Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CALVINISM’S FALSE DOCTRINE
Peacemakers ^ | September 14, 2007 | Cathy ??

Posted on 09/24/2013 1:43:25 PM PDT by Rashputin

CALVINISM’S FALSE DOCTRINE

Posted on September 14, 2007 by Cathy

“Calvinism” is very popular and many Christians, though they would not identify themselves as Calvinists, may have embraced some of Calvin’s doctrine without realizing it. The doctrine is named after a man named John Calvin, a reformer, who lived in the 1500′s. Calvinism propagates error. Knowledge of error helps us to be discerning when listening to or reading Christian material. If a teacher is a Calvinist, all that they teach will be taught through the lens of Calvinism. The result of this Calvinistic “bent” will be teachings that are dangerously distorted.

This is just a simple outline of Calvinism . . .

T.U.L.I.P. is an acronym used by Calvinists to describe the main five points of Calvinism.

T stands for TOTAL DEPRAVITY – This “Calvin” doctrine propagates the error that that man is so depraved and corrupt that he is not capable of making a choice to follow the Lord. It is taught that God is the one who predestines some to believe in Him and be born again, and predestines others not to believe in Him. The ones who are not predestined to believe will perish in hell. This doctrine denies free will. They say it doesn’t, but it does.

SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES that an individual has the God given ability to choose:

Matthew 11:20 “Then began he (Jesus) to UPBRAID the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:”

(UPBRAID – Find fault with, or reproach severely. dictionary.com)

Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but YOU WERE NOT WILLING!” (NKJV)

Romans 1:18-20 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, FOR GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE,” (NKJV)

U stands for UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION – This “Calvin” doctrine propagates the error that some individuals are elected/chosen to salvation, and some are not. It is taught that God’s choices are unconditional.

SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES that Christ is the chosen, Christ is the elect. When we believe the gospel we are then called chosen and elect because we are “in Christ.” It’s not about us, it’s about Christ.

Matthew 12:18 “Behold my servant, whom I have CHOSEN; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.”

Luke 23:35 “And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the CHOSEN of God.”

Isaiah 42:1 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”

L stands for LIMITED ATONEMENT – This “Calvin” doctrine propagates the error that Christ’s atoning work on the cross was only for certain individuals.

SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES that Christ’s atonement is available to all people.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Luke 2:10 “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL people.”

Luke 2:31 “Which thou hast prepared before the face of ALL people;”

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Revelation 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.”

I stands for IRRESISTIBLE GRACE – This “Calvin” doctrine propagates the error that when God calls a person to salvation, that person cannot resist God’s call.

SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES that it is possible to resist the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 11:20 “Then began he (Jesus) to UPBRAID the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:”

(UPBRAID – Find fault with, or reproach severely. dictionary.com)

Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but YOU WERE NOT WILLING! (NKJV)

Acts 7:51 “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE DO ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY GHOST: as your fathers did, so do ye.”

P stands for PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (also known as “Once Saved Always Saved”) – This “Calvin” doctrine propagates the error that a person can never fall away from the faith.

SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES that it is possible to fall away from the faith.

John 8:31 “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF YE CONTINUE in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”

1 Timothy 1:19 “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away CONCERNING FAITH HAVE MADE SHIPWRECK:”

2 Timothy 4:7 “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have KEPT THE FAITH:”

2 Peter 2:20-22 “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have KNOWN the way of righteousness, than, after they have KNOWN it, to TURN from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is TURNED to his own vomit again; and the sow that WAS WASHED to her wallowing in the mire.”

* * *

A Christian sister once said . . . “the Lord draws, but we have the free will to respond, or not to respond, to that drawing.” True. We are not robots. Also, with Calvinism, a person is left to wonder if they are one of God’s chosen ones. How can anyone ever have any peace wondering if they are one of God’s elect. Our peace comes from the atoning work of Christ on the cross. There is stability at the cross. There is nothing to wonder about. Jesus said “whosoever will” may freely receive salvation. “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.” Revelation 22:17 You can have peace and assurance that Christ is the chosen One, and when you believe in Him you are chosen in Him. This leaves the door to salvation open for all people, as God intended it to be, and as the scripture declares.

Believing truth, and continuing to do so, will give you peace because your assurance is firmly based upon Christ’s finished work of atonement. Understanding Calvinism helped me to understand that the doctrine of “once saved always saved” is a false doctrine. This was something I struggled with for many years. Why did it help me? Because I understood that the root of the “once saved always saved” teaching is Calvinism’s doctrine “irresistible grace.” The two are obviously connected. Error begets more error. As we have seen, it is possible to resist the Holy Ghost, and what a serious thing it is to do so.

Calvinistic teaching superimposes itself upon Scripture. It is man’s teaching, not God’s. I have written this because I love the Lord, and I love the brethren. False doctrine is harmful, and causes division among God’s people. My prayer is that we, the followers of Jesus Christ, will be guided into all truth. As the scripture says in John 16:13 “. . . when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: calvinism; catholic; christianity; protestantism; theology; tulip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Its a discussion worth having.
1 posted on 09/24/2013 1:43:25 PM PDT by Rashputin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

We could simply copy and paste all the posts from the last 50 times this discussion took place on FR.


2 posted on 09/24/2013 1:54:55 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Your scriptural references are useful.


3 posted on 09/24/2013 1:55:39 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

No it isn’t. This forum is for news, not a religious war.


4 posted on 09/24/2013 1:56:03 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

This is the religion forum


5 posted on 09/24/2013 1:58:19 PM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!


6 posted on 09/24/2013 1:58:23 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

It’s a poorly structured argument anyway.


7 posted on 09/24/2013 1:58:56 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
True, very true.

But since we're having "discussions worth having" today I thought I'd go through links from the past few years of researching and reading I did and post a few things worth discussing.

8 posted on 09/24/2013 1:59:15 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; Gamecock
...since we're having "discussions worth having" today I thought I'd go through links from the past few years of researching and reading I did and post a few things worth discussing.

I sure hope this article isn't representative of the quality of material you've been "researching and reading" for the past few years.

9 posted on 09/24/2013 2:02:55 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

***T.U.L.I.P. is an acronym used by Calvinists to describe the main five points of Calvinism. ***

Did Calvin come up with this or did it come about after he he had died, at the time of the Remonstrants who wanted the beliefs of Jacob Arminius.

Wasn’t TULIP the Calvinist answer to them?


10 posted on 09/24/2013 2:03:36 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Its a discussion worth having.

No it isn't. It's just trolling for an argument that promotes disunity among the body of Christ. In this day and age, the less disunity we all have, the better.

A more worthwhile action is to study your bible, ALL of it, and largely ignore what other people claim to get out of it. If it's there, and you study frequently, you will find it. We must be like the Bereans, intelligent and studious, not mindless idiots who must be spoon-fed dogma of any flavor.

11 posted on 09/24/2013 2:03:45 PM PDT by EricT. (Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Big brother is watching you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Too many people on FR are consumed with dividing the Christians. Why? What purpose does it stand? I grew up Calvinist and mos tof my family still are. They are going to heaven! I am no longer Calvinist but I am also going to heaven!
Quit letting the devil divide us! Quit spreading disention and animosity! That is not the Holy Spirit but the pride of man!


12 posted on 09/24/2013 2:05:22 PM PDT by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I object to this thread primarily because of the inflammatory title. I certainly do not object to the discussion.

Second, it is simplistic to reduce the doctrines propounded by John Calvin to the “TULIP” acronym. The reality is that those doctrines embodied by TULIP were documented in response to a divergence from sound doctrine long AFTER Calvin was dead by the Synod of Dordt held by Calvin’s followers. John Calvin espoused a wide range of doctrines well beyond TULIP. His life work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, begins with a dissertation on the subject of personal piety. Calvin moved his description of election to later sections of the Institutes in order to allay such objections.

Third, the arguments proposed in this post are also simplistic with no regard for alternative views. For instance, reading Ephesians 1:4 it is quite plain that it is “us” who are chosen “from the foundation of the world”. Of course Christ had been chosen, but, as stated in Eph 1:4, so are we!

Clearly Calvin, and those of us from the Reformed tradition, believe that God’s offer of the Gospel; i.e., Good News, is to be delivered to ALL people. However, as much as one doesn’t like the implications of Ephesians 1:4 (and a host of others) some folks will simply not respond because, in the end, they were not chosen by God.

The point of the doctrine is two-fold: First, salvation is the work of God, not ourselves “lest any man should boast!” Second, it is intended for assurance of salvation so that those who follow Christ can be confident that He who chose us will hold us in His hand until our final deliverance is secured.


13 posted on 09/24/2013 2:09:58 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

I don’t know but as long as going at Catholics hammer and tong is an essential activity shouldn’t the alternatives be enumerated and discussed?


14 posted on 09/24/2013 2:11:24 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

“Its a discussion worth having. “

...with God. Only God knows whether Calvinism is correct or whether Mary was a perpetual virgin and other similar Catholic vs Protestant debates. No one here knows. If they claim to know - run away from them.


15 posted on 09/24/2013 2:18:50 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Go have your religious wars somewhere else.


16 posted on 09/24/2013 2:19:09 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

bleeeech.... There is so much distortion in this piece I won’t even bother


17 posted on 09/24/2013 2:22:47 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Calvinists are, as a rule, the nastiest people about trashing Mormons, Catholics or anyone else with whom they have the slightest doctrinal differences. They are exceeded in said nastiest only by the Godless-Marxist-Liberal-Islamofacist alliance.

The Calvinist were also enthusiastically beheading Anabaptists and Catholics at the same time the former were minding their own business and the later were fighting off the invasion of the Muslim hordes invading southeasten Europe.

It was the Anabaptists who are largely responsible for bringing the tradition of religious freedom to America, not the Calvinistic Protestants.

It was the Catholics who were largely responsible for protecting Europe from the invading Muslim hordes, not the Calvinists.

So, on one hand, I don't mind seeing them get their come-uppance from a Calvinist trashing thread. But, on the other, I will observe that they are one of the most conservative voting Christian groups in America and it is unproductive and undesirable to form circular firing squads.

18 posted on 09/24/2013 2:25:34 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Oh, the horror!!


19 posted on 09/24/2013 2:26:52 PM PDT by colorcountry (The gospel will transform our politics, not vice versa (Romans 12:1,2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

lol exactly... or the 100 times this debate took place in my college dormitory... move on people!


20 posted on 09/24/2013 2:29:54 PM PDT by Frapster (Clear the mechanism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Calvinists are, as a rule, the nastiest people about trashing Mormons

I love the way you throw in the non-Christian Mormon religion, that is designed to appear as Christian in the mix.

Pope John II made it clear where the Catholic faith places Mormonism.

The Catholic church considers Mormonism a new religion, a polytheistic religion of many Gods, not Christian.

21 posted on 09/24/2013 2:35:33 PM PDT by ansel12 ( 'I'm on That New Obama Diet... Every Day I Let Vladimir Putin Eat My Lunch' .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I assert that the argument posed here can be refuted by a single biblical example that contradicts the assertions of the argument.

For example, if I can find one example in the Bible of a person who was unable to be saved through faith in Jesus, that would refute the argument that Jesus died for All, and that All have the choice.

Hebrews provides the argument that such people exist, through it’s discussion of how God creates some vessels for honor, and some for dishonor. No child of God ends in dishonor, and no creation of God can be turned from God’s purpose. So when Hebrews claims that God has purposely created some people for dishonor, it should mean that some people simply can NOT be saved. If they could, they could overcome God’s will for their lives.

Pharoah had his heart hardened, so he could not choose the “right” thing. The Pharasees clearly could NOT choose to believe in Jesus and take him down from the Cross, because without their unbelief, Jesus would not be sacrificed for our sins.

There are of course scriptures which state that we are chosen by God. But they have been argued, and it would take dissertations to explain why such scriptures mean what they seem to say, while other scriptures such as those presented here do not.

But an example: Saying Jesus died for All does not refute that some cannot accept. In fact, if you assert that Jesus actually did die for ALL, then you have asserted that Jesus is not all-powerful, because you are not arguing that all people ARE saved, just that all people COULD be saved.

Which makes the argument “Jesus died to pay for ALL the sins of ALL people, but some people then make his sacrifice ineffectual”. How can a person make Jesus’ sacrifice ineffectual? Only if Jesus did not actually die for ALL can some not be saved.

But if some will not be saved, and therefore Jesus did not die for ALL our sins, clearly the ALL in the sentence does not mean “effectually for every person”. So you can’t argue that the ALL means that his death opened the door for ALL. It is cleaner for the doctrine of omnipotence that Jesus would know at the time of his death exactly which sins he was dying for, and that his death would pay for only those sins. Note that this does NOT in any way prove predestination, only foreknowledge. I only offer to refute the claim that “ALL” requires that everybody have some shot at salvation.

There are many other procedural arguments. If everybody has an opportunity to be saved, then what is the point of sending out missionaries? It seems odd to argue that God does not choose who can be saved, but some lowly creation of his, by deciding whether or not to be a missionary, chooses whether some other person will EVER get to hear the good news, and therefore will get the “chance” to decide for themselves.

Calvinism provides a “fairer” view, which is that if God has chosen someone, God clearly will provide a way for that person to come to the saving Faith needed. Again, not proof, just saying that it seems more logical.

I prefer the Calvinistic doctrine to one where my salvation rests on the happenstance of my birth, the goodwill of others in sharing the Gospel, and the luck of the draw to manage to avoid being killed by some other fallen creation before I get a chance to hear the good news and respond to it.

Which is always my last argument. Here is some person, who has not made a choice, but is about to make a choice to believe and be saved. But, from a free will perspective, they have not yet made that choice, it will happen in 10 minutes. But here is an evil gunman, a tool of Satan. He has a gun to our future brother’s head.

Can that tool of Satan deny salvation to this future brother, by pulling the trigger? According to the pure free-will argument, yes. According to Calvinism, no. It seem odd to provide such power to the devil.

We could argue that God would intervene, preventing the tool of Satan from pulling the trigger. But that would deny the tool free will. And wasn’t the argument that we all have free will?

My argument is that we have free will, but also that God has control over everything. This is contradictory, and I can only live my life to the best of my ability to follow God’s commandments. Which means I must tell others how to be saved, because I am commanded to do so, even though I might believe that only the chosen will be saved.


22 posted on 09/24/2013 2:36:33 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
“Calvinism” is the latest label being used to undermine pastors.

I know of a Baptist pastor who is mission minded and leads mission trips locally, nationally, and to undeveloped countries (the latest to Haiti), praises the Lord openly with raised hands, and preaches free will of the individual.

He was fired by a minority of his church who accused him of being Calvinist, while at the same time proclaiming him to be a Godly pastor. Of course the Calvinistic claims came four to five months after he was dismissed, in order to convince those members who still asked why.

The claim that he was Calvinistic was the last explanation, and followed claims that he was charismatic, too ecumenical, did not spending enough time taking care of local missions, and was taking mission teams on what one elderly member described as “vacations”.

The real reasons were for Godly stands he took against marrying a nonbelievers and believer (who were living in sin), preventing a young man who had spent 18 months in jail for having sex with an under aged girl from helping with the youth group, telling a 17 year old (who had dropped out of school and taken the GED)that he could no longer be part of the high school youth group, and not pursuing an advanced degree from a seminary. The pastor had served the church for ten years.

For over a year the group undermined the pastor at every turn, they spread a whisper campaign against the pastor, saying he wanted the fire the deacons and change the by laws. As part of the process they contacted members who had not been in church for a long time (calling and sending letters to these members)to come and vote against the pastor. When members would ask why they were trying to remove the pastor, they would say you need to ask “man who was leading the movement”. Reasons changed with individuals asking the question.

The one that really stuck was the charge of “Calvinism”, and seems to be the latest “trend” in explanation for three or four churches in our area being without pastors.

So the church goes on, lead by the deacons.

23 posted on 09/24/2013 2:36:47 PM PDT by Yulee (Village of Albion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Did Calvin come up with this or did it come about after he he had died, at the time of the Remonstrants who wanted the beliefs of Jacob Arminius.

Wasn’t TULIP the Calvinist answer to them?

< sigh> No.

TULIP is an acronym coined by an unknown person early in the 20th century, to summarize certain points of soteriology.

It follows, roughly, the canons of the Synod of Dordt, which was gathered to deal with the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers. 1617, somewhere in there.

24 posted on 09/24/2013 2:44:39 PM PDT by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; vpintheak
...as long as going at Catholics hammer and tong is an essential activity shouldn’t the alternatives be enumerated and discussed?

Catholics, Protestants and others are free to post any materials that interest them to the Forum, so long as the contents don't fall afoul of FR general guidelines. The Religion Forum is what we all make (or don't make) of it. Catholics are free to post threads about non-Catholic groups (and they do), just as others are free to post threads about Catholicism (and they do), so long as such threads are of the "open" or "ecumenical" varieties.

Generally speaking, all posters should avoid making threads and posts personal. Everyone should discuss the topic and not the poster, nor his/her imagined "agendas" for posting something. Either prove/disprove the post content, or learn to ignore it.

If a poster gets his/her feelings hurt because others ridicule or disapprove or hate what that poster holds dear, then that poster is probably too thin-skinned to be involved in "open" Religion Forum threads. Old-timers in the Religion Forum know that "open" threads often lead to heated and often contentious debate. Antagonism should be expected in "open" threads, and a thick skin is always required (and expected) to participate effectively. Failure to operate with a thick(er) skin usually drags the debate into a flame war.

As an alternative, any poster may choose to ignore/avoid "open" threads altogether, and instead post within threads labeled "prayer", "devotional", "caucus" or "ecumenical." And if they can't find such a thread, they can always post one for themselves and enjoy Moderator protection, so long as the thread stays within the posting guidelines of the Religion Forum.

25 posted on 09/24/2013 2:51:39 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

26 posted on 09/24/2013 2:56:37 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

IF you desire a ‘discussion’ of God, why not start at Genesis 1:1? IT is not an allegory as many claim. Why is it all these sects always have a man/woman before GOD?


27 posted on 09/24/2013 2:57:28 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Baptists theologically disagree with Catholics much less than do Presbyterians but I have noticed that everywhere I have been, Presbyterians seem to get along socially with Catholics much better than do Baptists.


28 posted on 09/24/2013 2:57:58 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

It was the Anabaptists who are largely responsible for bringing the tradition of religious freedom to America, not the Calvinistic Protestants.
//////////
The puritans were calvinists as were the scotch irish presbyterians on the frontier. Also the small french huegonaut and swedish reformed church settlements were calvinist. As well the larger german reformed and dutch reformed churches in new york were calvinist.

The swiss mennonite and amish in pennsylvania were anabaptists—but they played no part in the revolutionary war.

Mostly that war was fought by calvinists.

“It is estimated that two-thirds of the 3 million Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were Reformed Protestants, and even that leaves out the many Episcopalians, who had a Reformed confession in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the descendants of the French Huguenots. Presbyterians, above all, were responsible for convincing the colonists to revolt even though, prior to the war, about 40% of the population was pro-British. “

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5984

King Georg Himself characterized the revolutionary war as a presbyterian parson’s war.
http://www.saf.org/journal/17/thereligiousrootsoftheamericanrevolutionandtherighttokeepandbeararms.pdf

As it happened the calvinists all over europe were the great losers of the wars of the 17th century. That’s why they ended up in such great numbers in north america.

our constitution and the federalist papers—that is the internal checks and balances were mostly constructed by the very calvinist James Madison and his friends.

The calvinists were the majority at the time of the revolution. However, they slipped into minority status outpaced by methodists and baptists—by the 1840’s.

You’re right to say that the Calvinists were/are a prickly lot. But you also need to give credit where credit is due.


29 posted on 09/24/2013 3:03:18 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

This is from Catholic Answers explaining why Mormonism is not even Christian but an entirely different religion.

*Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?*

“although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff”


30 posted on 09/24/2013 3:15:19 PM PDT by ansel12 ( 'I'm on That New Obama Diet... Every Day I Let Vladimir Putin Eat My Lunch' .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Weak articles like this make me yearn for the quality of posts found during the Great Arminian Insurrection of 2003. Now those were some great threads!
31 posted on 09/24/2013 3:17:11 PM PDT by Gamecock (Many Atheists take the stand: "There is no God AND I hate Him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Who are you talking to? Who has thin skin? My point still stands. I am also not Catholic, I am not Jewish, I am Christian. I know Catholics who WILL be in Heaven as well. Sinful human pride and arrogance will be the downfall of those who cry Lord, Lord and He will tell them that He never knew them.
I urge anyone taking part in shots at eachother to meditate on that. If you disagree, do it in a manner that Christ would approve of.


32 posted on 09/24/2013 3:50:44 PM PDT by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

In the future you will approach the FR Posting Council on bended knee and say, “By yer leave m’lardship” keeping in mind the advice from The Great Rodney, “Can’t we all just get along!?”.


33 posted on 09/24/2013 3:57:26 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

I disagree with all three and attend a southern baptist church.

BTW, I also believe that when the bible says “eternal life” vs death, destruction, perish, etc. that it means that only those with “eternal life” have “eternal life”. The rest are destroyed.

That can cause heated arguments at church (and did once), so I only bring it up if I think it’s not gonna cause a scene.


34 posted on 09/24/2013 4:49:50 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

***Calvinists are, as a rule, the nastiest people about trashing Mormons,***

Calvinists weren’t the ones who started that fight back in the 1830s. Joe Smith claimed to have seen God, Jesus, Angels, a gold book, and said if people didn’t believe him HE would stand in the doorway to Heaven and keep them out.

He threw down the gauntlet, other churches picked it up and have been kicking Mormons all over the place since.


35 posted on 09/24/2013 5:24:31 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Sounds like the old Pellagus vs. Augustine, Luther vs. Eurasmus, Calvin vs. Jacob Arminius arguments.


36 posted on 09/24/2013 5:29:18 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Yeah, like the old washing machines that slosh back and forth and have a nice wringer.
37 posted on 09/24/2013 5:55:26 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman

Calvinism isn’t so much the problem; it’s the hyper-Calvinism that is promoted by many Freeper Calvinists.

They also don’t like to acknowledge that Calvin actually believed in common grace even if he did wrongly teach double predestination.

If you actually read the Canons of Dort (not Dordt) and the charges against Arminianism, you would see that that the so-called errors are well within the boundaries of the Christian faith; just expressed somewhat differently.

The Synod of Dort seemed to take positions directly opposite the Arminians without much consideration that they may have had some valid points.

Calvinists claim Charles Spurgeon as one of their heros, but they sure distance themselves from Spurgeon’s teaching that God desires that all men be saved. I’ll post the link to the specific sermon once a FR Calvinist challenges this point. IOW, Spurgeon clearly rejected the error of double predestination.


38 posted on 09/24/2013 7:33:10 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman
Clearly Calvin, and those of us from the Reformed tradition, believe that God’s offer of the Gospel; i.e., Good News, is to be delivered to ALL people. However, as much as one doesn’t like the implications of Ephesians 1:4 (and a host of others) some folks will simply not respond because, in the end, they were not chosen by God.

Please reconcile your position with this sermon of the Calvinist icon Charles Spurgeon in this sermon:

Salvation by Knowing the Truth

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm

Specifically, address this point:

"Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are."

39 posted on 09/24/2013 7:46:17 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; NorthernCrunchyCon; ...

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)


40 posted on 09/24/2013 7:48:38 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Yeah, like the old washing machines that slosh back and forth and have a nice wringer.

That's a great illustration - mind if I use it in the future?

41 posted on 09/24/2013 8:10:07 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Be my guest.
42 posted on 09/24/2013 9:13:26 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
My argument is that we have free will, but also that God has control over everything. This is contradictory, and I can only live my life to the best of my ability to follow God’s commandments. Which means I must tell others how to be saved, because I am commanded to do so, even though I might believe that only the chosen will be saved.

Thank you for explaining this so well. I think humans have a real problem with the idea that they are not in control of everything in their lives. Then there are those who use fear of hell to control others into jumping through their own self-devised hoops thereby maintaining their power. My personal view is that the reality of this all is outside of our present capacity to comprehend and that men like Calvin and Luther, as well as Augustine and Aquinas, did their best to put into words what small part they thought they DID understand.

God has explained many things in Scripture - and these we can grasp with the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit - but Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:11-12)

One day we will "know as we are known", but until then, I praise the Lord that he has opened my eyes and ears and heart to receive the gospel of the grace of God and has given me eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. He knew before He established the world that He would.

43 posted on 09/24/2013 10:02:26 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

T.U.L.I.P.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlcNfThUA


44 posted on 09/24/2013 10:43:03 PM PDT by Morgana (Always a bit of truth in dark humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

LOL Calvin’s heir ?


45 posted on 09/24/2013 11:03:05 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
"Weak articles like this make me yearn for the quality of posts found during the Great Arminian Insurrection of 2003. Now those were some great threads!"

I learned a lot from all of that. It is was very helpful to really solidify my reformed faith. Not just the content, but the overall attitudes of those posting on either side.

46 posted on 09/25/2013 3:56:37 AM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
You are quite correct in pointing out that there were different brands of Calvinists. But there were huge differences in their level of tolerance.

The Huguenots, for instance, were highly tolerant. They had been victims of severe persecution themselves. The New England Calvanistic brand of Puritanism, not so much. They actually founded Harvard as as a divinity school to train ministers to promote and enforce the brand of political/religious correctness in power at the time. Ironically, the same role which Harvard plays today. Only the brand of political/religious correctness in power has changed.

My own ancestor, the Rev. John Lathrop, was run out of the Boston area because he was tolerant of the Anabaptist school of thought. He did not embrace it but tolerated it to the extent that he allowed them to attend his services and add to the discussions. Another ancestor and also Puritan minister, the Rev. John Crandall, was run out of Massachusetts Bay Colony entirely for the same reason. Both expulsions happened in the mid-1600s when Harvard had been in operation for a mere decade or so. Google either of these names and you'll find a huge number of Americans related to either or both.

The far larger group of Presbyterian branded Calvinists, the Scott-Irish, fell somewhere between the Huguenots and the New England Puritans on the tolerance scale.

I should have qualified that my initial remarks on Calvinists were directed only at the most intolerant brands. The others generally worked quite well with Americans of different faiths to ensure that the American Revolution succeeded.

The initial high profile religious conflict in America was between Calvinistic Puritans themselves (as evidenced by my two Puritan Rev. ancestors who got expelled for not following the Puritan line closely enough) and between the Puritans and Anabaptists.

The other groups mostly arrived later, post 1670 or so when America changed from (mainly) a destination of choice to (mainly) a destination to dump undesirables (the old country view, not the fact) as a result of political upheavals in Europe.

47 posted on 09/25/2013 7:17:20 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

An intelligent observation which I don’t know how to explain, but maybe my post #47 helps. Let me know.


48 posted on 09/25/2013 7:19:38 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
In the 1830s, every religion was contending seriously with every other religion. We were clearly a Christian majority nation and could afford the luxury of debating fine points of doctrine. In the years since, everyone except the most extreme Calvinists and a few other "my way or the highway" types have moved way beyond that.

All but this extreme mouthy minority recognizes that Communism, extreme secular humanism, Atheism, liberalism, Islamofacism, etc. represent a far greater threat to mankind than a different brand of Christianity.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 also. Does that justify continuing to war with them?

49 posted on 09/25/2013 7:28:52 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

You must be referring to Hyper-Calvinists. I assume you are familiar with this article:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm


50 posted on 09/25/2013 7:37:54 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson