to the Light when our ears are opened to hear, and our hearts are turned from unbelief to faith? There is no force we freely do whatever our nature desires. In unbelief, we freely choose to refuse the Light of Christ. In faith we freely choose to turn to Christ for life. Again I ask, what force? Doesn't your doctrine teach that whether or not a person believes is determined entirely by God which would mean that God causes/forces people to believe (or not)?


I certainly cannot argue against this! Absolutely true, every human in darkness and unbelief freely chooses to refuse to come to Christ for life. And every human who believes according to God's grace freely chooses Christ for life!A free choice means that whatever choice someone freely makes, they could have legitimately chosen the other option instead, does it not? Otherwise, it wouldn't be a choice at all. If there's only one viable option for each person then there's no choice to be made since the choice is already made for them in that case.

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 05:17 PM
No one is making that argument, Roger. Among "the world" are believers and unbelievers. Only those among "the world" who choose to believe are given eternal life while those who choose not to believe are condemned.
We must always stress and point out that a person must die in their choice of unbelief to be condemned. Even on their deathbed, if they have a change of heart and it's OF the heart, they too will be with Jesus eternally. Even after a long life of turning their back on Jesus, that change of heart and choice to believe... washes all their sin away.

I'd like to know just how many times all those in this thread chose to NOT believe in Jesus... until the moment they chose Him instead of not choosing Him :hmm:

In the weeks leading up to my choice to surrender and believe in Jesus as my Savior... I bet I said NO about 10 times to Jesus and chose to continue to not accept Him as my Savior. I sure acknowledged Him all those 10 times but said... NO.

Do some Christians forget they were once unbelievers too?

RogerW
Jan 25th 2011, 06:55 PM
The Bible speaks of only two types of humans; those in unbelief and those of faith. When one is in unbelief it is impossible to have faith to turn to Christ. Because if they had faith to turn to Christ, very clearly they would not be in unbelief! Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

Now Scripture tells us that faith comes by hearing, hearing by the gospel (Word of God). Therefore when one has never heard the gospel, and never received ears to hear by grace through faith they receive upon hearing, they are without ability to place faith they have yet to possess in Christ by some imagined free will. The will is only free to do whatever is natural. Natural man, dead in his trespasses and sins has absolutely NO DESIRE to come to the Light of Christ...it is altogether against their nature, therefore against their will. So natural man ALWAYS freely, even willfully chooses to reject Christ until/unless he has received faith according to grace by the power of God. If he has ears to hear by grace upon hearing the gospel of salvation, then he is not forced to turn to the Light of Christ! No force is needed because now his nature has been changed, and he has a new heart that freely desires to turn to Christ for life everlasting. This man only is among the "whosoever believes" and is GIVEN (not offered) everlasting life in Christ.

Here is how God so loves humanity, whosoever believes has everlasting life, and whosoever remains in unbelief is condemned already, and will die in his/her sins unless/until they hear, receive faith according to God's grace and turn to Christ (willingly) for everlasting life. If one hears and still rejects Christ, then he/she are among those who do not receive faith by grace through hearing.

RabbiKnife
Jan 25th 2011, 07:59 PM
But this is the classic circular reasoning of Calvinism that attempts to define terms to mean what they do not mean.

Grace is what this is all about.

Calvinism limits grace to the elect; Arminianism recognizes grace given to all.

And the Scripture does not say that salvation comes to those who receive faith by grace through hearing.

It says that salvation comes to those who receive grace through faith....that grace is the free gift of God to every man; what he does with it determines whether faith is empowered for salvation.

BrckBrln
Jan 25th 2011, 08:25 PM
Calvinism limits grace to the elect; Arminianism recognizes grace given to all.

Well it depends on what you mean by 'grace'. Most Calvinists would affirm common grace and say that saving grace actually saves, not just enables one to choose to be saved or not.

RabbiKnife
Jan 25th 2011, 08:33 PM
Well it depends on what you mean by 'grace'. Most Calvinists would affirm common grace and say that saving grace actually saves, not just enables one to choose to be saved or not.

Exactly.

When each side defines its own terms, each side wins...

BrckBrln
Jan 25th 2011, 08:40 PM
Exactly.

When each side defines its own terms, each side wins...

Well there is nothing wrong in defining terms.

Slug1
Jan 25th 2011, 10:30 PM
When one is in unbelief it is impossible to have faith to turn to Christ. RogerW... you were once an unbeliever. You are LIVING PROOF that your statement, that an unbeliever can NOT have faith is... FALSE :lol:

No one is born believing in Christ... they go through life as unbelievers UNTIL they CHOOSE to believe. Then they are saved.

You statement makes absolutely no sense and as I mentioned... you, me, all whoa re born and EVENTUALLY accept Christ, are proof that the statement made no sense.

Vhayes
Jan 25th 2011, 10:35 PM
God KNEW, since the foundation of the world, that one day He would have a child called Vhayes. He did not force me to accept Christ but He knew I would. The offer I received from Him is the same offer given to all mankind. Christ died for all the sins ever committed. The price for sin has been paid. The back end of the equation is all that needs dealt with - believe.

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 10:48 PM
You weren't one of His at one time in your life and you can't convince me otherwise.I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. However, according to God I was, as well as yourself. From before the creation of the world. Christ's sacrifice was a propitiatory sacrifice.



We ALL made a choice to accept Christ or not to accept Christ. There are some who make a conscious choice AGAINST Christ many times in their life until they decided to choose and accept Christ or they never make the choice and die in the fact they didn't choose Christ.It would seem that way.


How do you know you are His now? Maybe because you made a willful choice to accept Christ!!After hearing the gospel of salvation, and the Holy Spirit doing His work, absolutely it was willful. A believer is given the evidence to believe, and that is faith. But, what do we know of them, were only human. Listen to the words of Jesus, "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8.


If that is your answer, then it's gonna be the same for all those who aren't His right now. Someday they either choose Christ, or not.:hmm:


Choice and our free will is so strong that a person can actually see a miracle before their eyes and STILL not choose to accept Christ. Heck, some Christians today have accepted Christ and someday see a miracle before their eyes and they CHOOSE to not believe it's God. Our free will is THAT strong.That's not free will, that's deception and being blinded by the devil.
Man is a free agent, he is not a robot, but man is not able to choose salvation.
He has about the same chances as Lazarus had to rise up from the dead and walk out of the tomb all on his own, just by freely choosing to do so.

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 10:49 PM
Resulting implications are irrelevant.Ok, suite yourself. Not important.

Abiding
Jan 25th 2011, 10:56 PM
Here we go again...another one has arrived to tell us all how wrong we are. Because we are not TULIPs.

Diggen, I am just sharing my beliefs, after all it is a forum board, right? Now as far as being wrong goes, I am open to the truth, I enjoy disusing theology, and when or if, you or others come up with a scripture supported truth which proves the doctrines of grace wrong and not scriptural, I will gladly and humbly submit to it, and thank you.

Are you wrong? You don't believe you are, and I am not the type of Christian to tell you your wrong, number one is we both know who the Lord is, and that we are saved by faith.
Other then that, we are all worms, thankfully God reached down into a barrel of scum, reached down and felt around and pulled out the worse of us. Here we are now, saved by the grace of God, seeking His face and sharing as we go to the best of a worms ability.


God Bless. :)

RogerW
Jan 26th 2011, 01:07 AM
RogerW... you were once an unbeliever. You are LIVING PROOF that your statement, that an unbeliever can NOT have faith is... FALSE :lol:

Slug, when I was in unbelief it was because I had no faith. Obviously you enjoy humor, so think about how silly your statement is...how can an unbeliever have faith to believe and still be in unbelief? We either have faith (believe) or we are in unbelief...but we cannot be in unbelief and possess faith for everlasting life in Christ.

[QUOTE]No one is born believing in Christ... they go through life as unbelievers UNTIL they CHOOSE to believe. Then they are saved.

No, they go through life as unbelievers until they have faith to believe the gospel, then they are no longer in unbelief because they have become a believer (simple, yes?)


You statement makes absolutely no sense and as I mentioned... you, me, all whoa re born and EVENTUALLY accept Christ, are proof that the statement made no sense.

What makes absolutely NO SENSE is to continue to argue that we have faith to believe and unbelief at the same time. That is in fact NONSENSE! When you have faith to believe you are not in unbelief, and when you are in unbelief you have not faith to believe.

RogerW
Jan 26th 2011, 01:11 AM
God KNEW, since the foundation of the world, that one day He would have a child called Vhayes. He did not force me to accept Christ but He knew I would. The offer I received from Him is the same offer given to all mankind. Christ died for all the sins ever committed. The price for sin has been paid. The back end of the equation is all that needs dealt with - believe.

Of course God does not force us to accept Christ! In fact He changes our hearts and creates in us a desire to freely, willingly turn to Christ for eternal life. But God does not offer salvation, He GIVES salvation to all who believe by grace through faith...the gift of God. Salvation is of the Lord, and He will save His people from their sins!

Mt*1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Abiding
Jan 26th 2011, 01:28 AM
I'll add this one to the mix:Yes, this is an awesome verse. What blessed assurance.


I Timothy 4
10 - For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.God is the preserver of mans natural and temporal being in general, and especially of the everlasting and spiritual being of His children.

That is beautiful isn't it?

Abiding
Jan 26th 2011, 01:30 AM
Of course God does not force us to accept Christ! In fact He changes our hearts and creates in us a desire to freely, willingly turn to Christ for eternal life. But God does not offer salvation, He GIVES salvation to all who believe by grace through faith...the gift of God. Salvation is of the Lord, and He will save His people from their sins!

Mt*1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
It don't get much more plain and direct then that.

Vhayes
Jan 26th 2011, 03:13 AM
Yes, this is an awesome verse. What blessed assurance.

God is the preserver of mans natural and temporal being in general, and especially of the everlasting and spiritual being of His children.

That is beautiful isn't it?
That's quite the redirect. The verse plainly states God is the Savior - not "preserver".

Then there's this:
I Timothy
3 - This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God desires something, how is it possible that He only loves the elect? Either His love is not enough, His desire is not enough, His omnipotence is not enough and He is therefore not God or, my personal choice - He gives all men the option to choose eternal life - you know - kinda like God so loved the world and not just the special ones.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 03:15 AM
This should also be done for the ECF's!

It should be done for anyone we intend to quote.

Vhayes
Jan 26th 2011, 03:16 AM
Of course God does not force us to accept Christ! In fact He changes our hearts and creates in us a desire to freely, willingly turn to Christ for eternal life. But God does not offer salvation, He GIVES salvation to all who believe by grace through faith...the gift of God. Salvation is of the Lord, and He will save His people from their sins!

Mt*1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The gift was for "the world" - not just those who feel they are special. Which is the reason John 3:16 reads as it does and not:

For God so loved a few that He decided to save, He gave His only begotten Son so that when those very special people who were preselected and prechosen believed in Him, they and only they would not perish but have everlasting life. The rest of creation had no choice and were created for damnation.

dagar
Jan 26th 2011, 03:21 AM
It should be done for anyone we intend to quote.Yes. Pelagius wasn't quoted. I was more pointing to the fact that the Calvinist bent in the choices in the OP are not found in the writings of most of the ECF's.

RogerW
Jan 26th 2011, 03:30 AM
The gift was for "the world" - not just those who feel they are special. Which is the reason John 3:16 reads as it does and not:

For God so loved a few that He decided to save, He gave His only begotten Son so that when those very special people who were preselected and prechosen believed in Him, they and only they would not perish but have everlasting life. The rest of creation had no choice and were created for damnation.

So "world" in your opinion must mean every human without exception, rather than every human without distinction?

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 03:30 AM
Bruce Gordon carries the weight of a Reformation historian. Yes, we all have our biases, but if you read the biography you would realize that Gordon is no Calvin apologist. He plainly states that Calvin was a hateful and vengeful man among other not so nice things. You have no basis for your lie or your criticism of me posting a quote from a historian relevant to the subject.

As I said, it carries no weight. If you want to prove your point quote Calvin or the council as I have already stated. Have you even read Calvin to know if he actually said anything about the council?

Unless you can provide quotes from Calvin or the council, you have not proven my statement incorrect. A third party who was not there does not disprove what I said.


It's ridiculous to say a Reformation history professor carries no weight. Besides, you've given no backing for your statements, you simply repeat as fact a demonstrated lie.

Your reliance on this professor shows me why you are misled. Please provide quotes from either Calvin or the council. The onus of proof is on you my friend since it was you who challenged my statement. You have challenged it yet the evidence you provide is from someone who was not even there. If we were talking about a mathematical equation then yes, a professor would suffice as evidence. But we are not talking about a mathematical equation, we talking about statements made by people in history, so no a modern third party professor does not prove that Calvin or the council ever had any disagreement. That would be like me saying Justin Martyr said, XYZ, and to prove it go ask Joe Smith. If i want to prove what Justin said I quote Justin, not Joe Smith.


Whether I agree with Calvin on everything he believed or not is not the issue here. The issue is correcting a lie you stated.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I would appreciate it is you would stop calling my statement a lie. To lie is to intentionally mislead, if my statement were to be proven wrong it would be just that, an incorrect statement, not a lie. I have no intention of misleading anyone. Having said that you still have not given any evidence that my statement is incorrect.

Vhayes
Jan 26th 2011, 03:36 AM
So "world" in your opinion must mean every human without exception, rather than every human without distinction?

Yep - the price has been paid for every sin that was ever committed by every man, woman and child that has ever lived or ever will live.

The "thing" that matters is what we do with this so great gift that is offered to all - either you accept it and understand that Christ is indeed Savior and Lord and Master or you reject it and decide to please God either on your own or by a different method.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 03:48 AM
Butch, I don't see where Roger said otherwise.


Yes, they have been set free, delivered from the devil and his kingdom.

Butch, this does your position more harm then good.
First they received Him: given, not taken. Second:They were not born of their own will, but of God.

How does this prove your theory?

It's not a theory my friend, and the receiving is not "Given" it is taking. The Greek word translated "Receive" is in the active voice. This means that the subject is the one performing the action. If they received Him as in given as you said, then the Greek word translated receive would be in the passive voice. It is not.

As far as being born of God, there is strong evidence that John 1:13 does not read the way it originally did. The Early church wiriters accused the Gnostics of changing this verse from the singular to the plural to support their false teachings. They contend that It originally read who "was" born not of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh nor of blood but of God, not who "were" born. In the singular it applies to Christ, not those who receieved Him. This makes sense since Christ was not born of the will of man, nor the flesh, nor of blood, everyone who received Him was born of all of these, the flesh, the will of man, and blood. The funny thing is that in his arguement Tertullian is aguing against the same doctrines that Calvin proposed.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian


Chap. XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, but by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” (John 1:13) I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed,’ which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 04:00 AM
Yes. Pelagius wasn't quoted. I was more pointing to the fact that the Calvinist bent in the choices in the OP are not found in the writings of most of the ECF's.

I agree 100%. If Christians read the Ante-Nicene ECF's they would not hold the doctrines of Calvinism. I have to specify the Ante-Nicene ECF's because after the council of Nicaea the church began to compromise. The Ante- Nicene writers make it abundantly clear that man is responsible for choosing God. But it isn't just the doctrines of Calvinism that are not taught in the Ante-Nicene writings. There are many other doctrines that Christians hold today that are not found in their writings. You won't find the idea that baptism is merely an act of obedience, you find, the heavenly destiny, you won't find the pre-trb rapture, you won't find participation in war or in government, and there are more.These first Christians were living the way the apostles taught them to, if today's Christians live so differently what does that say about today's Christians? It seems to me that we are not living as Christ and the apostles taught that Christians are supposed to live.

Slug1
Jan 26th 2011, 04:25 AM
What makes absolutely NO SENSE is to continue to argue that we have faith to believe and unbelief at the same time. That is in fact NONSENSE! When you have faith to believe you are not in unbelief, and when you are in unbelief you have not faith to believe.I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying at all and the problem is I don't know any other language in which to express myself.

No one is born with faith, everyone is born an unbeliever. Then one hears the Gospel and then one has a choice, accept or don't accept. This goes on for the rest of their lives till either one of two things happen. They accept Christ and go from unbeliever to believer, or they don't accept Christ and die an unbeliever.

You, me, everyone is an unbeliever until they believe and accept Christ.

You said earlier an UNbeliever cannot EVER believe... that is not true and you, me and all who turned from an unbeliever to a believer and accepted Christ, PROVE your statement false.

ALL unbelievers CAN become believers... all they need to do is choose to accept Christ as their Savior.

For some reason it seems that you feel that there are people who CANNOT EVER believe. Seems you are saying that they DON'T have a choice in the matter. That can't be true because Jesus came to save the world and WHOSOEVER believes... is saved.

Believing isn't a ONE SHOT deal. Sometimes the Gospel needs to be heard MANY times and many times a person will not choose to believe in Christ. So what!! Sometime in their lives they either do or they don't and then die in unbelief. The point is... they ALWAYS have that CHOICE and the cards aren't staked AGAINST anyone.

It just a matter of choice on our part to accept Christ or not.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 04:26 AM
As I said, it carries no weight. If you want to prove your point quote Calvin or the council as I have already stated. Have you even read Calvin to know if he actually said anything about the council?

I have read nothing but quotes of Calvin found in the books I have read. Still, it is ridiculous to say that a Reformation history professor has no weight on matters of Reformation history. Any reasonable person can clearly see this.


Unless you can provide quotes from Calvin or the council, you have not proven my statement incorrect. A third party who was not there does not disprove what I said.

I understand you want primary sources to prove Calvin and the Council didn't get along. I will see if I can find any, but you act like a Reformation history professor simply made these statements up out of thin air.

Here's something from Calvin that shows he and the Council did not see eye to eye. This was right before the Council came down with the sentence of death on Servetus. Calvin wrote a letter to Bullinger 'apologizing for the inconvenience of being drawn into the Servetus case'. (Gordon, Calvin, p.220) Here's what he said:

'Indeed they [the council] cause you this trouble despite our admonitions, but they have reached such a state of folly and madness that they regard with suspicion whatever we say to them. So much so, that were I to allege that it is clear at mid-day they would immediately begin to doubt it.'

The source is Calvin to Bullinger, 7 Sept. 1553, Bonnet 3:427.

Are you happy now?


Your reliance on this professor shows me why you are misled. Please provide quotes from either Calvin or the council. The onus of proof is on you my friend since it was you who challenged my statement. You have challenged it yet the evidence you provide is from someone who was not even there. If we were talking about a mathematical equation then yes, a professor would suffice as evidence. But we are not talking about a mathematical equation, we talking about statements made by people in history, so no a modern third party professor does not prove that Calvin or the council ever had any disagreement. That would be like me saying Justin Martyr said, XYZ, and to prove it go ask Joe Smith. If i want to prove what Justin said I quote Justin, not Joe Smith.

No, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Don't try and turn the tables, man. You, for all your talk about primary sources, posted nothing to back your claim up. You simply stated something as fact with no basis. I replied with a quote from an actual historian that shows your baseless statement to be just that. So, no, the onus of proof doesn't lie with me.


First of all, I would appreciate it is you would stop calling my statement a lie. To lie is to intentionally mislead, if my statement were to be proven wrong it would be just that, an incorrect statement, not a lie. I have no intention of misleading anyone.

Fair enough.


Having said that you still have not given any evidence that my statement is incorrect.

Where, may I ask, is the evidence that your statement is correct?

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:24 AM
I have read nothing but quotes of Calvin found in the books I have read. Still, it is ridiculous to say that a Reformation history professor has no weight on matters of Reformation history. Any reasonable person can clearly see this.

OK this goes to the point I was trying to make. What you are giving is someones opinion. I am sure you have seen on this board how Scripture can be taken out of context and used to support just about anything people want to claim. The same can be done with quotes from other people. I have seen Calvinist writers take quotes from the Ante- Nicene writers and claim they supported the doctrines of Calvin. I can tell you, when read in context they do not. What you have is several quotes taken out of context and use by the writer. The writer may or may not have used the quotes appropriately, however, the only way to know is to find the quotes and read them in their original context. That is why I asked for the quotes from either Calvin of the council. If you don't supply them then I have to go and search for them, and assume the exist.

I don't think it is ridiculous to say that the professor carries no weight here. Let me ask you how much weight would you give a commentator who who is Arminian? If you picked up a commentary and read the section of Romans 8:29-30 and the commentator said those He foreknew, He predestined, and those He predestined, He invited, instead of Called, how much weight would you give his commentary?



[QUOTE]I understand you want primary sources to prove Calvin and the Council didn't get along. I will see if I can find any, but you act like a Reformation history professor simply made these statements up out of thin air.

Not at all, but we have to remember whenever we read someone about one person written by another, we are getting their opinion. If we want to know what Calvin thought or said, we need to read Calvin.


Here's something from Calvin that shows he and the Council did not see eye to eye. This was right before the Council came down with the sentence of death on Servetus. Calvin wrote a letter to Bullinger 'apologizing for the inconvenience of being drawn into the Servetus case'. (Gordon, Calvin, p.220) Here's what he said:

'Indeed they [the council] cause you this trouble despite our admonitions, but they have reached such a state of folly and madness that they regard with suspicion whatever we say to them. So much so, that were I to allege that it is clear at mid-day they would immediately begin to doubt it.'

The source is Calvin to Bullinger, 7 Sept. 1553, Bonnet 3:427.

Are you happy now?

If I can find the quote and read it in context. However, this still doesn't not say that Calvin didn't have the power to stop the death of Servetus



No, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Don't try and turn the tables, man. You, for all your talk about primary sources, posted nothing to back your claim up. You simply stated something as fact with no basis. I replied with a quote from an actual historian that shows your baseless statement to be just that. So, no, the onus of proof doesn't lie with me.

I does my Friend, you claimed my statement was wrong, if you thought it was then you needed to prove that it was.



Where, may I ask, is the evidence that your statement is correct?

I didn't give any because no one asked for it.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 05:48 AM
OK this goes to the point I was trying to make. What you are giving is someones opinion. I am sure you have seen on this board how Scripture can be taken out of context and used to support just about anything people want to claim. The same can be done with quotes from other people. I have seen Calvinist writers take quotes from the Ante- Nicene writers and claim they supported the doctrines of Calvin. I can tell you, when read in context they do not. What you have is several quotes taken out of context and use by the writer. The writer may or may not have used the quotes appropriately, however, the only way to know is to find the quotes and read them in their original context. That is why I asked for the quotes from either Calvin of the council. If you don't supply them then I have to go and search for them, and assume the exist.

I am quoting a reputable historian - something you seem to be against. Do you have this biography? If you don't, how can you say I am quoting out of context? I think you are being unduly skeptical of this particular historian because he shows your statement to be false.


I don't think it is ridiculous to say that the professor carries no weight here. Let me ask you how much weight would you give a commentator who who is Arminian? If you picked up a commentary and read the section of Romans 8:29-30 and the commentator said those He foreknew, He predestined, and those He predestined, He invited, instead of Called, how much weight would you give his commentary?

Would any historian carry any weight with you?


Not at all, but we have to remember whenever we read someone about one person written by another, we are getting their opinion. If we want to know what Calvin thought or said, we need to read Calvin.

The quote didn't tell you what Bruce Gordon thought Calvin thought and said, it told you what the historical circumstances were surrounding the death of Servetus.


If I can find the quote and read it in context. However, this still doesn't not say that Calvin didn't have the power to stop the death of Servetus

I gave you the source, though I don't know how to read it. And yes, it proves the original quote I gave; Calvin and the Council were not friendly at the time, therefore Calvin could not have stopped the execution of Servetus.


I does my Friend, you claimed my statement was wrong, if you thought it was then you needed to prove that it was.

Your statement has been proven to be wrong. I don't expect you to acknowledge it, though.


I didn't give any because no one asked for it.

By all means, show me that Calvin could have stopped the death of Servetus. Show me that Calvin and the Council were on good terms. Show me that Calvin was the sole ruler of Geneva.

The historical facts are clear. Calvin did not order Servetus to be killed. Calvin could not have stopped Servetus from being killed. Calvin couldn't even change the method of execution! And finally, Calvin was not the one to light the fire that killed Servetus. Clear. as. day.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 06:26 AM
I am quoting a reputable historian - something you seem to be against. Do you have this biography? If you don't, how can you say I am quoting out of context? I think you are being unduly skeptical of this particular historian because he shows your statement to be false.

My friend, let's be clear. Nothing has yet shown my statement to be false. I don't know anything about Bruce Gordon, so I can't make any statements about him.

I didn't say you took them out of context, what I said was,

"What you have is several quotes taken out of context and use by the writer. The writer may or may not have used the quotes appropriately, however, the only way to know is to find the quotes and read them in their original context."



Would any historian carry any weight with you?

Not when I want to know what some one in history said or believed. I don't believe that Bruce Gordon was there with Calvin to record everything Calvin said. If he had been with Calvin then I would give some weight to what he said. However, he was not, therefore, I can only surmise that he has read Calvin's writings (He may not have). If he has then I would have to believe that he has everything in context and has not used the quotes differently than Calvin intended.


The quote didn't tell you what Bruce Gordon thought Calvin thought and said, it told you what the historical circumstances were surrounding the death of Servetus.

The quote is to short to draw a conclusion. I don't even know that it was referring to Servetus. I know the book you quoted from says it is.



I gave you the source, though I don't know how to read it. And yes, it proves the original quote I gave; Calvin and the Council were not friendly at the time, therefore Calvin could not have stopped the execution of Servetus.

I did a quick Internet search and did not find it. I will have to look deeper. However, the quote doesn't prove that Calvin did not have the power to stop the execution of Servetus. Even if it is shown that Calvin and the council were not on friendly terms that doesn't show the extent of Calvin's influence.


Your statement has been proven to be wrong. I don't expect you to acknowledge it, though.

No, it hasn't. You've given a quote from a modern author claiming that Calvin and the council were at odds. That doesn't prove that Calvin couldn't have stopped the execution. You see, Calvin's interaction with the coucil is only meaningful if it is shown that it had the ability to diminish his influence.


By all means, show me that Calvin could have stopped the death of Servetus. Show me that Calvin and the Council were on good terms. Show me that Calvin was the sole ruler of Geneva.

The historical facts are clear. Calvin did not order Servetus to be killed. Calvin could not have stopped Servetus from being killed. Calvin couldn't even change the method of execution! And finally, Calvin was not the one to light the fire that killed Servetus. Clear. as. day.

Firstly, let's be clear. I never said that Calvin and the council were on good terms, or that he had the power to change the method of execution, or any of the other of the things you've written here except than that Calvin could have stopped the execution.

As for the evidence I will have to get it together since it is not readily at hand.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 01:03 PM
I agree 100%. If Christians read the Ante-Nicene ECF's they would not hold the doctrines of Calvinism. I have to specify the Ante-Nicene ECF's because after the council of Nicaea the church began to compromise. The Ante- Nicene writers make it abundantly clear that man is responsible for choosing God. But it isn't just the doctrines of Calvinism that are not taught in the Ante-Nicene writings. There are many other doctrines that Christians hold today that are not found in their writings. You won't find the idea that baptism is merely an act of obedience, you find, the heavenly destiny, you won't find the pre-trb rapture, you won't find participation in war or in government, and there are more.These first Christians were living the way the apostles taught them to, if today's Christians live so differently what does that say about today's Christians? It seems to me that we are not living as Christ and the apostles taught that Christians are supposed to live.

I agree that if people actually read the Ante-Nicene and even Post-Nicene because they are very important for much of the theology we have today, such as the Trinity, much of our Christiological beliefs and many practices of the church today.

The Ante-Nicenes are great for pratical theology, ie how to live in the world, what it means to be a Christian, what Christianity is all about, etc. The Post-Nicenes are great for theological expositions, how to live in a state that is not hostle to the Gospel, how to defend the faith against heretics, etc.

I would disagree that the church started to compromise after the Council of Nicea, it simply shifted it's focus, after the Edict of Milian and the Council Christianity was considered a legal religion, so the church did not have to so much worry about fight against/hiding from the State. Also at this time much of the Gnostic heresies were in decline but a whole new and much worse heresy was on the rise. The Church shifted from focusing the State and the Gnostics and focused instead on Arianism and defining it's theology so that more heretical beliefs could not crop up as easily. Yes some did feel that the Church was compromising in some areas or did not like some of the things that the Church was doing and they fled to the desert to become monks and hermits, but even in the desert they were obedient to the bishops and the Church.

However with in all of this it is important to understand that the Church is a living structure and must change and adapt in some ways to the change around it. Granted some branches of the Church have taken this change too far and too often fall to the whims and cries of the world at the drop of a hat. But there is no single church today that looks just like the church did at Penetecost. Every church at some point picked up the cultural habits of where it was. The Church is caught in a circle of moving forward and looking back. Each branch (denomination) of the church is always trying to look back to a bygone era and change conform to that idea that is believed to be better, purer, or more holy. While at the same time looking out the window to the world around it and trying to say how can we minister to this world now. This is why Christ set up the Church to have authority in the life of the Christian. We have on the one hand Christ who is unchaning, he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On the other hand we have the Church and the Holy Spirit who minister to us today and guide us day in and day out in a world that changes all the time. The Church has also given us an unchanging standard, the Bible, which she is always looking back to and, hopefully, forming her theology and practices off of it, while listening to the Holy Spirit. Churches that do not change at least a little bit in the flow of time and the world around it die. Let us not be too harsh on the Post-Nicene Father or the Post-Nicene Church they were faced with a whole new challenge that to one before them had had to deal with because the State was not hostile to them any more; besides that if it were not for their willingness to change on minor issues we might still be hiding from the State and being hunted down for being Christians.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 01:25 PM
I agree that if people actually read the Ante-Nicene and even Post-Nicene because they are very important for much of the theology we have today, such as the Trinity, much of our Christiological beliefs and many practices of the church today.

The Ante-Nicenes are great for pratical theology, ie how to live in the world, what it means to be a Christian, what Christianity is all about, etc. The Post-Nicenes are great for theological expositions, how to live in a state that is not hostle to the Gospel, how to defend the faith against heretics, etc.

I would disagree that the church started to compromise after the Council of Nicea, it simply shifted it's focus, after the Edict of Milian and the Council Christianity was considered a legal religion, so the church did not have to so much worry about fight against/hiding from the State. Also at this time much of the Gnostic heresies were in decline but a whole new and much worse heresy was on the rise. The Church shifted from focusing the State and the Gnostics and focused instead on Arianism and defining it's theology so that more heretical beliefs could not crop up as easily. Yes some did feel that the Church was compromising in some areas or did not like some of the things that the Church was doing and they fled to the desert to become monks and hermits, but even in the desert they were obedient to the bishops and the Church.

However with in all of this it is important to understand that the Church is a living structure and must change and adapt in some ways to the change around it. Granted some branches of the Church have taken this change too far and too often fall to the whims and cries of the world at the drop of a hat. But there is no single church today that looks just like the church did at Penetecost. Every church at some point picked up the cultural habits of where it was. The Church is caught in a circle of moving forward and looking back. Each branch (denomination) of the church is always trying to look back to a bygone era and change conform to that idea that is believed to be better, purer, or more holy. While at the same time looking out the window to the world around it and trying to say how can we minister to this world now. This is why Christ set up the Church to have authority in the life of the Christian. We have on the one hand Christ who is unchaning, he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On the other hand we have the Church and the Holy Spirit who minister to us today and guide us day in and day out in a world that changes all the time. The Church has also given us an unchanging standard, the Bible, which she is always looking back to and, hopefully, forming her theology and practices off of it, while listening to the Holy Spirit. Churches that do not change at least a little bit in the flow of time and the world around it die. Let us not be too harsh on the Post-Nicene Father or the Post-Nicene Church they were faced with a whole new challenge that to one before them had had to deal with because the State was not hostile to them any more; besides that if it were not for their willingness to change on minor issues we might still be hiding from the State and being hunted down for being Christians.

Hi Barnabas,

I understand what you are saying but I have to disagree to a point. I am not disparaging the Post- Nicene writers, some were spot on. However, some were off base.I personally don't have the tie to read through all of the writings to find those who were spot on. However, I must disagree that the Post-Nicaea church compromised on minor issues. War is not a minor issue. The Ante-Nicene church was adamant, Christians were not to use violence. That began to change after Nicaea. Likewise their participation is government. If Christ doesn't change then what is the basis for this change in the church? Where do we find any authorization for the Post-Nicene church to do things that the Ante-Nicene church could not?

You said,


besides that if it were not for their willingness to change on minor issues we might still be hiding from the State and being hunted down for being Christians.

Maybe that would be a good thing. At least then we would know who the Christians were. Look what their willingness to change has given us. Today we have a fragmented church that has basically no authority in the world. Take notice that where the Gospel is outlawed Christianity is growing and vibrant, where it is legal such as the US and Europe, Christianity is in decline. I think the compromises did more to damage the church than to help it.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 02:06 PM
Hi Barnabas,

I understand what you are saying but I have to disagree to a point. I am not disparaging the Post- Nicene writers, some were spot on. However, some were off base.I personally don't have the tie to read through all of the writings to find those who were spot on. However, I must disagree that the Post-Nicaea church compromised on minor issues. War is not a minor issue. The Ante-Nicene church was adamant, Christians were not to use violence. That began to change after Nicaea. Likewise their participation is government. If Christ doesn't change then what is the basis for this change in the church? Where do we find any authorization for the Post-Nicene church to do things that the Ante-Nicene church could not?

You said,



Maybe that would be a good thing. At least then we would know who the Christians were. Look what their willingness to change has given us. Today we have a fragmented church that has basically no authority in the world. Take notice that where the Gospel is outlawed Christianity is growing and vibrant, where it is legal such as the US and Europe, Christianity is in decline. I think the compromises did more to damage the church than to help it.

I believe it would be safe to say that we have the witness of the Church fathers who lived before and after the Council of Nicea. Such as St Athanasius, St Nicholas, Eusebius of Caesarea, St Alexander, and many others. There were also confessors present before and after the council, who had confessed Christ under threat of toture and death and were allowed to live. Who lived after the council and wrote after it and made theological descisions like what should be done with those who did not confess or had handed over the Scriptures to the authorities. You can find out about their role when reading about the Donatism problem, which was rejected in 314 but continued for a long time after this and was still dealt with at Nicea too.

If we are questioning the change from Ante-Nicene to Post-Nicene then why not question the shift from Apostolic to Ante-Nicene? Things changed here too.

As to why the Church can change and Christ does not, is because the Rock (Christ) does not change but the structure/house (Church) on the Rock does change it grows, if there is a fire it is rebuild and modified to withstand it in the future, if there is a flood it is redesigned to withstand in the future. Just as any living thing must grow and develop so too did the church, because it is living.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 02:43 PM
I believe it would be safe to say that we have the witness of the Church fathers who lived before and after the Council of Nicea. Such as St Athanasius, St Nicholas, Eusebius of Caesarea, St Alexander, and many others. There were also confessors present before and after the council, who had confessed Christ under threat of toture and death and were allowed to live. Who lived after the council and wrote after it and made theological descisions like what should be done with those who did not confess or had handed over the Scriptures to the authorities. You can find out about their role when reading about the Donatism problem, which was rejected in 314 but continued for a long time after this and was still dealt with at Nicea too.

If we are questioning the change from Ante-Nicene to Post-Nicene then why not question the shift from Apostolic to Ante-Nicene? Things changed here too.

As to why the Church can change and Christ does not, is because the Rock (Christ) does not change but the structure/house (Church) on the Rock does change it grows, if there is a fire it is rebuild and modified to withstand it in the future, if there is a flood it is redesigned to withstand in the future. Just as any living thing must grow and develop so too did the church, because it is living.

I don't have a problem with it growing, the problem is with the change from following the commands of Christ to not following the commands of Christ. For instance the use of violence, what changed that would allow the use of violence in the post Nicene period. Jesus didn't give a new command. The same can be said about participation in war. In the ante Nicene period they wouldn't participate in government because it would compromise their faith. What changed? Surely the government didn't suddenly abandon all the things of the world. These practices have continued til today but there is no justification for them. Christians today have no more right to practice things that were forbidden than the post Nicene church did.

RogerW
Jan 26th 2011, 02:46 PM
"So "world" in your opinion must mean every human without exception, rather than every human without distinction?"


Yep - the price has been paid for every sin that was ever committed by every man, woman and child that has ever lived or ever will live.

The Scripture tells me your opinion is not correct. If God loves every human without exception, why would Scripture tell us that God hates all who work iniquity?

Ps*5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

How could Scripture say that God hates Esau? Esau in this verse represents not just one man, but a whole people group; i.e. unbelievers, or enemies of the sons of God.

Mal*1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Nowhere in Scripture is it written that God loves humanity without exception! What we will find is that God loves humanity without distinction. IOW God's love through His Son is not limited to only one small nation of humanity, but reaches out to every nation of the whole world.

RabbiKnife
Jan 26th 2011, 02:57 PM
God is love. 1 John 4:8

So now I guess we have an indisputable contradiction in Scripture.

God chooses to hate some people and love other people.

Sorry. Doesn't comport with Scripture.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 03:09 PM
I don't have a problem with it growing, the problem is with the change from following the commands of Christ to not following the commands of Christ. For instance the use of violence, what changed that would allow the use of violence in the post Nicene period. Jesus didn't give a new command. The same can be said about participation in war. In the ante Nicene period they wouldn't participate in government because it would compromise their faith. What changed? Surely the government didn't suddenly abandon all the things of the world. These practices have continued til today but there is no justification for them. Christians today have no more right to practice things that were forbidden than the post Nicene church did.

The only problem that I see is that the government did change, when the emperor became a Christian, things changed. And there has been some evidence that even before Nicea that soliders were Christians and were actually spreading the message of Christ around the Empire, especially in the British isles. There is also in the writing of Eusebius that Diocletian persecuted and killed several Christians soilders, this is in the Ante-Nicene period. Another example is St Sebastian who was a solider and Christian he was martyred in 288. The Ante-Nicene fathers wrote against Christians being soliders but this most likely had more to do with the fact that soliders were suppose to take oaths of alligence to the Emperor and in some cases consider and enforce the belief that he was a god. However, it seems that some did not have to do this or it was acceptable for some Christians to be soliders but it was not something to seek out and do.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 03:32 PM
The only problem that I see is that the government did change, when the emperor became a Christian, things changed. And there has been some evidence that even before Nicea that soldiers were Christians and were actually spreading the message of Christ around the Empire, especially in the British isles. There is also in the writing of Eusebius that Diocletian persecuted and killed several Christians soldiers, this is in the Ante-Nicene period. Another example is St Sebastian who was a solider and Christian he was martyred in 288. The Ante-Nicene fathers wrote against Christians being soldiers but this most likely had more to do with the fact that soldiers were suppose to take oaths of allegiance to the Emperor and in some cases consider and enforce the belief that he was a god. However, it seems that some did not have to do this or it was acceptable for some Christians to be soldiers but it was not something to seek out and do.

Hi Barnabas, Yes, I am familiar with the fact that there were Christian soldiers, According to some Ante-Nicene writings those who were in the military were allowed to receive Christ under certain conditions. However, it is my understanding that they were not to use the sword, and if a Christian joined the military after becoming a Christian they were excommunicated. My point, However, was that the Church taught that the use of violence was forbidden. I am not aware of anything written by an Ante-Nicene writer that supports the use of violence for any reason. So, I don't see any reason why the Post Nicene church would think it was OK to use violence.

Regarding Constantine, He claimed to be a Christian, but I don't see where this would change the doctrines of Christianity. Just because he legalized Christianity doesn't necessitate Christians partaking in the affairs of government. What happened to the "Two Kingdoms" Rome was a kingdom in the kingdom of darkness, as is every physical nation, why would people who are citizen in the kingdom of heaven partake in the kingdom of darkness? Tertullian argued that it is very difficult for a person to serve in government without breaking the commands of Christ, I think he made some very good points.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 03:35 PM
"So "world" in your opinion must mean every human without exception, rather than every human without distinction?"



The Scripture tells me your opinion is not correct. If God loves every human without exception, why would Scripture tell us that God hates all who work iniquity?

Ps*5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

How could Scripture say that God hates Esau? Esau in this verse represents not just one man, but a whole people group; i.e. unbelievers, or enemies of the sons of God.

Mal*1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Nowhere in Scripture is it written that God loves humanity without exception! What we will find is that God loves humanity without distinction. IOW God's love through His Son is not limited to only one small nation of humanity, but reaches out to every nation of the whole world.

Actually Roger, Esau, represents the Edomites, not unbelievers or the enemies of God. If you would like to know why God hated Esau, read the book of Obadiah. It is only one chapter and it explains exactly why God hated Esau.

Vhayes
Jan 26th 2011, 03:39 PM
Thanks to both Butch and Brother B in this thread. I am learning quite a lot.
V

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 04:03 PM
Hi Barnabas, Yes, I am familiar with the fact that there were Christian soldiers, According to some Ante-Nicene writings those who were in the military were allowed to receive Christ under certain conditions. However, it is my understanding that they were not to use the sword, and if a Christian joined the military after becoming a Christian they were excommunicated. My point, However, was that the Church taught that the use of violence was forbidden. I am not aware of anything written by an Ante-Nicene writer that supports the use of violence for any reason. So, I don't see any reason why the Post Nicene church would think it was OK to use violence.

Regarding Constantine, He claimed to be a Christian, but I don't see where this would change the doctrines of Christianity. Just because he legalized Christianity doesn't necessitate Christians partaking in the affairs of government. Whar happened to the "Two Kingdoms" Rome was a kingdom in the kingdom of darkness, as is every physical nation, why would people who are citizen in the kingdom of heaven partake in the kingdom of darkness? Tertullian argued that it is very difficult for a person to serve in government without breaking the commands of Christ, I think he made some very good points.

I agree that Christians should not use violence don't get me wrong on that front. I am just also trying to play a little bit of devil's adovcate here and show that the writings and actual practices of the Ante-Nicene Christians did differ in some places. As do the writings of different fathers. They were not all totally in agreement with each other.

I must also say you might have to becareful of the writings you use from Tertullian and make sure they are from before his jump into the Manichian heresy.

As to the change in the affairs of the government. The doctrines did not change the Christians were still not to be a part of a pagan government. But when the government changes to one that is in not hostile to Christianity and says alright lets try to put this in order and make sure all the Christians are on the same page, this is something to look into. That is what Constantine tried to do and was one of the main reasons for the Council of Nicea was to bring together all the bishops and try to hash out the basics of the Christian faith and deal with a few other issues, like setting a date to celebrate Easter, put to rights authority of the bishops in areas plagued by Donastist churches, and find out about some new and questionable teaching from some priest named Arius.

Making having the emperor and others in the royal courts willing to convert and being hospitable to knowing about Christianity was something totally new, what were they to do but follow the command of Christ and share the Gospel with them. They were not making new doctrines but following the standing orders from Christ. Share the Gospel and baptize people. We have the earlier examples of St Justin, St Polycarp, St Clement of Alexandria, etc. who tried to share the message with those in the government and the pagan philosophiers. If someone invites you to the court to share the Gospel you go and share the Gospel. It is not like in 324 Christians were one way and saying and doing one thing and then in 326 they had totally changed and had forgotten the teachings before them. No they continued on with the practices of the former bishops and apologists. It is not like one day St Alexander was like I will never have anything to do with the emperor and the next, what's that the emperor wants to see me, oh well ok let me just totally shift around all my doctrines that I have held for so long and just go off to see him. No the Christians were ready and willing since St Paul to preach to the Emperor and try to convert him so that Christianity could spread throughout the world. St Paul used his position and power as a Roman citizen to get to help in his spreading the Gospel. Even in the Post-Nicene church they used what they could to spread the Gospel and leaned on what they had learned from the earlier fathers.

episkopos
Jan 26th 2011, 04:05 PM
Why don't 2 Christians agree on everything (or anything for that matter)? ;-)

Well, we are trying to interpert scripture rather than let it interpret us! We go with how we presently see things.

So if there are 50 issues we can take one side on or the other we would come up with a series of yes or no's. The chance is that few if any would have the same series as ourselves.

But of course this is the wrong way to read the scriptures. We see here our human frailty and a lack of understanding of the ways of God.

The truth in the bible comes at us from 2 different and seemingly contradictory positions at once. The truth is in 3d. The only way to reconcile the opposites IS by the truth. This is something called a dialectic.

Here are just a few examples of the biblical dialectic.


Fear not! But fear the Lord
Answer a fool/ answer not a fool
resist not evil/ resist the devil and he will flee
Hide when you pray and fast/ Be a light on a hill
Obey the law/ walk by faith not the law
works of faith/ just believe
Called of God supernaturally/ we seek the Lord to find Him
be humble/ speak as the oracle of God
we will be judged/ we are no longer under judgment
when I'm weak then I'm strong
dead in Christ/ alive to God
rebuke and exhort without tiring/ a fool utters everything in his heart
judge not/ a spiritual man judges all things
always learning/ but never coming to the knowledge of the truth

Non-believers point out the contradictions in the bible. And rightly so! Believers usually scoff then choose one of the interpretations while ignoring the other. Who is wiser?

How much of our doctrine is a knee-jerk reaction to events we have experienced? Our own point of view gets in the way of seeing the truth. The scriptures are not to be interpreted by us as individuals.



Warning:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" - 2 Peter 1:20

Proof:

State a doctrinal position, Watch the division!

PilgrimPastor
Jan 26th 2011, 04:07 PM
Friend, Calvinists do not limit grace. We say that Christ's death fully satisfied God's wrath toward the elect. His death accomplished perfectly what it set out to accomplish - the salvation of the remnant of God, those foreknown and predestined according to Romans 8:29-30. It is, I contend, the Arminian position which limits the atonement. You assert that Christ died for "All" the world. (siting John 3:16-17) And yet you must readily accept that "All" do are not saved. So, you say Jesus death is available to "All" and they must choose Him for themselves. Yet, at the same time, you say that they (all who come) are saved by grace. How is it purely by grace that they are saved if they must choose Christ? What you are saying is prideful and arrogant. You affirm that those who are saved are saved because in their wisdom they chose Jesus.

It is my contention that no one would ever choose Jesus because we are spiritually dead prior to the Holy Spirit regenerating us to new life and opening our blind eyes! How can you continue to affirm that you chose Christ when the Scriptures boldly declare that He chose us? For many are called [ALL], but few are chosen [Elect]." (Matthew 22:14 ESV)

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10 ESV)

Another thought for your consideration: If in Romans 8 God foreknows, even if you erase the words "He also predestined," then if you affirm that God is omniscient then His perfect foreknowledge means that what will occur is already predestined to occur. In other words, that which God foreknows is predestined by logic necessarily. Not to mention that the doctrine of election and predestination rings out from the Scripture!

I will not argue with you friend, as we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I came to the doctrines of grace screaming and kicking as the Holy Spirit opened my stubbornly shut eyes. The doctrines of grace free us in ways that the current Arminian captivity of the church does not. It demeans the perfect work of Christ on the Cross, which accomplished perfectly that which it set out to accomplish, and it enslaves honest Christian minds to a semi-Pelagian view of works-salvation.

RabbiKnife
Jan 26th 2011, 04:16 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I am in Arminian captivity, blah, blah, blah. Every Arminians in the world believes in predestination and election. Arminianism is not semi-Pelagianism. Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, and I forgot prideful and arrogant.



THANK GOD, the Cosmic Rapist!

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 04:36 PM
As for the evidence I will have to get it together since it is not readily at hand.

Do what you want, I'm done discussing this with you. I mainly just wanted to show your statement to be false to anybody who read it, not to you specifically. Because, as I said, I know you will never admit to being wrong on this issue. Anybody reading your posts can see how absurd they are. It makes no sense to say that Calvin could stop the execution of Servetus when he couldn't even change the method of the execution to beheading. Reasonable people, not suspicious of reputable historians, will see this clearly.


THANK GOD, the Cosmic Rapist!

There's no need to use this kind of language.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 04:53 PM
Do what you want, I'm done discussing this with you. I mainly just wanted to show your statement to be false to anybody who read it, not to you specifically. Because, as I said, I know you will never admit to being wrong on this issue. Anybody reading your posts can see how absurd they are. It makes no sense to say that Calvin could stop the execution of Servetus when he couldn't even change the method of the execution to beheading. Reasonable people, not suspicious of reputable historians, will see this clearly.

Well, I'm sorry that it bothers you that I will not blindly accept what someone says simply because they have a few letters after their name. I've done that in the past and have been led astray, now I want to see the evidence for myself. You are more than welcome to present it you find it. I think reasonable people would also like to see the evidence, anyone can make a claim.

Let me ask you a question. Why was Servetus being executed?

PilgrimPastor
Jan 26th 2011, 04:56 PM
I'm out of this discussion. Funny, but foolish. :)

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 05:01 PM
Well, I'm sorry that it bothers you that I will not blindly accept what someone says simply because they have a few letters after their name. I've done that in the past and have been led astray, now I want to see the evidence for myself. You are more than welcome to present it you find it. I think reasonable people would also like to see the evidence, anyone can make a claim.

You don't have to blindly accept anything. Nothing wrong with wanting to look at primary sources. But I do think you are being too skeptical and I think you are this way because the historian doesn't agree with you. And I did post a quote from one of Calvin's letters just before the execution that shows Calvin and the Council did not like each other. I have no reason to believe a Reformation history professor and Yale Divinity School has either quoted out of context or made up a lie.


Let me ask you a question. Why was Servetus being executed?For being a heretic and being stupid enough to show up in Geneva?

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:17 PM
I agree that Christians should not use violence don't get me wrong on that front. I am just also trying to play a little bit of devil's advocate here and show that the writings and actual practices of the Ante-Nicene Christians did differ in some places. As do the writings of different fathers. They were not all totally in agreement with each other.

I realize not everyone lived as they should, that is why I have been focusing on the teaching and not the actual behavior. There have always been those who have not been obedient. However, I don't think we can take those and use them to say the church taught this or that. I think we need to stay with the actual teaching of the church


I must also say you might have to be careful of the writings you use from Tertullian and make sure they are from before his jump into the Manichean heresy.

I am aware of Tertullian's shift, however, I understood it to something other (can't recall at the moment) than Manicheanism.


As to the change in the affairs of the government. The doctrines did not change the Christians were still not to be a part of a pagan government. But when the government changes to one that is in not hostile to Christianity and says alright lets try to put this in order and make sure all the Christians are on the same page, this is something to look into. That is what Constantine tried to do and was one of the main reasons for the Council of Nicaea was to bring together all the bishops and try to hash out the basics of the Christian faith and deal with a few other issues, like setting a date to celebrate Easter, put to rights authority of the bishops in areas plagued by Donastist churches, and find out about some new and questionable teaching from some priest named Arius.

Making having the emperor and others in the royal courts willing to convert and being hospitable to knowing about Christianity was something totally new, what were they to do but follow the command of Christ and share the Gospel with them. They were not making new doctrines but following the standing orders from Christ. Share the Gospel and baptize people. We have the earlier examples of St Justin, St Polycarp, St Clement of Alexandria, etc. who tried to share the message with those in the government and the pagan philosophiers. If someone invites you to the court to share the Gospel you go and share the Gospel. It is not like in 324 Christians were one way and saying and doing one thing and then in 326 they had totally changed and had forgotten the teachings before them. No they continued on with the practices of the former bishops and apologists. It is not like one day St Alexander was like I will never have anything to do with the emperor and the next, what's that the emperor wants to see me, oh well ok let me just totally shift around all my doctrines that I have held for so long and just go off to see him. No the Christians were ready and willing since St Paul to preach to the Emperor and try to convert him so that Christianity could spread throughout the world. St Paul used his position and power as a Roman citizen to get to help in his spreading the Gospel. Even in the Post-Nicene church they used what they could to spread the Gospel and leaned on what they had learned from the earlier fathers.

I don't have a problem with the Christians preaching to Constantine or those in authority. As you have stated Paul did as did several of the Ante-Nicenes. The problem is the change in doctrine after Constantine allowed Christianity. No matter what took place and how favorable it may have been, I don't see anything that would allow any changes in the way Christ and the apostles told Christians to live. If they said do not use violence, then to me, that means do no use violence, there are no exceptions given, therefore, it should apply to "All" Christians through all time. Christians are citizens in God's kingdom and therefore His kingdom should be our focus, not the kingdoms of this world. I think those Christians would have done well to continue on this path instead of becoming entangled in the Roman Empire. We can see from history how things began to turn after they became entangled with the Roman empire. I know there were many godly men in the post-Nicene period, but, we still see the church changing from what was in the beginning.

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 05:25 PM
I realize not everyone lived as they should, that is why I have been focusing on the teaching and not the actual behavior. There have always been those who have not been obedient. However, I don't think we can take those and use them to say the church taught this or that. I think we need to stay with the actual teaching of the church



I am aware of Tertullian's shift, however, I understood it to something other (can't recall at the moment) than Manicheanism.



I don't have a problem with the Christians preaching to Constantine or those in authority. As you have stated Paul did as did several of the Ante-Nicenes. The problem is the change in doctrine after Constantine allowed Christianity. No matter what took place and how favorable it may have been, I don't see anything that would allow any changes in the way Christ and the apostles told Christians to live. If they said do not use violence, then to me, that means do no use violence, there are no exceptions given, therefore, it should apply to "All" Christians through all time. Christians are citizens in God's kingdom and therefore His kingdom should be our focus, not the kingdoms of this world. I think those Christians would have done well to continue on this path instead of becoming entangled in the Roman Empire. We can see from history how things began to turn after they became entangled with the Roman empire. I know there were many godly men in the post-Nicene period, but, we still see the church changing from what was in the beginning.

Yeah sorry getting my heresies mixed up, it was Monastism.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:32 PM
Friend, Calvinists do not limit grace. We say that Christ's death fully satisfied God's wrath toward the elect. His death accomplished perfectly what it set out to accomplish - the salvation of the remnant of God, those foreknown and predestined according to Romans 8:29-30. It is, I contend, the Arminian position which limits the atonement. You assert that Christ died for "All" the world. (siting John 3:16-17) And yet you must readily accept that "All" do are not saved. So, you say Jesus death is available to "All" and they must choose Him for themselves. Yet, at the same time, you say that they (all who come) are saved by grace. How is it purely by grace that they are saved if they must choose Christ? What you are saying is prideful and arrogant. You affirm that those who are saved are saved because in their wisdom they chose Jesus.

Romans 8:29-30 is out of context.

Please show me where Scripture teaches that Christ's death satisfied the wrath of God.

We don't get to define grace, the scriptures do.

Conditions put on salvation do not diminish grace.


It is my contention that no one would ever choose Jesus because we are spiritually dead prior to the Holy Spirit regenerating us to new life and opening our blind eyes! How can you continue to affirm that you chose Christ when the Scriptures boldly declare that He chose us? For many are called [ALL], but few are chosen [Elect]." (Matthew 22:14 ESV)

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10 ESV)


Where does Scripture speak of anyone being spiritually dead?

Mathew 22:14 does not give the qualifications for the choosing.



Another thought for your consideration: If in Romans 8 God foreknows, even if you erase the words "He also predestined," then if you affirm that God is omniscient then His perfect foreknowledge means that what will occur is already predestined to occur. In other words, that which God foreknows is predestined by logic necessarily. Not to mention that the doctrine of election and predestination rings out from the Scripture!

Romans 8 is not speaking of Omniscience, it is speaking of knowing in the past.

It is a logical fallacy to say that just because God knows what will happen it is predestined. Predestined means predetermined. God can know what will happen with being the cause of what will happen.


I will not argue with you friend, as we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I came to the doctrines of grace screaming and kicking as the Holy Spirit opened my stubbornly shut eyes. The doctrines of grace free us in ways that the current Arminian captivity of the church does not. It demeans the perfect work of Christ on the Cross, which accomplished perfectly that which it set out to accomplish, and it enslaves honest Christian minds to a semi-Pelagian view of works-salvation.

You should have continued to resist. The doctrines of grace as they are called are contrary to Scripture. The Tulip does not have a single verse Scripture that states outright any of the five points, every one is inferred. I would be extremely suspicious of a theological system that did not have Scripture that stated its five major points.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:34 PM
Yeah sorry getting my heresies mixed up, it was Monastism.

That's it, I couldn't recall what it was. Thanks for the conversation, it is refreshing to talk with someone who reads the Early Church writers.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:39 PM
You don't have to blindly accept anything. Nothing wrong with wanting to look at primary sources. But I do think you are being too skeptical and I think you are this way because the historian doesn't agree with you. And I did post a quote from one of Calvin's letters just before the execution that shows Calvin and the Council did not like each other. I have no reason to believe a Reformation history professor and Yale Divinity School has either quoted out of context or made up a lie.

But that's what you're asking me to do. You gave me a quote bruce's book that he said Calvin made. As I said, I don't know anthing about this author, so if I accept his word without checking it I would be blindly accepting it.



For being a heretic and being stupid enough to show up in Geneva?

OK, who said he was a heretic?

Why would being in Geneva get him executed?

Br. Barnabas
Jan 26th 2011, 05:39 PM
That's it, I couldn't recall what it was. Thanks for the conversation, it is refreshing to talk with someone who reads the Early Church writers.

Well the ECFs have been the focus of my masters and they are what I will be doing my Ph.D. studies on when I start that. In the Spring I have a class on the Post-Nicene fathers focusing on a lot of the fathers and their theology.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 05:49 PM
But that's what you're asking me to do. You gave me a quote bruce's book that he said Calvin made. As I said, I don't know anthing about this author, so if I accept his word without checking it I would be blindly accepting it.

Do you do this with every historical book you read? Or do you even read historical books since it seems to me you view them with suspicion until you read something from the time being discussed?


OK, who said he was a heretic?

Nearly everybody. Wasn't the Catholic church even after him?


Why would being in Geneva get him executed?

Because they recognized him as a heretic and if they ever found him in their city they would arrest him just like many other cities. He knew this but went anyway.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 05:59 PM
Do you do this with every historical book you read? Or do you even read historical books since it seems to me you view them with suspicion until you read something from the time being discussed?

Primary sources are the only way to know exactly what was said and the context it was said in. I can read history but you still have to check the sources.


Nearly everybody. Wasn't the Catholic church even after him?

Who is everybody? If it was everybody then I would have expected he would have been executed in Spain before all of this started. Why would the Cathoic church be after him if he was saying that Calvin was a heretic?


Because they recognized him as a heretic and if they ever found him in their city they would arrest him just like many other cities. He knew this but went anyway.

Who recognized him as a heretic? If the average Joe called Servetus a heretic that would not have gotten Servetus killed. Obviously he had to be deemed a heretic by someone with some kind of authority.


Do you know what started this issue between Calvin and Servetus?

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 06:01 PM
Well the ECFs have been the focus of my masters and they are what I will be doing my Ph.D. studies on when I start that. In the Spring I have a class on the Post-Nicene fathers focusing on a lot of the fathers and their theology.

That's cool. I wish I had more time to study them than I do.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 06:29 PM
Who is everybody? If it was everybody then I would have expected he would have been executed in Spain before all of this started. Why would the Cathoic church be after him if he was saying that Calvin was a heretic?

'Everybody' would be orthodox believers. Servetus was unorthodox and was deemed a heretic by the orthodox. Do you not think that Servetus was a heretic?


Who recognized him as a heretic? If the average Joe called Servetus a heretic that would not have gotten Servetus killed. Obviously he had to be deemed a heretic by someone with some kind of authority.Of course, and Calvin recognized him as a heretic as did a whole bunch of other orthodox believers. You seem to think that it was Calvin's decision to make Servetus a heretic thereby making the magistrates on the hunt to kill the man.


Do you know what started this issue between Calvin and Servetus?I presume it was the heretical teachings of Servetus. They were aware of each other long before Servetus was exectuted. If I recall correctly, Servetus asked to meet with Calvin at one point but didn't show up.

Abiding
Jan 26th 2011, 07:27 PM
Do what you want, I'm done discussing this with you. I mainly just wanted to show your statement to be false to anybody who read it, not to you specifically. Because, as I said, I know you will never admit to being wrong on this issue. Anybody reading your posts can see how absurd they are. It makes no sense to say that Calvin could stop the execution of Servetus when he couldn't even change the method of the execution to beheading. Reasonable people, not suspicious of reputable historians, will see this clearly.

I have to agree Butch, it is pretty plain to see.

RabbiKnife
Jan 26th 2011, 07:33 PM
I thought Severus was Harry's Potions teacher at Hogwarts.

Vhayes
Jan 26th 2011, 07:42 PM
I thought Severus was Harry's Potions teacher at Hogwarts.


*GASP* - so we KNOW he's a heretic :-)

RabbiKnife
Jan 26th 2011, 07:49 PM
You know, the entire Servetus/Calvin thing is just an ad hominem attack on Calvinism, and as such, has about as much use as a Frigidaire in an igloo.

Theological discussions about beliefs about what the Bible actually say should not depend on the character or lack thereof of the proponents.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 08:23 PM
'Everybody' would be orthodox believers. Servetus was unorthodox and was deemed a heretic by the orthodox. Do you not think that Servetus was a heretic?

But everybody didn't have the authority to deem him a heretic, that is what I am trying to get at. You say Servetus was unorthodox and was deemed a heretic by the orthodox, who would be the orthodox? I mean the reformers were not considered orthodox by the Catholic church they were considered heretics. Since the Catholic church had been "The Church" for centuries, whether they were right or wrong they were what was considered orthodox. The Reformers were in rebellion against the Catholic church, so I don't know that they could be deemed orthodox. Was Servetus a heretic? I don't know enough abut him to make that call. From what I understand he did have some ideas that were not Biblical but I have not read his works so I can't make that call.



Of course, and Calvin recognized him as a heretic as did a whole bunch of other orthodox believers. You seem to think that it was Calvin's decision to make Servetus a heretic thereby making the magistrates on the hunt to kill the man.

Actually, this issue started over two books. Calvin read Servetus' book and decided he was in error, so Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes (I believe it was his institutes). Upon reading it Servetus made some corrections in the margins and sent the book back to Calvin. The way I understand it Calvin became enraged and sent a letter to Servetus, who likewise returned a letter, apparently these were not friendly letters. This went on for a while until the point where Calvin allegedly made the statement, 'If Servetus comes to Geneva he won't leave alive.' Now there is quite a bit of research necessary to uncover this information.

Why would a secular government care whether or not Servetus was a heretic? I doesn't seem they would. However, a government that was highly influenced by religion would care if Servetus was a heretic. This would seem to indicate that the government was influenced by those in charge of the religious system. It seems logical that if council was so opposed to Calvin they would not have deemed Servetus as a heretic. We don't even know if they read Servetus' book.

Now, Servetus didn't have any beef with the council, however, him and Calvin did have beef. So, it would seem that it was Calvin who deemed him a heretic.


I presume it was the heretical teachings of Servetus. They were aware of each other long before Servetus was executed. If I recall correctly, Servetus asked to meet with Calvin at one point but didn't show up.

It was because Servetus disagreed with Calvin about his doctrine. Calvin deemed Servetus a heretic, yet from a Roman Catholic standpoint Calvin was deemed a heretic. So, I guess it depends on who you ask. The point is just because someone is deemed a heretic doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. We must first determine if the one who doing the condemning is himself correct.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 08:25 PM
You know, the entire Servetus/Calvin thing is just an ad hominem attack on Calvinism, and as such, has about as much use as a Frigidaire in an igloo.

Theological discussions about beliefs about what the Bible actually say should not depend on the character or lack thereof of the proponents.

Hi Rabbi,

I agree, my issue is not about Calvin but about my statement being called a lie.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 08:48 PM
Why would a secular government care whether or not Servetus was a heretic? I doesn't seem they would. However, a government that was highly influenced by religion would care if Servetus was a heretic. This would seem to indicate that the government was influenced by those in charge of the religious system. It seems logical that if council was so opposed to Calvin they would not have deemed Servetus as a heretic. We don't even know if they read Servetus' book.

Geneva was not a secular government. It's not like they weren't interested in ecclesiastical matters, in fact, that is why there was so much tension between Calvin and them. They were in a battle as to who had the authority to excommunicate; was it a pastor like Calvin or was it the magistrates of the city? Calvin didn't want the authority to go to the magistrates.

But you're coming at this whole thing with the presupposition that Calvin ruled Geneva. That whatever he said goes. Period. That's not how it was as I have shown. If the Council simply went by the word of Calvin that Servetus was a heretic and should die, why did they send letters to other cities for help on what to do with Servetus? Why did they ignore Calvin's request for a change in execution?


Now, Servetus didn't have any beef with the council, however, him and Calvin did have beef. So, it would seem that it was Calvin who deemed him a heretic.

Yes, Calvin did deem Servetus a heretic, as did other Reformation leaders and if I remember correctly even the Catholic church.


It was because Servetus disagreed with Calvin about his doctrine. Calvin deemed Servetus a heretic, yet from a Roman Catholic standpoint Calvin was deemed a heretic. So, I guess it depends on who you ask. The point is just because someone is deemed a heretic doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. We must first determine if the one who doing the condemning is himself correct.

But I think both the Catholic church and Calvin would agree that Servetus was a heretic. He denied the trinity among other things.


I agree, my issue is not about Calvin but about my statement being called a lie.

I already said I won't call your statement a lie anymore. I did not picture you with pure motives but I do want to be charitable and not presume your motives. That said, your claim should not be repeated anymore as it's been proven to be false. Even more so, your claim never had any force to begin with as baseless as it is.

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 08:50 PM
I have to agree Butch, it is pretty plain to see.

I would be plain to see, if any of it had been proven, but it hasn't been. Had BrckBrln posted an Arminan professor it would at least have had just a little more weight. I mean we are talking about a Reformed professor talking about Calvin, do we really think he's going to point out Calvin's flaws or shortcomings?

Butch5
Jan 26th 2011, 09:12 PM
Geneva was not a secular government. It's not like they weren't interested in ecclesiastical matters, in fact, that is why there was so much tension between Calvin and them. They were in a battle as to who had the authority to excommunicate; was it a pastor like Calvin or was it the magistrates of the city? Calvin didn't want the authority to go to the magistrates.

That's my point it was not a secular government. If they had so much power as you seem to suggest, they could have just removed Calvin and solved their problem.


But you're coming at this whole thing with the presupposition that Calvin ruled Geneva. That whatever he said goes. Period. That's not how it was as I have shown. If the Council simply went by the word of Calvin that Servetus was a heretic and should die, why did they send letters to other cities for help on what to do with Servetus? Why did they ignore Calvin's request for a change in execution?

As I've said, you haven't shown this. You keep saying you've shown this stuff but you've given one quote with no surrounding text for anyone to even begin to get the context of the quote from.That doesn't prove that the council was against Calvin, it doesn't prove the council sent letters to anyone, it doesn't prove they refused Calvin's request to change the method of execution. I've been asking from the very beginning for primary sources, that will prove who did and said what.


Yes, Calvin did deem Servetus a heretic, as did other Reformation leaders and if I remember correctly even the Catholic church.

OK, however, the others didn't make the statement that if Servetus ever came to Geneva he wouldn't leave alive.



But I think both the Catholic church and Calvin would agree that Servetus was a heretic. He denied the trinity among other things.

Yea, but the Catholic church would also deem Calvin a heretic, so in essence we have one heretic calling another a heretic. You're giving weight to Calvin's authority to deem someone a heretic from the church when he himself was deemed a heretic by the Church.




I already said I won't call your statement a lie anymore. I did not picture you with pure motives but I do want to be charitable and not presume your motives. That said, your claim should not be repeated anymore as it's been proven to be false. Even more so, your claim never had any force to begin with as baseless as it is.

Do you still not understand what I am saying??? You haven't proven anything false. One quote without context hardly proves anything false.

You give weight to Bruce Gordon because he is a professor. Now suppose we look at one of your reformed commentaries and I say I can prove that commentary wrong and I produce an Arminian commentary and say well this professor has more degrees than the professor who wrote your commentary, therefore you commentary is wrong.

That would be absurd. Just because one professor has more degrees than another proves nothing. Neither one of them were eyewitnesses so the possibility exists that they could both be wrong. It seems to me that you don't consider it an option that Mr. Gordon could be incorrect.

BrckBrln
Jan 26th 2011, 09:42 PM
I'm (actually) done with this discussion. I've done what I wanted to do and everybody can see the plain truth.

Just one more thing, though. You say Bruce Gordon is a Reformed believer. Do you have anything to back that up? Just because a person teaches Reformation history does not mean you are Reformed in your thinking. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Gordon is not a Calvinist theologically. And if you would read my original post (or the biography) you would realize that Gordon is not always kind to Calvin. He has some very harsh things to say about him and it's clear he is not interested in providing a Calvin apologetic.

So let's review. You gave an unsubstantiated claim. I proved the claim false with a quote from a Reformation history professor. You say he has no weight and I should find primary sources. I quote part of a letter from Calvin and gave the source. You still deny this proves anything. You say it's out of context when you don't even know what he context is! You refuse to answer the simple question if Calvin couldn't even change the method of execution what makes you think he could stop the execution? You have given no proof, provided no quotes from any historian or primary source, yet you somehow want to be taken seriously. That's why I am done discussing this with you.

John146
Jan 26th 2011, 10:13 PM
We must always stress and point out that a person must die in their choice of unbelief to be condemned. Even on their deathbed, if they have a change of heart and it's OF the heart, they too will be with Jesus eternally. Even after a long life of turning their back on Jesus, that change of heart and choice to believe... washes all their sin away.That's right. The thief on the cross proves that.


I'd like to know just how many times all those in this thread chose to NOT believe in Jesus... until the moment they chose Him instead of not choosing Him :hmm:

In the weeks leading up to my choice to surrender and believe in Jesus as my Savior... I bet I said NO about 10 times to Jesus and chose to continue to not accept Him as my Savior. I sure acknowledged Him all those 10 times but said... NO.

Do some Christians forget they were once unbelievers too?Apparently. Some act as if they were saved already at birth and never needed to make a decision to put their faith in Christ.

John146
Jan 26th 2011, 10:17 PM
God is love. 1 John 4:8

So now I guess we have an indisputable contradiction in Scripture.

God chooses to hate some people and love other people.

Sorry. Doesn't comport with Scripture.No, it does not. Scripture says God is love. Calvinism says God is love and hate. I'm going with scripture. Also, we are commanded to love everyone, even our enemies. Why would God command us to do that if He doesn't do that Himself?

John146
Jan 26th 2011, 10:21 PM
"So "world" in your opinion must mean every human without exception, rather than every human without distinction?"



The Scripture tells me your opinion is not correct. If God loves every human without exception, why would Scripture tell us that God hates all who work iniquity?

Ps*5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

How could Scripture say that God hates Esau? Esau in this verse represents not just one man, but a whole people group; i.e. unbelievers, or enemies of the sons of God.

Mal*1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Nowhere in Scripture is it written that God loves humanity without exception! What we will find is that God loves humanity without distinction. IOW God's love through His Son is not limited to only one small nation of humanity, but reaches out to every nation of the whole world.Roger, I believe you are very lacking in discernment. Does the following teach us to literally hate (have disdain for) our families?

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The word "hate" is used in the same sense in Mal 1:3 as it is in Luke 14:26 and it doesn't mean to have disdain for someone in either verse. Also, here is Psalm 5:5 from Young's Literal Translation...

Psalm 5:5 The boastful station not themselves before Thine eyes: Thou hast hated all working iniquity.

Roger, Jesus commands us to love our enemies. Did He command us to do something that He doesn't do Himself?

John146
Jan 26th 2011, 10:35 PM
The Bible speaks of only two types of humans; those in unbelief and those of faith. When one is in unbelief it is impossible to have faith to turn to Christ.Where does scripture teach this? Why does scripture repeatedly speak of God telling unbelievers to turn from their wickedness and to Him if unbelievers can't turn to Him? Everyone is an unbeliever before becoming a believer. You're not making any sense here.


Because if they had faith to turn to Christ, very clearly they would not be in unbelief!In order to put one's faith in Christ they have to change from not believing in Him to believing in Him. Can people not change their minds about what they believe or don't believe?


Why is that so difficult for some to understand?Because what you're saying is utter nonsense perhaps?


Now Scripture tells us that faith comes by hearing, hearing by the gospel (Word of God). Therefore when one has never heard the gospel, and never received ears to hear by grace through faith they receive upon hearing, they are without ability to place faith they have yet to possess in Christ by some imagined free will.There's just one problem here. What you're saying is not taught in scripture. That's probably why you didn't attempt to back up what you're saying with scripture.


The will is only free to do whatever is natural. Natural man, dead in his trespasses and sins has absolutely NO DESIRE to come to the Light of Christ...it is altogether against their nature, therefore against their will. So natural man ALWAYS freely, even willfully chooses to reject Christ until/unless he has received faith according to grace by the power of God. If he has ears to hear by grace upon hearing the gospel of salvation, then he is not forced to turn to the Light of Christ! No force is needed because now his nature has been changed, and he has a new heart that freely desires to turn to Christ for life everlasting. This man only is among the "whosoever believes" and is GIVEN (not offered) everlasting life in Christ.

Here is how God so loves humanity, whosoever believes has everlasting life, and whosoever remains in unbelief is condemned already, and will die in his/her sins unless/until they hear, receive faith according to God's grace and turn to Christ (willingly) for everlasting life. If one hears and still rejects Christ, then he/she are among those who do not receive faith by grace through hearing.None of what you're saying here is taught in scripture anywhere.

RogerW
Jan 26th 2011, 11:01 PM
Roger, I believe you are very lacking in discernment. Does the following teach us to literally hate (have disdain for) our families?

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The word "hate" is used in the same sense in Mal 1:3 as it is in Luke 14:26 and it doesn't mean to have disdain for someone in either verse.

This is most assuredly one UNPROVEN theory! But if we allow the Scripture to instruct us, I believe we will discover exactly what Christ means when He tells us we must "hate" our family members if we desire to be His disciples.

Certainly Jesus does not desire us to hate our family for no reason. How can He tell us to hate our parents when He tells us to honor our father and mother? This proves exactly the opposite.

Mt*15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

But then Christ also tells us we cannot SERVE (be a slave to) two masters. In doing so we will hate the one and love the other.

Mt*6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

So what happens if our father and mother oppose Christ?

Mt*10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So we see a contrast we cannot water down till the point is gone, as you are attempting to do. So what is the context of Lu 14:26? Christ includes "wife" in the list of those whom we must hate if we desire to be His disciples. In vs 20 it is said, "I married a wife so I am not able to come"..."And his own life also." Love for Christ takes precedence over every other relationship in our lives, including being willing to lay down our own lives for Him.

What Christ is telling us is that we cannot let anyone or anything hinder us from our first love, that is Christ. Therefore if we do not hate our wife (as the context suggests) or any other family member (or even our own lives), who would keep us from loving Christ first and foremost then we cannot be His disciple.

Hate means to LITERALLY detest, and to love less if we desire to be Christ's disciples.


Also, here is Psalm 5:5 from Young's Literal Translation...

Psalm 5:5 The boastful station not themselves before Thine eyes: Thou hast hated all working iniquity.How does quoting the Young's deny there are those who work iniquity (commit sin) that God hates?
Roger, Jesus commands us to love our enemies. Did He command us to do something that He doesn't do Himself?Yes! It would appear He does!

Butch5
Jan 27th 2011, 12:40 AM
I'm (actually) done with this discussion. I've done what I wanted to do and everybody can see the plain truth.

Just one more thing, though. You say Bruce Gordon is a Reformed believer. Do you have anything to back that up? Just because a person teaches Reformation history does not mean you are Reformed in your thinking. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Gordon is not a Calvinist theologically. And if you would read my original post (or the biography) you would realize that Gordon is not always kind to Calvin. He has some very harsh things to say about him and it's clear he is not interested in providing a Calvin apologetic.

So let's review. You gave an unsubstantiated claim. I proved the claim false with a quote from a Reformation history professor. You say he has no weight and I should find primary sources. I quote part of a letter from Calvin and gave the source. You still deny this proves anything. You say it's out of context when you don't even know what he context is! You refuse to answer the simple question if Calvin couldn't even change the method of execution what makes you think he could stop the execution? You have given no proof, provided no quotes from any historian or primary source, yet you somehow want to be taken seriously. That's why I am done discussing this with you.

Well my friend, you would not provide any primary sources other than a sentence or so from Calvin which had no surrounding text for anyone to ascertain the context. On top of that you claim to have proven my statement wrong. So, I realized that if I was going to get any primary sources I would have to do so myself. Well I found your quote from Calvin and it does appear that he was fussing with the Council. That however, does not prove or disprove Calvin's authority. Now I will give you Calvin's own words not some professors words.

CLIY.—To Farel.
Reply to various questions—terrible threat against Servetus—imprisonment of one
of the leaders of the Libertins.

Geneva, \Zth February 1546.

You will be at ease regarding your brothers since you received
the letter of Claude. The messenger who brought it asked
whether mine would be ready when I returned from sermon,
after three o'clock. I replied in the negative ; but I bid him
dine at my house with my wife, as I myself had been invited to
dine with Macrin. I promised to be with him immediately
after dinner, to make a brief reply. He did not come [to my
house,] but hurried away without waiting a moment, so that I
was confounded by so sudden a departure. And yet the youth
had not appeared to me to behave badly in general. I trust
the reflection may occur to your brothers, that they have
been thus extricated from all their difficulties by the hand of
God, in order that they make the greater haste [in the work,]
It did not become the Israelites, when a way was opened up to
them, to show remissness in immediately girding themselves for
flight.' Such would have been the burden of my epistle had
not the messenger deceived me ; but I am confident that they
are burning with ardour of their own accord. I now come to your
own contests.^ If the ungodly still occasion you some trouble,
when that letter shall arrive, I have briefly expressed in it what
I think should be your mode of proceeding. I should wish,
however, the matter to be discussed viva voce ; and that, thereupon,
the result, or something like it, be committed to writing.
You will perhaps smile because I suggest nothing out of the
common, as you looked for something recondite and elevated at
my hands; but I do not wish, nor, besides, is it right to be fettered
by your estimate of me. I had rather, however, be foolish by
so writing, than by my silence lead you to suppose that your
entreaties were neglected by me. If nothing can be effected by
reasoning, and in this lawful way, the Bernese must be privately
prevailed upon not to allow that wild beast to go out of its den.
I do not sufficiently comprehend your meaning regarding a
treaty, unless it be, as I conjecture, that you are turning your
thoughts to some sort of alliance, with a view to your receiving
the assistance of the Bernese; and that just as they guard the
liberty of the people by the law of the state, so they may protect
ministers in their office by some title which commands
respect. If that be provided for, I do not disapprove of [the
alliance.] Bear in mind, that recourse should be had to those
extraordinary remedies only when there is the exculpatory plea
of an ultimate necessity. In the next place, be very cautious
lest anything you do be such as may injure your interests in
time to come. You may have greater cause of regret in that
you once received aid, and were parties to a compact, than if
you were to remain in your original servitude. Marcourt has,
without doubt, already promised a place for himself; for he
publicly proclaims that he does not regard the consent of the
brethren, since he is desired, both by magistrates and people,
and he has no doubt but that they are indignant against
you. Finally, since he prematurely discloses the wickedness
of his character, he must be repulsed by all artifices, lest he
rise to a position in which he is able to perform what he
threatens. With regard to those who gave out that we were
establishing here a permanent seat of despotism, under colour
of defence, let us suffer this rumour to spread on both sides.
Their impudence has been met with civility and mildness, so
that they ought to be ashamed of themselves.' I trust that they
will keep quiet. I seek, as far as I am able, to persuade our
friends to remain unconcerned. Servetus lately wrote to me, and
coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies,
with the Thrasonic boast, that 1 should see something astonishing
and unheard of He takes it upon him 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.'^
More than fifteen days have now elapsed since Cartelier^ was
imprisoned, for having, at supper in his own house, raged
against me with such insolence as to make it clear that he was
not then in his right senses. I concealed what I felt, but
testified to the judge that it would be agreeable to me were he
proceeded against with the utmost rigour of the law. I wished
to go to see him. Access was prohibited by decree of the
Senate; and yet some good men accuse me of cruelty, forsooth,
because I so pertinaciously revenge my injuries.' I have been
requested by his friends to undertake the part of intercessor.
I refused to do so, except on these two conditions, viz: that no
suspicion should attach to me, and that the honour of Christ
should remain intact. I have now done. I abide the judgment
of the Council.—Adieu, brother, and most sincere friend. We
all salute you and your sisters. You will convey to the
brethren the best salutations in my name, and that of my
brethren in the ministry. May God ever bless you and prosper
your labours.—Yours,

John Calvin.
[Lat. orig. autogr.—Imp. Library, Coll. Duptiy. Vol. 102.]


There you have it my friend from Calvin's pen. "provided my authority be of any avail". From Calvin himself, he had the authority to make sure Servetus never left Geneva alive.

Here's a link where you can find the book.

http://www.archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal02calv

Remember the quote you gave? It can be found on pages 426-427. Read in context it becomes clear with the footnotes that the fuss was over the council's seeking advice from the other cities regarding Servetus. They were at odds over this issue, that doesn't mean they were against Calvin in general but simply over this one issue. That is why I wanted to see the quote in context.

BrckBrln
Jan 27th 2011, 01:12 AM
Do you think this proves your orginal statement that Calvin could have stopped Servetus from being executed? Hardly. Just answer this one question. If Calvin could have stopped the execution, why couldn't he change the method of execution? If Calvin had authority to exectue or influence execution, surely he had authortiy to change the execution method!

Butch5
Jan 27th 2011, 01:42 AM
Do you think this proves your orginal statement that Calvin could have stopped Servetus from being executed? Hardly. Just answer this one question. If Calvin could have stopped the execution, why couldn't he change the method of execution? If Calvin had authority to exectue or influence execution, surely he had authortiy to change the execution method!

That's as I expected, even with the words from the man himself you still won't believe. I have given my evidence and proven my point from the man's own words not a commenator or a modern professor but from Calvin's own words. He states himself the power he had.

BrckBrln
Jan 27th 2011, 01:43 AM
That's as I expected, even with the words from the man himself you still won't believe. I have given my evidence and proven my point from the man's own words not a commenator or a modern professor but from Calvin's own words. He states himself of the power he had.

:lol: Funny. I'm out. Promise.

John146
Jan 27th 2011, 03:54 PM
This is most assuredly one UNPROVEN theory! I don't think a theory has to be 100% proven in order to be considered sound. Scripture is definitely not on your side on this one, Roger. God loves literally all people. Would He command us to love our enemies if He didn't love His? Yes, God gets angry with people and punishes people but that doesn't mean He didn't love them and didn't want them to repent before it was too late.


But if we allow the Scripture to instruct us, I believe we will discover exactly what Christ means when He tells us we must "hate" our family members if we desire to be His disciples.

Certainly Jesus does not desire us to hate our family for no reason. How can He tell us to hate our parents when He tells us to honor our father and mother? This proves exactly the opposite.

Mt*15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

But then Christ also tells us we cannot SERVE (be a slave to) two masters. In doing so we will hate the one and love the other.

Mt*6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

So what happens if our father and mother oppose Christ?

Mt*10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So we see a contrast we cannot water down till the point is gone, as you are attempting to do. So what is the context of Lu 14:26? Christ includes "wife" in the list of those whom we must hate if we desire to be His disciples. In vs 20 it is said, "I married a wife so I am not able to come"..."And his own life also." Love for Christ takes precedence over every other relationship in our lives, including being willing to lay down our own lives for Him.

What Christ is telling us is that we cannot let anyone or anything hinder us from our first love, that is Christ. Therefore if we do not hate our wife (as the context suggests) or any other family member (or even our own lives), who would keep us from loving Christ first and foremost then we cannot be His disciple.

Hate means to LITERALLY detest, and to love less if we desire to be Christ's disciples.Roger, your lack of discernment is shocking to me. You are actually trying to say that Jesus taught for us to literally hate/detest our own family? You have to be kidding me. Look at Matt 10:37 again. That shows us the real context of Luke 14:26. He isn't telling us to literally detest our families, He is saying that we can't love the members of our family more than Him and still be worthy of Him. Our love for Him should exceed our love for our famiily members. That is what He was saying and that is undeniable. You allow doctrinal bias to cause you to miss the obvious. It is completely ludicrous to think that He would teach us to hate our family members. No, I can assure you that He wants us to love all of our family members, but not more than we love Him. That is what He was saying.


How does quoting the Young's deny there are those who work iniquity (commit sin) that God hates?No, that translation of the verse shows that what He hates is the iniquity itself, not the people who commit it.


Yes! It would appear He does!No, He does not! You are sadly mistaken. God loves the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16. Jesus commands us to love even our enemies, but you think He hates His enemies? Do you think Jesus is a hypocrite?

napsnsnacks
Jan 28th 2011, 02:55 PM
Curious as to where everyone stands according to the chart?

You offer the very reasons not to sign on with anyone them. This chart is one of the better definitions of gang mentality.

All these opposing beliefs make God such a split personality that it makes Him to many Gods.