Are most people here Calvinists?

[¤Laika¤]

I am just wondering...

I have seen a lot who are, and many whom I cannot tell yet. I have a lot of reading to do to catch up on many of these threads. But would you say that most people here are 5 point Calvinists?
I noticed that the rules include an "Anti-Arminian" clause. Why is this?
I don't ask this because I wish to preach Arminianism, I just wonder why that in particular is not allowed to be preached/discussed. If this is not allowed, how many other theological ideas are not allowed to be discussed? I would like to know, as I am NOT Calvinist, and do not wish to offend.

Thanks


†Laika

[Brandan Kraft]

I am the owner of 5solas.org, and I have propped this website up to promote the Biblical doctrines known as Calvinism. I don't mind if Arminians come here to learn and debate. What I don't want are people here with the sole purpose of trying to convert everyone to "free willism"...

Also, if you look around you will probably find the majority of the people here AREN'T Calvinists. We have a few atheists, and this place is teeming with Arminians, so you probably haven't looked hard enough.

So, yes, if you aren't a Calvinist, or a Christian for that matter, you are welcome to participate in the discussions.

[¤Laika¤]

Thank you kermie,

It is a great Board! Nicely done.

I'm glad I am welcome here. I am in fact a Christian, but not a Calvinist.

I have had a chance to look around a bit more and I see what you mean. There seems to be a very interesting mix here, which ought to make for some great discussions/debates.

Thanks again for welcoming all to the board. I was invited here by someone else who is somewhat new to the board, so I'm not sure how much I will post or if I'll stick around long...mostly just checking the place out.

¤Laika¤

[Andrew]

Hi Laika,

I'm not Calvinist and so have been labelled "3- or 4-pt Arminian" or something like that by kermie *LOL*

anyway, this is his site and he can pretty much do as he pleases.

But what i want to say is that i do not believe that any Christian should put a label on himself and hold on so strongly to it be it Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Baptist or some other label. Why?

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

If you notice in v12, it is even "wrong" to say "I follow Christ!" I say its wrong in terms of attitude -- ie saying it to separate yourself from the other brethren for whatever reasons. That's why Paul asked "Is Christ divided?" of course not. So if Christ is not divided why shld we grp ourselves under labels to "divide/distinguish" ourselves from other parts of Christ?

So i find it best/most neutral to just call anyone and everyone who loves the Lord as fellow Christian or brother or sister.

God bless

[Fledge]

Me, well...I consider myself sort of a "moderate calvinist" or "semi-calvinist".

I'm still learning and studying and searching.

Although I agree mostly with the calvinist point of view, there are a few arminian points that, well...maybe I don't agree with but can see where they are coming from and see their point on issues. Then again, there are one or two points of calvinism that I am not totally sold-out on. OR, perhaps I agree with them but not in exactly the same manner that many others do.

SO see...I'm confusing because I'm still learning and investigating matters.

[Christ_†_Alone]

I adhere to the doctrines of grace, only because He opened my eyes to them.

[jhamrick]

Hi Fledge,
I would have thought you to be a 5-pointer. Do you mind elaborating on what you have problems with? I'd just like to know, and it could spark good conversation.

[Fledge]

Well, see, the problem is that I am still digging in and learning. So, basically I'm not going to get into it deeply until all my thoughts are organized and I know what I am talking about.
It (Calvinism and arminianism and that whole course of study) is something I am really just recently beginning to study and look into in depth.

There are just some issues I am having difficulty with, and that's why I pose questions and arguments (not for arguing's sake, but sort of a "devil's advocate" point of view to help me learn).

SO, hopefully in the near future I will have more knowledge and more organized thoughts on the subject and can really actually discuss the topic in more detail, rather than just pose questions.

[VwV]

To bad the Catholics didn't get their hands on him, that's all I have to say.

[Fledge]

And what's that supposed to mean?

And, for some information for ya. My grandmother was Catholic, I grew up Episcopalian, my mother is now attending an Anglican church.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by VwV
To bad the Catholics didn't get their hands on him, that's all I have to say.

VwV, what did you mean by that? Just wonderin'

[Fledge]

VwV, a word to you.
As I have noted, I have been around catholics (and "variables" of catholics) all my life.

IF what you said was a statement concerning my search, my studying of the information concerning calvinism, and the fact that I don't know a LOT about it, and that I am learning and somwhat "undecided" at this point and therefore don't want to go spouting off about my beliefs...well then...what does catholics have to do with it?

Only thing I can think of is that your statement had somewhat of a "you don't know anything and will get pushed around by any wind of doctrine that comes your way" feel to it. Or possible something of a "poor guy, doesn't know what he believes" point behind it.

That's not the case at all. I am very set in my beliefs, but when I don't have full knowledge of a topic, before I make a decision I seek both sides of the coin, I seek a fuller understanding so I can make an intelligent decision.
I do know what I believe and why I believe it. I do have a pretty fair understanding of scripture, doctirne, and basic theology. I don't claim to know it all, I don't claim to be a major bible scholar. There ARE things that I haven't studied, there are topics I am not 100% familiar with, so I want to study them, I want to know.

Granted, your statement could well have just been lighthearted joking, and I can deal with that. But I would appreciate it if you made it a little more obvious next time.
If, by chance, it wasn't lighthearted joking, I simply don't appreciate the statement, as it seemed a poke at my personality.

Take it easy VwV.
In Him,
Sam

[VwV]

Considering the topic is about Calvinism, one could conclude that "him" would be Calvin. So Fledge, it has nothing to do with you.

So, yes, it is a pity that the Catholics didn't grab hold of John Calvin and kill him, like they did with many of the other reformers.

To choice to love something, we must have free will, if we are not here to love God.... bothersome... I have debated this retarded topic enough in my life, it's a waste of time... I'm sticking to the evolution thread...

[Brandan Kraft]

LOL, you do that VwV

[Christ_†_Alone]

wow... what a despicable statement:

"So, yes, it is a pity that the Catholics didn't grab hold of John Calvin and kill him, like they did with many of the other reformers"

I for one, am glad the hand of God moved Calvin to write and teach the things he did.

To wish him dead, in such a vile way, really smacks of pure hatred. I'm sorry you feel such hatred for a man of God.

[¤Laika¤]

On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies! Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine of "once saved, always saved" (known in certain circles as "the perseverance of the saints") violated the cry of the Reformation -- "Sola Scriptura" -- by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification. This event was something Calvin had considered long before Servetus was even captured, for Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying:



"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Evidently, in that day Calvin's authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate "weight." This is why some referred to Geneva as the "Rome of Protestantism" and to Calvin as the "Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva."


During Servetus' trial, Calvin wrote:



"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."
All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not well-known or very appealing, to say the least! Obviously, he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. Although Calvin consented to Servetus' request to be beheaded, he acquiesced to the mode of execution employed. But why did Calvin have a death wish for Servetus?




"To rescue Servetus from his heresies, Calvin replied with the latest edition of his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion,' which Servetus promptly returned with insulting marginal comments. Despite Servetus's [sic] pleas, Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material."

"Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities, Servetus escaped the death penalty by a prison break. Heading for Italy, Servetus unaccountably stopped at Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seized the day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin."

In the course of his flight from Vienne, Servetus stopped in Geneva and made the mistake of attending a sermon by Calvin. He was recognized and arrested after the service.

When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: 'Oh God, Oh God!' The thwarted Farel snapped at him: 'Have you nothing else to say?' This time Servetus replied to him: 'What else might I do, but speak of God!' Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...."

"Calvin had thus murdered his enemy, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented his crime [sic]. The next year he published a defence [sic] in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language."

**************************************************
Is it possible for a man such as John Calvin to have been a "great theologian" and at the same time to act in this reprehensible way and afterwards show no remorse? Do you have a heart that could, like John Calvin, burn another person at the stake?

**************************************************

Let us illustrate this another way. Suppose a man from your congregation with a reputation for being a spiritual leader captured your neighbor's dog, chained it to a stake, then used a small amount of green kindling to slowly burn the dog to death. What would you think of such a person, especially if he afterwards showed no remorse? Would you want him to interpret the Bible for you? To make the matter even worse for John Calvin, a person, unlike a dog, is created in the image of God! Like it or not, we can only conclude from this evidence that John Calvin's heart was darkened, and not enlightened, as a result of his murderous hate for Servetus. At best, Calvin was spiritually blinded by this hate and therefore, spiritually hindered from rightly dividing the word of truth. At worst, which was apparently the case, John Calvin himself was unsaved, according to Scripture:

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

"And you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding [continuing]* in him" (1 Jn. 3:15, NKJV).

*The Greek adds an important word to 1 Jn. 3:15 that is sometimes omitted in English translations. That word is "continuing" or "abiding" (NKJV) and states that murderous people don't have eternal life continuing in them.



Can you say Calvin did what was "right" regarding Servetus?


Can John Calvin be Scripturally justified for murdering Michael Servetus?


**************************************************

I guess VWV is not the only one with a bit of hatred eh?

[Christ_†_Alone]

Originally posted by ¤Laika¤
I guess VWV is not the only one with a bit of hatred eh?

Oh no, there is plenty of hatred to go around, no worries on the world runnining out of that resource.

FYI, here's a bit more info on the Calvin/Servetus affair...


Did Calvin Have Servetus Burned At The Stake?

There is one event which stands out in our minds concerning Calvin's leadership in the Genevan church, however, which deserves closer consideration: On October 25, 1553, the city council issued the decree that Michael Servetus be burned at the stake for heresy.

Did Calvin "have Servetus burned at the stake," as is the popular impression? The answer, clearly, is no! First, Calvin had corresponded with Servetus and there is some evidence to suggest that he had even tried to clandestinely meet with the anti-Trinitarian in order to try to convince him of his error. After escaping certain execution from Roman Catholic authorities in France and Vienna, Servetus arrived in Geneva and made himself known to Calvin in public. Servetus was arrested and, although Calvin was both a theologian and trained lawyer who had been employed by the city council to draft legislation concerning social welfare, city planning, sanitation, and the like, he was not the prosecuting attorney. Remember, he did not even have the rights of a common citizen!

Second, Calvin was at the height of his battles with the city council at this time. Had he, in fact, urged the execution of Servetus, that might have been just the thing to have saved the victim's life! When Servetus was given the option of facing trial in Vienna or Geneva, Servetus chose Geneva. For some reason, he must have thought his chances of survival were better in Geneva. However, the council, led by the anti-Calvin faction at this time, was determined to demonstrate that Geneva could be trusted as a reformed city committed to upholding the creeds and Servetus was sentenced to death by burning. Calvin pleaded with the council to execute Servetus in a more humane manner than the traditional ritual burning for heretics. But, of course, the city council refused Calvin's plea. Farel visited Calvin during the execution and was, reportedly, so disturbed that he left without even saying farewell.

During this same period, by the way, thirty-nine heretics were burned in Paris, the Inquisition was being enforced in Spain and Italy, and other parts of Europe. In spite of the fact that many sought refuge in Geneva who were less than orthodox, fleeing Catholic authorities, Servetus was the only heretic burned there during Calvin's distinguished career.

In fact, it must be noted that Jews were invited by the reformed cities to find safety from the Inquisition. The Puritan Cromwell was later to make England a safe haven for dissenters, even for those with whom he dissented, and especially for Jews. The same is true of The Netherlands and Strasbourg. It is no small wonder that when we think of human rights and international relations, these reformed (or once-reformed) capitols—Geneva, Strasbourg (home of the Int'l Institute of Human Rights, the European Parliament, and other relief and human rights agencies), Amsterdam, and London, find their way to the top of the list.

Will The Real Calvin Please Stand

The fact is, Calvin was a caring pastor who visited patients dying of the deadly and contagious plague in the newly organized hospital he had established, even though he was warned of the dangers of contact. He "not only risked his life," according to Dutch historian L. Penning, "but accomplished more for the patients by adopting sophisticated hygienic measures." He was the genius behind the establishment of the network of deacons who, according to Dr. Gillian Lewis, "took charge of the day-to-day care of the sick and impotent poor," giving the position "the dignity of being a part of the four-fold ministry of the church."It was he who urged the council to secure low-interest loans in banking for the poor but entrepreneurial exiles who had been trained in a craft through the training and employment agency which was the functioning diaconate.

It was Calvin who urged universal, free education to all inhabitants of the city, as Luther and the other reformers had done, and "from 1541 he always rose and went to bed with this thought uppermost in his mind: 'How can we give Geneva a University?." And it was his students who spread the gospel as well as proto-democratic ideals throughout the western world.

For the reformers in general and for Calvin in particular, Soli Deo Gloria (to God only be glory) was the design of life and good works were caring for one's neighbor, working for justice and right dealings, building churches, pubs, hospitals and universities for the honor of the Great King.

So here is our "tyrant of Geneva," whose ministry was first opposed, then summoned with repeated pleas, then frustrated, and finally held in high honor by the people he is supposed to have abused. Penning writes that, toward the end of his life, when Calvin was seen in the streets, citizens and "famous strangers" would say, "Look, there goes our Master Calvin!"' On March 10, 1564 the council decreed a day of prayer for Calvin's health and the reformer recovered for a time. On Easter, April 2, Calvin was carried to St. Peter's in his chair and after he received communion from Beza, his successor, the congregation began weeping.

The council which had years earlier determined the length of sermons in Geneva and opposed so much of his pastoral ministry voted to give Calvin a substantial financial gift, but the reformer refused to accept any money, since he could no longer fulfill the functions. On Saturday, May 27, Calvin died, aged fifty-five years. "When late at night the news of Calvin's death spread, there was much weeping in the town, as a nation weeps when it loses its benefactor," writes Penning. "Cannon Street was crowded with people; it became a pilgrimage to the Reformer's death-bed, and the Government had to take measures to prevent too great a pressure." The city, with its thousands of exiles, citizens, and foreign dignitaries, followed the procession. Calvin had insisted that he be placed in a simple pine box, buried in an unmarked grave. This surely was not the funeral of a despot.

Even the greatest heroes of the past have blemishes and have made decisions or statements which cause us, centuries later especially, to flinch and Calvin is no exception. But at a time when preachers, much less politicians and celebrities, appear to offer some less than heroic role models, the shy and reluctant man of Geneva seems to have weathered the disdain of those today, like those of his own day, who cannot understand what it is like to be possessed by a passion for God. Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities, told TIME Magazine, "Ours is not an age likely to produce great heroes." May today's Bible-believing heirs of the Reformation prove him wrong.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Michael Horton is the vice chairman of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and is a graduate of Biola University (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.A.R.) and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (Ph.D.). Some of the books Mike has written or edited include Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Made In America, Beyond Culture Wars, The Law of Perfect Freedom, Power Religion, Where In The World Is The Church, and most recently, In The Face of God: The Dangers and Delights of Spiritual Intimacy.
______________________________________

In all fairness to factual history, I think it's proper to present BOTH sides of this issue.

Calvin was a man, who loved the Lord. As a man, he made mistakes just as any other man would, as a believer, and teacher, he made an impact on the church, for the glory of God that FEW have made since.

There is indeed a hatred for John Calvin, what he taught, what he believed. I've often wondered if those who are so vocal IN their hatred of him, would be so sure of themselves if they would have had the chance to meet the man face to face, and have a conversation with him. Somehow, I doubt it. Even those who disagreed with the man AT the time, generally showed a great respect for the man, that we just don't see now days. That's a shame, but I guess it's just a sign of the times we live in.

Anyway... I'm done with this thread.

[¤Laika¤]

Thank you CA for that reply. It was well said, and very interesting.
I do not hate Calvin. I'm certainly not a "Calvinist". I prefer not to find my identity as a Christian in some man, whether he was a man of God or not. I do respect many things he taught, but I do not feel it represents orthodox, apostolic teaching. I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, with no fear of being burned at the stake for heresy. Thank God!

I was not trying to excuse VWV's words, but simply point out that none of us, including Calvin are blameless. I'm sure you would agree.

God bless †

[Nay Nay]

I am certainly not a Calvinist, but I used to wear Calvin Klines does that count?

[robert higgins]

I would have to say I am a 5 point calvinist altho I don't like labels. I fought it all the way when I was first saved tho. I am thankful to God every day that He has given me the grace to see that He is soverign and does as He pleases to the praise of His glory. Without this I would still think I chose Him first and He had to respond to my wishes.