In defense of Calvinism. 07/05/96 22:28:50 CDT from 129.200.108.23 First, TomR, I rarely use the word Calvinism. I just mentioned it at first because I met someone with similar beliefs. I now I use it with you because you asked me "a few questions" about it. The book I used for my info regarding Calvin and Servetus is called ,"The Writings of John Calvin", by Wulfert de Greef. It's a pretty good book. If you'd like get it - it's inexpensive and well researched. You quote the encylopedias to try and prove that Calvin wanted Servetus to be put to death, that Calvin actually believed in the execution of heretics, and that it was Calvin who turned him in. These aren't exactly true. You are missing the big picture here. I would like to quote J.I. Packer (from Tabletalk magazine, Oct '95), "1. Trinitarian heresy as a capital crime was a cultural reality not invented by Calvin but pre-dating him by centuries; 2. Others were burned for similar heresies as late as 1612 in England; 3. The penalty of death at the stake was the decision of Geneva's "Council of 25," with unanimous advice from several other Swiss jurisdictions..." The only thing this does is pull off the blame from Calvin's head. But even if Calvin did want Servetus dead for his heresies, I still believe what I feel the Bible teaches. Calvin isn't the one who formulated these teachings. For some weird reason they are named after him. I read God's Word and this is what I see. You quote Foxe's Book of Martyrs and then using an ad hominem attack state, "For such is Foxe's Book of Martyrs, a book written by Protestants, to defend Protestantism..." So I should not believe Foxe's Book of Martyrs because it was written by Protestants? That is completely unreasonable. I guess I can't read anything written by a Protestant because it is automatically biased and therefore unreliable. <<"Oneness weren't going around getting people arrested, and burnt at the stake for their beliefs - EVER! How come it's excusable for a Protestant-Reformer - EVER?">> TomR, your beliefs were always looked at as heretical by both Protestants and Catholics, actually thoughout all of history. And BTW, Servetus did want Calvin to be burnt instead of himself. I'm glad that you bought R.C.'s book, "Chosen By God". It's a great book. And yes, he is a "wonderful" author. You said that R.C. Sproul "has admitted that Calvin was well known for his persecutions against those he claimed were heretics." And then you quote him. Don't you understand what R.C. is saying? He is stating a falsity. He is exagerating to show that what people automatically think of when they here his name - is that he loved to burn heretics. This is false. People should remember him for his remarkable mind and his writings on Biblical doctrine, etc. And this is what the whole book is about - the doctrine of predestination. The book is not about an attempt to free Calvin from these false charges. BTW, why do you use the KJV. It was translated by Trinitarians - doesn't this bother you? And once again you label and dismiss - You keep on quoting Mark 12:29 as if it proves some point against me. Stop it! I agree fully with this verse. "The Lord our God is one Lord". This is my belief. I never said it wasn't. This verse in no way disproves the Trinity. Regarding total depravity - how come you say "pretty dog-gone depraved" and then say that man is not totally depraved? Either he is or he isn't. You quote Isa. 64:6-7, "But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs who stirs himself up to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities." I'm glad that you chose a Scripture that IN AND OF ITSELF, 100% supports the belief that man is totally depraved. I wonder why you then contradicted it in the next sentence with your own words that are based on your own humanistic beliefs. Watch out for those TYPE B EVIL COMMENTARIES, TomR. To try and prove your beliefs, you quoted Eph. 5:8. But after conversion we are no longer Totally Depraved. We are new creations, able to please, serve, and love God. Same answer for Col. 3:5. Then you write, "Note that I did NOT walk in disobedience ALL the time - rather, ENOUGH of the time." What are you saying - you were able to please a holy God BEFORE you were converted? C'mon TomR! Then you go and quote James 2:10 to contradict yourself and show that with one sin you have broken all the laws of God - and therefore are deserving of death. <> I thought you read the book, TomR. One is totally depraved BEFORE God converts them. After conversion, the Christian can follow God. Total depravity is man's inability to seek after God because of his inborn sinful nature. Also read Romans 3:9-20 (and please read it). You've read my cookie-cutter illustration (which you mock) but that's OK. I made it up for a Bible study that I gave to the Jr. High. I would like to quote a long portion out of my Bible (New Geneva Study Bible - NKJV, p. 809) on the topic of original sin and total depravity - It's pretty good - it may answer some questions for other readers, that were brought up under Rowan's "uh" post: "Scripture diagnoses sin as a universal deformity of human nature, found at every point in every person (1 Kin. 8:46; Rom. 3:9-23; 7:18; 1 John 1:8-10). Both Testaments describe sin as rebellion against God's rule, missing the mark God set for us to aim at, transgressing God's law, offending God's purity by defiling oneself, and incurring guilt before God the Judge. The moral deformity is dynamic: sin is an energy of irrational, negative, and rebellious reaction to God. It is a spirit of fighting God in order to play God. The root of sin is pride and enmity against God, the spirit seen in Adam's first transgression, and sinful acts always have behind them thoughts and desires that one way or another express the willful opposition of the fallen heart to God's claim on our lives. "Sin may be defined as breaking the law of God, or failing to conform to it, in any aspect of life, whether thought, word, or deed. Scriptures illustrating different aspects of sin include Jer. 17:9; Matt. 12:30-37; Mark 7:20-23; Rom. 1:18 - 3:20; 7:7-25; 8:5-8; 14:23 (Luther said that Paul wrote Romans to "magnify sin"); Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Heb. 3:12; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17. "'Original sin,' meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (it comes from Augustine), but it does bring into focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. Original sin does not mean that sin belongs to human nature as such; 'God made man upright' (Eccl. 7:29). Nor does it mean that the processes of reproduction and birth are sinful; the uncleanness associated with sexuality in the Law (Lev. 12; 15) was typical and ceremonial, not moral. Rather, 'original sin' means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; it is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin. "The phrase 'total depravity' is commonly used to make explicit implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total in principle, although not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be). No part of us is untouched by sin, and no action of ours is as good as it should be. Consequently, nothing we do is ever meritorious in God's eyes. We cannot earn God's favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost. "Total depravity includes total inability, that is, being without power to believe in God or His word (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7, 8). Paul calls this universal unresponsiveness a form of death; the fallen heart is 'dead' (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). As the Westminster Confession (IX. 3) explains, 'Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.' To this darkness the word of God alone brings light (Luke 18:27; 2 Cor. 4:6)." I hope Steven and Hideous read this -I'd like to see what they have to say. And I'm sorry that quote was so long. You quote Mark 10:14 - and... - what are you trying to say? What is the meaning you insert into this verse, TomR? Please explain. Regarding Romans 7:9 - Oh my gosh! I don't mean to be rude, but you are making blatant errors in interpretation. He was alive without the Law because he didn't know it. He was only alive in his own eyes, but when he saw that the Law required obedience and that he broke the laws continually (especially covetousness), he died, he was condemned - he saw that he was sinful. So "We are born sinners because in Adam all fell" - R.C. Sproul. YES! "Note that I did NOT walk in disobedience ALL the time" - TomR. NOT! A totally depraved persondoesn't always see his sin as disabling him to come to God, but sees it as a more minor offence. Why did you quote James 1:15? Commentary, please. Acts 17:22-28 - Paul was refering to the fact that God is the one who brought all people into being and they only exist by His providence. What are you trying to say here, exactly? Man is totally depraved because of sin. (In answer to your question). Romans 7:14-17. <<"How can Paul be totally depraved here, if he can at least recognize that the law is good?">> 1. Paul is speaking about following God AFTER HIS CONVERSION - He is no longer totally depraved. 2. Even a non-Christian can see that God's Law is good - that doesn't mean that he's not totally depraved or able to keep God's Law. Take a look at verse 15 - the tense changes. Your companion passage has nothing to do with Rom. 7:5 - please explain. <<"First off, scripturally speaking, death DOES NOT MEAN cessation of existence. It means separation from God.">> OK...and your point is? I thought we were talking about being "spiritually dead", not the eternal consequences of the unregenerate sinner. You quote 1 Cor 15:35. Why? I'm sorry, TomR, but I think you just committed a "TYPE B" felony here. Is what you just did here, what you call, get "NEUTRALIZED"? Didn't you say that Satan is the one who makes us do this? Remember, "Satan gave a TYPE B SCRIPTURE: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee." Or maybe I just don't know why the heck you are using these verses. Because they have nothing to do with someone being spiritually dead or spiritual death. Regarding 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Luke 16:22-31; Rom. 6:23 (and yes, I read your unquoted verses, something you won't do for me). These refer to the punishment for sin and the afterlife - not to the issue of fallen man's nature. But regarding Isa. 59:2 (which is unrelated to the other verses you listed) - this only proves the point that man's sins do separate him from God. <<"This is where your R.C. Sproul (and 'Reformed theology') is TOTALLY confused, and completely backwards truth. He says - 'A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim: "regeration precedes faith."... We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.' What Bible is he reading THIS out of, pray tell?">> I must now ask you, what Bible are you reading out of, pray tell? Please read Ephesians 2:1-9, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. BUT GOD, WHO IS RICH IN MERCY, BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT LOVE WITH WHICH HE LOVED US, EVEN WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES, MADE US ALIVE TOGETHER WITH CHRIST (BY HIS GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED), AND RAISED US UP TOGETHER, AND MADE US SIT TOGETHER IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST JESUS, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His GRACE in His kindness toward us in Christ. FOR BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED THROUGH FAITH, AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANYONE SHOULD BOAST." Please tell me TomR, what you think those verses are saying. To me they spell out man's total salvation and eternity soley by God's grace alone. God does the work, not man. Now to your verses: John 3:5 - this verse only proves my point, not yours. What do you think Jesus is talking about here? Surely not baptism... Eph. 1:12-14 - this doesn't speak about man doing works or no works for salvation. John 14:15 - your reasons for quoting this verse please. Luke 11:13 - this is regarding importance of prayer and how much more loving God is than man. (BTW - you just quoted a verse in Jesus just revealed His Calvinistic beliefs - "if ye then being evil" - all men are wicked, evil, totally depraved, in God's eyes. Rom. 10:14 - Israel rejected Christ as Messiah - but they won't believe unless the Gospel is preached - and so with all people. Acts 1:4 - please leave a comment - because I see no relevant reason for you to leave this verse. Heb. 10:36 - read the whole context - at least start with verse 32. I don't think I need to explain these verses to you. And regarding repentance you said, "But there are some things GOD CANNOT DO FOR US! Like REPENTANCE!" The repentance that Peter preached was a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the unbeliever. Try reading Acts 5:31 and 11:18. God even ignitiates the work of repentance within the heart. And there you go again quoting 1 Cor. 15:36-44 - why, TomR? So much for your verses. Anyway, it is getting quite late on my end. I hope I did an adequate job. And I feel horrible writing like this. I only write in this manner to show you how cocky you sound. I appreciate your continued willingness and patience to talk with me. I left a post for you in our thread regarding commentary. I didn't expect this post to be so long - Oh well. And as to your link: the person is obviously in the dark as to Calvinism. Whoever wrote it probably has a personal beef with some person who claims to be a Calvinist - So they decided to post something on the internet. If you want, we can deal with the points that were brought up. BTW - I don't divide with other Christians who aren't Calvinist in their beliefs. Christians should stand together on the essentials and create lively dicussion on the non-essentials - just like Pollyanna said. Also, TomR, please explain to me what you believe about predestination. Lastly, I'd like to quote a paragraph from the same Tabletalk magazine, "If we treated people today for their Trinitarian heresy comparably to the manner in which Geneva treated Servetus, we would need to strap some preachers to a launching space shuttle by comparison. Servetus' error was closer by far to orthodoxy, and more carefully articulated, than much of what passes as acceptable in many oldline, liberal, and even charasmatic or pentecostal churches today. May we regain the love of truth, mercy, and pastoral compassion that typified the life of John Calvin" by Pilgrim.