not a contradiction, im saying to stop fighting God, and go along with what He wants. His will be done, not ours.
John Calvin and Calvinism.
- Thread starter Lifelong_sinner
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
not a contradiction, im saying to stop fighting God, and go along with what He wants. His will be done, not ours.
According to Calvinism, God either makes us obedient or not. There's no fighting him either way. Or are you taking back the claim that we do nothing?
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
no. Let me give you an example of fighting Him. Last summer i had a kidney stent in me for 3 weeks. Thats the longest i ever had one in me, usually its just a week. So i flipped out, was on my way back to the ER so that they would take it out early. On the way there, God said to me, stop fighting this, its going to stay in you for 3 weeks. So i said ok, i dont like this, but His will be done.
What God wants or ordains, is going to happen, no matter how much we disagree with it. But theres good news to my story, so i had my next surgery 3 weeks later, they got the stone and the stent out. And a week later i passed another stone that i didnt know i had. No pain.
I accepted His way, and stopped fighting Him, and i benefitted in the end.
CALVIN'S COMMENTARY: Here Calvin is talking specifically about God's desire, as opposed to His will. And in the sense that He desires all men come to knowledge of the truth, what Calvin says is irrefutably true, as God Himself says that very thing through Paul in 2 Timothy 2:4... "God our Savior... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
CALVIN'S INSTITUTES: In the particular section of the Institutes quoted, Calvin is talking specifically about God's will, as opposed to His desire. And in this sense, Calvin is referring directly to another direct quote of Paul (and ultimately God), this time from Romans 9... "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" Here again, what Calvin says is irrefutably true. To think otherwise is really to place oneself in advocacy of the heresy of universalism.
That some either purposely or inadvertently blur this distinction between God's desire and His will and thus come to a wrong conclusion regarding one or the other or both is of no consequence. It is what it is.
And this:
Is much the same kind of error, really:
SALVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE:
This is in the sense of sufficiency. Christ's sacrifice was for the entire human race in that it was sufficient to cover the entire human race. It is indeed a Biblical truth.
SALVATION OF THE FOREORDAINED:
This is in reference to specific, or particular efficacy, so only for God's elect, a group which does not include all men (or the entire human race) but only those whom He foreknew, foreordained, forloved, in the words of Paul in Romans 8, "those whom He foreknew (foreordained, fore-loved) He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers," and Ephesians 1, "...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 to Himself 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. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth." So this is also irrefutably true.
The issue is the same. That some either purposely or inadvertently blur this distinction between the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and its particular efficacy, only for God's elect, and thus come to a wrong conclusion regarding one or the other or both is of no consequence. It is what it is.
Grace and peace to all.
Last edited:
But you are being inconsistent with your theology. If you do nothing then God ordained your flipping out also. So you were not fighting him. It's impossible to disobey God in a world where he ordained everything. Your sin is then ordained as much as your good deeds.
But calvinist constantly miss the implications of their own theology.
Exactly. The inconsistencies are too many. I already showed the contradictions of Calvin, but the Calvinists simply said "Nothing to see there". Looks like Calvin was elevated to the position of a little god. He also committed many atrocities against other Christians.
You are avoiding the real issue, which is the actual inconsistency of Calvin IN HIS OWN WORDS. You have yet to honestly admit that he contradicted himself. We do not need all your explanations and excuses. It is a simple "Yea" or "Nay".
i have not seen where calvin EVER contradicted himself or the Bible. There, i said it.
Do you not see me call out all these other wackydoodle doctrines on here??? If i thought calvinism was a bunch of huey, i’d say so.
I am 100% confident that calvin got it right.
I am 100% confident that calvin got it right.
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Some of John Calvin's Contradicting Nonsense
From the above blog (not my blog) it cites quotes from Calvin.
Calvin claims man as no free will but suggests also that man cannot blame God for all things that happen, even evil things, yet claims God has decreed all things that happen. What sense can be made of this non-sense?
From the above blog (not my blog) it cites quotes from Calvin.
Calvin claims man as no free will but suggests also that man cannot blame God for all things that happen, even evil things, yet claims God has decreed all things that happen. What sense can be made of this non-sense?
No, I'm addressing exactly the issue, which is your inability ~ or refusal (?) ~ to make simple contrasts clearly made in Scripture (at least regarding the two instances discussed so far) and the resulting erroneous interpretation of John Calvin's own words on your part.
Right, because he did not. At least not in the two instances you have presented. The honesty problem seems to be yours. Now, whether that's honesty with yourself, or honesty with regard to others, or both ~ or just stubbornness or intractability ~ I don't know, but I'm not concerned about that; it is what it is.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Well... Okay, so yes, I would call myself a Calvinist ~ a five-point Calvinist, because there are three- and four-pointers out there (usually because of the inability of 3s and 4s to accept the 'L' ~ limited atonement ~ and possibly the 'T' ~ total depravity ~ of 'TULIP'). However:
1. John Calvin was (certainly) not God, so his word is not inerrant or infallible as God's is.
2. Nor was John Calvin inspired by God, as Moses, the prophets, and the apostles (the writers of the Bible) were. And that's true of any mere man, in the past, present, or future (until Jesus comes back).
That's a somewhat long-winded way of saying, "Nobody's perfect." :)
But, to what you way, I am confident that Augustine and Calvin (and those that have come after) got it much more right ~ including the two instances that Enoch seems to be fixated on ~ than wrong, and certainly much more right than Pelagius (who argued with Augustine), Arminius (who argued with Calvin), and those Arminians (as opposed to Calvinists) that have come after.
Jesus, when He returns, will set everything to rights.
Grace and peace to all.
Last edited:
That's called "Calvin worship". I could show you another dozen contradictions from the "Great" John Calvin, and you would still worship at his altar. Even within his Institutes, he contradicted himself. Now had he kept his opinions to himself that would have been fine. But he influenced many many people to preach "another gospel", and that is a very serious matter.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)
1. Does the Bible reveal that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? Absolutely.
2. Does the Bible reveal that God will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth? Absolutely.
3. Does the Bible reveal that God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Absolutely.
4. Did Jesus say that if He was lifted up on the cross, He would draw all to Himself? Absolutely
5. Does "whosoever" means anyone and everyone regardless? Absolutely
But TULIP contradicts all of this and sets up "another gospel". And Reformed Theology (the Westminster Confession of Faith) tells us that God elects some for salvation and others for damnation. And that is a damnable doctrine.
i disagree 100%. Calvin was spot on, and his words were from the Bible. Im a presbyterian, we use both the Bible and WCF in both life and preaching.
Yet another for ignore.
Last edited:
LOL! No it's not, Enoch. I agree with Lifelong_sinner... well, close to 100%. Am I worshiping Lifelong_sinner? LOL! Of course not. That's silly, right?
And they (probably) would meet the same dead end as the ones you have cited. And hey, John Calvin was just a man. Great? No, not really, but the Lord has used him in great ways.
Nope. See above.
Absolutely not. As a Reformer, his chief goal was to redirect folks to true Biblical doctrine, and that he did. For many, anyway.
Yes, and John Calvin said and wrote exactly that, clarifying ~ correctly ~ that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the entirety of humanity. John Calvin was very clear on this point.
Yes, this is God's desire., and that's what Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:4, that "God our Savior... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But God's will is another matter, and it overrides His desire, chiefly for the purpose of upholding His perfect (like all His other attributes) and uncompromising justice and love. But you're using this... perhaps not to say this but the result is... God sometimes doesn't get what He wants, and really that there is something or someone out there more powerful than God, and you surely would reject that outright, as you should. Additionally, you are (inadvertently, I guess) taking a low view of God's holiness, justice, and love, as well as His sovereignty.
Absolutely. John Calvin is very clear on this.
Sure, all, in the sense that all that the Father has given Him, which He said explicitly in John 6:39. And the strong implication there is that the Father hasn't ~ didn't ~ give Him all men. To think otherwise is at least an inadvertent attempt to refute and possibly discredit Jesus, and I wouldn't advise that.
No, absolutely not, because in John 3:16, when John says "whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life ~ and in Romans 10:13, when Paul says "For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'” ~ both are referring directly to Joel 2:32, which, as I cited before, says:
"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls."
The 'whosoever' is obviously a subset of all men, and not all men ~ it is "all those among the survivors whom the LORD calls." Not everyone is called by the LORD. But there's Romans 8:29-30, where those who are predestined by the Lord and then called are also justified and ultimately glorified without fail. These are those whom the Lord foreknew, which is also obviously a subset of all men, because "those whom the Lord foreknew" gives the unmistakable implication that He did not foreknow everyone. Does God know everyone that He created? Well of course! But that's not the connotation of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29, it's far too... simple.
Nope. Just the ones that are wrong. :) See above.
Well, then I guess you are saying that Paul is damned (not to mention God Himself, ultimately speaking), because Paul was very clear in Romans 9 that, well, here are his words verbatim:
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:21-24)
In choosing to have mercy on some, God ~ implicitly, at least ~ makes the choice to not to have mercy/compassion on others. It's a hard truth, but truth it is.
Grace and peace to you.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,500
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Enoch, I appreciate your efforts, but there is a problem. You haven't fully quoted Calvin. You left out important parts which further explain his position and address the concerns and "contradictions" you charge him with.
Now in that, I don't necessarily agree with Calvin either, even when in proper context. But taking him out of context or not providing the full context is wrong.
Below is a link to what he really said in full context:
John Calvin: Commentary on John - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
In short, I don't disagree that he contradicted himself at times. His writing style is open to that. But they are much more minor than you charge.
I will not say that the Bible contradicts itself, but if I spliced the bible as you have Calvin's work (not saying they are comparable), I could bring up one liners that contradict each other.
Now, I have posted several times over the course of at least 5 years my thoughts on Calvin... Heck, probably closer to 10 years! Despite this, I never believed anyone really listened, understood or cared. Why would I again? Maybe this time it will sink in for at least ONE person! If I did and you still don't like the fella... I understand. I don't like him much myself even though I acknowledge him as a very learned and even blessed man. But there are a lot of ignorant beliefs about him, even in this thread.
im just curious, but why dont you like calvin, and do you prefer martin luther over calvin?
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,500
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Main reason is the Servetus incident. I have read many commentaries on it from both sides. The bottom line is that this man didn't have to die and Calvin could have prevented it. There are other minor things that lead me to believe he played both sides of the protestant/Catholic fence. That's a bit hypocritical, but not as noteworthy.
There are a few theological things I also disagree with him on as well. But there isn't a person on this board yet that I haven't disagreed with as well. So, it comes down to Servetus mostly.
If you are a fan of Calvin, rest assured I have plenty to praise him about. I am one of the rare people that has actually read some of his works (and he wrote a lot, so no... I haven't read all).
Do I prefer Luther over Calvin? No. I disagree with Luther on some things as well and admire him for other things. I consider them both important Men of God. They both had important things they brought out. They had their differences, they were in the same era and seemed to have a mutual appreciation for each other despite their differences.
So, bottom line... Servetus. Calvin did him wrong, when he (Calvin) had been just as strong against the Catholic doctrine as he (Servetus) was, but on different issues.
Similar threads
- Locked
