Im not a flower or armenian either.
Didnt you say somewhere you were Canadian? Not Armenian?
-
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.
Didnt you say somewhere you were Canadian? Not Armenian?
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
yes
from the currently frozen far north
did I spell Armenian wrong again?
a r m i n i a n
now I need to go buy a blackboard and write that 100 x's
I did that too a lot when I first heard about it.yes
from the currently frozen far north
did I spell Armenian wrong again?
a r m i n i a n
now I need to go buy a blackboard and write that 100 x's
(Mind you, I only recently was introduced to this, for the majority of my life I had never even HEARD OF arminianism or calvinism.)
I now raelize that the church i attend is arminian (pentecostal) but back then I didnt realize it. I was under the illusion that all christians believed the same thing, but just had different looking services, BOY was I wrong
I thought the only difference between a baptist and pentecostal was that baptist's are boring and dont speak in tongues. I thought the only difference between orthodox and pentecostal was that the orthodox got funny looking robes and hats and cool looking churches.
Good times. Ignorance is bliss.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
I did that too a lot when I first heard about it.
(Mind you, I only recently was introduced to this, for the majority of my life I had never even HEARD OF arminianism or calvinism.)
I now raelize that the church i attend is arminian (pentecostal) but back then I didnt realize it. I was under the illusion that all christians believed the same thing, but just had different looking services, BOY was I wrong
you and me both
those were the good ole days
You actually have just said right there in your opening remarks admittedly you have no idea what you're talking about if you are to ever say anything about Calvinism or John Calvin.
Then you try to say what you have no knowledge about is just like Martin Luther.
Wow.
John Calvin did not take nor did he have anything to do with the execution of Michael/Miguel Servetus , who used a pseudonym in his writings, that of Michel de Villeneuve (i.e., "Michael of Villanueva", a Spaniard. In fact at great personal risk of his own life, John Calvin tried to save Servetus' soul.
None of this will impact those dedicated to hating what they know nothing about. Calvin and Calvinism. That is why this debate has extended across the centuries since the late 1500's.
Blasphemy during Michael Servetus' time, and something he flagrantly exampled, was a capital offense!
Funnily enough, John Calvin put MS on "ignore", in his own way. I thought that was kind of cute given we're discussing this in a forum where that option is available. This is in the video if you watch it.
I wonder if anti-Calvinists, who insist in exampling the sin of false witness when insisting certain Christians are Calvinists regardless of their denial, are combusting inside? Knowing there is John Calvin Colleges and University in Europe?
".....Geneva’s attitude to heretics and blasphemers had always been severe before ever Calvin had any authority whatsoever in the city. Indeed, the party responsible for banishing Calvin from Geneva in 1538 did not hesitate to torture and behead those who left the paths of their church. According to the city records, however, there seems to have been no set punishments for particular ‘crimes’ as one blasphemer was only given a jail sentence on 4 th June, 1539 and people caught dancing on the Sabbath were merely let off with a warning on 20 February, 1539.2 Furthermore, there was not a country or state in Europe at the time in which the denial of the Trinity and blasphemy were not capital crimes. German Lutheran Melanchthon, for instance, otherwise noted for his tolerance, urged the Swiss not to show any leniency whatsoever regarding Servetus who must be put to death. The English Reformers and martyrs condemned Servetus’ errors, going into great detail in analysing and refuting them. Severe laws, it must be remembered, against blasphemy were enforced in the English-speaking world until modern times. However, the major blame given to Calvin as an individual for the burning of Servetus has no historical backing whatsoever. The facts prove that Calvin had neither the power, nor the opportunity, nor the desire to burn Servetus. The Geneva magistrates had initially asked Calvin to give his opinion of Servetus because they were under great pressure from Bern and Basel to undertake action against the blasphemer. Calvin replied mildly that he had little hope of bringing Servetus to his senses and that he needed to learn humility. This was hardly a view which could force a court to condemn anyone to death. "
The Burning of Michael Servetus (1511-1553)
Servetus used to bring discredit to the Reformation
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
oh for pete sakes
whaz up lillywolf?
this debate has been going on long long before you joined this site...I have been here longer than might show because I was quit and then rejoined
proof of Calvins intent and denial has been provided many times
I mean I don't care...if anyone wants to get back to you on this, having got back numerous times to others about exactly the same thing, then let them
I hope they don't
without prejudice
I'm certainly opting out and I am NON CALVINIST and also NON ARMINIAN
I just follow Christ...as a Christian
unfollowing this thread now
whaz up lillywolf?
this debate has been going on long long before you joined this site...I have been here longer than might show because I was quit and then rejoined
proof of Calvins intent and denial has been provided many times
I mean I don't care...if anyone wants to get back to you on this, having got back numerous times to others about exactly the same thing, then let them
I hope they don't
without prejudice
I'm certainly opting out and I am NON CALVINIST and also NON ARMINIAN
I just follow Christ...as a Christian
unfollowing this thread now
Oh, for Pete's sake, take your issue up with those you've responded to in this thread long before I arrived.
My post said this debate has gone on for centuries. So I'm aware, thanks.
Your angst should be directed at the one's that keep starting new threads about a matter you say was settled here long ago.
Either, those are new members unaware. Until your post that tells them about this history and the matter being long settled. Or, they're not keen on learning something.
Or, they're the types that like to goad fights regardless of the facts. Which I think is the case because the one's that start the threads are the one's that also accuse Christians of being Calvinists. And insist they are so even when the accused state they are not. Nor are they Arminian.
My posts were the first time I replied here. Maybe target those actually responsible.
Finish the quote. I didnt say they were the same in every way. I said they are teh same in that they BOTH (martin luther and calvin) made mistakes.........
Whats wrong with you? You got some personal beef with me? Sorry I dont do internet beefs, im about that offline. You are just following me around on the forum trying to create drama?
-> ignored
EDIT: now I know whats wrong with you. On your profile your spiritual status says "unsure" instead of "Christian". [psst. go change it fast before somebody looks]
Well, it all makes sense now.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
True that Calvin has stood before God and has faced what ever judgement was his to face. That judgement is of God and not any man.
I never said the word hate or even implied it.
Penley, was the author of the article you posted. ( Post #13) I looked him up and read some other articles and some of his blogs.
I even quoted one of his blogs in a response to you (post #14). "Should we stop promoting personal Bible reading because it has dashed Jesus’ dream of unity? Let me qualify my answer. If we don’t promote anything else to quell the confusion of “biblical” truths, the answer is yes. Bible engagement is not inherently a good thing."
I read another article of his where he slandered Martin Luther.
Because the nature of his outlandish conclusions, and his slanderous speach against all the Protestant movement figures. I am highly disenclined to give any creedance to any of his writings. I will how ever respect the writings and commentary of men who have clearly and objectively done their research. Which is all we have. I don't have access to the actual documents regarding the Servetus trials. I doubt you do either. My research admittedly is of the published works of other people. I get those authors according to their works that I can verify readily.
You keep jumping to some conclusion that anyone has made the claim that Calvin can save someone, no one has made that assertion.
You have also failed to respect that I have stated multiple times that I am indeed not a Calvinist, and that I am in no way attempting to justify the execution of Servetus, or any other so called heretic.
In fact that is one of the differences that I have with Calvin, he did see herasy as a capital crime; I do not.
I certainly disagree with limited atonement. The other terms could be redefined and terms could be reached.
I am disinclined to explain the entirety of my ideas on the 5 points in this forum thread. In May in another we shall see.
That sounds like a deeply personal issue of multiple personalities you suffer there.
If I needed to finish your quote I would have. As it was the first lines of your post made the rest absolutely irrelevant as to your thoughts on anything related to Calvin.
You first are so arrogant that you admit you don't know anything about Calvin, or Calvinism. Never read anything, have no intention of. Then you claim that someone you have no idea about, no knowledge of whatever, made the same mistakes as Martin Luther, whom you have no knowledge of nor intention of learning about, obviously.
Then you attack me for pointing out how deeply flawed it is, unconscionable actually, and to put it directly, how unintelligent it is, to first admit you know nothing (about Calvin or Calvinism) and then proceed to accuse someone you know nothing about, Calvin, of anything at all.
And you expect to be taken seriously when launching into personal attacks on Christians here?
Your example is what God tells us to pray for.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
I'll answer you because you are at least sticking to the topic and not becoming personally insulting
true. the use of that word actually falls to another
most here are familiar with the author of the above and this is his style. accuse those who do not agree with you of being a hypocrite and hate filled...in fact 'pure' (meaning devilish I suppose) hate.
yes Penley is the author, but he was not dealing with the Bible and I quoted his article because it is actually quite in line with other articles I have read. as far as any remarks he has made concerning the Bible, I am not acquainted with them and I would appreciate you understanding this is the 2nd time I remark on this. be aware. there are literally thousands of articles online regarding Calvin's intolerance
I'm not going to discuss Penley again with you because you seem to want to dwell on him and i do not know a thing about his personal beliefs so there is not point to it and it has no bearing on the Calvin article. a person can be correct on historical documents or facts and totally out to lunch regarding personal interpretation of scripture if they are not a Christian. for that matter, some who call themselves Christian are also totally out to lunch, coming up with things like universal salvation...which does not apply to either you or me
you fail to see what I am actually saying, which would be the same as what the author of the other thread that is currently in progress regarding Calvinist beliefs is saying
there is no mention of Christ...just Calvin Calvin Calvin...and you should remember that I state that along with saying Calvin saves no one. Paul even writes about that, stating that some say they follow Peter and some say they follow Paul. I follow Christ rather than a label or certain set of teachings...you state you are not a Calvinist, but seem to defend him staunchly so what do you expect a person to think? you call Servetus a heretic...again...but make no response when I remind you that there are people here who call Christ Lord and Savior, but they don't believe in the Trinity either
is that getting too real for some? are they heretics also according to your beliefs? I don't believe in infant baptism and according to Calvin and others, that is also heresy. I suppose the fact Calvinists believe you have no choice in salvation, regards infant baptism as doctrine. but what if the infant grows up to reject Christ? is that blasphemy?
Calvinism proposes so many conflicts your head spins trying to reconcile what they believe. but of course that does not apply to you since you are not a Calvinist.
well that's good. but the only capital crime is rejecting Christ which I don't suppose Servetus actually did
and excellent that you do not believe in limited atonement.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I said "so called heretic", that was the charge. I have not studied Servetus ideas enough to say whether he is or is not
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
Also why would I insult a fellow believer. I have no interest in that. I content for the fellow brothers not against them.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
ok well as usual, nothing gained here and honestly I have enough of this discussion
no reflection on you personally...as far as insulting a fellow believer, notice you called them believer
that was my point
when you say: Again I am not trying to justify the execution of Servetus, or any other so called heretic, the reason he was killed was because he did not believe in the Trinity or infant baptism
this has been noted several times in this thread alone. it's no mystery
anyway, the circular posting has become tiresome so I'm done with the thread
thanks
no reflection on you personally...as far as insulting a fellow believer, notice you called them believer
that was my point
when you say: Again I am not trying to justify the execution of Servetus, or any other so called heretic, the reason he was killed was because he did not believe in the Trinity or infant baptism
this has been noted several times in this thread alone. it's no mystery
anyway, the circular posting has become tiresome so I'm done with the thread
thanks
There is an article here and a very good short video that explains Servetus trial. He was executed as a heretic for the capital crime of blasphemy.
In fact, Servetus blatantly exploited the known laws in Geneva, Rome, and most of Europe with his open preaching. After he escaped a Roman prison, (Servetus was burned by Roman authorities in effigy by the inquisition that would have burned him had he not escaped), Michael traveled so as to seat himself in the front row of the church in Geneva where Calvin was preaching. And he was immediately recognized, not through Calvin's pointing him out, and arrested by authorities, nothing at all to do with Calvin, all over Europe.
The Anti-Calvin propaganda has rallied followers for years. Those that do follow have no idea of the true history in most instances. Nor are they interested it seems. John Calvin tried to save Servitus soul. And when finding he was to be executed by fire, tried to spare him even that. To no avail. The little council, not John Calvin, demanded MS burn. And so he did. John Calvin was nowhere present.
The night before this burning John Calvin tried to save Michael Servetus from that fate by going to MS while he was in prison.
Many here may not respect what I have to say. That's fine. But at least respect the fact that the Anti-Calvinist camp are promoting propaganda and lies about both John Calvin and even worse, Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned at the stake. To spread falsehoods as to how this occurred does his legacy no honor. And it is a reprehensible tactic that is employed in order to slander John Calvin. Who was at one time accused of the heresies of Simony and Arianism.
Michael Servetus once tried to have John Calvin arrested on these charges, based on a baseless rumor he'd heard. Had Calvin been arrested and killed for these capital offenses, Michael Servetus would have received all of Calvin's monies and properties.
Servetus was not a poor little attacked church mouse. Calvin tried to help MS. MS ran headlong to that pyre.
Takes less than 25 minutes to watch. Less time required to learn something about this issue than it takes to further the agenda of Anti-Calvinist propagandists here.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I was referring to you not Servetus. I am assuming that you are a believer.
Yes, many say Servetus didn't believe in the Trinity, ok I don't know that he didn't. It's possible his understanding of the deity of Christ would be defined in other terms. I don't know how he understood Christ, or who he contended Christ to be. If his view of Christ was scriptural but played semantics with the word Trinity then there is no foul. I know people who believe the whole trinitarian doctrine, but don't believe the word "Trinity".
I don't believe in infant baptism.
Yes, many say Servetus didn't believe in the Trinity, ok I don't know that he didn't. It's possible his understanding of the deity of Christ would be defined in other terms. I don't know how he understood Christ, or who he contended Christ to be. If his view of Christ was scriptural but played semantics with the word Trinity then there is no foul. I know people who believe the whole trinitarian doctrine, but don't believe the word "Trinity".
I don't believe in infant baptism.
He denied the triunity of God because he thought he could reach Islam and Jews with this. He denied that Christ was a distinct person of the Godhead.