I take that as an insult. I have posted numerous times with facts more facts and more facts. Facts get dry, but I don’t have to explain that to a buckwheat like you. Having some fun once in while makes things less dry. I always take the bible real SERIOUSLY. I never joke around about the bible. NEVER. Everything else is fair game to mean for having some fun. I think you know that. I am not going to quit having some fun because a buckwheat like you tries to pigeonhole me with a question like that.
Hey Mr. Horses: Do you watch Beavis and Butthead and giggle the entire time? Do you pee your pants before Beavis and Butthead shows air in joyful anticipation? Now am I joking? No I am not, I am just showing you how one of your suggestive questions feels, with a question you might feel the same about.
U said: Would you please tell me what the short version is the long version and the long version is the short version is and means?
I told you that you had to ask me three times. I also told you that you don’t want to know the answer. So quit provoking me.
In summation, to anyone else still listening:
The Vatican, Wycliffe, Luther, Watchmen Nee (China), Sadhu Sundar Sing (India), Billy Graham,
Bill Gothard & Chuck Colson (America) all made meaningful contributions to the gospel. What did John Calvin Contribute? A bogus Unconditional Election doctrine applied to mostly everything and other stuff like Reprobation doctrines that at times don’t even make any sense. From my vantage point, John Calvin didn’t contribute any meaningful thing to the gospel. Calvin doctrine is addition by subtraction. What about VPW? There is a thread here about what people learned in TWI. It’s true a lot of people learned something. There was a thread 3 years ago about how a lot of VPW stuff wasn’t even his own it was plagiarized. VPW cemented concepts like scriptural contextualization .and made a doctrine out of it. (Not a bad idea, but VPW and some of his cronies were self serving so it didn’t work out.) VPW talked about how the gifts were manifestations of the Spirit during the Jesus movement and cemented it. (Again not a bad idea, but because VPW and his cronies were self-serving didn’t work out). Thus, VPW > (greater than) John Calvin. Hey did I say that, OUCH
Mr. Sky4it I was not trying to insult you. Do not take it that way.
What do you mean by the long version is the short version and the short version is long version?
I will ask you three times.
1 Please tell me
2 Please tell me
3 please tell me
I need to understand what you mean when you say things so I am not insulting you. I think you need to work on bieng nice too so there is nothing wrong with that.
Look, ( I suppose I will tell you later) open your ears and listen its real simple:
Hebrews Chapter 7 & 8 tells us the difference between the old testament and the new. The new testament, Jesus was made a surety of a “better testament.” Hebrews 7:22 Jesus is called the mediator of a “better covenant.” ..... which was established on “better promises” Hebrews 8:6 Still , one can fall short of the “better promises” Hebrews 4:1 and not enter into his rest. If one neglects there salvation they could find themselves in a situation where they cannot escape. Hebrews 2:3 Notice that the mediator and surety of the better testament and covenant is JESUS.( Not me or you
or Calvin or anyone else.) All roads point to Jesus. This better covenant is by “a new and living way” Hebrews 10:20 If someone where to kick Jesus off the throne, they would not have a “surety” or a “mediator”, for the way they believe. Thus, they would be under Old Testament Law. Why is the new testament/covenant better? Because Jesus did this for us: ”Blotting out the ordinances , that was against us, which was contrary to us took it OUT OF THE WAY, nailing it to his cross. Colossians 2:14. Notice that, that is THE WAY he took out of THE WAY to establish a new and living (better) way. The ordinances are the numerous stuff listed as things in the old way or Old Testament. The new and living way lists a smaller group of things that one can NOT do. THAT IS WHY IT IS BETTER. The things you cannot in the NT do are listed as : NO FORNICATION AND/OR NO WHOREMONGING PLUS NO COVETOUSNESS = {DOING (FORNNICATION,WHOREMONGING, COVETOUSNESS)IS UNCLEAN}; { NOT DOING (FORNICATION,WHOREMONGING,COVETOUSNESS) IS CLEAN} Thus, the things listed as "unclean" in NT paramaters are considered sin. Here is just some of the places they are listed in the New Testament: Acts 15:20,29 , I Thess. 4:3,7; 5:18 , Eph. 5:5, II Corinthians 12:21, I Corinth 10: 7-10, Colos. 3:5,Galations: 5:19-21 and there are more. These are THE CONDITIONS OF the New Testament and Covenant and are the BETTER WAY.
What can happen if one does not obey the NT stuff listed above? One can lose his “INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD and CHRIST. (Read above versus) Losing your inheritance is like being KICKED OUT. Ie ( you have no rights to ownership of anything there) Also “if a man have not the Spirit of Christ in him he is none of HIS” Romans 8:9 If you are “none of his and lose your inheritance” this would constitute seperation features from HIM. Those seperation features would be God's and Jesus's choice becuase they are the mediators/sureties of these covenants. If the covenants are violated? The consequences are clear. What about Salvation? Peter and Jude & others describe how the things listed above can wage war against and destroy a soul.( I Peter 2:11, II Peter 2:4, 10-12, Jude v. 5-13) and (Hebrews 10:39)
All of the above paragraphs describe CONDITIONS in NT better way testament/covenant beliefs.
Calvinism says that UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION is that BETTER WAY. This teaching of Calvin is false. Thus Calvinism describes a DIFFERENT WAY than the BETTER WAY. Notice that the better way is better for a reason: it has way fewer conditions. Calvinism says there is NO CONDITION which is a LIE. This should make that CLEAR.
Horses: Read the above POST 5 TIMES BEFORE THIS ONE so I don’t hurt your virgin ears.
Now you provoked me to answer your questions so its on you:
Here’s an explanation of the Long version is the short version and the short version is the long version:
“The initiated Calvinists might as well just pass out the Condoms, KY Jelly & the Vaseline and tell us what they really are about. Get it?
With the long version it is difficult to get to the short (unerect you know what) version. With the short version (above statement by sky4it) it is easier to get to the long version (erect knowyou what)
You mean you couldn’t figure this out?
Here is also the expanded definition of a “Initiated Calvinist” “Repeated”:::::
Here's one more thing I thought to clear up. I mentioned the concepts of initiated Calvinist and the uninitiated. I said you could have a society within a society. Still, you could have no such soceity and have initiated Calvinism working and it is the far more likely outcome. How? By not obeying the 3 (three) NT principles or rather the 2 ie( fornication(Eph5.5 calls it whoremonger)) and covetousness = uncleanliness) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Thus, you could have individual initiated practioners who practice it with others outside the church, a far more likely outcome and virtually no one in the church would have knowledge of such "affairs".
Mr. Sky4it what you said in your last post was bad. What you said in the one before that was okay. What you said in the very last post was bad. It was not real real bad but it was kind of sort of bad. It is time that I gave you a timeout. This means you should not talk about this for three days. Then you can come back and be refreshed.
You see Mr. Cman you see do you see. Sometimes Mr. Sky4it is not nice and friendly and says a bad things like that last one that he said. It is easy to see that he can say bad things. It wasn't real real bad but bad enough that he that he needs to take a timeout.
Yeah ok goofball, you really are a muleskinner. You badger me to answer a pun, but don’t blame yourself. I am going to take your 3 day timeout, not because you said too but BECAUSE I WANT TO. I mean did you even read the post before that you said was OK. Just ok huh? Because I tried to help you get it. Donating my time to help a muleskinner like you doesn’t do much good because I don’t think you even read the stuff I posted. It’s pretty plain and simple stuff even for a muleskinner like you.
By the way I am going on a 3 day self imposed timeout ( ), so don’t ask me any questions for three days either got it goofball? BTW, cut the Mr. this and Mr. that it doesn't suit your style.
When you get back in three days, here is a question for you. Think about a number between one and a million and write it down on your post. I am quite certain I can get it and tell you the number. Now follow the instructions and do it and I will tell you the number.
((Ahem)), ... what's with the 'buckwheat' comment anyway? ... Please let's not bring obsolete and racial terms into this thread that apparently has already spiraled out of control. <_<
I apoligize to you. I changed it too goofball, your the first person that ever told me that was a "racial" term. That's how out of touch I am with political correctness. Kids used to use it all the time and the other peoples from that show and I never heard someone suggest it was otherwise. I am not a racist. Interestingly, I made a comment one day about girls softball and got hacked on for that too in a sports message forum. My generation (in my 40's) didnt think about terms like that.
With respect to horses hes a little excessive himself, but I will behave which also means i certainly dont need to apologize to him for asking him if he watches beavis and butthead ..... I think he does.
That's how out of touch I am with political correctness.
First off, 'political correctness' has nothing to do with this. 'Buckwheat' has often been used as a derogoratory racial term here in the U.S. (altho' not as much nowadays, which is why I said 'obsolete'). I didn't think you were racist; just pointing out the term and its implications.
With respect to horses hes a little excessive himself, ...
Maybe the topic matter helps contribute to that perhaps? ;)
anyway thanks for the tip, I might have said it in the wrong crowd someday (ignorantly) and got decked. :( I just remember as kids we would use all the Little Rascal names and didnt think anything about it.
I was also wondering, if as a matter of your historical enjoyment, if there is anything out there on the personal life, (as in sexual life of John Calvin). If you run across it, be sure to spin it.
Well Im on timeout so I may be back on this thread in 3 days. :)
Maybe Mr. Sky4it we got off on the wrong foot and if we talk things out they will get better.
Yeah, well don’t worry about it. Next time use both your feet. It takes two feet to walk and if you use em both, well then you wont get off on the wrong foot ie.(your wrong foot) with me.
usaid:
I have a number that I wrote down and if you can guess it please go ahead and try.
What I told you is that you need to send it back to me in your post and I will tell you if that was the number I was thinking about. Send it over and I will tell you. With me, you need to follow the instructions.
Usaid: My other question to you is what if Mr. Calvin is right about some things and you are not.
This is where Calvin really gets whack. The good news is it doesn’t matter and I will explain to you why.
Your postulate/premise is: That Calvin is right. (That Unconditional Election/Predestination is right)
It does not matter and here is the reason: Nobody knows who the ELECT are for sure except who? Well God of course. Because it is God's foreknowledge of such things not man's. This is where it would get real bad for Calvinists for several reasons:What if God where to say, Well none of the Calvinists are the Elect? Guess what? You are 100 percent up a creek without a paddle in Calvinism, because Calvinists argue that who ever is “reprobated” God is just for doing it. Thus, on either side of the equation, it makes no logical sense to embrace Calvinism.
But you might say, they trust in the sacraments? In this also Calvinists are up a creek, because their doctrine of reprobation isn’t even the same as what it means in II Corinthians 12:21 and all of Chapter 13 (II Corinthians) How does this effect the sacraments? The topic in 1 Corinthians 11:19 is about heresies and heresies are NOT AN EXCUSE for the sacraments. I Corinthians 11: 27 says” WHEREFORE WHOSOEVER SHALL EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP OF THE LORD, UNWORTHILY, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. V: 30 also adds this can cause sickness , weakness and sleeping ie(death) Read verse 30 to understand it. Thus, if you espouse yourself to a heresy doctrine, which toss’s out the stuff we have talked about in this thread, the sacraments are of no or little avail. Still, reprobation, is the issue with Calvinists. Under right scriptural thinking, one is not allowed to be a fornicator, I Corinthians 6 :15-20 tells why. The bible says that fornicating in essence is joining Christ to a harlot. I Corinthians 6:18 says, “ Flee Fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”
These scriptures along with the ones in II Corinthians 12 & 13, form the basis for what reprobation is. Under Calvinism the reprobate are the NONELECTED ONES. Thus if they become reprobated or Unelected they have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR SALVATION, which is way more wacky than what scripture says about Salvation. (This is why it is so important to follow the bible and what it says is a reprobate and to make your calling and election sure. ) What I am saying is you are worse off under Calvinism, then you would be without Calvin at all. AND HERE’S THE KICKER: Some of these people may be judged just like this out of there own doctrine. WHY? John 5:45, Jesus said,” Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father, there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom you trust” Loosely speaking, Calvinists trust in Calvin’s rendition of scripture. Yet Calvin is the same one who condemns them, because they don’t have an out if they are not the ELECT or rather the Unelect. Get it? There is absolutely no out in Calvinism for whoever is reprobated and since they deny that they have to do some things, they could all be condemned by Calvin IF AND I SAY IF, God’s call’s them what Calvin described as a reprobate. God’s meaning of reprobate from scripture is different from Calvin’s so that it might in fact all happen that way.
One more point and I will let you go. You have heard of Jehovah’s Witness’s. They teach a Revelation concept of the 144,000. I asked one JW and he told me those people have already been determined. I asked another and they told me they had not been determined. Do JW’s believe the only one that is in the 144,000 crowd are JW’s only? I don’t know. The point is simply that just by virtue of being a JW, that doesn’t necessarily put you in the 144,000 crowd. Same thing applies to Calvinism. Just by virtue of being a Calvinist doesn’t necessarily make you or one an ELECT. For to presume so, is just simply stupid.
I have read what you said and thank you very much.
If I tell you the number that would not be fair because you would know it.
I have another question for you. Do you know where I could go to talk to some people about Bible stuff? I would like to know if I could talk to you directly or someone else about things. I like very much to talk to people when they are around me. I do so much thank you for talking to me when I ask.
Look, I thought you were messing with my head ok? But after that last question, I will be as sincere as I can because I think you were too. Let’s just drop the whole number thing because I was just messing with your head too. I even called you Mr., because your questions was so “nice.” ( I don’t like using that word tho)
u said . Do you know where I could go to talk to some people about Bible stuff? I would like to know if I could talk to you directly or someone else about things. I like very much to talk to people when they are around me.
Look, Horses, I am not a Pastor or a trained Physiologist; so I do not have experience in doing that so I can not. Plus, I am really busy but if you want to talk here from time to time that is fine with me. I can however give you a few recommendations on what to do if you need someone to talk to. Here they are:
1) This is the best option. Keep reading your bible and if you feel comfortable get involved in a bible believing spirit filled church. Do this with one in your own community. I stress that this is better than the next options 2 and 3, because it really is not my business to recommend to someone where to go. So do this one.
2) I only know of one ministry today that goes into peoples homes to help them. I cannot say that I recommend them or not. I do know that they work with different churches so they may be involved in some of the churches in your community. There name is Theophostics. Some people swear by them and others say they don’t work or are bad. They have some psychology involved in what they do. I do not care for that part, I am neutral on that aspect of what they do. What they do well is they are very caring loving helpful people. They do not recruit you to there organization. (That I know of) I stress again if you get involved with them only do it and I emphasize ONLY if they are working under the auspices of a church in your community. That for you is good protection as well as them. I have only met some of there people once who came to see someone I know. The results did NOT turn out well. The person they did this with ended up cutting there wrists. After this the team of these people, decided they could not proceed. (No, this was not me.) It was someone I know who has lots of problems and I heard about it. I can tell you that it failed with that person, but I was very impressed with the love and caring and concern that these people showed. It’s my belief that there love, caring and concern are perhaps more healing than what the psychology of this Theosphostics is. THUS, results may vary greatly because as in any other organization I am sure there is some good and some bad. Let me stress again, that DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THIS GROUP UNLESS IT IS DONE UNDER A REPUTABLE CHURCH IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
3) I am not from Oklahoma. I do know of three women in Tulsa Oklahoma who have worked all there lives in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have only talked to two of them in the last 10-15 years maybe twice.(Tondi and Penny) I do know that they are strong Christians and one of them would probably be willing to visit with you on the telephone if you so desired. There names are: Tondi Curtis, Penny Pedersen and Kathy Nygaard. Tondi is married to a pastor of a church and I believe may be a pastor too. Tondi’s husband’s name is James. Tondi has a very brilliant mind and is very solid. Penny and Kathy, I believe attend this church also. If you would like look them up in the phone and call them. Once again, they are hundreds of miles for me and I have not talked to them in ages but they are helpful people and might be willing to talk to you. I stress that you should do number 1 above first and look for someone in your own community. Why? Because this is not personal like I think you need. So you should do that up in number 1 before doing any of this. This should not be necessary.
Thank you for the things you said. I do belong to a church so I am fine. Mr. Calvin is not here to say things for himself. If he was he would explain himself much better.
All people who are Christians should get along. I see you are making things much more nice and that means you are growing as a person. I do enjoy talking to Christians on the computers so thank you for responding to me.
Actually, Calvin did see the type of argument that I have made here and prepared in rather short fashion his material to defend against it. Of course, Calvin did not address all the points I have made be he did in fact anticipate someone saying some of the things I have.
What was his response? It is in fact, one of the most bizarre Calvin comments of all time. His end run response was,” LET HIM WHO RECEIVES, TAKE AND DRINK, DRINK AND LIVE.”
DRINK AND LIVE? Drink what? Well the concept is drink the doctrine of Predestination of course and live. It is in fact what he is talking about in the text.
The quote above is from the following in Calvin’s Writings and posted here for you:
Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 13:
"Wherefore, if the apostles and teachers of the Church who came after them did both; if they discoursed piously of the eternal election of God, and at the same time kept believers under the discipline of a pious life, how can those men of our day, when shut up by the invincible force of truth, think they are right in saying, that what is said of predestination, though it is true, must not be preached to the people? Nay, it ought indeed to be preached, that whoso has ears to hear may hear. And who has ears if he has not received them from him who has promised to give them? Certainly, let him who receives not, reject. Let him who receives, take and drink, drink and live.”
You might also find interesting the argument he laid out against a few of the things I said. Basically, Calvin says that the doctrine of predestination ought to cause people “TO ASPIRE TO IT” The it being holiness or without blame before him in love. The bible clearly says to crucify your affections and lusts, not to aspire them away. Calvin then clearly says later, that it is BLASPHEME TO INVERT THE WHOLE ORDER (Wicked blaspheme at that) OF ELECTION. What Calvin is saying is that ELECTION IS THE PRINCIPAL OF SALVATION.
And that it is blaspheme to think otherwise. This of course perhaps speaks of how Garth pointed out that someone was killed if they disagreed with this stuff. Also it speaks volumes to the personality of John Calvin and why it is in fact a cult. If in fact you look up the first part of the paragraph you will find that Calvin really condemns people who act like swine and go on in lust. Still, in the next sentence he completely undoes what he just said, by God determined to save us and “he will bring us to it in his own time.” After that it gets really weird where he says ,”if he has doomed us to death it is vain for us to fight against it.” Which is why I told you that Calvinists have no out pitch with God. CALVIN TEACHES THAT IF GOD DOOMS YOU , YOU LOSE AND THERE ISN’T ONE STINKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sort of like if you are a bad machine get used to it, you’re a bad machine baby. It in fact is the same argument I made about evolution and the moral component. Under Calvin, if your bad don’t even try. This is clearly wrong from scriptural teaching.
Here is the quote from Calvin: Book 3 Chapter 23, Section 12
12. Another argument which they employ to overthrow predestination is that if it stand, all care and study of well doing must cease. For what man can hear (say they) that life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God, without immediately concluding that it is of no consequence how he acts, since no work of his can either hinder or further the predestination of God? Thus all will rush on, and like desperate men plunge headlong wherever lust inclines. And it is true that this is not altogether a fiction; for there are multitudes of a swinish nature who defile the doctrine of predestination by their profane blasphemies, and employ them as a cloak to evade all admonition and censure. "God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us: if he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time; if he has doomed us to death, it is vain for us to fight against it." But Scripture, while it enjoins us to think of this high mystery with much greater reverence and religion, gives very different instruction to the pious, and justly condemns the accursed license of the ungodly. For it does not remind us of predestination to increase our audacity, and tempt us to pry with impious presumption into the inscrutable counsels of God, but rather to humble and abase us, that we may tremble at his judgment, and learn to look up to his mercy. This is the mark at which believers will aim. The grunt of these filthy swine is duly silenced by Paul. They say that they feel secure in vices because, if they are of the number of the elect, their vices will be no obstacle to the ultimate attainment of life. But Paul reminds us that the end for which we are elected is, "that we should be holy, and without blame before him," (Eph. 1:4). If the end of election is holiness of life, it ought to arouse and stimulate us strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for sloth. How wide the difference between the two things, between ceasing from well-doing because election is sufficient for salvation, and its being the very end of election, that we should devote ourselves to the study of good works. Have done, then, with blasphemies which wickedly invert the whole order of election. When they extend their blasphemies farther, and say that he who is reprobated by God will lose his pains if he studies to approve himself to him by innocence and probity of life, they are convicted of the most impudent falsehood.
HERE’S A COUPLE OF MORE CALVIN’S QUOTES DESCRIBING HIS MIND:
4 Book 3 Chapter 23 Section 4 Last sentence of that paragraph.
“Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.”
Reprobation is “NOT A SECRET COUNSEL” in the mind of God. This is 100 percent false. In fact we already described from the bible what a reprobate acts like. Furthermore, the bible clearly teaches that God would have all men to be saved.
Book3 Chapter 23 Section 8
8 The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.
This is absolutely false teaching. The Lord “did not deem it meet” that man should fall. The Lord told man not to do something or they would die. Calvin loves to do this to make God responsible for his own actions. Why man fell we know exactly. It is called sin. Calvin evades this not without a purpose either. It is to justify the lifestyle.
BTW, here is an interesting concept. We know that God is all knowing and has foreknowledge. But what if he wanted to take a break and not involve his knowledge with some. God is “ALL KNOWING”, I agree, but if he decides not to be he doesn’t have to. This fits perfectly within reason why God has asked people to discard and crucify the lusts of the flesh. It certainly appears God does not want to sit around and look into the future of those who won’t. And if he makes that choice who am I , Calvin or anyone else to tell him he has too? Has he made a choice to do so? The bible clearly indicates that God is building a temple of people for a REST. A rest is a break.
With respect to anything in life that one chooses:
You have probably heard the saying: Fools rush in. In anything in life there is some truth to that. A wise man always counts the cost. We are accountable for our choices in life otherwise we would not have a free will.
Thank you for talking to me. I recently moved to Madison Wisconsin area. So this is why I was interested very much in churches and what they believe. I do not know many people from this area. I will just start to get involved in some churches and see where that goes. Do you know anyone from Madison Wisconsin?
Thank you again and I am happy to see everyone getting along. This is nice and good.
I actually know a guy from Madison Wisconsin. He was in my wedding. I have not talked to him in well over 20 years, but I am sure he would be willing to provide you with a list of churches in his area. He is not a pastor and would not be a person trying to recruit you or anything. He certainly would be able to tell you the different churches in the area since he has live there many years. His name is Kenton Sorensen (I dont even remember the last name spelling it is either son sin or sen on the end. His wifes name is Marlene. I am certain he would tell you of the churches in the area to assist you. Like I said , I have not spoken with him in over 20 years, but he is a family man and familiar with Madison, having lived there the last 20 or more years. I live a long long way from Madison, so I would not be able to assist you.
Recently I spent some time researching John Calvin and what todays Calvinists actually beleive. In case your wondering, most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all presbyterians are Calvinists.
It is some rather shocking material.
It focuses on what Calvinists call the TULIP. The first two concepts are rather gregarious which are
1) (T) Total depravity or Total Inability
2) Uncondional Election ( which conceptually just means predestination)
The Calvinists beleieve that they are incapable of doing anything good. (The bible doesnt teach this)
You are incapable at birth. But you are predestinated or elected AND ITS GODS JOB TO MAKE IT HAPPEN NOT YOURS. You cant do anything to make yourself any better because you have total inability. (Of course the bible says to WORK out YOUR salvation with fear and trembling.
Reading this stuff I think it is probably one of the most dangerous promiscuous doctrines ever invented.
You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want , because the are totally unable. The end result of course is once you have your salvation you can never lose it. This is always a key component to any group that doesnt want the members to feel they need to put some salt in it, and also a common doctrine which is flouted with those who are cults. Real religion or service never needs it because one is secure in God's love.
Anyway, its my view this doctrine is worse than that which Catholics disgarded years ago, namely selling indulgences. At least with indulgences you had to pay something for your deeds. This stuff has to be the most cultic doctrine I think I have ever seen.
comments?
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
Recently I spent some time researching John Calvin and what todays Calvinists actually beleive. In case your wondering, most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all presbyterians are Calvinists.
It is some rather shocking material.
It focuses on what Calvinists call the TULIP. The first two concepts are rather gregarious which are
1) (T) Total depravity or Total Inability
2) Uncondional Election ( which conceptually just means predestination)
The Calvinists beleieve that they are incapable of doing anything good. (The bible doesnt teach this)
You are incapable at birth. But you are predestinated or elected AND ITS GODS JOB TO MAKE IT HAPPEN NOT YOURS. You cant do anything to make yourself any better because you have total inability. (Of course the bible says to WORK out YOUR salvation with fear and trembling.
Reading this stuff I think it is probably one of the most dangerous promiscuous doctrines ever invented.
You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want , because the are totally unable. The end result of course is once you have your salvation you can never lose it. This is always a key component to any group that doesnt want the members to feel they need to put some salt in it, and also a common doctrine which is flouted with those who are cults. Real religion or service never needs it because one is secure in God's love.
Anyway, its my view this doctrine is worse than that which Catholics disgarded years ago, namely selling indulgences. At least with indulgences you had to pay something for your deeds. This stuff has to be the most cultic doctrine I think I have ever seen.
comments?
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
Recently I spent some time researching John Calvin and what todays Calvinists actually beleive. In case your wondering, most Calvinists are Presbyterians but not all presbyterians are Calvinists.
It is some rather shocking material.
It focuses on what Calvinists call the TULIP. The first two concepts are rather gregarious which are
1) (T) Total depravity or Total Inability
2) Uncondional Election ( which conceptually just means predestination)
The Calvinists beleieve that they are incapable of doing anything good. (The bible doesnt teach this)
You are incapable at birth. But you are predestinated or elected AND ITS GODS JOB TO MAKE IT HAPPEN NOT YOURS. You cant do anything to make yourself any better because you have total inability. (Of course the bible says to WORK out YOUR salvation with fear and trembling.
Reading this stuff I think it is probably one of the most dangerous promiscuous doctrines ever invented.
You could easily envision people who dont have any moral fortitude doing any thing they want , because the are totally unable. The end result of course is once you have your salvation you can never lose it. This is always a key component to any group that doesnt want the members to feel they need to put some salt in it, and also a common doctrine which is flouted with those who are cults. Real religion or service never needs it because one is secure in God's love.
Anyway, its my view this doctrine is worse than that which Catholics disgarded years ago, namely selling indulgences. At least with indulgences you had to pay something for your deeds. This stuff has to be the most cultic doctrine I think I have ever seen.
comments?
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
Flatrock: Enjoyed your post, thanks. I think you and others might find it interesting that the actual Calvin contraption also has political levers and such built into it. Obviously modern day Calvinists dont utilize Calvins political views, but it might be interesting to look at them. Most of them are at the end of his writings. I have not studied them in detail, but it may be interesting to look at them.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
35
21
32
Popular Days
Aug 24
31
Aug 21
23
Aug 22
23
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 74 posts
Abigail 35 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Watered Garden 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
31 posts
Aug 21 2007
23 posts
Aug 22 2007
23 posts
Mar 17 2009
14 posts
Popular Posts
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Mark Clarke
God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allo
Cynic
My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in s
sky4it
Mr. Horses:
.U said:Are you just joking around?
I take that as an insult. I have posted numerous times with facts more facts and more facts. Facts get dry, but I don’t have to explain that to a buckwheat like you. Having some fun once in while makes things less dry. I always take the bible real SERIOUSLY. I never joke around about the bible. NEVER. Everything else is fair game to mean for having some fun. I think you know that. I am not going to quit having some fun because a buckwheat like you tries to pigeonhole me with a question like that.
Hey Mr. Horses: Do you watch Beavis and Butthead and giggle the entire time? Do you pee your pants before Beavis and Butthead shows air in joyful anticipation? Now am I joking? No I am not, I am just showing you how one of your suggestive questions feels, with a question you might feel the same about.
U said: Would you please tell me what the short version is the long version and the long version is the short version is and means?
I told you that you had to ask me three times. I also told you that you don’t want to know the answer. So quit provoking me.
In summation, to anyone else still listening:
The Vatican, Wycliffe, Luther, Watchmen Nee (China), Sadhu Sundar Sing (India), Billy Graham,
Bill Gothard & Chuck Colson (America) all made meaningful contributions to the gospel. What did John Calvin Contribute? A bogus Unconditional Election doctrine applied to mostly everything and other stuff like Reprobation doctrines that at times don’t even make any sense. From my vantage point, John Calvin didn’t contribute any meaningful thing to the gospel. Calvin doctrine is addition by subtraction. What about VPW? There is a thread here about what people learned in TWI. It’s true a lot of people learned something. There was a thread 3 years ago about how a lot of VPW stuff wasn’t even his own it was plagiarized. VPW cemented concepts like scriptural contextualization .and made a doctrine out of it. (Not a bad idea, but VPW and some of his cronies were self serving so it didn’t work out.) VPW talked about how the gifts were manifestations of the Spirit during the Jesus movement and cemented it. (Again not a bad idea, but because VPW and his cronies were self-serving didn’t work out). Thus, VPW > (greater than) John Calvin. Hey did I say that, OUCH
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it I was not trying to insult you. Do not take it that way.
What do you mean by the long version is the short version and the short version is long version?
I will ask you three times.
1 Please tell me
2 Please tell me
3 please tell me
I need to understand what you mean when you say things so I am not insulting you. I think you need to work on bieng nice too so there is nothing wrong with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses and anyone else listening:
Look, ( I suppose I will tell you later) open your ears and listen its real simple:
Hebrews Chapter 7 & 8 tells us the difference between the old testament and the new. The new testament, Jesus was made a surety of a “better testament.” Hebrews 7:22 Jesus is called the mediator of a “better covenant.” ..... which was established on “better promises” Hebrews 8:6 Still , one can fall short of the “better promises” Hebrews 4:1 and not enter into his rest. If one neglects there salvation they could find themselves in a situation where they cannot escape. Hebrews 2:3 Notice that the mediator and surety of the better testament and covenant is JESUS.( Not me or you
or Calvin or anyone else.) All roads point to Jesus. This better covenant is by “a new and living way” Hebrews 10:20 If someone where to kick Jesus off the throne, they would not have a “surety” or a “mediator”, for the way they believe. Thus, they would be under Old Testament Law. Why is the new testament/covenant better? Because Jesus did this for us: ”Blotting out the ordinances , that was against us, which was contrary to us took it OUT OF THE WAY, nailing it to his cross. Colossians 2:14. Notice that, that is THE WAY he took out of THE WAY to establish a new and living (better) way. The ordinances are the numerous stuff listed as things in the old way or Old Testament. The new and living way lists a smaller group of things that one can NOT do. THAT IS WHY IT IS BETTER. The things you cannot in the NT do are listed as : NO FORNICATION AND/OR NO WHOREMONGING PLUS NO COVETOUSNESS = {DOING (FORNNICATION,WHOREMONGING, COVETOUSNESS)IS UNCLEAN}; { NOT DOING (FORNICATION,WHOREMONGING,COVETOUSNESS) IS CLEAN} Thus, the things listed as "unclean" in NT paramaters are considered sin. Here is just some of the places they are listed in the New Testament: Acts 15:20,29 , I Thess. 4:3,7; 5:18 , Eph. 5:5, II Corinthians 12:21, I Corinth 10: 7-10, Colos. 3:5,Galations: 5:19-21 and there are more. These are THE CONDITIONS OF the New Testament and Covenant and are the BETTER WAY.
What can happen if one does not obey the NT stuff listed above? One can lose his “INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD and CHRIST. (Read above versus) Losing your inheritance is like being KICKED OUT. Ie ( you have no rights to ownership of anything there) Also “if a man have not the Spirit of Christ in him he is none of HIS” Romans 8:9 If you are “none of his and lose your inheritance” this would constitute seperation features from HIM. Those seperation features would be God's and Jesus's choice becuase they are the mediators/sureties of these covenants. If the covenants are violated? The consequences are clear. What about Salvation? Peter and Jude & others describe how the things listed above can wage war against and destroy a soul.( I Peter 2:11, II Peter 2:4, 10-12, Jude v. 5-13) and (Hebrews 10:39)
All of the above paragraphs describe CONDITIONS in NT better way testament/covenant beliefs.
Calvinism says that UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION is that BETTER WAY. This teaching of Calvin is false. Thus Calvinism describes a DIFFERENT WAY than the BETTER WAY. Notice that the better way is better for a reason: it has way fewer conditions. Calvinism says there is NO CONDITION which is a LIE. This should make that CLEAR.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses: Read the above POST 5 TIMES BEFORE THIS ONE so I don’t hurt your virgin ears.
Now you provoked me to answer your questions so its on you:
Here’s an explanation of the Long version is the short version and the short version is the long version:
“The initiated Calvinists might as well just pass out the Condoms, KY Jelly & the Vaseline and tell us what they really are about. Get it?
With the long version it is difficult to get to the short (unerect you know what) version. With the short version (above statement by sky4it) it is easier to get to the long version (erect knowyou what)
You mean you couldn’t figure this out?
Here is also the expanded definition of a “Initiated Calvinist” “Repeated”:::::
Here's one more thing I thought to clear up. I mentioned the concepts of initiated Calvinist and the uninitiated. I said you could have a society within a society. Still, you could have no such soceity and have initiated Calvinism working and it is the far more likely outcome. How? By not obeying the 3 (three) NT principles or rather the 2 ie( fornication(Eph5.5 calls it whoremonger)) and covetousness = uncleanliness) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Thus, you could have individual initiated practioners who practice it with others outside the church, a far more likely outcome and virtually no one in the church would have knowledge of such "affairs".
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it what you said in your last post was bad. What you said in the one before that was okay. What you said in the very last post was bad. It was not real real bad but it was kind of sort of bad. It is time that I gave you a timeout. This means you should not talk about this for three days. Then you can come back and be refreshed.
You see Mr. Cman you see do you see. Sometimes Mr. Sky4it is not nice and friendly and says a bad things like that last one that he said. It is easy to see that he can say bad things. It wasn't real real bad but bad enough that he that he needs to take a timeout.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses:
Yeah ok goofball, you really are a muleskinner. You badger me to answer a pun, but don’t blame yourself. I am going to take your 3 day timeout, not because you said too but BECAUSE I WANT TO. I mean did you even read the post before that you said was OK. Just ok huh? Because I tried to help you get it. Donating my time to help a muleskinner like you doesn’t do much good because I don’t think you even read the stuff I posted. It’s pretty plain and simple stuff even for a muleskinner like you.
By the way I am going on a 3 day self imposed timeout (
), so don’t ask me any questions for three days either got it goofball? BTW, cut the Mr. this and Mr. that it doesn't suit your style.
When you get back in three days, here is a question for you. Think about a number between one and a million and write it down on your post. I am quite certain I can get it and tell you the number. Now follow the instructions and do it and I will tell you the number.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
((Ahem)), ... what's with the 'buckwheat' comment anyway? ... Please let's not bring obsolete and racial terms into this thread that apparently has already spiraled out of control. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
I apoligize to you. I changed it too goofball, your the first person that ever told me that was a "racial" term. That's how out of touch I am with political correctness. Kids used to use it all the time and the other peoples from that show and I never heard someone suggest it was otherwise. I am not a racist. Interestingly, I made a comment one day about girls softball and got hacked on for that too in a sports message forum. My generation (in my 40's) didnt think about terms like that.
With respect to horses hes a little excessive himself, but I will behave
which also means i certainly dont need to apologize to him for asking him if he watches beavis and butthead ..... I think he does. 
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
First off, 'political correctness' has nothing to do with this. 'Buckwheat' has often been used as a derogoratory racial term here in the U.S. (altho' not as much nowadays, which is why I said 'obsolete'). I didn't think you were racist; just pointing out the term and its implications.Maybe the topic matter helps contribute to that perhaps? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
anyway thanks for the tip, I might have said it in the wrong crowd someday (ignorantly) and got decked. :( I just remember as kids we would use all the Little Rascal names and didnt think anything about it.
I was also wondering, if as a matter of your historical enjoyment, if there is anything out there on the personal life, (as in sexual life of John Calvin). If you run across it, be sure to spin it.
Well Im on timeout so I may be back on this thread in 3 days. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Dear Mr. Sky4it
I thank you so very much for taking a timeout no one ever did that when I told them to.
Maybe Mr. Sky4it we got off on the wrong foot and if we talk things out they will get better.
I have a number that I wrote down and if you can guess it please go ahead and try.
My other question to you is what if Mr. Calvin is right about somethings and you are not. If you could explain that a little better that might help.
Edited by horsesheadLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses:
usaid:
Maybe Mr. Sky4it we got off on the wrong foot and if we talk things out they will get better.
Yeah, well don’t worry about it. Next time use both your feet. It takes two feet to walk and if you use em both, well then you wont get off on the wrong foot ie.(your wrong foot) with me.
usaid:
I have a number that I wrote down and if you can guess it please go ahead and try.
What I told you is that you need to send it back to me in your post and I will tell you if that was the number I was thinking about. Send it over and I will tell you. With me, you need to follow the instructions.
Usaid: My other question to you is what if Mr. Calvin is right about some things and you are not.
This is where Calvin really gets whack. The good news is it doesn’t matter and I will explain to you why.
Your postulate/premise is: That Calvin is right. (That Unconditional Election/Predestination is right)
It does not matter and here is the reason: Nobody knows who the ELECT are for sure except who? Well God of course. Because it is God's foreknowledge of such things not man's. This is where it would get real bad for Calvinists for several reasons:What if God where to say, Well none of the Calvinists are the Elect? Guess what? You are 100 percent up a creek without a paddle in Calvinism, because Calvinists argue that who ever is “reprobated” God is just for doing it. Thus, on either side of the equation, it makes no logical sense to embrace Calvinism.
But you might say, they trust in the sacraments? In this also Calvinists are up a creek, because their doctrine of reprobation isn’t even the same as what it means in II Corinthians 12:21 and all of Chapter 13 (II Corinthians) How does this effect the sacraments? The topic in 1 Corinthians 11:19 is about heresies and heresies are NOT AN EXCUSE for the sacraments. I Corinthians 11: 27 says” WHEREFORE WHOSOEVER SHALL EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP OF THE LORD, UNWORTHILY, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. V: 30 also adds this can cause sickness , weakness and sleeping ie(death) Read verse 30 to understand it. Thus, if you espouse yourself to a heresy doctrine, which toss’s out the stuff we have talked about in this thread, the sacraments are of no or little avail. Still, reprobation, is the issue with Calvinists. Under right scriptural thinking, one is not allowed to be a fornicator, I Corinthians 6 :15-20 tells why. The bible says that fornicating in essence is joining Christ to a harlot. I Corinthians 6:18 says, “ Flee Fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”
These scriptures along with the ones in II Corinthians 12 & 13, form the basis for what reprobation is. Under Calvinism the reprobate are the NONELECTED ONES. Thus if they become reprobated or Unelected they have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR SALVATION, which is way more wacky than what scripture says about Salvation. (This is why it is so important to follow the bible and what it says is a reprobate and to make your calling and election sure. ) What I am saying is you are worse off under Calvinism, then you would be without Calvin at all. AND HERE’S THE KICKER: Some of these people may be judged just like this out of there own doctrine. WHY? John 5:45, Jesus said,” Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father, there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom you trust” Loosely speaking, Calvinists trust in Calvin’s rendition of scripture. Yet Calvin is the same one who condemns them, because they don’t have an out if they are not the ELECT or rather the Unelect. Get it? There is absolutely no out in Calvinism for whoever is reprobated and since they deny that they have to do some things, they could all be condemned by Calvin IF AND I SAY IF, God’s call’s them what Calvin described as a reprobate. God’s meaning of reprobate from scripture is different from Calvin’s so that it might in fact all happen that way.
One more point and I will let you go. You have heard of Jehovah’s Witness’s. They teach a Revelation concept of the 144,000. I asked one JW and he told me those people have already been determined. I asked another and they told me they had not been determined. Do JW’s believe the only one that is in the 144,000 crowd are JW’s only? I don’t know. The point is simply that just by virtue of being a JW, that doesn’t necessarily put you in the 144,000 crowd. Same thing applies to Calvinism. Just by virtue of being a Calvinist doesn’t necessarily make you or one an ELECT. For to presume so, is just simply stupid.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses:
Anyway, that was a very long post by myself on the last one and I think that should answer your question.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it:
I have read what you said and thank you very much.
If I tell you the number that would not be fair because you would know it.
I have another question for you. Do you know where I could go to talk to some people about Bible stuff? I would like to know if I could talk to you directly or someone else about things. I like very much to talk to people when they are around me. I do so much thank you for talking to me when I ask.
Thank you again and talk to you later.
Edited by horsesheadLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Mr. Horses:(And this is only for Mr. Horses).
Look, I thought you were messing with my head ok? But after that last question, I will be as sincere as I can because I think you were too. Let’s just drop the whole number thing because I was just messing with your head too. I even called you Mr., because your questions was so “nice.” ( I don’t like using that word tho)
u said . Do you know where I could go to talk to some people about Bible stuff? I would like to know if I could talk to you directly or someone else about things. I like very much to talk to people when they are around me.
Look, Horses, I am not a Pastor or a trained Physiologist; so I do not have experience in doing that so I can not. Plus, I am really busy but if you want to talk here from time to time that is fine with me. I can however give you a few recommendations on what to do if you need someone to talk to. Here they are:
1) This is the best option. Keep reading your bible and if you feel comfortable get involved in a bible believing spirit filled church. Do this with one in your own community. I stress that this is better than the next options 2 and 3, because it really is not my business to recommend to someone where to go. So do this one.
2) I only know of one ministry today that goes into peoples homes to help them. I cannot say that I recommend them or not. I do know that they work with different churches so they may be involved in some of the churches in your community. There name is Theophostics. Some people swear by them and others say they don’t work or are bad. They have some psychology involved in what they do. I do not care for that part, I am neutral on that aspect of what they do. What they do well is they are very caring loving helpful people. They do not recruit you to there organization. (That I know of) I stress again if you get involved with them only do it and I emphasize ONLY if they are working under the auspices of a church in your community. That for you is good protection as well as them. I have only met some of there people once who came to see someone I know. The results did NOT turn out well. The person they did this with ended up cutting there wrists. After this the team of these people, decided they could not proceed. (No, this was not me.) It was someone I know who has lots of problems and I heard about it. I can tell you that it failed with that person, but I was very impressed with the love and caring and concern that these people showed. It’s my belief that there love, caring and concern are perhaps more healing than what the psychology of this Theosphostics is. THUS, results may vary greatly because as in any other organization I am sure there is some good and some bad. Let me stress again, that DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THIS GROUP UNLESS IT IS DONE UNDER A REPUTABLE CHURCH IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
3) I am not from Oklahoma. I do know of three women in Tulsa Oklahoma who have worked all there lives in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have only talked to two of them in the last 10-15 years maybe twice.(Tondi and Penny) I do know that they are strong Christians and one of them would probably be willing to visit with you on the telephone if you so desired. There names are: Tondi Curtis, Penny Pedersen and Kathy Nygaard. Tondi is married to a pastor of a church and I believe may be a pastor too. Tondi’s husband’s name is James. Tondi has a very brilliant mind and is very solid. Penny and Kathy, I believe attend this church also. If you would like look them up in the phone and call them. Once again, they are hundreds of miles for me and I have not talked to them in ages but they are helpful people and might be willing to talk to you. I stress that you should do number 1 above first and look for someone in your own community. Why? Because this is not personal like I think you need. So you should do that up in number 1 before doing any of this. This should not be necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Dear Mr. Sky4it
Thank you for the things you said. I do belong to a church so I am fine. Mr. Calvin is not here to say things for himself. If he was he would explain himself much better.
All people who are Christians should get along. I see you are making things much more nice and that means you are growing as a person. I do enjoy talking to Christians on the computers so thank you for responding to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses:
Actually, Calvin did see the type of argument that I have made here and prepared in rather short fashion his material to defend against it. Of course, Calvin did not address all the points I have made be he did in fact anticipate someone saying some of the things I have.
What was his response? It is in fact, one of the most bizarre Calvin comments of all time. His end run response was,” LET HIM WHO RECEIVES, TAKE AND DRINK, DRINK AND LIVE.”
DRINK AND LIVE? Drink what? Well the concept is drink the doctrine of Predestination of course and live. It is in fact what he is talking about in the text.
The quote above is from the following in Calvin’s Writings and posted here for you:
Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 13:
"Wherefore, if the apostles and teachers of the Church who came after them did both; if they discoursed piously of the eternal election of God, and at the same time kept believers under the discipline of a pious life, how can those men of our day, when shut up by the invincible force of truth, think they are right in saying, that what is said of predestination, though it is true, must not be preached to the people? Nay, it ought indeed to be preached, that whoso has ears to hear may hear. And who has ears if he has not received them from him who has promised to give them? Certainly, let him who receives not, reject. Let him who receives, take and drink, drink and live.”
You might also find interesting the argument he laid out against a few of the things I said. Basically, Calvin says that the doctrine of predestination ought to cause people “TO ASPIRE TO IT” The it being holiness or without blame before him in love. The bible clearly says to crucify your affections and lusts, not to aspire them away. Calvin then clearly says later, that it is BLASPHEME TO INVERT THE WHOLE ORDER (Wicked blaspheme at that) OF ELECTION. What Calvin is saying is that ELECTION IS THE PRINCIPAL OF SALVATION.
And that it is blaspheme to think otherwise. This of course perhaps speaks of how Garth pointed out that someone was killed if they disagreed with this stuff. Also it speaks volumes to the personality of John Calvin and why it is in fact a cult. If in fact you look up the first part of the paragraph you will find that Calvin really condemns people who act like swine and go on in lust. Still, in the next sentence he completely undoes what he just said, by God determined to save us and “he will bring us to it in his own time.” After that it gets really weird where he says ,”if he has doomed us to death it is vain for us to fight against it.” Which is why I told you that Calvinists have no out pitch with God. CALVIN TEACHES THAT IF GOD DOOMS YOU , YOU LOSE AND THERE ISN’T ONE STINKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sort of like if you are a bad machine get used to it, you’re a bad machine baby. It in fact is the same argument I made about evolution and the moral component. Under Calvin, if your bad don’t even try. This is clearly wrong from scriptural teaching.
Here is the quote from Calvin: Book 3 Chapter 23, Section 12
12. Another argument which they employ to overthrow predestination is that if it stand, all care and study of well doing must cease. For what man can hear (say they) that life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God, without immediately concluding that it is of no consequence how he acts, since no work of his can either hinder or further the predestination of God? Thus all will rush on, and like desperate men plunge headlong wherever lust inclines. And it is true that this is not altogether a fiction; for there are multitudes of a swinish nature who defile the doctrine of predestination by their profane blasphemies, and employ them as a cloak to evade all admonition and censure. "God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us: if he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time; if he has doomed us to death, it is vain for us to fight against it." But Scripture, while it enjoins us to think of this high mystery with much greater reverence and religion, gives very different instruction to the pious, and justly condemns the accursed license of the ungodly. For it does not remind us of predestination to increase our audacity, and tempt us to pry with impious presumption into the inscrutable counsels of God, but rather to humble and abase us, that we may tremble at his judgment, and learn to look up to his mercy. This is the mark at which believers will aim. The grunt of these filthy swine is duly silenced by Paul. They say that they feel secure in vices because, if they are of the number of the elect, their vices will be no obstacle to the ultimate attainment of life. But Paul reminds us that the end for which we are elected is, "that we should be holy, and without blame before him," (Eph. 1:4). If the end of election is holiness of life, it ought to arouse and stimulate us strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for sloth. How wide the difference between the two things, between ceasing from well-doing because election is sufficient for salvation, and its being the very end of election, that we should devote ourselves to the study of good works. Have done, then, with blasphemies which wickedly invert the whole order of election. When they extend their blasphemies farther, and say that he who is reprobated by God will lose his pains if he studies to approve himself to him by innocence and probity of life, they are convicted of the most impudent falsehood.
HERE’S A COUPLE OF MORE CALVIN’S QUOTES DESCRIBING HIS MIND:
4 Book 3 Chapter 23 Section 4 Last sentence of that paragraph.
“Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.”
Reprobation is “NOT A SECRET COUNSEL” in the mind of God. This is 100 percent false. In fact we already described from the bible what a reprobate acts like. Furthermore, the bible clearly teaches that God would have all men to be saved.
Book3 Chapter 23 Section 8
8 The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.
This is absolutely false teaching. The Lord “did not deem it meet” that man should fall. The Lord told man not to do something or they would die. Calvin loves to do this to make God responsible for his own actions. Why man fell we know exactly. It is called sin. Calvin evades this not without a purpose either. It is to justify the lifestyle.
BTW, here is an interesting concept. We know that God is all knowing and has foreknowledge. But what if he wanted to take a break and not involve his knowledge with some. God is “ALL KNOWING”, I agree, but if he decides not to be he doesn’t have to. This fits perfectly within reason why God has asked people to discard and crucify the lusts of the flesh. It certainly appears God does not want to sit around and look into the future of those who won’t. And if he makes that choice who am I , Calvin or anyone else to tell him he has too? Has he made a choice to do so? The bible clearly indicates that God is building a temple of people for a REST. A rest is a break.
With respect to anything in life that one chooses:
You have probably heard the saying: Fools rush in. In anything in life there is some truth to that. A wise man always counts the cost. We are accountable for our choices in life otherwise we would not have a free will.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
horseshead
Mr. Sky4it:
Thank you for talking to me. I recently moved to Madison Wisconsin area. So this is why I was interested very much in churches and what they believe. I do not know many people from this area. I will just start to get involved in some churches and see where that goes. Do you know anyone from Madison Wisconsin?
Thank you again and I am happy to see everyone getting along. This is nice and good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Horses:
I actually know a guy from Madison Wisconsin. He was in my wedding. I have not talked to him in well over 20 years, but I am sure he would be willing to provide you with a list of churches in his area. He is not a pastor and would not be a person trying to recruit you or anything. He certainly would be able to tell you the different churches in the area since he has live there many years. His name is Kenton Sorensen (I dont even remember the last name spelling it is either son sin or sen on the end. His wifes name is Marlene. I am certain he would tell you of the churches in the area to assist you. Like I said , I have not spoken with him in over 20 years, but he is a family man and familiar with Madison, having lived there the last 20 or more years. I live a long long way from Madison, so I would not be able to assist you.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
flatrockwhiz
FaltrockwhizCalvin in a small Cup
Clavin in a cup
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
cup.
FaltrockwhizCalvin in a small Cup
Clavin in a cup
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
cup.
FaltrockwhizCalvin in a small Cup
Clavin in a cup
This might help you understand Calvin. After Luther's death, Calvin was hired to go from his home in France to Genieva (? might not have the right city). His job there was to write a theology
that could be used for the purpose of establishing that city as a not-Roman theocratic city-state.
Sure, it sounds cultish--because it is. That was the guy's whole gig. To set up a closed-culture
city with an irreproachable government that saw no particular reason to fight with or against
other cities. It would be the city indwelt by predestined, true believers. Think of it as the Rock of Ages with cobblestones and wooden huts instead of mud and tents. The proof that we are the
only predestined, true believers is the fact that we are here, in the city of God. The proof that
"they" are not true believers is the fact that they're not here. There ya go--Calvin in an espresso
cup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Calvin would probably say, Its inconceivable.
Behave yourself Garth, putting John Calvin in Weirweille's shoes is so un Twi like, even if too enjoyable.
Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth see above
Flatrock: Enjoyed your post, thanks. I think you and others might find it interesting that the actual Calvin contraption also has political levers and such built into it. Obviously modern day Calvinists dont utilize Calvins political views, but it might be interesting to look at them. Most of them are at the end of his writings. I have not studied them in detail, but it may be interesting to look at them.
anyway appreciated the post.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
flatrockwhiz
Garth's Honey WagonFlatrockwhiz
Hey, Garth, I laughed out loud. So few words, so many memories, sounds, smells, ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.