The Gospel testimony of John Calvin
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: I said I found what I was looking for when looking at specific verses like Ephesians 2:8&9 and Romans, such as 10:9&10, in Calvin's commentaries. I may ask to read your testimony one day :think:
You must own your own lack, and I mine. You can't 'shame' me into doing your homework so you can turn it in. Mine is already done. Do your own.
Rather I asserted you weren't looking. Surely you will not find what you are not looking for and that's the whole of my thread commentary and your lack.
musterion
Well-known member
So what'd he say about what the Gospel is and when he heard and believed it? He never would have heard it from Catholics, so if he was saved he had to hear or read it somewhere else in order to believe it, and he would have said so. So what did he say?
Unless you believe the Catholic gospel is the true saving Gospel, which would explain why you're being so coy about this.
Unless you believe the Catholic gospel is the true saving Gospel, which would explain why you're being so coy about this.
Lon
Well-known member
You are actually going to make me do your homework, aren't you?
You are actually going to make me do your homework, aren't you (hint: we've done this before and I'm sad you've never offered your testimony)?
Homework, homework, homework! It's not that unregenerates are too lazy to read the Bible, it's the unregerates can't read the Bible. Can't and lazy are two different things. You'll have to ignore the homework requests cause they're not born to understand you eitherYou are actually going to make me do your homework, aren't you?
You are actually going to make me do your homework, aren't you (hint: we've done this before and I'm sad you've never offered your testimony)?
What if one is neither Calvinist nor Arminian?
Musterion and I seem to agree on very much more than we disagree on and I'm not entirely certain what point he's trying make on this thread so far and so I'm looking forward to some clarification based on what I say in this post...
To be saved, "saved" meaning that you do not end up in Hell, does NOT require...
Being saved requires the following and nothing else - nothing else...
That's it and that's all. I don't care what else you get wrong or how many people end up in Hell because of your blasphemously wrong doctrine. You cannot exhaust the grace of God nor outspend the value of Christ blood. It makes no difference, in so far as your salvation is concerned, if you call yourself and Catholic, Calvinist, Baptist or Bungee Jumper. If you call upon the name of Jesus Christ and believe that God raised Him for the dead, you will be saved - period.
Resting in Him,
Clete
To be saved, "saved" meaning that you do not end up in Hell, does NOT require...
- a belief in dispensationalism
- a belief in free will theism
- a belief that God knows the future exhaustively
- a belief that God predestined everything
- a belief that God is in meticulous control of every event that occurs
- a belief that God can do anything that comes to your mind.
- a belief that God must be everywhere at all times
- a belief that God is outside of time
Being saved requires the following and nothing else - nothing else...
- That you have sinned against God
- That because of your sin, you are and deserve to be separated from God
- That God became a man - God the Son - Jesus.
- That God (the Son) died to pay for your sin (and the sin of everyone else).
- That God raised Him (God the Son) from the dead
- That you call upon the name of Jesus for your salvation by virtue of His death and resurrection.
That's it and that's all. I don't care what else you get wrong or how many people end up in Hell because of your blasphemously wrong doctrine. You cannot exhaust the grace of God nor outspend the value of Christ blood. It makes no difference, in so far as your salvation is concerned, if you call yourself and Catholic, Calvinist, Baptist or Bungee Jumper. If you call upon the name of Jesus Christ and believe that God raised Him for the dead, you will be saved - period.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
In a rare moment, though I have you on ignore, I had to look here because the topic is important.
The 'does not entail' can be very long, but for me, you missed the most important 'does not' concerning works....
Yes. You actually have God doing all of it too, though may disagree that the last one is God as well but the rest is all monergist.
:up: I love seeing both a MAD and Open Theist say it because against other accusations on TOL as well. Thanks Clete, sincerely. We can go on ignoring each other after this on everything else but I'm glad I looked.
musterion
Well-known member
Lon.
Your weaseling is tiresome.
If Calvin had anything remotely like a testimony of having heard and believed the Gospel of grace unto salvation -- which to this day Rome has anathematized -- he would have described it somewhere. More to the point, commentators on all sides of this fence would put it right out front whenever this issue is raised (and this is not by any means the first time ever that it has been raised). For that reason, I am not going to wade through Calvin's voluminous commentaries in order to find something which you and I already know isn't there.
If it were there, and if you would actually read his commentaries and knew it were there, you would have already posted it and crowed victory. That you have not indicates your perennial dishonesty and further exemplifies your weaselhood. You are like every other Calvin this done this board: an fraud who knows he cannot defend particular vital aspects of Calvinism, and so pretends they don't need defending.
It really says something when a drone like B57 is the most consistent of your lot and makes the rest of you look so bad.
Of course some of us understand you better than you think we do. We know that you don't think his testimony regarding the saving Gospel is really important because it's not the Gospel that saves Calvinists, but election. Having believed the Gospel, or having appearing to believe it, is simply possible evidence of election, which is really what counts in Calvinism, and so makes TULIP a false gospel.
Your weaseling is tiresome.
If Calvin had anything remotely like a testimony of having heard and believed the Gospel of grace unto salvation -- which to this day Rome has anathematized -- he would have described it somewhere. More to the point, commentators on all sides of this fence would put it right out front whenever this issue is raised (and this is not by any means the first time ever that it has been raised). For that reason, I am not going to wade through Calvin's voluminous commentaries in order to find something which you and I already know isn't there.
If it were there, and if you would actually read his commentaries and knew it were there, you would have already posted it and crowed victory. That you have not indicates your perennial dishonesty and further exemplifies your weaselhood. You are like every other Calvin this done this board: an fraud who knows he cannot defend particular vital aspects of Calvinism, and so pretends they don't need defending.
It really says something when a drone like B57 is the most consistent of your lot and makes the rest of you look so bad.
Of course some of us understand you better than you think we do. We know that you don't think his testimony regarding the saving Gospel is really important because it's not the Gospel that saves Calvinists, but election. Having believed the Gospel, or having appearing to believe it, is simply possible evidence of election, which is really what counts in Calvinism, and so makes TULIP a false gospel.
Lon
Well-known member
Again, when we are talking about weaseling, we are talking about one avoiding something, like trying to get out of homework. :think:
:doh: Let me tell you how actually easy it is: Go to Calvin's commentaries, DON'T wade through them but look up specific verses about the gospel and SEE what Calvin said about them to discern if he understood them. You'd do the same with Luther and others, which was the challenge I gave. You aren't going to find a short testimony from any Christian from that era because they didn't boil it down like this. In a like manner, we normally share multiple scriptures, so even the Apostle Paul's testimony is bit protracted.
There is a method to my 'seeming' madness and you are stalling yet, though I'm giving you hints and help as we go along. You first have to 'want' to find it if it is there, and then know what to look for concerning those early Protestants.
Name-calling and grumbling false will get you everywhere
lain:At least you admit to 'attacking' here, if I have to defend. Look at yourself in a mirror for a few seconds and let it set in. It isn't weaseling. I 'started' doing your work for you and you simply sat fat in the judgment chair, yelling invectives. That gave me great pause, and what I believe is a reasonable pause. You don't 'deserve' an answer. Some 'deservedness' must be earned, and you haven't. YOU stopped my goodwill and work when I saw you were just sitting on the throne.
:think: This says a LOT about you. Do you know what it says? It says you like his brand because you don't have to look to hate it and prefer we all were as hate-able. Doesn't it? You are simply looking to bin people. No wonder 'weasel' comes to your mind. I don't fit in that box and you are frustrated trying to cram me into it. I DON'T have a problem with Arminians or the like; I don't attack them from thread to thread. I do not appreciate Unitarians and have made threads, but I have tried really hard just to report facts and let readers make up their own minds regarding the matters posted. I want to say, for the record, I am not a Calvinist on an Arminian board making a stink. I'm a Calvinist who tries to understand the context in which he is allowed to post on another's board. Because of that, I try to serve by answering questions....until someone is only interested in using his sceptre to smash all offerings to the ground without even looking at them (your Highness).
:nono: You don't even understand your own motives or why you are like this. I'm no threat on TOL. Neither is Calvin.
That's a mouthful of assertions. Again, you need to look at you.
If you want to alienate, ostracize, marginalize or after any other fashion get rid of all Calvinists on TOL, is that what you desire? What is it you really started this thread for? I'm trying to justify this last half of your post with whether Calvin knew the gospel or not. I'm not really seeing how conclusion can happen, when you can't even be bothered to do about 10 minutes of commentary reading in order to produce that conclusion. :idunno:
You are making flying, unfounded accusation. They are just floating there on the wind with no anchors or substance to them like little soap bubbles of angst.
Quite right!
It wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list but only to convey the idea that you can be from just about any sect of Christianity that you can name.
Believing that, while irrational and therefore false, will not land you Hell.
It might cause someone else to reject Christianity altogether and land them in Hell, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
I'd venture to guess that musterion will not disagree with a word I've said. You all are attacking him as though he would disagree but I'll be surprised to find out that it is so. In other words, I think you are missing his point and my post was intended to force clarification.
I should also point out that what I've stated as the gospel, while entirely accurate and true, not everyone who claims agreement with it actually agrees with what I've said. This is a particular danger for Calvinists and other forms of Augustinian theology because they have no problem at all with redefining words to make them fit with their dogma. If you give accent to what I've said but the words all mean different things then the words themselves won't save you. The words are only names which we give to ideas. Its the ideas that count.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Incidentally, you are not on my ignore list.
Lon
Well-known member
And yet, we haven't established Calvin denying it, but Musterion and others would wave that and head right to judgment. We have to dig to find the testimony of the first Protestants.
All theology carries this danger because only Christ saves, so agreement on the general observation and perhaps even in pointing out one's particular danger over another.
I don't tend to appreciate some of the colorful metaphors and name-calling when debating. I realize it isn't just me and is part of your portfolio repertoire in debate. For me, it just closes off my desire to debate. I'd be sinning if I returned the jab so rather avoid it. Again, I'm glad I've read you today, however. In Him -Lon
All men are susceptible to any form of intellectual dishonesty, course! But that is really an irrelevant point because while we are all capable of being intellectually dishonest, we are not all members of a group that thinks its justifiable to be so, even if they would never put what they do in those terms. Calvinism in particular is up to their necks in the practice of arbitrarily redefining terms attempting to force them to mean whatever they need them to mean to maintain their dogma. The word "sovereign" for example, does not mean what Calvinists think it means. It actually means "highest authority", but Calvinists insist that it means "totally exhaustive, meticulous, real time control of every event that happens". That's not an insignificant difference and it has been changed for no other reason other than to make that term consistent with the doctrine. For the Calvinist, their dogma comes first, it is brought in an a priori fashion to their reading and interpretation of the bible. This results in a constant need to conform the bible to fit the dogma and the redefinition of terms is a major technique for making that happen. And the technique works! This is why Calvinists see Calvinism all over the place in the bible. They aren't making it up, they just have Calvinist colored glasses on. The most fundamental error they make is the refusal to question the need for those glasses. On the contrary, they insist, without argument, that the glasses are required.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
It isn't arbitrary but that's another thread and topic and a disagreement, where the importance of the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior has been lifted up. I tend to leave it there for posterity of first import and am also more than happy to leave our agreement for concerning it for the time being, barring your objection and assuming it is agreeable. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
He assumed you'd agree (not disagree) that whoever trusts in Christ is saved, Calvinist or otherwise.
My point is basically to get you to answer the following question.
If you believe that Calvin was not saved, on what is that belief based?
Lon and other seem to believe that you are arguing that Calvin was not saved because he believed in what has come to be called Calvinism. The implication being that you can't be a Calvinist and be saved.
I'll be very surprised to find that it was your intention to make such an implication.
musterion
Well-known member
Here's my answer: you guessed right, pretty much. There is no evidence that Calvin was anything other than a baptized Catholic with some variants on his doctrinal interpretations, yet essentially Catholic (more properly, Augustinian) in his soteriology. There is no evidence that he had a clear understanding of, or belief in, the saving Gospel which is itself the power of God unto salvation... which Gospel, I repeat for emphasis, Rome has long anathematized.
But is it possible for someone with label _____ to be saved? Of course. Again, the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation, IF ONE BELIEVES IT. A Calvinist can be saved just like anybody else can, but it's going to be in spite of TULIP, not because of it. They're no different than anyone else in that regard. That is why I believe that those who preach that TULIP is the gospel are very likely unsaved because it clearly isn't. Most Calvinists, however, will not go as far as to say that, whatever they actually happened to believe.
But is it possible for someone with label _____ to be saved? Of course. Again, the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation, IF ONE BELIEVES IT. A Calvinist can be saved just like anybody else can, but it's going to be in spite of TULIP, not because of it. They're no different than anyone else in that regard. That is why I believe that those who preach that TULIP is the gospel are very likely unsaved because it clearly isn't. Most Calvinists, however, will not go as far as to say that, whatever they actually happened to believe.
I agree with the gist of what you've said here. :up:
There are Calvinists who actually see the TULIP in my statement of what is required for salvation. These are those I was referring too when I said that its accent to the ideas and not to the words that counts. If you mouth the words but the meaning of those words are all jumbled into an incoherent mess then you've said nothing. And this issue isn't exclusive to Calvinists, Catholics (and several other sects) do similar things but often in a different direction.
I would give one word of caution. The lack of affirmative evidence is not itself affirmative evidence to the contrary. That would be to make an argument from silence.
Resting in Him,
Clete