Who are the Elect

[rhutchin]

Hutch,

Bro, unfortunately I think I have to be done speaking with you about this. You don't seem to be seeing my points, and end up communicating that God is limited in power--when we both know you don't believe that. You also label honest Arminians heretics with no logical proof, when they are your brethren; they are not Pelagians, or denying omniscience. To me, you don't seem to want unity in God when it comes to God's nature; you seem instead to want to falsify arguments via unnecessary logical conclusions, so you can be right. I don't believe you mean to do that, but I also don't think there's fruit in further discussion at-present because of what I am hearing on both sides. Blessings on you!

Acts 17
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed;

[RBerman]

Why waste the typing? What value lays in the attempt?

I wasn't even talking to you; my post was in response to Harmonmsp. If you think I say something of no value, it would be easiest just to ignore my posts. There's even a feature where you can block my posts entirely, sparing you from wasting your valuable reading time on my valueless posts.

[Cross Reference]

I think the other side is having a hard time communicating a sound position. This seems to be because the other side appears to have a limited knowledge of the Bible (evidenced by a lack of appeal to Biblical support for their opinions) and is not saying very much of substance.

Perhaps it is the Calvinist who just doesn't have ears to hear. Willful ignorance submitted to, will readily bring on spiritual deafness.

[rhutchin]

I think the other side is having a hard time communicating a sound position. This seems to be because the other side appears to have a limited knowledge of the Bible (evidenced by a lack of appeal to Biblical support for their opinions) and is not saying very much of substance.

Perhaps it is the Calvinist who just doesn't have ears to hear. Willful ignorance submitted to, will readily bring on spiritual deafness.

That is always possible. However, in looking back over the previous messages, it seems to me that my position holds up. Nonetheless, we will see if Scriptural support is offered with greater frequency in the future on this or other issues.

[The Remonstrant]

The elect appear to be those who have, of their free will, met the conditions of salvation as set forth in the New Testament (faith, repentance, baptism, confession [calling on the name of the Lord]) and persevered in them to the end (regardless of how God's grace may have, or may not have, enabled or assisted them during the process).

[Chappie]

That is always possible. However, in looking back over the previous messages, it seems to me that my position holds up. Nonetheless, we will see if Scriptural support is offered with greater frequency in the future on this or other issues.

Are you a Calvinist? If you are, scripture will be of no help to you... Mostly because of their unique and creative way of interpreting it.

I spent today searching John Calvin on the puter. He was practically devoid of empathy and compassion. Appears to me he felt no compunction about making God over in his image… The same callous and uncaring spirit that he so readily attributes to God appeared to dominate his life also… Did you know that it was a crime punishable by expulsion or even death if one disagreed with his institutes. The rule of thumb was the bible was to be interpreted according to the institutes, not the other way around.

Calvin's Reign of Terror
After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva, who had invited him there.

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva because that is what his theology teaches.

False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva
http://www.standingthegap.org/Calvin1.htm
I spent considerable time researching this matter, it appears to be as credible as any rebuttals anyone might post…

[RBerman]

Just be glad you didn't live anywhere in Europe in the 16th century, Chappie. Times were tense, countries were insecure, and one's religious convictions were held to be evidence of whether one was likely to be abetting the enemies of your country. In general, that was actually the case, which made everyone trigger-happy, even toward "equal opportunity believers" such as yourself.

[headheart]

Who cares?

"Willful ignorance submitted to, will readily bring on spiritual deafness."

[rhutchin]

Are you a Calvinist? If you are, scripture will be of no help to you... Mostly because of their unique and creative way of interpreting it.

I spent today searching John Calvin on the puter. He was practically devoid of empathy and compassion. Appears to me he felt no compunction about making God over in his image… The same callous and uncaring spirit that he so readily attributes to God appeared to dominate his life also… Did you know that it was a crime punishable by expulsion or even death if one disagreed with his institutes. The rule of thumb was the bible was to be interpreted according to the institutes, not the other way around.

Calvin's Reign of Terror
After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva, who had invited him there.

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva because that is what his theology teaches.

False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva
http://www.standingthegap.org/Calvin1.htm
I spent considerable time researching this matter, it appears to be as credible as any rebuttals anyone might post…

I guess the Catholic Encyclopedia should be a good source of information on Calvin.

There seems to be more to the story.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3om...rin%22&f=false

[Cross Reference]

Where is the offense to scripture that clearly states, God chooses those who choose Him?

[rhutchin]

The elect appear to be those who have, of their free will, met the conditions of salvation as set forth in the New Testament (faith, repentance, baptism, confession [calling on the name of the Lord]) and persevered in them to the end (regardless of how God's grace may have, or may not have, enabled or assisted them during the process).

Or we could just say, "]The elect meet the conditions of salvation as set forth in the New Testament (faith, repentance, baptism, confession [calling on the name of the Lord]) and persevere in them to the end."

[rhutchin]

Where is the offense to scripture that clearly states, God chooses those who choose Him?

Where is the scripture that clearly states, God chooses those who choose Him?

[Cross Reference]

I guess the Catholic Encyclopedia should be a good source of information on Calvin.

There seems to be more to the story.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3om...rin%22&f=false

Are you saying what chappie posted is a lie? What are the historical facts if you believe so or are you just sticking your fingers in your ears?

[rhutchin]

Are you saying what chappie posted is a lie? What are the historical facts if you believe so or are you just sticking your fingers in your ears?

True as far as it goes but lacking in all the details that more fully explain what happened.

It is like the Tabloid that blares out, "Ted Kennedy drives off a bridge and kills an intern." There is more to the story than that. So, get all the facts and tell the whole story. The citation I gave provides a more indepth treatment of Calvin's life. Why did you think that the reference I cited amounted to me sticking my fingers in my ears. I thought it was a pretty decent reference. What are your problems with it?

[Cross Reference]

[QUOTE=rhutchin;2756797]

True as far as it goes but lacking in all the details that more fully explain what happened.

True? Truth should be enough.

It is like the Tabloid that blares out, "Ted Kennedy drives off a bridge and kills an intern." There is more to the story than that. So, get all the facts and tell the whole story. The citation I gave provides a more indepth treatment of Calvin's life. Why did you think that the reference I cited amounted to me sticking my fingers in my ears. I thought it was a pretty decent reference. What are your problems with it?

In light of the historical record that stands regardless of the messaging it has received by either opinion, suffice it remains, supported by his writings that wets down any interest in the man. I wouldn't waste my time more than necessary to understand what the scriptural issues are.

And what were the circumstances re Kennedy, that we should arrive at a different conclusion to the matter? Because Calvin was Calvin we should see a different picture of the same conceit and believe it?

In this you revere Calvin no differently than the a RC reveres the Pope. There is no difference. Both opinions reject clear teaching of the scriptures, don't they? But that is my opinion, isn't it?

Question: Is my salvation in danger because I don't? How about the process of having the Mind of God formed in me, is that in that danger?