|
I thought perhaps a little separation was in order
:>)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:29
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's
beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
cd: while I believe there was some "drifting"
from the origional thoughts of Calvin-I find that the "TULIP" is from the
teaching of Calvin.
Calvin nowhere advocates a limited atonement.
While I would agree that such could be construed as a logical outworking of
his theology, the fact remains that Calvin himself never took it to
this conclusion. He was inconsistent, perhaps, but not the author of Limited
Atonement. It was his followers who articulated this doctrine.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:43
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of
Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> >
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Date: 11/29/2005 2:45:04 PM
> > Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil
> man' says
Dean Moore
> >
> > Dean, I have been spending too much time
on e-mail and must back off. I
> > just want to make a few
comments.
> >
> > I am not a fan of Calvin. Please try
to remember that. In the matter of
> > Calvin and Servetus, I
am on the side of Servetus in the sense that I do
> not
> >
support "thought police." In other words, I do not support the
Council
> of
> > Geneva putting Servetus to death. The
difficulty I have about being
> > completely on the side of Servetus
is that Servetus himself tried to get
> the
> > same council
that convicted him to convict and kill Calvin, and to have
> all
> > of Calvin's possessions given to him as compensation for all the
trouble
> > Calvin caused him. So I really can't be on either
guy's side if all the
> > truth fully be known.
>
> cd:
Then maybe we found a middle ground as I don't think much of either
one
> myself. Maybe we should stop trying to present them as
having good in them
> and focus on which is the meanest:-)
>
>
> > In regards to Arminius, you are confusing "Calvinism" with
"Calvin."
> > Arminius considered John Calvin a brother in Christ
and greatly supported
> > his writings. What he was against
was the Calvinists who were twisting
> > Calvin's writings to their
own purpose. I recommend you read the Works
> of
> >
Jacobus Arminius. It is available for free. If you download the
pdf
> > versions, search for Calvin's name, and see how often
Arminius quotes him
> > and relies upon the writings of Calvin to
defend himself against his
> > Calvinistic opponents. In
regards to the Creeds, you will see (if my
> memory
> > serves
me correctly), that he fully supported the Westminster Confession.
>
> This Creed was the "biggie." The other creeds you mentioned are not
that
> > relevant in regards to John Calvin. There is a lot of
politics involved
> > here that is sometimes difficult to
follow.
>
> cd: I think I have already downloaded Arminius-I find
him to be fasinating
> and hope to study more of his works.
>
>
> > You should also know that while the modern Calvinists put
the order of
> our
> > salvation as regeneration / faith /
justification, Calvin himself appears
> to
> > me and many
others to have it faith / regeneration / justification.
> >
Therefore, while you might be disagreeing with Calvinists about this
>
issue
> > of regeneration, you are probably in agreement with John
Calvin himself.
> > Calvin can be read about on this in Book 3,
Chapter 11 of his Institutes.
>
> cd: Actually
Faith/Justification (pardoned)/regenaration makes more sense
> to me. So
I have no agreement with J. Calvin.
> >
> > In regards to
your comment about Calvin's will. I'm not sure you are
> >
interpreting his quote right. When Calvin speaks of his exhortation,
he
> is
> > simply accepting responsibility... "yes, I
exhorted the council to do
> > something about this man." Part
of the law was that the accuser had to
> go
> > to prison too
in case the accusations were false. It was Calvin's
> personal
> > secretary who played this role of accuser and went to
prison. I have no
> > doubt of Calvin's culpability in the
matter. The problem is when we
> > characterize it as Calvin
murdering Servetus. That's not what happened.
> > Calvin
exhorted the authorities to do something about this man in their
> >
city. The city took it from there, judging and executing
Servetus.
>
> cd: You know my view on that already.
>
>
> > If you read Calvin's writings, he was not at all happy with
how Geneva
> was
> > progressing. He despised the lack
of liberty, and was himself
> > excommunicated from the city for 3
years with his buddy Farel who Judy
> had
> > quoted.
There is no doubt that the Geneva "experiment" was a failure,
> but
> > to lay it all at Calvin's feet is not right because it is not
accurate.
> > People talk like Calvin was the mayor, or the pope, or
some great
> official.
> > He was not even a citizen. He
was a lawyer and preacher in town. His
> power
> > was
to excommunication only, and the city even did not allow him to
>
exercise
> > that the way he wanted.
>
> cd: I
maintain:To make decrees shows power David.
> >
> > You
mentioned John Wesley and say that faith must be present for
> >
regeneration. Yet, surely you are aware that John Wesley believed in and
> > practiced infant baptism. How does an infant have
faith? Wesley
> believed
> > in baptismal regeneration
and practiced it. When John Wesley wrote what
> you
> >
quoted, he was talking about what happens when an adult believes and
>
enters
> > baptism and is only addressing a particular situation,
not his
> perspective
> > overall of regeneration / faith /
justification. He does not even use
> the
> > word
regeneration there.
>
> cd: For me child baptism is a way of
bringing children with unholy parents
> into the church-later they can
decide on faith as wisdom comes. Job also
> offered sacrifices up to God
for his children. 1 Cor.7:14, Acts 2:39,
> >
> > You
mentioned that you had a goal of clearly defining the difference
>
between
> > Calvin and Arminius. Perhaps what you really
should do is contrast
> > Calvinism and Arminianism. I am not
resisting your efforts, but only
> trying
> > to help you
accurately portray history. I don't think characterizing
> Calvin
> > as being someone with murderous hatred, or as someone who
murdered
> Servetus,
> > is a good way of presenting that
contrast. Stick with the modern
> > disciplines of Calvinism
and Arminianism and perhaps your goal will be
> more
> >
readily realized.
>
> cd: while I believe there was some
"drifting" from the origional thoughts
> of Calvin-I find that the
"TULIP" is from the teaching of Calvin.
> >
> > I really am
interested in conversing more, but I have lots of work here
> to
> > do and some research concerning my preaching campaign at the
University
> of
> > Florida. I hope you
understand.
>
> cd: I understand and hope God is with you in your
stand against the U of M.
> >
> > Peace be with you.
>
> David Miller.
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
>
>
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an
email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> friend who
wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.
>
>
>
> ----------
> "Let
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you
will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
|
