Arminianism: The Road to Rome

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#21
Why would I care about the opinions of a follower of Calvin trying to clear his name?

The documents I speak about have nothing to do with beliefs nor the church, it has to do with factual court law in France.

Don't post me opinions when I am holding solid gold facts!
You obviously didn’t read the article. Here, I’ll give you a chance to ignore it again. 🙈🙉
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/
Clearly refutes your erroneous claims.


And if you wouldn’t mind posting that solid gold, truth you’re holding onto apparently, that would be great. Thanks.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#23
How about not sticking to the Calvinist and Arminian label and just letting scripture speak for itself?

Armenianism usually has salvation being able to be undone and Calvinism, among other things, puts salvation before belief in Jesus.

Neither of these parts of them are biblical.
No offense but, those who claim neither label applies simply don’t understand the conversation yet.
All “Christians” land somewhere on the
Arminian | Calvin spectrum (soteriologically speaking) whether they like it, realize it, or not.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#24
You obviously didn’t read the article. Here, I’ll give you a chance to ignore it again. 🙈🙉
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/
Clearly refutes your erroneous claims.


And if you wouldn’t mind posting that solid gold, truth you’re holding onto apparently, that would be great. Thanks.
If you read the the page I am attaching you will see John Calvin, while sitting in prison for Sodomy, created a NEW DOCTRINE that God made John do his evil sick Sodomy Acts and also notice that Calvin even claims God is controlling Satan and making Satan look evil but John believes it is God doing evil and blaming it on Satan.


Yeah, Calvinism is a real Doctrine to behold. God made John be homosexual hahahaha can you believe the crap John Calvin invented that COMPLETE MORONS STILL BELIEVE??
 

Attachments

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#25
“Recently a correspondent wrote to ask about the following: “An interesting story: in 1527, the year he was 18, Calvin was arrested, tried, and convicted of homosexual activity. Instead of being executed (per French law at the time), he was branded with a fleur-de-lis on one of his shoulders.”

This question is interesting for two reasons: the historical question (is the claim true?) and because it illustrates one of the problems of doing history on the internet.

The problem of doing history on the internet is illustrated by two sites. In the first instance it is claimed that Calvin was arrested for and convicted of Sodomy in 1527. In the second in second it is claimed that he was arrested for and convicted of sodomy in 1534.

The first author claims:

In 1551, a Catholic controversialist revealed that the archives of the city of Noyon, Calvin’s birth place, contain the record of a condemnation against Calvin, at age 18, for sodomy. He had by then already received the tonsure. His parents obtained clemency from the bishop, so that instead of being condemned to death as the law demanded, he was branded as a sign of infamy. The Catholic controversialist presented the evidence signed by all the eminent personages of the city. The English scholar Stapleton went there to examine the archives during Calvin’s lifetime, and vouched for the fact. The contemporary German Lutherans spoke of it as an established fact (Schlusselburg, Theologie calvinienne).

For the uninitiated this might seem like a plausible claim. It seems learned. The author cites a 1551 source, the author of which is identified as a “controversialist,” and an apparently modern French secondary work. A search of WorldCat (one of the world’s largest databases of library holdings across the globe) reveals no such title. This is not to say that the work does not exist but it does indicate that a volume with an author with this surname with those words does not appear to be catalogued in the civilized world. UPDATE: It appears that the citation is incorrect. The title is Theologia calvinistarum…. and it is available on Google Books. Thanks to HB reader Phil D. for his help.

Second, and more significantly, the author relies upon a most jaundiced and historically discredited sixteenth-century source, Jerome Bolsec (d. 1584). Bolsec was a former Carmelite monk turned physician, who had vacillated between the Reformation and Rome. He attacked Calvin’s doctrine of predestination during a meeting of the congregation. Bolsec, “a poor theologian technically” and “particularly weak on the history doctrines” (T. H. L. Parker) charged Calvin with making God the author of sin. Absent for the first part of Bolsec’s complaint, Calvin arrived unseen and stood to reply ex tempore for one hour. He replied to Bolsec in print in 1552 with De aeterna dei praedestinatione. Thus, Bolsec is hardly an unbiased witness. His account of Calvin’s life (see below) is notorious for its falsehoods.

Third, and most importantly, our author has his facts wrong. At age 18, Calvin, known for his austerity and devotion to Roman piety, was matriculated in the College de Montaigu (according to Ganoczy, 63–67. See below for bibliographic data), which was known for its strict discipline. Had there been anything like this it would have been noted then and he would have not been able to go on to Orleans and Bourges. Most definitively against this claim, however, is the fact that Calvin was not in Noyon and the registers do not record any such event in 1527.

Second, if anything did happen 1534 is a more likely date. In fact a certain “Iean Cauvin” (the original spelling of Calvin’s surname) was in Noyon in this period. According to the Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture(Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 73–74,

The Noyon archives for 26 May [1534] record that one ‘Iean Cauvin’ was imprisoned for causing a disturbance in church on Trinity Sunday.

He cites Abel LeFranc, La Jeunesse de Calvin (Paris, 1888), 201.

1534. 26 mai. — Me Jean Cauvin est mis in prison, à la porte Corbaut, pour tumulte fait dans l’èglise la veille de la Sainte-Trinitè, fol. 20, vo, èlargi le 3 juin, fol. 21, ro, reis en prison le 5, fol. 22, ro, (Inventaire de Sèzille, à la date).

This person, released on 3 June, was returned to prison two days later. Some Roman apologists have assumed that this “Iean Cauvin” must be the Reformer. McGrath explains:

…the Noyon edicts scrupulously record that the ‘Cauvin’ who was imprisoned possessed an alias—Mudit. [McGrath cites Emile Domergue, Jean Calvin, les hommes et les chases de son temps, 7 vols. (Lausanne, 1899–1927), 7.575] In other words, the Jean Cauvin dict Mudit was carefully distinguished fro the individual of the same name who had featured in the chronicles of that city only a few weeks earlier.

T. H.L. Parker noted this confusion in 1975, citing Emile Domergue’s 1927 correction and explanation of the city records regarding “Un Iean Cauvin, dict Mudit” [John Calvin: A Biography(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 31.]. Ganosczy (p. 85) observes that there is ambiguity and doubt regarding the names and imprisonment.

Still, there is nothing here to suggest that Calvin was charged with sodomy in 1534 and branded with the fleur-de-lys so whence the claim of the second writer? Irena Backus, Life Writing in Reformation Europe: Lives of Reformers by Friends, Disciples, and Foes(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 159, explains:

As has been shown by other sixteenth- and particularly seventeenth-century Catholic biographies of the Reformer, Bolsec’s account of Calvin’s youth conflates at least two people from Noyon called Jean Cauvin. [fn 116 says, “Cf. also Théophile Dufour, ‘Calviniana’ in [no editor], Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Picot, member de l’Institut, par ses amis et élèves (Paris: Librarie Damascène Morgand, 1913), pp. 1–16, esp. pp. 13–16] To this conflation, he adds a certain amount of rumour and fiction, intending to give his reader a full portrait of Calvin’s iniquitous youth, the hallmark of any heretic.

She continues,

Bolsec further claims that Calvin himself was convicted of sodomy as a young cleric in Noyon, a crime for which he would have been burned at the stake had the sentence not been commuted at the last moment to branding with a fleur-de-lys on the shoulder. Under the weight of this opprobrium, Calvin, according to our biographer, sold his benefices and left for Germany and Ferrara. In fact, as is well documented by the same Le Vasseur [Jacques Le Vasseur, Annales de l’Eglise de Noyon jadis dite de Vermand, ou le troisiesme liure des Antiquitez, Chroniques ou plustost Histoire de la Cathedrale de Noyon. Par M. Iacques le Vasseur, docteur en theologie de la Facult´ de Paris, doyen et chanoine deladite Eglise, 2 vols. (Paris: Sara, 1633), 2.90], a certain Jean Cauvin, Roman Catholic vicar of Noyon, was deprived of his livings for refusing to abandon his dissolute lifestyle. The description might have well suited young Calvin were it not for the date, Janusary 1553; Calvin had been well and truly settled in Geneva since 1541 (ibid, 160).

Backus further explains that, according to Le Vasseur, “no records of branding exist in connection with any of the Noyon clergy of the 1530s. Indeed, this claim about the Reformer had already been exposed as false in 1583 by Jean-Papire Masson (ibid, 160).

In short, the Calvin imprisoned in Noyon, in 1534, was not the Protestant Reformer. The Calvin branded as a punishment for refusing to repent of sodomy was a Roman priest and not the Protestant Reformer and further this has been known since the 16th century. That old, centuries discredited myths are apparently gaining new life illustrates one of the dangers of learning via the internet.”

https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,230
1,126
113
New Zealand
#26
No offense but, those who claim neither label applies simply don’t understand the conversation yet.
All “Christians” land somewhere on the
Arminian | Calvin spectrum (soteriologically speaking) whether they like it, realize it, or not.
I disagree. I don't think agreeing with Calvinism on two points make you Calvinist and the same for Armenianism.

My beliefs aren't from the reformation or the RCC.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#27
I disagree. I don't think agreeing with Calvinism on two points make you Calvinist and the same for Armenianism.

My beliefs aren't from the reformation or the RCC.
😬 Are talking about Arminians from Armenia or… Keep digging, Lord willing you’ll see.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#28
I disagree. I don't think agreeing with Calvinism on two points make you Calvinist and the same for Armenianism.

My beliefs aren't from the reformation or the RCC.
My point exactly, you don’t understand the conversation fully.

I stated that all “Christians” land somewhere on the Calvin | Arminian spectrum (soteriologically speaking).

This statement isn’t up for debate, there is no “none of the above” option. There are no other soteriological positions. Essentially, your position on grace in salvation lands you on the spectrum somewhere. I don’t know how to make it anymore clear than that.

You may dislike the idea of being labeled and you may dislike the labels themselves but that doesn’t change the facts. One’s soteriology is Calvinistic, Arminian, or they simply don’t know yet.

Here’s a fun little article/quiz 👇

To see where you land on soteriology, Ben Booth has created a fun Calvinism vs Arminianism Spectrum quiz.
 
Last edited:

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,260
3,595
113
#29
I think some people just like to pigeonhole people so they don't have to see them as people, but as an ideology.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#30
I think some people like to argue without picking a side, safer for them that way.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,260
3,595
113
#31
Some people like to argue without any real purpose other than to win an argument.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#32
Our purpose is clear.

2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.


We will always war against false logismos: imaginations, reasonings, ideas, thoughts… (of evil intent) such as “Arminianism” which is clearly at the core of all apostate “Christianity”.

This idea that man is able to become right with God of his own ability is the gospel of satan and it comes in many forms.

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, JW’s, Roman Catholicism and all liberal forms of “Christianity” such as Pentecostalism, Methodism, Baptist, Presbyterian… have at their core some form of man’s ability.

“Arminianism” is the overwhelming majority and continues to grow at a staggering rate but there will always be a small remnant who war against such evil.

Our purpose is clear. War.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
#33
This idea that man is able to become right with God of his own ability is the gospel of satan and it comes in many forms.
Nobody is saying that man is able to become right with God of his own ability. What we (some of us) are saying is that man can freely choose to believe the gospel. And when he does, God makes him right through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#34
“All Arminians wish to say emphatically that salvation is given by the free grace of God. However, their next step undermines this confession. They so qualify this grace and so vehemently defend man's participation in salvation, that they naturally fall into the old semi-Pelagian heresy of synergism. This synergism is rooted in their doctrine of prevenient grace. So, there will be some overlap between the two sections here.

Arminians are not reluctant in admitting that salvation is synergistically wrought (as well as justification, regeneration, and repentance). Though historic evangelicals and Reformed believers have eschewed any hint of synergism, yet Arminians are not afraid to admit that their view is synergistic. Cannon's statement may be as bold as they come. "Granting, therefore, man's ability to stifle and to kill the grace of God within him, have we the right to ascribe to him the positive role of a co-operator with God? We have. For in the very act of not killing grace and of listening to the voice of natural conscience, even though at times very inattentively, man is actually co-operating with God in God's efforts in behalf of his salvation. This must be the case; it cannot be otherwise."115 Before this, Cannon declared, "In this negative way [namely, man's ability to reject to grace] man is the absolute master of his fate and the captain of his own salvation."116 It must be noted that Cannon is not an odd representative of the Wesleyan position. This is nothing less than consistent Arminianism under the influence of Wesley. Man, Cannon says, is the captain of his own salvation. This is not the Gospel, this is unadulterated moralism, a religion of the flesh. But they have more to say.”

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/exposed.html
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#35
If evangelical Christians understood fully their Arminianistic soteriology they would damn the heresy more vehemently than some Calvinists…
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#37
Synergism
In Christian theology, synergism is the belief that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom. Synergism is upheld by the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Anabaptist Churches and Methodist Churches.[1][2][3][4] It is an integral part of Arminian theology common in the General Baptist and Methodist traditions.[5][6]

Synergism stands opposed to monergism (which rejects the idea that humans cooperate with the grace of God), a doctrine most commonly associated with the Reformed Protestant as well as Lutherantraditions, whose soteriologies have been strongly influenced by the North African bishop and Latin Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354–430).[7]Lutheranism, however, confesses a monergist salvation but rejects the notion that anyone is predestined to hell (see § Lutheran and Calvinist views).

Synergism and semipelagianism each teach some collaboration in salvation between God and humans, but semipelagian thought teaches that the beginning half of faith is an act of human will.[8] The Council of Orange (529), Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and other local councils each condemned semipelagianism as heresy.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,230
1,126
113
New Zealand
#38
My point exactly, you don’t understand the conversation fully.

I stated that all “Christians” land somewhere on the Calvin | Arminian spectrum (soteriologically speaking).

This statement isn’t up for debate, there is no “none of the above” option. There are no other soteriological positions. Essentially, your position on grace in salvation lands you on the spectrum somewhere. I don’t know how to make it anymore clear than that.

You may dislike the idea of being labeled and you may dislike the labels themselves but that doesn’t change the facts. One’s soteriology is Calvinistic, Arminian, or they simply don’t know yet.

Here’s a fun little article/quiz 👇

To see where you land on soteriology, Ben Booth has created a fun Calvinism vs Arminianism Spectrum quiz.
The questions are loaded. Once saved always saved does not mean perseverance of the saints. A person who is saved may not be faithful to the end, but they also won't lose salvation.

You see how I'm in neither camp.

The quiz in the end did come up with a reasonable assessment of where I stand, but the wording of the questions isn't centred from the Bible, but just comparing pre set terminology
 

NOV25

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2019
977
386
63
#39
The questions are loaded. Once saved always saved does not mean perseverance of the saints. A person who is saved may not be faithful to the end, but they also won't lose salvation.

You see how I'm in neither camp.

The quiz in the end did come up with a reasonable assessment of where I stand, but the wording of the questions isn't centred from the Bible, but just comparing pre set terminology
As stated, the quiz is meant for fun. The wording was sufficient to get the desired result apparently.

I would ask you though, how should they have worded the quiz?
1. “Do you believe Ephesians 2:8? yes or no”

I don’t think the results would have varied much 😁
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,230
1,126
113
New Zealand
#40
As stated, the quiz is meant for fun. The wording was sufficient to get the desired result apparently.

I would ask you though, how should they have worded the quiz?
1. “Do you believe Ephesians 2:8? yes or no”

I don’t think the results would have varied much 😁
I think they could have given more options in the quiz. But guess that's how limited it is. It's like ... Just because I believe in free will to receive Christ as Saviour .. that does not mean we have free will to have salvation undone after salvation to 'leave God'

You can't leave something that has indwelled you. It's up to God whether He leaves an individual.. not them. And God says He won't leave.

So yeah. Anyway, I wouldn't call an Arminian or Calvinist unsaved. Because a Calvinist usually believes in the Lord Jesus Christ .. they just say they were converted before this happens.

With the Arminian.. they would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.. and then usually get taught later their salvation can be undone.

So I can't judge a soul just because they are in either camp.