Who was it that Calvin killed for not agreeing with him?

Who was the man that John Calvin killed for not agreeing with him and why? Thanks for any information or links posted-

Krispy-just a curious question:

Why do you suggest that: " ..obviously Servetus was a heretic"-are you saying that because he denounced the trinity, or because you know a little bit more about this man and other of his doctrine?

To one extent, I know Servetus did NOT believe that Jesus was the "Eternal Son of God"-but he rather believed " Jesus was the Son of the Eternal God"-thus, I guess not believing that Jesus himself was Eternal-it would seen he believed in the trinity in which he denounced.

Thanks for your reply though :-)

Denying the trinity = heresy.

Krispy

Let me ask this, what if one does not believe in the trinity, but rather the Godhead-does that constitute heresy?

What if one denies the trinity but believes that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God?

I am just asking because I am curious in yours, or anyone else who would like to respond to those questions.

I, myself, believe totally wholeheartedly in the Eternal Godhead, however I do not accept, or believe in what is commonly referred to as the "trinity"

What should worrie the ones who dont belive Jesus was God in the flesh, is how could anyone else then God himself pay the price for sin?

If Jesus was not God manifested in flesh, we are all in trouble.....

KrispyKrittr wrote:

I, myself, believe totally wholeheartedly in the Eternal Godhead, however I do not accept, or believe in what is commonly referred to as the "trinity"

So then you believe Jesus is a God? In other words there are more than one God?

I am not the best person to explain the Trinity to you. I have a grasp of it all in my own heart and mind, but to put it into words is not my area of expertise. I think others might be better able to explain it.

What about John 1:1? [i]"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [b]was[/b] God."[/i]

Clearly in the 1st chapter of John it goes on in context to show that the "Word" is none other than Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 verse 1 declares clearly that Jesus [b]was[/b] God. Period.

In Matthew 1:23 it says: [i]"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name [b]Emmanuel[/b], which being interpreted is, [b]God with us[/b]."[/i]

And later on Jesus called himself by the name that the Jews understood from the time of Moses to be the name of God...

John 8:58 [i]"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, [b]I am."[/b][/i]

It was enough for them to charge Him with blasphemey... NOT because He claimed to be the Messiah... but because He claimed to [b]BE GOD[/b].

The religious rulers understood exactly what He was saying, and thats what riled them up so bad. If they merely understood Him to be claiming to be the Messiah, they would not have had Him killed. They would have dismissed Him as crazy. But while claiming to be the Messiah He claimed clearly to [b]be God[/b].

Therefore, we have no other choice but to believe in the Trinity. Just because our feeble minds can not possibly comprehend all that that entails doesnt mean it isnt true. There are some things we wont ever be able to understand.

And yes, I do believe that you may be in dangerous territory. I dont say that in a judgemental way at all... I say that out of concern. In order to be truly saved it is important that we have a clear understanding of who Christ is. We must put our faith in the Christ of the Bible, and no other Christ.

Krispy

I do not believe that Jesus Christ is " A" God- I believe Jesus Christ is GOD-even as you quoted, and even as John 1:1 says.

I was never saying I didn't believe Jesus to be God-I was saying the Holy Word of Scripture never refers to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost as a trinity-but rather the Godhead.

What I would like to say, even in reference to Matt 28:19-if Jesus is God (which he emphatically is), and the Father is God-therefore in Matt 28:19 The "NAME of the Father"-would be JESUS, even as the "NAME of the Son" and the "NAME of the Holy Ghost is JESUS-for there is only ONE GOD.

I meet people who verbally proclaim (and this is not directed to you personally, I am just making a general statement) that they believe Jesus is God, but then when it comes to Matt 28:19 and what is the "NAME of the Father"-they will say every name but Jesus. But if Jesus is the Father, then the Father's name is Jesus-and even these are the words of Christ in his prayer-John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

The name that Jesus, our Lord manifested unto them was in fact JESUS

The Holy Word itself defines the Blessed Union as the "Godhead"-not the trinity

Thus, I am simply saying the Eternal Godhead and the trinity are not one and the same teaching. doctrine

As I believe and understand, the term Trinity didn't come along until the time of the Catholic Church-in which to them Jesus was the second in the trinity-and even Mary who was not a part of that trinity held a position higher than Jesus-which is totally unscriptual in any and every degree.

It is Christ in whom we believe, it is Christ's name in whom we must be baptized-both water and Spirit.

Blazed, we have been through this I don't know haw many times...and you are not going to get us to "convert" to your Oneness theology this time either. You are plainly wrong and have been shown verse after verse by many brethren to prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate, distinct, coexistant, yet one God. They do not morph from one into another depending on how they reveal themselves.

I have never seen anyone interpret Matt. 28:19 the way you do. The Greek construction, which you have right but come up with an absurd interpretation, shows that the three are one. But they are NOT the same. The Father is NEVER referred to as Jesus, and neither is the Holy Ghost. Jesus did not talk to himself in prayer. Jesus did not shout down from heaven at his own baptism while also taking on the form of a dove and descend upon himself. You are turning Jesus into a comic strip superhero with out of body experiences. Your theology denies the incarnation because a man cannot do what you claim Jesus did.

One more thing, how can Jesus be the Father of Himself?

I do not wish to have any more discussion past this, unless you are honestly inquiring.

If I sound harsh, it is because I want you to realize that you are in deep with this theology of yours. You must understand the gravity here.

I love you, brother.

Someone please tell me, what is the name of the Father?

Just a simple answer to the direct question will suffice

Hi BlazedbyGod...

Someone please tell me, what is the name of the Father?

Just a simple answer to the direct question will suffice

The name "Jesus" was simply a name chosen on Earth. By whom? Mary and Joseph. The name "Jesus" (well, actually, "Yeshu" or "Yeshua") was a rather common name at the time. This is somewhat in keeping to the prophecy about the coming of our Lord in Isaiah (...about Him having nothing that would attract us to Him). Jesus was literally the "only begotten son" of the Father. How long was Jesus around and a seperate entity from the Father? At least since Creation. Jesus was actively involved in the Creation of this world (John 1:1-5; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 1:26).

So to approach this question in a simple, "matter of fact" manner is somewhat misleading. We know that Jesus is God. But is Jesus the Father? There is a clear distinction the book of John (chapters 15, 16 and 17) that He was not. We also realize this seperation in the Old Testament (such as found in Isaiah chapter 6).

:-)

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I AM.

And that ends this discussion.

Krispy

And is not Jesus Christ this Great " I AM"-yes or No?

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi BlazedbyGod...

Someone please tell me, what is the name of the Father?

Just a simple answer to the direct question will suffice

I'm not sure that a "simple answer" would actually suffice for such a question. Why? Because God has MANY NAMES. We could go from the divine name "YHWH" (and how it morphed with vowels into YeHoWaH --> Jehovah), to descriptive names ("El Shaddai, etc...), and then to the names that are more "titles" (King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, etc...).

The name "Jesus" was simply a name chosen on Earth. By whom? Mary and Joseph. The name "Jesus" (well, actually, "Yeshu" or "Yeshua") was a rather common name at the time. This is somewhat in keeping to the prophecy about the coming of our Lord in Isaiah (...about Him having nothing that would attract us to Him). Jesus was literally the "only begotten son" of the Father. How long was Jesus around and a seperate entity from the Father? At least since Creation. Jesus was actively involved in the Creation of this world (John 1:1-5; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 1:26).

So to approach this question in a simple, "matter of fact" manner is somewhat misleading. We know that Jesus is God. But is Jesus the Father? There is a clear distinction the book of John (chapters 15, 16 and 17) that He was not. We also realize this seperation in the Old Testament (such as found in Isaiah chapter 6).

:-)

ccchhhrrriiisss, what I meant by simple, was just that I wanted a direct answer-referring to a specific name or lists of names or titles. That is all I meant

I asked a simple question, even as I did before:

I asked " is not Jesus Christ this Great " I AM"?

That is not "baiting"-that is a question-are you the judge of my intent through reading on the internet? You have judged me in saying " that IS MY MOTIVE (intent).

I asked a humble question, and it appears to me, the question I asked doesn't want to be answered because the answer is obvious.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The [b]everlasting FATHER[/b], The Prince of Peace.

KrispyKrittr wrote:
If you werent baiting and trying to swerve this thread away from the original question then you wouldnt have demanded five times that we answer you.

Thats what I am basing my perception of your motives on.

Someone else can pick up the bataan if they wish. I have nothing more to offer.

Krispy

No, my original question about Calvin, lead to this-because you said to deny the trinity was heresy-and I responded in short that I do not believe in the trinity but the Godhead as Scripture declares-it is from there that this came to be

But for you to say that this was my plan, or even purposeful intent to SWERVE into this, is a judgement.

I stood up for my beliefs, and I am beat down for it and accused of TRYING TO CONVERT people to MY theology-yet everone else can state their beliefs defend them and everything is peaches and cream-

Not to mention how many threads start out with a particular question or theme, but eventually go off into two or three other topics-I don't see anything different here.

Who is this who says this?

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

we all agree this would be Jesus right?

and who is this?

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

also this verse

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

its good to read all these three chapters in their entirety. But you have to be pretty "unwilling" not to see it.

Anyone truly interested in this should first read this article
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20001010110156/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr92/1992.02.MarApr/mr9202.msh.geneva.html]Was Geneva A Theocracy?[/url]

Here is an excerpt-
Was Geneva A Theocracy?
Michael S. Horton
©1992, 1999 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

From the first-hand accounts, Oxford's Gillian Lewis notes, "The city of Geneva possessed a significance which was symbolic and mythical. Her friends saw her as the mirror and model of true piety, a haven of refuge, a roosting-place for fledglings, a stronghold to train and dispatch abroad soldiers of the Gospel and ministers of the Word." And yet, there were enemies as well, enemies who saw Geneva as "Satan's sanctuary, a source of heresy, atheism, and libertinage and a centre for the active dissemination of sedition."1

Just as soon as Geneva embraced the Reformation officially and severed its loyalties to the bishop and Duke of Savoy, the city was flooded with refugees from all over Europe. Overnight Geneva became, after Wittenberg, Zurich, and Strasbourg, a capitol of the Protestant faith. Foreign visitors expressed amazement as they observed both the theological and practical attractions of the city.

Nevertheless, the impressions we received from our high school teachers, more than likely, had little in common with those reported by first-hand witnesses, friend or foe. Images abound of a tyrant in a black academic gown, organizing a sixteenth-century equivalent of the secret police to insure that no one, at any time or any place, was enjoying himself. The amazing thing about this is not the image itself, but the fact that it has survived in the public imagination even though it has been refuted by the consensus of the world's leading Renaissance and Reformation historians for over half a century. The foundation for this public myth is the assertion that Geneva was a theocracy and Calvin was its pope.

hmmhmm wrote:
Who is this who says this?

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

we all agree this would be Jesus right?

and who is this?

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

also this verse

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

its good to read all these three chapters in their entirety. But you have to be pretty "unwilling" not to see it.

hmmhmm I would agree

Krispy-if that was what you thought-all you had to do was simply ask me was that my motive or plan-to swerve or bait you into such a topic. However I would not post a Thread about Calvin, then purposefully switch or try to TRICK someone.

But I would also, if I am correct, I was one of the first people to agree with you pertaining to Bible translations-if I recall

During the period leading up to the Revival Conference several non-trinitarians started posting on SermonIndex, since then I've seen the forum content and quality take a dive. I'm not saying that there is a link, but I believe that this false doctrine is detracting from the forum's stated goal of fostering revival teaching in this generation.

Every major heresy and false religion in the past 1900 years has been associated with denying the full diety of Jesus Christ. As Krispy already pointed out, the most major schism between Mormonism, JW and Islam and traditional Christianity is the diety of Jesus.

If you are a Oneness Pentecostal, or a Unitarian, you are closer theologically to the Muslims than you are to the Baptists.

[b]If Jesus is not God, He cannot forgive sin, and if He cannot forgive sin, we all stand condemned[/b].

Compliments wrote:

Denying the trinity = heresy

I wholeheartily deny the trinity.

There is no such wording in the bible where it says, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit". And I am using the KJV I might add.

It does say, "God the Father of our LORD Jesus Christ", and also "Son of man", and "Son of God. Jesus even said, "I am", but the wording "God the Son" is not there.

But no where does it say, "God the holy Spirit".

It does say, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Nowhere does it say in the KJV that there are 3 "PERSONS" in the Godhead.

However it does say that, Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

I am NOT Oneness, nor Trinitarian, to me it's not a salvation issue.

Compliments, I can agree with all that you have said.

To me, rather even of greater importance-to Jesus Christ, it is a matter of salvation:

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 17:3 And this IS life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent

I might add, I am not oneness, I am not trinitarian...I am a Christian who believes wholeheartedly in 1 John 5:7 and that of Jesus Christ

I wholeheartily deny the trinity.

There is no such wording in the bible where it says, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit". And I am using the KJV I might add.

It does say, "God the Father of our LORD Jesus Christ", and also "Son of man", and "Son of God. Jesus even said, "I am", but the wording "God the Son" is not there.

But no where does it say, "God the holy Spirit".

It does say, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Nowhere does it say in the KJV that there are 3 "PERSONS" in the Godhead.

However it does say that, Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

I am NOT Oneness, nor Trinitarian, to me it's not a salvation issue.

anyways, i regard you as a brother and that is how i would like any posts we may have with each other to be saturated with the love of God.

ps, i could pm you if you would like that better.
just let me know.

phil

But no where does it say, "God the holy Spirit".

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, [b]why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost,[/b] and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? [b]thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.[/b]

What do you make of this?

Peter had no problem giving equal footing to the Spirit and to God. The Bible also refers to the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. If it is His Spirit, then how can it not be God? Unless you wish to deny the deity of Christ, and that is another problem altogether.

Christ also said that He would send Another like Himself, so again is Jesus God? Then One like Himself would be God too.

KrispyKrittr wrote:
[b]Deut 6:4-5[/b] [i]Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is [b]one LORD[/b]: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.[/i]

If you do not believe in the Trinity, but you believe that Jesus is God (or more accurately "a" God) then you are a polytheist... meaning you believe in multiple gods.

This is one reason why most Jews reject Christianity because in their minds they see us as worshipping 3 gods. The Holy Scriptures declare... there is only [b]one[/b] true God. Period. Yet Jesus made it clear that He was God, and even called Himself "I AM".

No, this is a heresy that is being promoted. Compliments, you know the love and friendship I have for you, but on this one we have to disagree because I think you are seriously wrong here. I'm sorry to say that, and it greives me, but it's true.

Krispy

Krispy, Jesus Christ is the God of Deut 6:4-5.

I never said I believe Jesus to be " A" God, I said I do believe him to be God-the Great I AM.

Jews, if I am not mistaken also totally reject the " trinity" teaching/doctrine because they have always known God to be ONE-the Holy ONE of Israel

However, the first century Church, in which the first members were Jews themselves, believed and knew that JESUS was the God of the Old Testament that taught and walked with them for 3 years.

In my writing, I was simply stating the Holy Scripture speaks of the " Godhead"-never the "trinity"-

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and [b]MAN'S DEVICE[/b].

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col 2:9 For [b]IN HIM[/b] (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

I might add, it says all the fullness of the Godhead bodily DWELLS [b]IN CHRIST[/b]

Not Christ the second in the trinity, or God the Son second in the trinity-but rather the Godhead dwelling bodily IN CHRIST

The Word says " Now the Lord IS THAT SPIRIT.."
2 Cor 3:17

The Lord in this verse, is Jesus Christ-and it says that he (Jesus) " IS THAT SPIRIT"-well what Spirit is that- the Holy Ghost.

Again, my sole belief is 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three ARE ONE.

John 1:1 ".....and the Word was God

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.... and then you deny it. There are three distinct persons here. The Father, The Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost. It couldnt any more clear here... there are three distinct persons.

1) there is one God.
2) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, but not seperated.(hence not 3 gods)
3) each are called God in scripture.

to eliminate any one of these three statements, in my opinion, is to plunge into error concerning the Godhead.

i hope this may help someone out. just my 2 cents.

phil

Benny Hinn says they are actually nine..... 3 x 3

sorry i could not help myself :-P

the starting of a new thread or looking into some old one would be good, the original topic seems lost

Hi everyone.

I would like to share some things with you all.

Have posted this before and think it is worth repeating,

Strong's defines the greek word translated heresies in Galatians chapter 5 this way:

G139
αἵρεσις
hairesis
hah'ee-res-is
From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

[i]a choice[/i]

Maybe we could fill this out more by saying: [i]a choice[/i] which leads to disunity.

I have this in my own mind as something(but perhaps not only this) a person contends for which is not clear or otherwise unmistakably set forth in scripture, which they contend for to the disunity of believers. At every point along the way the choice is made to press the issue, even perhaps forcing then others to take sides.

I have a sense of this also as a self-willed contending for of our own, personal, revelations, ideas, or interpretations of scripture. This is why I think it is called a work of the flesh.

All of this could be avoided if we would never open our mouths to begin with on some things. Or if, when we do, and others reject our ideas, we leave it at that.

Unless we have clear direction from God that we are to contend for the thing, why then do it?

Take for instance the word trinity. Men, at some point insisted on this word to define the Godhead. And now, even though no Apostolic writer ever used the word, men are called heretics if they do not adopt it, or assent either to the defining of [i]persons in the godhead[/i] though no Apostolic writer used the phrase either.

But God sees clearly.

Chris

May I add here, that if that definition of heresy is acceptable, then this work of the flesh is ubiquitous in our day?

Men, in very short lives, are willing to write and say and speak more volumes than even God has in the whole of the Bible over centuries and centuries. And willing, not to just present their ideas, but to state them with bold confidence. Even going beyond what God Himself has said. As though they see all things, or that thing, clearly, and absolutely.

Hello,

I have heard someone that denied the deity of Jesus arguing that Christ is nowhere called God in the scriptures.
That is not true.

In Hebrews 1 vers 8 and 9 - this is talking about Jesus - we read:

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here, The Son (Jesus) is called God AND there is a distinction made between Jesus and the Father in vers 9.

Daniel

I would just like to add, personally one of my favorite verses of Scripture in the Holy Word-pertaining to Jesus BEING the Father, or let me also say it like this: Jesus being IN THE FATHER, but the FATHER ALSO BEING IN THE SON.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM, AND HAVE SEEN HIM. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him,[b]Have I been so long time with you[/b] , and yet hast thou not KNOWN ME, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, AND THE FATHER IN ME: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Jesus initial reply was : Have [b][size=large]I[/size][/b] been so long with you and yet thou hast NOT KNOW ME-when Philip asked TO SEE [b]THE FATHER[/b]

One thing I think people often don't pay to much attention to is the fact that the Father is IN JESUS as well as Jesus IN the Father.

Even in Revelation, it is John who testifies:

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [b]ONE[/b] sat on the throne.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Now this "ONE" on the the throne is definiely JESUS-but this brings into Light something so clear-if JESUS is the "ONE" on the throne, how is he also " seated at right hand of God"-and how come John nowhere ever in Revelation says he sees someone " seated at the hand of God"- He sees the throne itself and the "ONE" seated on it-but never says he sees someone seated next to the "ONE" on the throne at his right hand.

This is even because Jesus is in the Father, and the Father in him-so even when scripture says " he is seated at the right hand of God" we must understand that the Father is STILL IN HIM even while seated at his right hand-because " I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE" not one in union only, but ONE in totality, ONE in being.

And that the ONLY time they have ever been separate was when Jesus became sin and was forsaken of the Father.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these are one.

Why does it make reference to the " Word" and not the Son specifically-though, Jesus is the Word, and John 1:1 says "...and the Word was God"

Is not the Father & the Word-God
1 John 5:7 And there are 3 that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word.....-are not both the Father & the Word the same exact literal person?

The Father is God
The Word is God; & the Word is JESUS; that was made Flesh, which was the Father-because the Father is God that the Word became in Flesh-JESUS CHRIST

JESUS Christ, the Great " I AM"-God manifested in the flesh

Although he would confess his lack of understanding of the tri-unity, trinity, Jonathan Edwards view of the Godhead is exhilerating:
"The Godhead being thus begotten by God's loving an idea of Himself and shewing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other, for their love and joy is mutual, (Prov. 8:30) "I was daily His delight rejoicing always before Him." This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the Divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will."

Both the monist and the modalist are in error. Both are heretical in light of orthodox teaching whether Calvinist or Arminian. The trinity is a mystery, and fallen men hate mystery. We want all the answers. If what Christian scholars have investigated and taught through the ages leaves a mystery open, there are always those who will wish to shut the door on that mystery. Such it is with the liberal renouncing of the virgin birth. Such it is with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hi again all,

I think what davyman shared is illustrative of this: that even though men admitt the mystery of God's Divine nature and being, they are willing to spend great efforts and pour out many words trying to explain it.

Who asked us to do that? God?

The Apostolic writers, whose writtings are accepted as God breathed, they wrote very little. But men who make no claims to such inspiration write volumes.

Php 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Original question:
Who was the man that John Calvin killed for not agreeing with him and why? Thanks for any information or links posted-

This question has been answered but has quickly evolved into a doctrinal discussion concerning the trinity.

Now my question to you all is, does denying the doctrine of the Trinity justify any one in having that person killed? This is what John Calvin was instrumental in doing...

ginnyrose

ginnyrose wrote:
Original question:
Who was the man that John Calvin killed for not agreeing with him and why? Thanks for any information or links posted-

This question has been answered but has quickly evolved into a doctrinal discussion concerning the trinity.

Now my question to you all is, does denying the doctrine of the Trinity justify any one in having that person killed? This is what John Calvin was instrumental in doing...

ginnyrose

The question has been answered but somewhat wrongly. Calvin did not have Servetus killed. His role was to present evidence of Servetus' heresy. Calvin did so so well that the libertines and patriots on the Genevese Council found Sevetus guilty (along with letters of charges from 4 other cities). Calvin pleaded with Servetus to recant, but Servetus felt his chances were better in Geneva than Lyons, which had requested extradiction. The council found Servetus guilty and ordered his execution by burning. Calvin asked that Servetus be put to death more humanely, by beheading. The council refused.

This is a great link concerning the Servetus trial:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm.

Katy-did wrote:

Now my question to you all is, does denying the doctrine of the Trinity justify any one in having that person killed? This is what John Calvin was instrumental in doing...

John Calvin was KING of Geneva, also known as the Protestant Pope, made himself GOD in deciding who lived and who died.

One interesting thing about the reformation was the FREEDOM of religion, however Calvin missed the point completely, and was as guilty as the Catholic Church for playing God.

Violent religions kill in the name of their god, however We do not.

That is really the bottom line. Calvin was a heretic just on that principle alone.

But, as we see religion in politics, beware of those who would mandate your righteousness apart from your very personal relationship with the Lord....going on witch hunts as the Puritan Calvinists did when they came over here. Much has come out since then, and much of that was to control land, much of which belonged to women who's fathers or husbands died. Or just plain disputes having to do with control.

Jesus said, My Kingdom is not of this world....and Calvin having missed the mark of True Christianity all the way around, thought the fruit he was to bear was grown out of the dirt of teh earth....cain. ...Rather then the Fruit of the Spirit....that never kills under any circumstances.

This spirit is the spirit of anti-christ, as many believe the stronghold of the Pope has over the Catholic Church.

We (Christians) believe in the individual Priesthood of the Believer, and our High Priest is Jesus Christ Himself.

Pastors are to be examples to the flock....not lord it over the flock.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did :-)

As I posted earlier, Calvin was not involved in the civil affairs of Geneva. He did not exercise his will over the council, in fact the council was hostile toward him in many things. He did not have Servetus killed, he presented strong evidence of Servetus' heresy; among his many false teachings was his denial of the triune nature of God. Calvin's own power as pastor of the church in Geneva was restricted to excommunication, (by the way, I feel would have been the proper response to Servetus) which could be overturned by the council.

Calvin tolerated Lutherans, Anabaptists (which he thought were heretics), and even Catholics. He was not opposed to free religion. He felt Servetus was a "murderer of souls," and deserving of his punishment. I disagree with the death sentence for heresy, but I don't live in 1534.

davyman wrote:

Calvin asked that Servetus be put to death more humanely, by beheading. The council refused.

So Calvin did not actually [i][b]kill[/b][/i] Sevetus but he sure did not work to prevent it. Not a whole lot of difference, do you think? I do not see the mind of Jesus operating in this man...do you? Can you imagine [i][b]any[/b][/i]
of the apostles acting like this?

ginnyrose

Yes I can: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Luke 9:54.

Yes I can: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Luke 9:54.

Yes, and what did Jesus say? Mind quoting Jesus response?

ginnyrose

Ginny,
You originally asked "Can you imagine any of the apostles acting this way?" They acted exactly this way. Jesus rebuked them, I don't dispute that in any way. But the zeal that had heretics burned at the stake in the 1500's was the same zeal the apostles felt.

Again, I don't offer an argument for the actions of 16th century Christians; burning was a horrid act. Calvin approved of Servetus' execution, he was wrong. But the error of historical revisionism needs to be put right. Calvin was not the "Pope of Geneva." He abhorred the Pope's power. He could have had magisterial as well as pastoral power but he refused it.

I hope you don't think I'm picking a fight. I respect every opinion within the pale of orthodoxy. I am reformed in my own theology and find much good in the writings of Calvin, Luther Knox and the puritans. However, I respect Arminians like CS Lewis and Wesley.

In His love,

Dave

You know katy, it's a wonder the Church has continued on without your wondrous critique of perhaps one of God's more gifted saints. How did they ever get on without your warning of heresy?

It is funny because you condemn Calvin for murder, but then go about "murdering" him here with your words.

What you are saying is nothing more than pure arrogance, and ignorance of Historical facts. Perhaps if you would take time to read some Historical writings about Geneva at the time, you would see that it was Calvin who begged for the Council to spare Servetus, or at least have a less sever death. It is because of their hatred towards Calvin that they killed Servetus in the manner in which they did.

To call Calvin a Protestant Pope is nothing more than to parrot words that have been spoke over and over again by those who cannot disprove the doctrine, have not read Calvin, and generally speak out of hatred for the man.

Go read the Institutes of Christian Living(both volumes) and then come back and tell us how ungodly Calvin was. Read his commentaries, and his masterful exegesis of the original languages(Hebrew,Latin,and Greek)of the documents, and manuscripts he had.

Better yet, read his writings on piety, and you will find a man whose heart yearned for the things of Christ.

I am not writing this to simply defend Calvin, but rather to expose the faulty knee jerk reaction to things we do not understand. "Love is patient..."

It is this attitude and hatred of all things orthodox that has kept me away for some time. Good to see things have not changed.

Merry Christmas, and blessed advent.

Katy,

I only quoted that verse to show that the apostles were capable of wrongly condemning just as Calvin was. I don't have any argument with you. Are we capable of wrong actions whether we are filled with the Holy Spirit or not? Certainly. We continue to submit to our sinful nature, however we are redeemed. Let me reiterate, Calvin and the council of Geneva were wrong in burning Servatus. I only wanted to set the record straight that Calvin neither burned nor commanded the burning of Servatus. He is culpable because he approved of it.

The apostles were fallible men. They didn't walk around with halos on their heads. Peter was rebuked by Paul for his error on circumcision, for example. Paul expressed his own bitterness about John-Mark and parted company with Barnabas over it.

What is astounding is that God used these men to give us His infallable Word.

The verse I originally quoted was Luke 9:54 "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?"

Again, it is not my intention to say that the apostles were guilty of burning men at the stake. But burning a village was in their hearts. Jesus rightly castigated them "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" (v.55). Their zeal was not for the things of God, rather it was pride of their own position.

Instead of arguing whether they were filled with the Spirit at this time, I prefer to look into my own heart and ask whether my zeal is for the Lord or for my own theological position. Am I glorifying God or am I justifying my own position to look good?

As for the Puritans, there are no finer writing in all of Protestantism than those of John Owen, John Bunyon, Richard Baxter, and William Bridge, to name a few. They were not the dour legalists that they are made out to be.

The stand they took on Christmas is understandable. It was one of those pendulum swings that occur to correct the error that was prevalent in their day. I have considered something that Whitefield wrote about our coming home from receiving the Lord's table and then partaking in frivolous activities. It makes me think when I get home from church as quickly as I can to turn on the football game. What did the communion service really mean to me? How did it change my life for even an hour?

So, I'm not going to pick up a stone to throw at Calvin. He was wrong, but had you or I been in his position living at his time, what would we have done. It is only by God's grace that I don't have to answer that one at judgment day.

roaringlamb wrote:
You know katy, it's a wonder the Church has continued on without your wondrous critique of perhaps one of God's more gifted saints. How did they ever get on without your warning of heresy?

It is funny because you condemn Calvin for murder, but then go about "murdering" him here with your words.

What you are saying is nothing more than pure arrogance, and ignorance of Historical facts. Perhaps if you would take time to read some Historical writings about Geneva at the time, you would see that it was Calvin who begged for the Council to spare Servetus, or at least have a less sever death. It is because of their hatred towards Calvin that they killed Servetus in the manner in which they did.

To call Calvin a Protestant Pope is nothing more than to parrot words that have been spoke over and over again by those who cannot disprove the doctrine, have not read Calvin, and generally speak out of hatred for the man.

Go read the Institutes of Christian Living(both volumes) and then come back and tell us how ungodly Calvin was. Read his commentaries, and his masterful exegesis of the original languages(Hebrew,Latin,and Greek)of the documents, and manuscripts he had.

Better yet, read his writings on piety, and you will find a man whose heart yearned for the things of Christ.

I am not writing this to simply defend Calvin, but rather to expose the faulty knee jerk reaction to things we do not understand. "Love is patient..."

It is this attitude and hatred of all things orthodox that has kept me away for some time. Good to see things have not changed.

Merry Christmas, and blessed advent.

Amen.

Katy-did wrote:

Calvinism is not just about whether one believes in the trinity, but Calvinism itself, Predestination Election, that God picked out only certain people to save, limiting His atonement, denying John 3:16......and this was Calvin's legacy.

From Calvin's Commentary:

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin,
(Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

SDG,

Dave

You know Puritan Calvinists settled in Massachutes. What many people may not know is the following...and the connection between that big Seeing Eye seen in many Calvinist Churches ( also Mormons) as well as connected to Masons.

Now before you go comparing Calvinists to Mormons, please consider who Joseph Smith copied when speaking of his "conversion". It was none other than Charles G. Finney. It is also well documented that the area in New York in which Finney spent most of his time came to be known as the "burned over" district because people were burnt out from religion, because they could not do or be good enough, so they gave up.

From this area came two key groups which we know of today as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons.

The Calvinists were the one ones warning people of Finney and his departure from Historical Christan doctrine, and his blatant heresy regarding justification and original sin.

Have there been some weird people who took upon themselves the name Calvinist? Sure, just as there are weirdos who say they belong to any other group religious or secular. Only one who wants to pre-judge, or one who has an agenda looks at the fringe people as representing the whole, and then speaks from lack of knowledge, ending up looking foolish rather than having any credibility.

So, please stop broad brushing all who are of the Reformed or Calvinist faith, because we believe in Christ, and share His blessings as you do, and even worse, you are defaming your own family.

Those who use the name of Christian to further their political agendas should rarely be taken as serious regarding their doctrine as one of them must be compromised.

Calvin fought diligently for a separation of Church and State as the Government of Geneva could at that time determine who was allowed communion, and who was not. Calvin saw this as the sole business of the Church, and worked diligently to make it happen.

I should also like to say that if Calvin had not in Geneva, there is a good possibility that the English Bible may have been seriously delayed in its appearance as men like Calvin, and John Knox worked to translate the Bible into English, and also comment upon the test to help lay people learn what was being said in the text. This was of course the Geneva Bible, which if you read the notes definitely lashes out at a Monarchical rule of the Church, and thus King James banned it, and has his own translation done.

roaringlamb wrote:

You know Puritan Calvinists settled in Massachutes. What many people may not know is the following...and the connection between that big Seeing Eye seen in many Calvinist Churches ( also Mormons) as well as connected to Masons.

Now before you go comparing Calvinists to Mormons, please consider who Joseph Smith copied when speaking of his "conversion". It was none other than Charles G. Finney. It is also well documented that the area in New York in which Finney spent most of his time came to be known as the "burned over" district because people were burnt out from religion, because they could not do or be good enough, so they gave up.

From this area came two key groups which we know of today as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons.

The Calvinists were the one ones warning people of Finney and his departure from Historical Christan doctrine, and his blatant heresy regarding justification and original sin.

]

Roaringlamb.

Would you mind, whether in this thread or a PM, share with me this information that you speak of regarding Charles Finney? I am just curious as this is not the first time I have heard such things pertaining to him and his ministry

Brother I can give you this link, and Lord willing I will get you more info later.

[url=http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/civilwar/01/burned.html]Burned Over District[/url]

Here is a very good article on Finney-

[url=http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/horton.htm]Charles Finney[/url]

Here's a quote from this article: " Thus, in Finney’s theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney’s Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney’s pragmatism: 'Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that ‘works’, and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume.'"
What more can be said of a man that denies the basic tenets of the Christian faith?

Please also consider this fine article by my friend Bob DeWaay: cicministry.org/commentary/issue53.htm

As to the "seeing eye" I have been in Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed Baptist and Reformed churches. I have never seen this symbol anywhere except on an upside-down dollar bill in the offering plate. As far as Masons go, I have have read sermon upon sermon by great Calvinists such as Spurgeon who opposed "the lodge."

Katy,

You said "Reformed anything is reformed Catholicism. Well, what about those who were never Catholic to begin with...do we need to be reformed? NO!"

I don't know exactly how to answer this. The CHURCH needed reforming, it had lost the basic doctrines of grace. Thus the reformation. The reformers gave us Protestantism; I assume you are as I am, a protestant. Yet we do not protest anymore. My church, and I hope your church, practices the five tenets of the reformation.
1. Salvation is by Christ alone.
2. Through His grace alone.
3. By faith alone.
4. Based on the Scripture alone.
5. To God alone is the glory.

I did need reforming. I was hell-bouunnd by my sin and Christ reformed me.

"Massachusetts was completely Politically controlled by the Puritans. If you didn't practice their faith in MA you were run out of the state." This and other information is posted as fact, yet I cannot find any reference to the puritans running anyone out of Mass. It may be, but I haven't read of it yet. Please share your sources.

"Many Calvinists are Masons, this is a fact." Again, show me your sources. I belong to a very large church that believes strongly the five points. My pastor and the whole of the elders are strongly against membership in any worldly lodge such as masonry. If such a member were to announce his membership to the church, he would be disciplined and probably removed from membership roles. I find writings like this:
"Freemasonry appealed to 18th century American Enlightenment thinkers for a number of reasons. First, the dwindling importance of Puritanism [Calvinism] in the colonies paved the way for intellectualism over spiritualism. Deism, a religious philosophy often associated with early American Freemasons, views God as a scientist who created universal laws but who does not interfere in the daily lives of individuals. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen are all thought to have had Deist beliefs. Freemasonry also supported the rational mind and the exchange of ideas, two cornerstones of the Enlightenment."

This article from secular educator, Susan Hyde, is typical.

"Joseph Smith came from a Puritan background and got many of His ideas from not only Calvinism, but Mason ritual."

From an LDS author "Joseph [Smith's] father, it appears, reacted against the strict discipline required by the contemporary religions of the day. . . He left the church and ended up not belonging to any church . . . there was a loosening of the strict bonds of contemporary Calvinism." I would say that he may have been influenced by masonry, but I haven't researched it.

I'm sorry but my research shows me that freemasonry is born out of enlightenment thinking, not reformation thinking. I should think that Calvin would have at least excommunicated Masons, probably worse.

I invite you to show me sources of your vitriol. I would humbly stand corrected.

SDG,

Dave

Hi everyone.

Katy-Did said

"Many Calvinists are Masons, this is a fact..."

What is the purpose of making this statement? To goad people into fighting with you?

Katy, when the Lord Jesus came into the house of Simon, what did he do to show his gratitude? Accuse the Lord Jesus in his heart of not being a prophet because a sinner was washing his feet.

Have you washed any feet since you've been here?

Christopher Joel Dandrow

Compliments wrote:

Forget about Calvin and Arminism is and just consider the word.

"Just consider the word."

I believe everyone is trying to do just that. The Word has both of these concepts in it, and if you separate them that is where you fall on either side.

God has truly done it all, but man is accountable to respond.

Man must receive, enter in, diligently seek, allow, walk, follow, believe, put on, put off........ect.

God has fully supplied, finished, promised, performed, it is freely given, granted, endowed, He has delivered, ransomed, won the victory......all has been accomplished by Him.."I will" the Lord says.

He will finish the work that He has started, but I am actively participating in allowing Him to finish it.

What a glorious thing!

In His amazing love,
Lowly

What I have heard

Yes, but I have heard that Jesus was not really who He claimed to be.

I have heard that the Bible contradicts itself.

I have heard that.......

The only way to speak with any authority on a subject is to study it. Do not just parrot phrases that you have heard, and then copy and paste them on here as a defense.

I will tell you that I had never read any of Calvin's writings prior to switching to what is nicknamed "Calvinism". I had read many lies about him though, and also many lies about Luther and Augustine.

Scripture is what drove me to surrender to God's sovereignty in all things, not man's words. But I have yet to find a point that does not agree with Scripture within Calvin's writings thus far.

roaringlamb wrote:

What I have heard

Yes, but I have heard that Jesus was not really who He claimed to be.

I have heard that the Bible contradicts itself.

I have heard that.......

The only way to speak with any authority on a subject is to study it. Do not just parrot phrases that you have heard, and then copy and paste them on here as a defense.

I will tell you that I had never read any of Calvin's writings prior to switching to what is nicknamed "Calvinism". I had read many lies about him though, and also many lies about Luther and Augustine.

Scripture is what drove me to surrender to God's sovereignty in all things, not man's words. But I have yet to find a point that does not agree with Scripture within Calvin's writings thus far.

Well put roaringlamb. Iwas reminded of Spurgeon's sermon "A Defense of Calvinism:"

Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul-when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man-that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment- I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

SDG,

Dave

Katy, you are relentless with accusations.

My question to you remains the same. Have you washed anyone's feet since you've been here?

Chris

Katy,

"No one is trying to cause a fight....but only trying to cause you to think....FACTS!"

I suppose Simon thought the accusations in his heart about the Lord Jesus were true.

Dear Katy-Did,

May God bless you in serving His people.

Chris