Posted on 07/07/2010 8:01:37 AM PDT by Frumanchu
That bastard? He was a heretic! Because, um, well, um, he said something we disagree with. Heretic!
Also, Calvin was a sinner. So even though he is infallible in matters of Calvinist faith, he wasn’t acting ex-cathedra then.
Or something like that.
I'm not - I'm trying to figure out what you believe. If you recall, on another thread we disagreed about the wisdom of creeds in ascertaining what strangers believe. You've made what I think are contradictory moral observations re Calvin and Servetus, and I'm trying to figure out how they fit together in your thinking.
You yourself argued in your post #23 that Servetus was in the priesthood of believers, despite his denial of a core biblical doctrine which you espoused as true in post #12. So I'm guessing that Trinitarianism isn't a core doctrine by which one should define who is and isn't a fellow believer?
Or to ask it another way, what makes Servetus in the priesthood, and what makes Calvin out, in your view?
Assertion (in all caps) from article posted
CALVIN BELIEVED IN WINNING JEWS TO THE OBEDIENCE OF THE GOSPEL AND HAD A STRATEGY TO DO:
Calvin’s Clear Opinion from his writings in “A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew” - An Excerpt from “Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio,” by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.
END QUOTE
Facts are stubborn things.
Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you content to just chuck batteries from the sidelines?
In his theology, Calvin demonstrates unusual tolerance as he does not differentiate between God's covenant with the Jews and the New Covenant. He states, "all the children of the promise, reborn of God, who have obeyed the commands by faith working through love, have belonged to the New Covenant since the world began."
Which is enough to drive certain parties into a frenzy.
This is the third time now that you’ve cut and pasted the same quote in the first 50 posts of this thread. We get it...we’ve read it (and responded to it). You can stop spamming the thread with it now. Thanks.
I don’t understand your points...
(1) please elucidate the contradictory moral observations
(2) Did I ever imply Servetus’ status in the Lord’s Salvation? I think not. For I cannot make a reply for anyone as to their status.
So both Servetus and Calvin fit both in my estimation to the same group - failed human beings, searching for God. We just differ in our estimations (gradings) of their effort. My comment is God does not grade on a curve - for all have fallen, and come short of the glory of God.
A question for you - what did Jesus call Judas when he last addressed him on earth?
God’s justice DOES demand second chances.
LUKE 15:11-32
Goes Judgement also demands justice
Yes, but if it was NOT for second chances, we would all be lost.
We are all sinners.
That’s not justice, that’s grace and mercy. If God’s justice demands second chance, none of us has anything to worry about at the Judgement because we’ll get another go-round.
You already had your first chance. You blew it. I blew it. Everybody except Jesus blew it.
I see that none of the critics have responded to the actual substance of the article.
Gomer Pyle would be surprised.
To say that our "second chance" was provided under the obligation of divine justice compelling it is to completely remove any notion of grace from our salvation.
Some things never change :D
Do not spam.
I understand what you are saying but the problem I have with the wording is that it sounds like God gives us an opportunity to behave better or to be better..
Actually Adam used up our 1st chance when he sinned.. we are all born deserving hell
I see that our salvation as not based on our actions or works..but on Gods grace and mercy and we can not "earn" that
I don't now if I am saying this right...LOL
What about stoning people to death? Always wrong any century? I’ll hang up and listen.
it was not spam.
I am accused of not responding to the article and it directly contradicts serveral points of the article.
since you apparently are a Calvinist, or have not bothered to read the thread, there is nothing to discuss civilly, since FruManchu has to run crying to momma.
*shakes dust off feet*
We all agree that we've been given a "second chance" in that we are all sinners (thus failing our "first chance") deserving of hell and yet Christ lived a perfect life and died an atoning death that all who believe in Him are saved from the penalty of their sins and given the gift of eternal life.
I think the sticking point here is that that "second chance" did not proceed forth from God's justice, but rather from His grace and mercy. God would have been perfectly just to send all men to hell for their sin because it is the just penalty for it. It is only in His grace and mercy that He provided the "second chance" in the Second Adam. Does that make sense, BB?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.