Atonement

No oxymoron

God is the First Cause of All that comes to pass, but is not the Author of Sin

But

John Calvin wrote:

“…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits. ” (John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11)
Appeal to authority fallacy.

BTW, for how long have you believed in the infallibility of John Calvin, fltom?
 
Appeal to authority fallacy.

BTW, for how long have you believed in the infallibility of John Calvin, fltom?
Nope

It is just a quote showing what a Calvinist had taught

I am not trying to prove the point for I disagree with it

but apparently you do not understand what an appeal to authority is
 
Nope

It is just a quote showing what a Calvinist had taught

I am not trying to prove the point for I disagree with it

but apparently you do not understand what an appeal to authority is
Appeal to authority is one of your favorite fallacies, Tom.

BTW, for how long have you believed in the infallibility of John Calvin, Tom?
 
Appeal to authority is ine of your favorite fallacies, Tom.

BTW, for how long have you believed in the infallibility if John Calvin, Tom?
Again you show you do not know what you are talking about

 
Again you show you do not know what you are talking about

Appeal to authority is one of your favorite fallacies, Tom.

BTW, for how long have you believed in the infallibility if John Calvin, Tom?
 
It sounds like most of the Calvinists do not agree with the above from Calvin listening to them today on the issue .

Hello Johnny...
I remember when you used to post here (or mostly just "like" posts), and you seemed to like my posts a lot. And that's okay, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, isn't it nice that we can, and can still get along? I'm really trying to respect you, but you seem to be making it difficult. You seem to be trying to make it your goal to jump on the band-wagon and attack Calvinists. And I don't understand why.

First of all, you claim that you think "Calvinists do not agree with the above from Calvin", and I have no idea why you would assume that. How many Calvinists have said they disagree? In all probability many probably haven't even read it, since I know of a number of Calvinists who ignore that poster's posts (including me), and IMO for good reason. He refuses to discuss anything, he refuses to acknowledge that there may be a valid interpretation other than his own, and he simply goes around vomiting questionable quotes from secondary sources.

Second, I think it has been explained well in this forum already, if not to you personally, that "Calvinist" does NOT mean, "someone who believes whatever John Calvin taught". The term came from a Lutheran, and post-dated Calvin. Calvinists hold to "sola Scriptura", so we go on what the Bible teaches, not on what Calvin taught. Calvin was first generation non-Catholic, so I wouldn't even EXPECT him to have perfect doctrine in all things. (I don't believe I have perfect doctrine either, so I'm not claiming I'm better than anyone.)

Now for the quote.... I didn't even read it, because like all "quotes" that poster posts, he gets his material from anti-Reformed secondary sources, so even he doesn't know whether the quote is accurate or not, nor do I think he even cares. He simply wants to drum up quotes to make Calvinism look bad.

But the first thing I noticed in the quote were all the ellipses ("..."), which show when context is removed. Did you notice them all? So it appears to be (at least) three different sections of text, that the poster (probably the author of his secondary source web page) tried to put together. to try to change the meaning.

It turns out that I found a copy of the treatise on the "Monergism" website. But I searched the full treatise against the "quote", and although I used many different search phrases, I couldn't find ANY of them in Monergism's copy of the treatise. So what am I supposed to make of this quote, with all these "ellipses" in them, where context was removed, and I can't even confirm the accuracy of the quote?

And why should anyone care what Calvin believed?
You can condemn Calvin all you want.
But the BIBLE still teaches what the BIBLE teaches.

Your side attacks Calvin, attacks Luther, attacks Augustine.
Our side proclaims SCRIPTURE, and believes it.
 
It sounds like most of the Calvinists do not agree with the above from Calvin listening to them today on the issue .

Btw, if you're going to consider quotes brought in by Tom, and especially if you "like" them, I think the respectful thing to do would be to read the ENTIRE work, in context. I don't expect Tom to, but I hope you will.

So when Tom quotes from Augustine's "Treatise on Grace and Free Will", I would hope you read all of it.

(I would also recommend you read Augustine's "Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints", it's very good.)

So when Tom quotes from Calvin's "Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God", I would hope you read all of it.

Neither author wrote their work to be "proof-texted" and atomized. They weren't writing fortune cookies. Please respect them, as you would want others to respect your writings.
 
Thank you for clarifying things about Calvin . I guess I wrongly assumed Calvinists would agree with Calvin like Mormons would with Joseph Smith for example . I personally would not label myself a Calvinist if I disagreed with his teachings . But that is just my personal opinion on the subject .

Fair enough... But Mormons consider Smith a prophet of God.
We don't consider Calvin a prophet. We don't even consider him a leader. He is simply one of many Christians who I can gain godly wisdom from (eg. Edwards, Gill, Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, etc), but whom I don't consider the least bit infallible.

Concerning the title, yes, it would be better if "Calvinist" wasn't a term. But it is. And insofar as it is useful to convey PRECISELY what I believe, I think it is a somewhat useful term. But I prefer the term, "Reformed" myself.
 
Back
Top