Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Rosenritter]

The 'kind of man' John Calvin was, was a theologian in the 1500's with monumental responsibilities during a time of civil unrest. He wasn't some wad of cookie dough you all teach that a person should be in a world with little to fear.

You all are indebted to those such as Calvin really- but instead of recognizing it, you act like the typical, modern idiot who takes all for granted.

... you're actually attempting to defend John Calvin?

SERVETUS.

Luke 6:43-44 KJV
(43) For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(44) For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Haven't seen any place that John showed remorse for what he did. But the Calvinist doesn't repent unless God makes him. They would never repent of their own will and from their own heart. That would be "Arminian."

 

[Robert Pate]

The 'kind of man' John Calvin was, was a theologian in the 1500's with monumental responsibilities during a time of civil unrest. He wasn't some wad of cookie dough you all teach that a person should be in a world with little to fear.

You all are indebted to those such as Calvin really- but instead of recognizing it, you act like the typical, modern idiot who takes all for granted.

John Calvin was personally responsible for the deaths of dozens of people. You apparently know nothing about him. Nor do you want to know.

 

[Crucible]

John Calvin was personally responsible for the deaths of dozens of people. You apparently know nothing about him. Nor do you want to know.

That's nothing but a trumped up claim produced by biased people such as yourself who dug up a bit of alleged history. The fact of the matter is that Calvin is not seen as a wicked man, and is rather venerated respectively in the very places of his initial influence.

 

[Crucible]

... you're actually attempting to defend John Calvin?

SERVETUS.

Servetus was a criminal, as heresy was a crime.
It was punishable by anything from probation to death.

Religious mutiny is a constant danger in a world ruled by religion.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Servetus was a criminal, as heresy was a crime.
It was punishable by anything from probation to death.

Religious mutiny is a constant danger in a world ruled by religion.

You are attempting to justify the murder of others who's beliefs didn't conform to the traditions of proud men.

You have read the bible right?

You realize you're arguing this point with actual Christians right?

Regardless of if Calvinism is the truth or partial truth or utterly false; you're gonna have trouble trying to justifying murder, especially on grounds of heresy.

Is it not written that multiple parts make up the whole body?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Anti-Calvinists hate anything that makes sense, because anything that makes sense is against their ideologies :chuckle:

(the nice way of saying ~they has tha dumb~)

Do you think that the doctrine of the coeternal Trinity is needed for salvation?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Ephesians: 5. 2. And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. - Bible Offline

Seemed pertinent to the current discussion.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The 'kind of man' John Calvin was, was a theologian in the 1500's with monumental responsibilities during a time of civil unrest. He wasn't some wad of cookie dough you all teach that a person should be in a world with little to fear.

You all are indebted to those such as Calvin really- but instead of recognizing it, you act like the typical, modern idiot who takes all for granted.

You're either lying or ignorant of Calvin's history. Which is it?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Ephesians: 5. 3. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. - Bible Offline

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Ephesians: 5. 3. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. - Bible Offline

K, I'm done, before someone gets offended about scripture.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Servetus was a criminal, as heresy was a crime.
It was punishable by anything from probation to death.

Religious mutiny is a constant danger in a world ruled by religion.

Calvin "burned at the stake" those who disagreed with his religion. Do you believe that should happen today?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's nothing but a trumped up claim produced by biased people such as yourself who dug up a bit of alleged history. The fact of the matter is that Calvin is not seen as a wicked man, and is rather venerated respectively in the very places of his initial influence.

Nah! Calvin was a wicked, evil, sadistic, and tyrannical Monster. That's how history sees him. If ya don't like it, sue those who wrote the history books. I dare ya!

 

[Crucible]

Calvin "burned at the stake" those who disagreed with his religion. Do you believe that should happen today?

The inquisitions in Geneva were necessary to ensure neither the Catholic or English Church, who were offing each other, didn't take advantage of any religious mutiny there.
The people put to death were very aware of the other lives they were potentially putting at stake in bringing their heresies and sins to where he was.

But don't mind any of that. Be a self-righteous idiot, like those atheists

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Anti-Calvinists hate anything that makes sense, because anything that makes sense is against their ideologies :chuckle:

(the nice way of saying ~they has tha dumb~)

The problem is, Calvinism makes no sense.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Crucible sounds like a combination "Calvinist/Catholic" to me. That's my opinion of him.

 

[JAGG]

Calvin "burned at the stake" those who disagreed with his religion.

Not "those." Only one, Roasted Servetus by name.

And Calvin did not want him burned at the stake and attempted to have that stopped. Calvin was overruled by the Council and it was on their orders that Servetus was burned alive. Calvin objected to the burning up to the very end. It was not Calvin's desire to see Servetus burned at the stake.

Moreover, Calvin has to be evaluated, on this issue, by the period of time in which he lived. Calvin did not live in modern times and it was common practice in the age of Calvin to burn criminals at the stake. You have to judge them ALL who lived in that age and approved of such as the barbarous execution of burning alive at the stake.

Calvin wrote to Farel on the day before Servetus' execution, "Tomorrow Servetus will be led out to execution. We have done our best to change the kind of death, but in vain."
Source: Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, chapter titled The History Of Calvinism, page 417

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not "those." Only one, Roasted Servetus by name.

And Calvin did not want him burned at the stake and attempted to have that stopped. Calvin was overruled by the Council and it was on their orders that Servetus was burned alive. Calvin objected to the burning up to the very end. It was not Calvin's desire to see Servetus burned at the stake.

Moreover, Calvin has to be evaluated, on this issue, by the period of time in which he lived. Calvin did not live in modern times and it was common practice in the age of Calvin to burn criminals at the stake. You have to judge them ALL who lived in that age and approved of such as the barbarous execution of burning alive at the stake.

Calvin wrote to Farel on the day before Servetus' execution, "Tomorrow Servetus will be led out to execution. We have done our best to change the kind of death, but in vain."
Source: Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, chapter titled The History Of Calvinism, page 417

Calvin was culpable in the execution killings of over 50 some persons. Read up on your history, guy.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvin had on particular person burned with "green wood", assuring a slow and tortuous death. No one should be "sugar coating the history of John Calvin."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

An innocent poke or jest is not what that was.

I also never said I was confident in myself. You might have gathered that from my previous hints at self loathing tendencies.

Regardless; that doesn't change the initial nature of your post or the fact that you said you basically should ignore my post because of a typing/ spelling error.

I did not reply to your opinions for I found them not supportive of anything in contention. You injected yourself into a discussion I was having with Robert Pate and Nonon. The context of that discussion revolved around the propensity of not a few to quitclaim any and all commonly understood labels that are representative, even if not fully so, of their views. Your interjections are but more of the same types of complaints about being labeled one way or another, hoping to poison the well of the discussion, and given in the face of plain empirical evidence to the contrary. :AMR:

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

I did not reply to your opinions for I found them not supportive of anything in contention. You injected yourself into a discussion I was having with Robert Pate and Nonon. The context of that discussion revolved around the propensity of not a few to quitclaim any and all commonly understood labels that are representative, even if not fully so, of their views. Your interjections are but more of the same types of complaints about being labeled one way or another, hoping to poison the well of the discussion, and given in the face of plain empirical evidence to the contrary. :AMR:

AMR

What? First; I'm not trying to poison anything but purify and unify it.

Secondly; what empirical evidence are you talking about?

Pretty sure the topic in general is faith and as such; empirical evidence has little to do with it, but please do explain this evidence and it's contexts for us simpletons.

So my opinion went from being of no worth to haughty and sanctimonious to evil and poison and then back to worthless and then you were just jesting and now it's understood to be poison again.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh yeah; you seemed to say that my results on the quiz weren't worth discussing either because they weren't contrary to your perception of me or they weren't contrary to your own beliefs and faith?

How was my naive hope that you might give an honest humble opinion on a very real topic which you supplied the medium for poisoning the well.

Your old scare tactics may work to frighten some from the truth, but only temporarily, and only for your own loss.

Poisoning the well; more like throwing out the old dirty water.

Peace

Thanks

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk