Calvinism

It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 1

Julie Anne

*     *     *

ADMIN NOTE:  The comments are closed on this thread and a new one has opened here:

It’s Calvinism Free-For-All:  Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2 

The other record-breaking thread is getting really long with comments and so I thought it might be good to let Brian’s new comment have its own thread since it’s on one topic. I’m doing something I’ve never done before. We’re going to let this post be an open post on Calvinism. Many of the people I cover in abuse stories come from either Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist background. That’s not to say there are not abuse issues within Arminian churches (i.e., Calvary Chapel). I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are Calvinist who certainly are not abusive. In fact, they  defend the oppressed/abused. We have to be careful about those kinds of blanket statements. But there may be some truth to the idea that some doctrines may be a better “breeding” ground for abusive-type leaders.

So, in light of Brian’s comment below, let’s go for it. And okay, I give up . . . go ahead and spell out that “C” word if you want – LOL  🙂

*     *     *

origin_2041039779

*     *     *

Ed said: “Don’t call yourself a Calvinist if you don’t support everything about John Calvin.”

Ed, Calvinism and John Calvin are not synonymous, regardless of what you say.

Holding to the tenets of what is commonly called Calvinism does NOT equate to agreeing with everything Calvin did or taught.

I am curious…does anyone on here even know what they are talking about when they use the term “Calvinism”? I’d be interested to see some responses. What is Calvinism? You’ve all been railing against it, so I expect you can describe it without having to look it up. If you have to look it up, then why are you so against something about which you actually do not know the details?

*     *     *

1,143 thoughts on “It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 1”

  4. Dead men not only don’t wear plaid, but they don;t choose anything but death.

    “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-10 ESV)”

    “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5 ESV)”

    What incredible mercy and grace God has bestowed upon those that believe!

    Like

  6. JA: “You just proved my point.”

    Brian: What point is that?

    This point:

    Brian, it’s probably hard for you to consider that such heavy-handed parenting may push kids away from Jesus because of what I mentioned in my recent post of how the correlation with earthly father and Heavenly Father line up in a child’s mind. But that thought may be rubbish to you because you don’t believe anyone chooses God.

    Like

  7. As I have already commented, lots of people choose God. The difference is, you believe they do it on their own, while still in a dead spiritual state (which, according to Scripture, is impossible), and I believe they do it once they have been made alive, or born from above.

    Like

  8. As I have already commented, lots of people choose God. The difference is, you believe they do it on their own, while still in a dead spiritual state (which, according to Scripture, is impossible),

    You love to cry and whine about how everyone else is misrepresenting your position, while you do the exact same thing to non-Calvinist positions. The thing is that your arguments can’t hold up at all without you misrepresenting the opposition, because you can only think dualistically. Every single argument you trot out is based on logical fallacies, but all you can do is chirp “that’s what the BIble says, that’s what the BIble says”

    You’re nothing but a disingenuous hack.

    Like

  9. 5 point Calvinist, 5 point Arminian, or 10 point Calminianist — I don’t see any resolution to the debate coming any time soon.

    A trap we can all easily fall into is to define or describe other people’s beliefs in ways that those people themselves would never agree to. We all attempt to follow certain lines of reasoning to draw conclusions, but when dealing with what other people believe that we don’t, it is easy to ignore or set aside any nuances or caveats or denials that the other person would provide, especially when we attempt to show where they are wrong and where their beliefs could lead to error.

    For example, an Arminian will frequently say that Calvinism is anti-evangelistic because there is no reason to share the gospel if God has already chosen who will be saved (not matter how much a Calvinist objects to that characterization of their views), while a Calvinist will frequently say that Arminianism is a works-based salvation because the determining factor in salvation is an individual’s choice to believe, making the choice to believe of greater merit, and thus deserving of salvation, than the choice not to believe (no matter how much an Arminian objects to that characterization of their views). Each side can provide counter arguments to try to show why the other side’s statements about their views are not accurate, but neither side typically finds the other’s arguments persuasive.

    To me it makes more sense (and is more charitable) to accept what people say they believe, the way that they say they believe it, than to put words into their mouths or to say, “Well, if you believe A then you must believe B,” when the other person specifically states “I do not believe B.” Otherwise we are pitting our own logical arguments and reasoning capabilities against someone else’s and in essence saying, “If you were as smart as me, or as logical as me, or as reasonable as me, you would agree with my conclusions about what you believe.” To me that is simply arrogance and an unloving way to relate to others.

    Not that we shouldn’t use logic and reason or even that we should not sometimes conclude that the logic and reason of another is faulty and not biblically sound — just that we ought not characterize other people’s beliefs in ways that they themselves would not based on our own understanding. Rather than declaring that someone believes something that they claim not to believe, I think it would be far better to say, “If you believe A, doesn’t that also mean you believe B? I don’t understand how you could believe one and not the other; please help me understand” or “I don’t see how you can believe A without believing B — I know that if I could not believe one without the other.” If we just showed some charity and humility toward each other we might find that the One who unites us is far greater than the opinions that divide us.

    Like

  10. “Another common mistake we tend to make is that we will attack and judge and critique something based upon what someone has written rather than how what has been written actually gets fleshed out in real life.”

    Many of us have read voddie and are quite familiar with his teaching. You promote him. Your words sound like his. So what are we to ascertain? I have never understood this position. We are to discount your guru that YOU promote and your words and assume something else?

    With that in mind, perhaps wearing your kids out is not wise since they might also mean something else than what they say or do. :o)

    Like

  11. “People responding in that manner are thinking the worst of people like me (and Voddie Baucham and others), when they have NO clue what they are talking about.”

    Oh My goodness. The Voddie phenom has been blogged about for years. Again, I will share this ONE example of his creepiness from a while back:

    ” A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”

    http://rethinkingvisionforum.org/2011/08/14/voddie-baucham-on-fathers-and-daughters/

    Hello Voddie, the SIN is “yearning” for attention from a younger woman. Your daughter is not a surrogate mistress.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “Brian Thornton ‏@fivesolasguy 16h
    It saddens me to see so many professing Xians who’ve suffered bad experiences direct their energies in such wrong/anti-Jesus directions.”

    Code speak. Anti Jesus means Anti Calvinist. (See how it works, you are being subtly labeled a heretic if you don’t agree. You are “anti” Jesus.)

    I am around their code speak all the time.

    Like

  13. “As Spurgeon has said: “Don’t get too upset when others thing bad of you, for you are actually much worse than they think you to be.”

    Well, stop it. Being horrible or worse than what others think of you based upon your words and actions is nothing to be proud of. Why are so many Calvinists quick to make this the standard? How come they are not responsible for their behavior? This is really a trust issue.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “you don’t believe anyone chooses God”

    Not true. I believe that EVERYONE born from above chooses God (and by that term I mean repents and believes the gospel of Jesus Christ). I believe everyone born OF God chooses God. I believe everyone given by the Father to the Son chooses God. I believe everyone of Jesus’ sheep chooses God. I believe everyone appointed to eternal life chooses God. I believe everyone in whom God has removed the heart of stone and replaced with a heart of flesh chooses God. I believe everyone made alive by grace chooses God.
    ”

    Are you catching on to the contradictory code speak? Born OF God. “Given to the Father”……but yet it is “Not true” that Brian does not believe anyone chooses God.

    You really have to leave your brains at the door to follow this stuff. It requires a guru. And if you notice, he claims to understand 1 John and Hebrews 10 YET, his doctrinal stance is imputed righteousness which negates both and requires lots of contradiction. . Calvinists can only “practice” navel gazing, making dates with satan and preaching the gospel to themselves every day.

    That is why you never agree to the premise. You get sucked in. I believe that testimony Shannon linked us to shows exactly how this has happened with so many people who did not see it before they started following the gurus.

    Like

  15. “The thing is that your arguments can’t hold up at all without you misrepresenting the opposition, because you can only think dualistically. Every single argument you trot out is based on logical fallacies, but all you can do is chirp “that’s what the BIble says, that’s what the BIble says”

    Eric, Yes! this doctrine demands dualism, determinism and form over substance. All Greek philosophies brought in by Augustine and systematized by Calvin. It is why they baptized babies. The Baptist Calvinists simply said, Oh God is mean but not THAT mean!

    Like

  18. “If we just showed some charity and humility toward each other we might find that the One who unites us is far greater than the opinions that divide us.”

    You need to read some history of this doctrine and how it plays out. This doctrine teaches death and devalues human beings made in the image of God. It is false teaching that nice people get sucked into and end up supporting all kinds of evil. One example is Brian promoting Voddie Bacham. That is ONE example. What about all those decent people who got sucked in at SGM who were financially supporting the protection of molesters and did not even know it?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. All these conclusions about the evils of the doctrines of grace remind me of Monty Python’s witch scene:

    “If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s made of wood…and therefore…a WITCH!!!”

    Like

  21. Brian, you are typical YRR who thinks he can throw out one liners or bible verses and keep repeating his contradictions and everyone should fall in line or they are heretics (Anti Jesus). Not everyone is as easily influenced as you have been. And that is a problem for the YRR. They do well in their bubble of like thinking. Not so good with those who have studied on their own– guruless.

    I am strong on this because I have witnessed the destruction it is doing in many churches with all the deception and lording it over from young guys who think only they have truth. You still have not explained Piper, Dever, Mohler, TGC and all the other Calvin gurus supporting Mahaney and his methods at SGM. No, instead you go to be taught by Piper– never connecting dots. Why? Because you love your gurus more than Christ. Your false Doctrine of death is more important than actual people. That is a cult tactic- Doctrine over people. Calvin systematized it.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. “I pretty sure that if I said 2+2=4 right now you’d disagree and blame it on Voddie Baucham, SGM and Calvinism.”

    Brian, Proof you have no where else to go so you go ad hominem. I blame Voddie for his words and actions. I blame CJ and SGM for their words and actions. It is that simple.

    Like

  25. I think it’s really neat how, just after Jesus proclaims the truth that his sheep are the ones who hear his voice and receive eternal life, He travels to Bethany and calls Lazarus out of the tomb. A physical example of the spiritual truth Jesus has been teaching. Pretty cool.

    Like

  26. (Brian whispers…) – Here’s another little tidbit…shhh…this is on the downlow so keep it quiet…Brian and his wife home school (for almost 18 years now)…shhh…don’t tell anyone…

    Like

  27. Hi Lydia,
    I’ve read enough history to have heard exact same accusations leveled against both sides by the opposite side, with plenty of examples from history used to support the contention that the end result of the opposite side is ________ (fill in the blank with various evils).

    My opinion is that humans mess up and need grace and the behave in ways they shouldn’t, regardless of the supposed correctness or purity of their doctrine. Only by the power of the Holy Spirit are we able to have changed lives and become more like Jesus.

    I share many of your feelings and thoughts about the errors of Calvin and many of his followers, and about systems and beliefs that can lead to authoritarianism and abuse. My point is not to argue with you or dispute your personal beliefs. I just think it is neither fair not loving for any of us to categorically state that someone believes something that the person themselves deny believing just because we think that’s the logical conclusion of their beliefs. That is exactly what atheists do when arguing against Christianity and the Bible and I just believe Christians can and should be better than the world.

    Like

  30. At 12:00 PM Brian says, “This lines up with Hebrews where IT IS STATED that those who go on sinning wilfully after receiving a knowledge of the truth ARE NOT ACTUALLY SAVED.” (emphasis added). Once again, Brian twists Scripture. What it actually STATES is “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, THERE NO LONGER REMAINS A SACRIFICE FOR SINS.” (Hebrews 10:26, ESV, emphasis added). What Brian appears to me to have done is state his OPINION as to what Scripture MEANS as though it is what Scripture SAYS.

    I would suggest that what the Hebrews 10:26 passage MEANS is determined by what Scripture SAYS here:

    For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV).

    Well, we can argue on for another 1000 posts, and probably for another 1000 years, as to what it all MEANS. But the point, again, is that Brian has once more attempted to embellish his argument by claiming that Scripture SAYS one thing, when he is really only stating what he thinks it MEANS. And Brian was accusing ME of deception back on Aug 20 @ 9:52?

    Another deep, deep sigh.

    Like

  31. AnotherTom – Excellent comments.

    Brian – I’ve read “Jesus+Nothing = Everything.”

    Lydia – How dare you accuse another of making ad hominem statements when you write that Calvinists make dates with satan.

    Like

  32. As an attorney, I have worked with a variety of churches in matters of abuse, mis- or mal-feasance (missing money or unapproved expenditures benefitting leadership), and organizational documents, including constitutions and bylaws, including subsidiary organizations. In each case, I read up on the denomination in our extensive theological library, talk with older, long-time members about the beliefs of the church, both past and present, and write out my understanding of their actual, practicing theology, particularly as it relates to the issue on which I am providing advice and/or representation.

    Abuse is endemic in two types of congregations. One is the pastor-controlled church, typically patriarchal and authoritarian. Most often the abuse is an abuse of authority. This is the kind of abuse JA suffered in exactly this kind of church. In some instances, the abuse includes sexual abuse of a staff member, congregant or child, through the controlling power of the pastor or other person with authority. (Sex with someone under a person’s authority is abusive because the victim does not have independence to freely say no.)

    The second type of congregation is one where the theology allows leaders or counselors to downplay the significance to the victim of the abuse they have suffered, suggests that the victim is partially at fault for the abuse (due to sin nature, e.g.,), makes the abuse the result of God’s will or plan, and/or allows for easy repentance, forgiveness and restoration.

    This is not to say that abuse does not occur in other church contexts, but in the above, the statements and actions of the church through its leaders and/or members more frequently results in compounding the physical, sexual or psychological abuse with spiritual abuse of the victim, and may enable the abuser both in the first instance and to return to abusing even after an abuse has been discovered. And the victim is further harmed by the response of the church and its leadership to the discovery of abuse.

    An abuse victim should not be required to forgive the abuser and the abuser should not be restored within the congregation without significant counseling. There needs to be more steps in the process: full and complete confession; application of appropriate correction (e.g., reporting to civil authority, penance, loss of position, submission to counseling for an extended period (two years, weekly is appropriate); compensation to the victim for independent psychological or psychiatric treatment for as long as the victim chooses and compensation for other harm done e.g., replacement of income if appropriate); repentance; applying for forgiveness; allowing the victim, in their own time, to forgive if they choose; supervision of the abuser for an extended period with an accountability group of at least three persons. Restoration then may be possible with a unanimous recommendation of the abuser’s counselor and the accountability group, as well as the leadership (lay if a staff member is the abuser; staff is OK to be involved if the abuser is a lay member).

    Liked by 1 person

  33. I’ve read enough history to have heard exact same accusations leveled against both sides by the opposite side, with plenty of examples from history used to support the contention that the end result of the opposite side is ________ (fill in the blank with various evils). ”

    Another Tom, The “other side”. the Anabaptists were on the run and being burned, banished or imprisoned for disagreeing with the Reformers. There is not a lot from their side. Most of what we have is what the Reformers documented. And it is not pretty, “in the Name of God”. So not sure what accusations are you are speaking of being leveled by the opposite side. History is what it is and while there are nuances, we are well aware of the outworking’s of the determinist god and dualism and what it does to people. The examples are long and will break your heart. Yes, it was handcuffed with our Revolution by Deists who believed in Self Determinism.. Thank God. But the principles of censoring and authoritarianism are still there and we are seeing them implemented in many places. It is good to warn folks. Could save some molesters from being protected and more children molested.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. “Lydia – How dare you accuse another of making ad hominem statements when you write that Calvinists make dates with satan.”

    How dare you not recognize that this pre occupation of going deep with your past sin long after justification (even sins that were forgiven at justification!) is NOT making a date with Satan. It is sicko. What on earth do you people think the Holy Spirit is for?

    Like

  35. Oh and also, how is it NOT making a date with Satan to tell a victim of molestation they are just as big of sinners as the molester? That all sin is the same to God? That is making a date with Satan. It is also equating God with satan.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. “Free to anyone-for a limited time.”

    Seems one could make some spiritual parallels in that statement. ”

    Yeah, After that, McArthur gets to make bank on it.

    Sorry Brian, I did my McArthur time. Won’t go there anymore except to point out all the errors. I heard there is a whole blog dedicated to the spiritual abuse of that church. I have not visited it. But I believe it from reading Pyro for years.

    Like

  37. Lydia,
    Warn away. I still think it is wrong to put words into other people’s mouths that they would never say while in the process of contending for what we believe. We’ve all done it, but the end doesn’t justify the means. I believe there is a more excellent way.

    Like

  38. I am one among what is a growing movement in Christianity, a “red-letter Christian”, that is, one who puts the teachings of Jesus in the NT as primary and the balance of scripture to be interpreted in ways that result in meanings consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with the teachings of Jesus. Any apparent conflict is not resolved by reference to any theologian, past or present, but by interpreting the non-red-letter passage in such a way as to make it consistent with the red-letter passage. The focus is on Jesus, and not on the other teachers.
    I do not follow human beings, regardless of when or where they wrote or taught, or who has translated or interpreted their words. I follow Jesus.

    A clear warning again. There are many instances in Paul’s writings where he is stating a case in an argument and states a straw man or weak argument and works toward a stronger argument. Romans is a case in point. In addition, there is good reason to believe that our current 1st and 2nd Corinthians were originally three or four separate letters that were strung together before the canon was adopted. So much of those books are already out of context.

    Proof texting, which is what I see from those advocating strong 5-point Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism, is extremely dangerous when we do not have the original manuscripts, have difference of opinion as to the proper translation of key words, have little understanding of the cultural meanings of words in the time, and use our puny intellects to convert all of those writings into a set of rules for how we should live, which is exactly contrary to Jesus’ teaching.

    Like

  39. Wait, wait! “Brian and his wife home schooled (for almost 18 years now).” Come on Brian, can we accept that at face value, or are you embellishing the truth by including the time your and your wife were home schooled by your own parents? Or maybe you have only been schooling for 9 years, but that adds up to 18 years since there are 2 of you?

    To tell you the truth, Brian, given your history of embellishment and posting uncredited copyrighted material, the only reason I would accept your statement that 2 + 2 = 4 is that I have already independently verified the truth of that statement.

    No, once somebody has proved themselves to be less that forthright and above board, I take whatever they say with a grain of salt unless and until I have made independent verification.

    Besides, in my opinion, you have not come across here as somebody who is old enough to have been homeschooling their own children for 18 years, either consecutively or cumulatively.

    Like

  40. Brian wrote~

    “Anyone on here read Jesus + Nothing = Everything?”

    No…but I did read this –

    “The thesis of J+N=E is that the only thing required for your sanctification is to think more about what Jesus has done. That’s it. Jesus, plus Nothing, equals Everything for your sanctification.

    But I don’t buy that approach to sanctification. I appreciate that Tchividjian clearly described what train he was on, and shows how it gets to his destination, but at the end of the day, I did not buy the ticket, and I’m not taking the ride. I believe that in Christ we are supposed to fight, labor, battle, walk, and work—and that all these efforts are more than looking back to Christ, but they are the active obedience to the commands of Scripture. I believe salvation is monergistic (it is only God’s work), but that sanctification is synergistic, and that God will reward me for how I do my work. This is an actual theological disagreement with J+N=E, and it affects the core message of the book, so in that respect I read the book entirely though that lens.”

    http://thecripplegate.com/is-jesus-plus-nothing-a-formula-for-sanctification/

    Like

  41. “Warn away. I still think it is wrong to put words into other people’s mouths that they would never say while in the process of contending for what we believe. We’ve all done it, but the end doesn’t justify the means. I believe there is a more excellent way.”

    Maybe you can accept total contradiction in doctrinal beliefs. Contradictions that make God a moral monster. I cannot. I have seen way too many people hurt by this and too many rabid athiests coming out of this movement. In fact, my experience with this movement is vast and I can tell you they say one thing and when you say the exact same thing back to them they say they did not mean it or they never said that. In fact, a funny thing years ago one blogger put quotes up by famous Calvinists and the Calvinists were claiming they were wrong. When they found out it was guys like Piper,etc, of course we did not understand them or they edited their quotes, etc.

    They rarely question or analyze what their guru’s teach. They have been taught what they believe is authority of scripture. They do not understand they are promoting Greek philosophy of determinism and dualism. It is a culture of death. Of devaluing humans and eschewing any responsibility for sin.

    It is very much the SOP procedure of that movement. They redefine concepts and words. They speak in code. I have come to believe that once they get away from their bubble and their gurus it becomes confusing so they become automans repeating what they have been told and using coercion, shame, and insults that people are “anti Jesus”. There is your “end” I am not talking about “ends” but process.

    I always stand up to bullies. And they ARE bullies. I have seen them wreck havoc in too many churches following the Quiet Revolution method of deception sanctioned by guys like Al Mohler and Mark Dever.

    Like

  42. ” I did not buy the ticket, and I’m not taking the ride. I believe that in Christ we are supposed to fight, labor, battle, walk, and work—and that all these efforts are more than looking back to Christ, but they are the active obedience to the commands of Scripture. I believe salvation is monergistic (it is only God’s work), but that sanctification is synergistic, and that God will reward me for how I do my work. ”

    Excellent Diane!

    Like

  43. I am a Calvinist. I do not make dates with Satan.

    Mahaney and his like are parodies of Calvinists. Mahaney and his like are the way they are because of deep-seated sin. Mahaney and his like are no more representative of Calvinism than are Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart of non-Calvinism.

    Calvin wrote that the first thing to remember about Christian freedom is that the believer has gone past all law-righteousness. But that doesn’t matter, because everything that Calvin did was bad, right?

    What about the enormous number of Calvinists who have been evangelists and missionaries? I guess they were all really Satan worshipers and child molesters.

    Talk about dualism! Calvinists = bad. Non-Calvinists = good.

    Like

  44. Jeff, it is more than Mahaney. Dever, Piper, Mohler, Ortlund, Truman, Bridges, the TGC and many others agree with Mahaney about all sin being the same, dualism and determinism.

    In fact, they are closer to Calvin in the basics than the benign frozen chosen who pretty much went social justice liberals. This resurgence of Calvinism is truer to the Institutes save infant baptism than any movement since the Puritans. And they love the Puritans, too. They love their church discipline.

    It is a dark religion.

    Like

  45. Brian said~

    “Oh and, by the way (Brian whispers…) – I don’t agree with everything Voddie Bauchamn teaches or says. Shhh…don’t tell anyone…”

    Oh, we already know that, Brian. Don’t agree with everything. Got it. What was it you wrote after you wrote that you were a “huge supporter” of SGM’s ….music? BTW- were you a huge supporter of Mahaney’s sermons as well as their music pre-abuse scandal? You indicated you could not currently listen to his sermons. Did you listen before? You don’t have to answer. You wrote on August 11th-

    “I was a huge SGM supporter until I learned of this scandal. Honestly, I cannot currently listen to Mahaney because of what has happened under his watch. I do not know what his current position is on how people should handle issues (such as sexual abuse) within the church, so I don’t know that I can say people should run from him at this time. But I will say that I would have a hard time sitting under him right now.”

    Then on August 19th you wrote~

    “I have been waiting for you to do that…first what it was that made you a “huge supporter” of SGM and what it is that you find desirable about Baucham.”

    I really like SGM’s music.

    I really like Voddie’s promotion of adoption, most of his home school views, his teachings on the importance of family worship, and how he stands by his convictions.”

    Realizing that you don’t agree with everything Baycham says or teaches, can you tell us if you agree with what I asked you at 11:48 this am:
    “Brian, would you let Baucham make your child obey by standing there until you did?”

    Like

  46. “What about the enormous number of Calvinists who have been evangelists and missionaries? I guess they were all really Satan worshipers and child molesters.”

    If they were spreading Calvinism then they weren’t really missionaries for Christ at all. The great “Boyce” one of the founding fathers of the SBC/SBTS said that slavery was good and one reason was because they were forced to be disciple. He went on to be a chaplain in the Confederate Army. He was right up there with Dabney, the Presbyterian who loved and defended slavery in the Name of God. The minority who owned slaves in the South were overwhelmingly Calvinistic.

    So I am not sure what the definition of “missionary” is in Calvin speak. I do know that when many YRR evangelize it is for the “Doctrines of Grace” as they refer to Calvinism. IN fact, I find it a bit confusing, their evangelizing which is more “church planting” than anything to be honest. Mostly in nice neighborhoods funded by Acts 29 or the SBC as a jobs program for YRR seminary grads

    . Calvin forced people to come to church so how did he know who was really elect since they had no choice. But wait, that is how the determinist god operates.

    Like

  47. “Calvin wrote that the first thing to remember about Christian freedom is that the believer has gone past all law-righteousness. But that doesn’t matter, because everything that Calvin did was bad, right?”

    Not sure how you can ignore his actions/behavior. Everything he did the second time around in Geneva was focused on consolidating his power and authority.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Brian said:
    “Surely you are not suggesting that John is saying we never sin after salvation. This is where I think a version like the ESV conveys more accurately what John is saying:”

    I never suggested anything. I quoted scripture. Scripture is the LOGOS of God. I quoted word for word so there isn’t any need to “convey more accurately”.

    But in order to show you something, if you are sinning, you are under the law. If you are not sinning, you are under grace.

    Which do you prefer?

    Do you need a law to tell you not to commit adultery? If you are loving your neighbor, you are not making love to your neighbor. You don’t need the law if you fulfill the royal law, for love fulfills the law.

    So, if you are sinning, you are not loving, you are under the law.

    Romans 4 states, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will NOT impute sin”.

    Why is sin not imputed? You will find the answer in Romans 4.

    Again, I quoted 1 John 3:9 perfectly…no need for your Calvinistic ESV, which is the popular version for your doctrines.

    Ed

    Like

  50. Brian,
    You had said:
    “JA, are you familiar at all with E. Fitzpatrick’s book that I linked to above? I would hope you would take the time to read it to get an idea of how I try to raise my children. I think you will be very surprised at what you read. It was can known as grace-based parenting, not law-based. Contrary to what and so many on here think, many of us have embraced God’s grace in our lives and try to live according to it, including in our parenting.”

    My response:

    Why in the hell do you need a book to tell you how to raise your kids? Are you not able to do it naturally?

    Ed

    Like

  52. Brian said:
    “Dead men not only don’t wear plaid, but they don;t choose anything but death.

    The Apostle Paul states otherwise:
    Romans 7:9
    For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

    The Apostle Paul was NOT DEAD in his trespasses and sins until he got knowledge of good and evil.

    Romans 7:8
    For without the law sin was dead.

    If sin is dead, you are alive. If sin is alive, then you are dead in your trespasses and sins.

    I have a whole bunch more. We are not BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD. We die a spiritual death, just like Adam and Eve did. The day that we get knowledge of good and evil is the day that we die.

    So, WE ARE ALL BORN OF GOD when we are also born of the flesh. After we die a spiritual death, we need to be BORN AGAIN….The word AGAIN has significance.

    Ed

    Like

  53. Ed – I don’t get what that reforming means. We are being transformed (renewing of our minds) as Christians, but reforming? I have a hunch this reforming concept is the culprit for so many of my long-time Christian friends who, under CON’s teachings, doubted their faith/salvation and were constantly in fear and trembling that they were on their way to hell. They could never measure up.

    Like

  54. Brian said:
    “As I have already commented, lots of people choose God. The difference is, you believe they do it on their own, while still in a dead spiritual state (which, according to Scripture, is impossible), and I believe they do it once they have been made alive, or born from above.”

    That is correct, we do it on our own. There is no such thing as “saving faith”. None whatsoever. If it were a work, as you would argue, then faith would be in the 613 laws of Moses. Therefore, faith is not a work. We choose God.

    We are born of God as a baby, as soon as that baby is conceived. We DIE a spiritual death once we EAT OF THE TREE OF “KNOWLEDGE” OF GOOD AND EVIL.

    Ed

    Like

  56. For all you Calvinists and undocumented Arminians here (Let me see your passport):

    What is sin?

    1 John 3:4
    …sin is the transgression of the law.

    What is the law?

    Romans 3:20
    …for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    That is a key word that can be taken all the way back to the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

    The Law of Moses (Exodus 20-Deuteronomy) is OUR MEANS of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve got that knowledge supernaturally. We get it by the law [of Moses].

    Romans 5:13
    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Not imputed. For all have sinned, but NOT IMPUTED. Before the law, sin was not imputed. Now, I know that this is something that most will disagree with. But let’s take it back to Romans 4.

    Abraham is the topic of Romans 4, and certainly this is before the law.

    Romans 4:8
    Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

    Why will the Lord not impute sin?

    Romans 4:15
    Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

    Now, let’s see how the Apostle Paul applied this concept to himself in Romans 7

    Romans 7:8
    For without the law sin was dead.

    Sin is only alive if the law is alive.

    Next Paul discusses spiritual life, and spiritual death:

    Romans 7:9
    For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

    Why did he die? Because he got KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

    Romans 7:7
    I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    And this ties into Deuteronomy 1:39

    Deuteronomy 1:39
    Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

    This is discussing the Promised Land; who shall possess it, and why? Children who have no KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.

    This was the same with Adam and Eve. As long as they didn’t have that knowledge, they were cool. But once they got that knowledge, they died.

    Now, tie this in with Born Again.

    Born again is a spiritual rebirth, or, a spiritual resurrection from the dead.

    Spiritually alive before knowledge (Communion with God), spiritual death at knowledge (Separation from God).

    Born Again restores what was lost, bringing that relationship back.

    This is the spiritual life cycle that I see from the Bible.

    Ed

    Like

  57. Ed,

    You referred to ESV as being Calvinistic. Yes, or maybe we could say Grudemesque or Piperistic. In so many instances the translators are like Brian, who is quick to say Scripture SAYS what what he only thinks it MEANS. Except that the ESV translators are apt to take what they think Scripture MEANS, and then write their opinions into Scripture itself–without so much as a translator’s footnote where readings may legitimately vary.

    Even so, I am entertained at how easy it is to confound the followers or Piper, Grudem, MacArthur, etc. with their own bought and paid for “translation.”

    One thing for which I will give Crossway credit is that their online ESV makes it possible to easily compare the Greek with the translation. I know this doesn’t help just everybody, but it is surprising (or not so surprising) just how often one is able to identify questionable translations.

    Like

  58. JA,
    Well, when I was a child, my mom told me that if I didn’t straighten up, she was gonna send me to REFORM school

    Little did I know that she was threatening me with Calvinism. That is a fate worse than death. So, I quickly straightened up…..lol

    Ed

    Like

  59. Ed – I don’t get what that reforming means.

    I’m going to beat HUG to the punch and say that it’s just another party slogan comrade. 😀

    Like

  60. Gary,

    While it is true that I use the KJV pretty exclusively, I don’t mind using other versions for a comparison, so I am not a KJV Onlyist. But I use it for word studies, exclusively. Spiritual things are found much easier in the KJV than in any other that I have seen. My secondary is the NIVr, and I also like the Amplified.

    But, having said that, I do notice that some denominations have their pet translation, because their translations are carefully worded in order to conform to their dogma.

    For example, any version that derived from Wescott & Hort has an agenda to discretely reword scripture to remove any inference to the deity of Jesus. The Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible was based on the work of Wescott & Hort.

    That is just one of many examples of “pet” translations.

    Ed

    Like

  61. “I am one among what is a growing movement in Christianity, a “red-letter Christian”, that is, one who puts the teachings of Jesus in the NT as primary and the balance of scripture to be interpreted in ways that result in meanings consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with the teachings of Jesus.”

    ALL, and I mean ALL, of the letters in the Bible are red. To set certain parts of Scripture over and above others is to imply a canon within the canon. ALL Scripture is God-breathed. And this “growing movement”, as you call it, is nothing new. It’s been around for years, and it’s been misleading people in reading Scripture for years.

    Like

  62. ” I don’t get what that reforming means”

    If you read A Quiet Revolution by Ernest Reisinger you will get what it means. Pay attention to chapter 4.

    http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/

    It is a handbook on how to deceptively take a church Calvinist without them realizing it. The teaching has become ingrained in many seminaries so the tactics are pretty normalized by now in that movement.

    Like

  63. “Besides, in my opinion, you have not come across here as somebody who is old enough to have been homeschooling their own children for 18 years, either consecutively or cumulatively.”

    Once again, judgment has been passed without so much as iota of real information on which to base your conclusions. It is such a prime example of how most on here do not give the benefit of the doubt. You guys are have no real goal here but to villify those with whom you disagree. If I were to add up the cumulative years we have been home schooling our children, the total would be almost 55 years.

    Like

  64. “BTW- were you a huge supporter of Mahaney’s sermons as well as their music pre-abuse scandal? You indicated you could not currently listen to his sermons. Did you listen before?”

    Yes, I was…and yes, I did.

    Like

  65. Brian, Grown mature men in the Body rarely tweet someone they have no spiritual relationship with and demand to know if she is submitting to her elders. And you wonder why we see you as a young YRR bully? You are acting like one. That behavior is the hallmark of the Calvinist movement.

    You started the vilification and JA, kindly, invited you to post an article explaining what you meant. You cannot really interact because all you know is indoctrination. So when you get snarky and then get it back, you have a thin skin. This is NC/YRR 101.

    If you are older, then it is more serious than I thought.

    Like

  66. “For example, any version that derived from Wescott & Hort has an agenda to discretely reword scripture to remove any inference to the deity of Jesus.”

    Well, they sure a crappy job trying to remove his deity from them! What a joke of a claim! Please reference any of the translations to which you are referring. NASB? NIV? ESV? Others? Please prove your claim.

    Like

  69. Lydia,
    I accept that there are things I do not understand. Including how all the pieces of Scripture fit together. And including why people believe certain things that seem strange to me, or contradictory, or a very different perspective on what the Bible says and means than what I see when I read it. One person who is seeking to love God will all their heart, soul, strength and mind would agree with your perspective on Calvinism. And another who is also seeking to love God will all their heart, soul, strength and mind would disagree. And people on both sides almost always claim that the other’s viewpoints are based on the teaching of men vs. the Word of God, and that the philosophical underpinnings of the other side are based on human wisdom vs. God’s wisdom, and that the people of the other side have been influenced too much by certain teachers vs. studying for themselves like a Berean.

    I’m not saying that doctrine doesn’t matter or that wrong beliefs don’t have negative consequences. I am simply saying it would be more charitable and more humble not to say someone believes something that they say they don’t believe. Frankly, I’ve had more than my share of people beating up on others, demonizing them and their beliefs, questioning their salvation, and making them feel “less than” because they don’t tow the “right” doctrinal line.

    Like

  70. “BTW- were you a huge supporter of Mahaney’s sermons as well as their music pre-abuse scandal? You indicated you could not currently listen to his sermons. Did you listen before?”

    Yes, I was…and yes, I did.”

    Thanks for letting me know.
    I hope you still cannot listen. It sure has been an education for me, Brian, watching how he has reacted to events these past 2 years. And not just Mahaney, but those that support him.

    Like

  71. Brian said:
    “Well, they sure a crappy job trying to remove his deity from them! What a joke of a claim! Please reference any of the translations to which you are referring. NASB? NIV? ESV? Others? Please prove your claim.”

    My response:
    Do you own damn research. I studied this long before the internet was available, but if you google the words “Wescott and Hort”, there is plenty and plenty of resources available for you to see it for yourself. Wescott and Hort did NOT believe in the deity of Jesus. That is WHY the Jehovah’s Witness “New World Translation” in the front cover references the translation was inspired by Wescott and Hort. Jehovah’s Witnesses was the VERY FIRST cult that I studied. So far, the last cult that I have studied is Calvinism.

    Ed

    Like

  72. You can quit the copy/paste of all your quotes, Brian. If there’s not going to be anymore discussion, then there’s no need for any more comments.

    Like

  73. “That is WHY the Jehovah’s Witness “New World Translation” in the front cover references the translation was inspired by Wescott and Hort.”

    I couldn’t care less about the JW’s “Bible”, which adds and removes things to suit their beliefs (such as changing John 1:1 to say ‘the word was A god’).

    All I am asking for is JUST ONE mainstream Bible version based upon W&H that has removed the deity of Christ. Just one! So, which one would you like to use as an example to support your claim?

    Like

  74. The statement that all scripture is God breathed was written before the canon was complete and referred not to the present canon, but to the writings that were available before that. And “inspired” is a word with multiple connotations, both in ancient as well as modern time. It is overstating the case to say that the breath of God is the same thing as God dictating the scripture to the writer thereof. I believe in inspiration not dictation.

    Like

  75. Attorney,

    If you can’t place the “black” letters of the Bible on equal ground with the “red”, then how can you trust the “red” ones? Jesus didn’t actually write anything, but was quoted by the “black” letter writers.

    Like

  79. Ed,

    So, where ESV relies on Westcott-Hort, does this mean I now have to be wary of (mis)translations in ESV that would appear to support the notion/heresy of the eternal subordination of the Son?

    But all this brings up another problem. There isn’t just a multiplicity of English translations. There is a multiplicity of Greek texts, and it is disputed which Greek texts most accurately conform to the originals.

    This in turn makes it very difficult for me to swallow the notion that what we have in front of us whenever we sit down to read any given translation can be said to be inerrant. Which translation, exactly is inerrant? KJV isn’t my go to translation, but I do perceive that it has the advantage of having been translated before there could have been any temptation to translate according to preferred theological positions as to controversies that hadn’t yet arisen.

    Like

  81. Gary,
    I understand where you are coming from in your comment. But here is what we also need to realize. We are only discussing English as the language translated from Greek. Many many many English translations.

    What texts do the rest of the world use? For example, how many Japanese versions are there? How many Korean versions? How many Spanish Versions?

    If you do a side by side reading between the NIV and the KJV, you will definately notice differences. See 1 John 5:7 for the BLATANT example.

    You can use biblegateway.com for an easy comparison between versions.

    But, when you read the history of Wescott & Hort, that should shed some light on the matter.

    Ed

    Like

  83. Gary, and Brian

    From the KJV

    1 John 5:7-8 (King James Version)

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

    8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    NOW From the Wescott and Hort Version

    1 John 5:7-8 English Standard Version (ESV)

    7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

    NOW, Tell me that there isn’t a huge difference.

    Like

  84. Brian, As I read this thread from where I left off, it is quite clear you do not yearn to tell the whole truth, but make a habit out of leaving important bits & pieces out. And then try to make us look like fools. You do this with comments about who you are, what you personally believe, & your theology. Here are some examples:

    I said, “Do you agree with Voddie’s advice to “wear out” children when they disobey?”
    Brian replied, “Sometimes children deserve a good “wearing out”.”
    Question to ask ourselves: Do we assume someone doesn’t mean what they say when what they say is ALL all that we have to go on?

    Brian later replies, “My response: The key word in my answer is “sometimes”.”
    Question to ask ourselves: Does sometimes make it okay?

    Brian then replies, “Oh and, by the way (Brian whispers…) – I don’t agree with everything Voddie Bauchamn teaches or says. Shhh…don’t tell anyone…”
    Question: Is Brian back-peddling? It would appear so.

    Brian then tries to say we don’t know the truth, because we’re ignorant. He then tries use this as a basis for saying since we are wrong about him, we are wrong about his theology. That we should have know he wasn’t telling the truth about his belief about abuse, on an abuse blog where hurting people come for relief.
    Check it out:

    Brian says, “They know nothing of my family and children’s home life. They are speaking from a position of ignorance (that’s not an insult if you understand what it means to be ignorant of something).
    The REAL irony is that the commenters on this blog rail against all things relating to Reformed Theology, calling it and the people involved evil, when that is EXACTLY what they themselves are doing against people like Voddie Baucham, John Piper, etc., etc, etc…
    And, by the way, regarding wearing kids out, I was speaking in hyperbole as well, though you guys will probably not believe me and will continue to spit venom at the caricature you made yourselves.”

    What we know: Brian finally says he wasn’t telling us the whole truth. Brian says we know nothing of him but we are ignorant for not already knowing he didn’t mean what he said from the beginning.

    It appears Brian’s big lesson here is that he wants us to believe NOTHING of what he says. He just made an appeal to everyone reading that we should not trust him.

    Brian, your statements are hardly logical. Do you see this at all?

    Brian, your fruit gives you away. Dialogue is not for the purpose of ascertaining who is more superior or for beating people up. Dialogue is about getting to the bottom of something. Determining the truth. You are having more & more difficulty telling the truth here. Do you feel like you’re losing? It’s not about winning or losing. It’s about having a logical, honest, truthful discussion. And it starts with telling the truth when you reveal information about yourself.

    You’re doing yourself a disservice.

    Liked by 1 person

  86. Brian, Another of your “odd” statements. I don’t know what to make of them. Here is another example:

    Brian said, “Brian and his wife home school (for almost 18 years now)”
    I noticed you’ve started talking about yourself in the 3rd person. 🙂

    Brian later said, “Once again, judgment has been passed without so much as iota of real information on which to base your conclusions. It is such a prime example of how most on here do not give the benefit of the doubt. You guys are have no real goal here but to villify those with whom you disagree. If I were to add up the cumulative years we have been home schooling our children, the total would be almost 55 years.”

    Brian, we don’t know you other that what you reveal to us, right? So you say it’s “almost 18 years now”. But then you say we have no iota of real information. Then you go on to say you’ve homeschooled your children “55 years”, cumulatively.

    It AGAIN appears Brian’s big lesson here is that he wants us to know: we have no iota of real information to form a conclusion, when he tells us something. He just made an appeal AGAIN to everyone reading that we should not trust him.

    Brian, you may not realize it but most teachers don’t do the math the way you do when adding up their teaching experience. For instance, a college professor doesn’t say they have 350 years of cumulative experience because they taught 50 students per year for 7 years. Put that on your resume & you’ll get laughed out of an interview. I know that much, even though I’ve been a homeschool mom for less than 18 years.

    Brian, you are hurting your own cause with these irrational statements.

    Like

  87. Jeff B said, “No matter how well one knows the Bible, there is still a realm of mystery, and anyone who thinks he/she can explain it all is a fool. That includes people who pretend to know for sure exactly why a person acted the way he/she did or why a certain event took place.”

    Then I said, “Care to elaborate on the people/fools who pretend to know for sure why a person acted the way he/she did or why a certain event took place? Not understanding you at all here.”

    It bothers me that you ignored my question. The reason why I asked you to elaborate is because in a comment above yours, I mentioned knowing “why they did what they did.” I hope you weren’t referring to me, because the truth is that my child self was anything but a fool.

    Like

  88. Brian said, “ALL, and I mean ALL, of the letters in the Bible are red. To set certain parts of Scripture over and above others is to imply a canon within the canon. ALL Scripture is God-breathed. And this “growing movement”, as you call it, is nothing new. It’s been around for years, and it’s been misleading people in reading Scripture for years.”

    Brian, the red letters in the Bible are what Jesus said when he walked the earth. I’d rather focus on following Jesus first & foremost. That is the REAL “Christ alone” belief. And not your so-called “Christ alone” which is not really Christ alone, is it? If you think I am misled by doing so, then that speaks volumes about your reformed religion & what you actually believe, IMO.

    Like

  89. Oasis asked Jeff B, “It bothers me that you ignored my question. The reason why I asked you to elaborate is because in a comment above yours, I mentioned knowing “why they did what they did.” I hope you weren’t referring to me, because the truth is that my child self was anything but a fool.”

    Jeff B originally said, “No matter how well one knows the Bible, there is still a realm of mystery, and anyone who thinks he/she can explain it all is a fool. That includes people who pretend to know for sure exactly why a person acted the way he/she did or why a certain event took place.”

    No, you WERE NOT a fool.

    It is foolish to see or hear evil, but not know what it is. It is evil not to protect children from evil. It ain’t no mystery. Even unbelievers get this.

    If you like living in a state of intellectual & mental confusion, where right action isn’t required but is only contemplated in the mind, then Calvinism may be a good match.

    Like

  92. And the KJV was definitely a politically driven translation, with patriarchy, divine right of kings, authoritarianism, anti-feminism (those “bad” queens in England), etc. And of course, the history with Henry and his wives!!!

    Like

  93. “I’m not saying that doctrine doesn’t matter or that wrong beliefs don’t have negative consequences. I am simply saying it would be more charitable and more humble not to say someone believes something that they say they don’t believe. Frankly, I’ve had more than my share of people beating up on others, demonizing them and their beliefs, questioning their salvation, and making them feel “less than” because they don’t tow the “right” doctrinal line.”

    Ryan made a great point about this a while back. He said the issue is “proportionality”. And boy did he nail it. I live at ground zero and I can tell you I have never in my life seen the arrogance, hate, bullying that I have seen come out of the YRR /NC movement. It IS a matter of proportionality. They are being indoctrinated. I tried what you are talking about for about many years. Do you know how bullies respond? They love it when you are a milktoast. It paves the way for them. That is how they think! I am not so sure that NOT standing up for others who might not have spent the time researching and studying that doctrine and it’s history is a good thing. I have seen way too many churches split or taken over.

    When will people face up to it? This is a movement that employs deception and bullying to grow. They employ tactics like love bombing until they have you in their clutches. We are not talking about unbelievers here. We are talking about professing believers who are angry, mean, cruel, arrogant and use deception to infiltrate churches. (More are on to them now but for years they knew not to say they were Calvinists in interviews. When that started to become a problem and more were on to this tactic as in Quiet Revolution, money was diverted to start YRR church plants…Acts 29 and the SBC have thrown tons into that effort)

    Some of this change started for me when I saw little old ladies treated with disdain and disrespect by 20 something YRR guys who have “correct doctrine” treat them like dirt because they dared offer an opinion after being in that church for 40 years. The more I studied that movement and it’s leaders the more I saw it ingrained.

    How about telling the ones who make their living as “Christians” to act like it? I don’t get paid to be a professional Christian. But they cannot behave as Christians because their doctrine says they can’t.

    Your advice is like telling your kid to give his lunch money to the bully every day for the rest of his life. You enable the bully.

    Like

  95. Lydia:

    You said:”IMO, Reformers elevated Paul over Jesus. They put him on equal footing.”

    Exactly, that is why I do not even recognize the Southern Baptist Convention churches any more in the their warped view of women and yes they quote Paul to support their view.

    Also I wonder how many sermons are preached about how Jesus related to people from the Gospels anymore.

    Like

  96. Lydia,

    You previously pointed us to Stefan Zweig’s apparently out of print book, “The Right to Heresy,” in which Zweig masterfully relates the history of John Calvin’s murder of Miguel Servetus. Thank you very much. I hope Julie Anne does not mind my posting the link again:

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_intro.htm

    Not surprisingly, it takes precious little time online to confirm, as expected, that the substance of Zweig’s account is contested by Calvin’s followers. One blog commenter, who I refuse to honor with attribution, observes that only three kinds of people would make a point of Calvin’s murder of Servetus: Catholics, those opposed to the doctrines of grace (good grief), and those who are too ignorant to be qualified to comment.

    Well, the pro-Calvin apologists notwithstanding, it appears that Calvin was not a nice person. He was quick to exile those who disagreed with him on the most minor of theological points, depriving them of employment and reducing them and their families of penury. Calvin’s apparently complete and absolute control over the ecclesiastical, civil and social order of Geneva was as totalitarian and despotic as could be imagined. If Zweig’s account is even approximately accurate, I dare say that Calvin was a sociopath, what the psychoanalysts would term a psychopath. For Calvin, it was all about having his way and imposing his will, it was all about his personal power–up to and including the murder of the Christian, Miguel Servetus. By slow roasting on a low burning fire. A fate maybe even more terrible than crucifixion.

    I will not say that all Calvinists are like Calvin. I will allow that doctrinaires of all persuasions, not just Calvinist, are apt to terrorize. Still, should we be surprised to learn that so many of those pastors and theologians (and their sycophants) who now claim Calvin’s mantle are prone to the despotic, reacting to their detractors with pressure tactics, church “discipline,” excommunication, shunning, slander, stalking behaviors, economic boycotts, lawsuits and the like? Should we be surprised that they demand that others submit unquestioningly to their unappealable authority? Should we be surprised to learn that they have begun to inquire whether complete strangers are submitted to their pastors and ruling elders?

    Like

  97. Gary,

    I had a retired Calvinist preacher (now a missionary in Costa Rica) try to defend Calvin’s actions by telling me that it was not murder, that it was a civil action, due to the law of heresy on the books, and that Calvin begged the court to give him a merciful sentence, but still death, nonetheless.

    He attempted to make Calvin into the good guy.

    Who, in the name of Jesus, would turn anyone over to the civil authorities for disagreeing? Talk about thought police.

    John 16:2
    …yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

    Ed

    Like

  98. Lydia,

    The phrase “doctrines of grace” has the stench of a marketing ploy, as in it smells like a rotting pigs ear formed into what is supposed to look like a silk purse. With apologies if you have already done so, but could you tell us what the YRR/NC types mean by all their references to “doctrines of grace?” And what are they trying to camouflage with their fine sounding terminology? Am I near the mark in guessing these are code words for deterministic predestination?

    Like

  99. @ lydiasop~

    How about telling the ones who make their living as “Christians” to act like it? I don’t get paid to be a professional Christian. But they cannot behave as Christians because their doctrine says they can’t.”

    Not only that….but remember how Mahaney blathered on and on both in his emails in the documents and in statements after the documents were made public about “perceiving” his sins? How he didn’t perceive this, didn’t perceive that…didn’t perceive the depth of this sin…etc. What is this perceiving stuff? It’s like, I just can’t know how to act decently until I perceeeeeeeeeive it. Right.

    He said he depended on God to enable him to “perceive” his sin and how gracious his God was for showing him this particular sin or that particular sin…and if God didn’t show him, then there will be no perceiving that’s for sure. Just the strangest thing I ever heard. He can’t know his sins unless God shows/tells him somehow– unlike the rest of us slugs who just read the word and understand what it says….things like don’t lie, don’t fake humility, don’t love the praises of men, oh, and here’s a good one–don’t blackmail your fellow Christians ’cause that is bad bad bad.

    What’s not to perceive about the commands in the bible? What’s not to perceive about the words of Jesus on how we are to treat each other?

    Like

  100. Ed,

    According to Zweig, your missionary friend is mistaken. Zweig informs us that Calvin ordered the initial arrest (something he had no authority to do), and that he drafted the initial accusations, which he made his cook or secretary deliver, as though it were the cook/secretary making the accusations. Calvin attempted at first to remain at a distance from the trial proceedings. However, when it began to appear Servetus might be exonerated, Calvin intervened and personally participated in the “civil” proceedings. According to Zweig, Calvin didn’t just come forward as a witness, he sat with the judges.

    Zweig contests the notion that Calvin made any attempt to intervene on behalf of Servetus. Rather, if I am recalling correctly, Zweig charges that Calvin, after the fact, tried to make himself look good by claiming, falsely, that he had attempted to intervene on behalf of Servetus.

    Like

  101. Gary,

    Well, that just goes to show that Calvin was a liar, and that Satan is his father, for Satan was a liar from the beginning.

    John 8:44
    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Like

Comments are closed.