Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism
Response to: Calvinism- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva ^ | August 13, 2003 | OP

Posted on 08/13/2003 6:04:31 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian

Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism

Introduction: the Anti-Predestinarian Syllogism

In debates between Reformation Protestants and Arminian neo-Protestants, it is common for Arminians to invoke a peculiar and logically-fallacious syllogism in an effort to deflect attention from the evidentiary insurmountability of the Biblical Case for Reformation Protestantism. This syllogism is constructed in the form of a classic ad hominem Guilt-by-Association argument, according to the following general Form:

Needless to say, it makes little impression upon the Arminian neo-Protestant that the Doctrines of Absolute Predestination were believed by Godly Christians for centuries before Calvin (i.e., 10th-15th Century Waldensian CredoBaptists, the 6th-9th Century Presbyters of Iona, the 4th-10th Century Ambrosian Catholics, Saint Augustine, the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself, etc). What matters is the argumentative usefulness of being able to lay this charge to the particular account of John Calvin, and thus evade the theological defeat of the UnBiblical Arminian systematic heresy by re-framing the debate as a mud-throwing competition directed against one particular Reformer.

Now, before we proceed, we should observe: the Arminian neo-Protestant assertions against Calvin are not borne out by the Facts of History in the first place.

Uncomfortable Facts about Michael Servetus

Michael Servetus was:

In point of History, Michael Servetus was executed as a matter of State Punishment, as sentenced by the Civil Council of Geneva – which itself was controlled at the time by Calvin’s political enemies, the Libertines. In fact, as the Libertine Party itself rejected Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination, it is more historically accurate to say that Servetus was killed by the Anti-Predestinarian “protestants”, than to attribute the deed to Calvin (who at any rate pleaded for a more merciful execution “by the Sword”, rather than the slow burning-to-death on which the vicious Anti-Predestinarians insisted).

Be that as it may, however, it needs be asked – if it is appropriate for Arminian neo-Protestants to employ such a Syllogism against the Reformer John Calvin, is it not equally appropriate to measure by the same standard the heretical Schismatic who, perhaps more than any other single man, was fundamentally responsible for sundering the Godly unity of Reformation Protestantism into a thousand confused and competing sects – James Arminius? To that Question we now turn:

Arminius – his teachings on Politics, Religion, and the Sword of the State

Phew.... Thank God that America was founded primarily by convinced Calvinists, and not Arminians. Moving along, though, let us now apply the Arminian's Favorite Syllogism -- to Arminius himself.

Arminius at the Bar of the Arminian Syllogism:

Hmmmm. Howzabout that.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 981-984 next last
To: connectthedots; Aggressive Calvinist
Servetus was executed by the civil authorities, and Calvin had zero civil office.
Yeah, and the Pharises had nothing to do with the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ.

To the Romans it was a sedition problem and they wanted to keep order in the Jewish state.

81 posted on 08/14/2003 6:22:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Isn't that Cincinatti?
82 posted on 08/14/2003 6:23:58 PM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I understand the grace of God to grant us efficacious grace and a common grace, but primarily as a gift for us before we have received salvation. A mechanism to 'kick start' our acceptance of things eternal.

Does every one get the same kick?

BTW I too believe salvation is initiated by Gods grace

83 posted on 08/14/2003 6:24:20 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; xzins
xzins said he was with relatives in New Jersey this morning working to fix their computer.

Hmmm.

84 posted on 08/14/2003 6:26:02 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Just think, even though the law of the day mandated the accusor would be placed in custody as a check so that if the accusation was found to be false, the false accusor bore risk for his behavior, John Calvin was able to accuse and convince others to bear that risk for him. What an admirable fellow.

Calvin forewarned Serveus not to come to geneva , as it was the practice of that day to burn heretics.However Serevus hopped that he could come to power in Geneva.

Sedition...

85 posted on 08/14/2003 6:28:35 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
Ummmm could be
86 posted on 08/14/2003 6:29:35 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Oh, maybe some get kicked a little differently than others, some a gentle nudge, others drop kicked, but yep,..I tend to think He's acted on us first to allow us to respond.
87 posted on 08/14/2003 6:30:15 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Well if he was he is still I would think:>)
88 posted on 08/14/2003 6:30:16 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Agreed that God brings us to Him with His grace
89 posted on 08/14/2003 6:31:15 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
...Okay, fine; Homey can play dat.

OP, OP, OP, tsk,tsk, can't you ever learn to close your HTML when you Post?

< /EBONICS>

90 posted on 08/14/2003 7:12:41 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ("I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum!" -Roddy Piper;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
You aren't suggesting...FReeper mayhem? Or perhaps miscue?

LOLOL!

91 posted on 08/14/2003 8:03:19 PM PDT by Bat_Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thanks! I have to tackle the Institutes some day but am slowly working up to them. :-) Reading Sproul and Horton in the interim. :-)
92 posted on 08/14/2003 8:29:06 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I was gonna confess when the east coast went black, but I figured it was just me in the dark again 'bout most everything. :>0 hmmmm!

We're OK. It didn't hit middle NJ. I don't know about Newark and vicinity.
93 posted on 08/14/2003 9:00:53 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Just think, even though the law of the day mandated the accusor would be placed in custody as a check so that if the accusation was found to be false, the false accusor bore risk for his behavior, John Calvin was able to accuse and convince others to bear that risk for him.

That was indeed a very good law. Looser pays! It probably stopped a lot of heresy charges and blasphemy charges in Geneva and probably explained why Servetus was the last person to be executed for heresy in Geneva. Only someone who was really sure of himself or someone who was influential enough to convince some poor employee to stand in his place as accuser would be willing to bring such a charge.

Servetus came within a hair of being acquitted on all charges. Had he been given the right to an attorney, he would have been acquitted since the only evidence that convicted Servetus was the statements made by him when he was forced to testify as a witness against himself at his trial. Had he been acquitted it would not have been Calvin (the REAL Accuser) who would have been burned at the stake, but his loyal secretary (Calvin's "surrogate" accuser). Noble indeed.

94 posted on 08/14/2003 9:25:06 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Milquetoast Q. Whitebread is alive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; P-Marlowe
To the Romans it was a sedition problem and they wanted to keep order in the Jewish state.

How naive, blind, or stupid, can you be? Pilate found no fault in Jesus. It was the the Jewish people who demanded Christ's crucifixtion. Pilate was fearful of sedition by the Jews, not the followers of Christ. One of the first lessons in Christian apologetics one ought to learn is that the crucifixtion of Christ required both the demand for it by the Jews and the acquiesence by the Gentiles; i.e. Romans. Without both, Christ would not have been crucified; nor would he have become the Savior of both the Jews and the Gentiles. How could this obvious fact escape any person who has studied even a little bit of scripture? I had this figured out within 30 days of becoming a Christian over 31 years ago.

95 posted on 08/15/2003 12:38:21 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Had he been given the right to an attorney, he would have been acquitted since the only evidence that convicted Servetus was the statements made by him when he was forced to testify as a witness against himself at his trial.

I find thjis interesting and wonder how many of the Calvin apologists realize that in most of the United States a confession without any other evidence or witnesses is insufficient for a conviction.

For those who are unaware, the purose is two fold. First is to prevent the use of forced confessions as the only evidence of guilt and to also prevent an 'innocent'confessor from taking the fall for the real criminal.

96 posted on 08/15/2003 12:43:45 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
I find thjis interesting and wonder how many of the Calvin apologists realize that in most of the United States a confession without any other evidence or witnesses is insufficient for a conviction.

Yeah, but we aren't talking about 21st century USofA now are we?

Maybe you can bring a posthumous indictment against Calvin at the International Criminal Court?

97 posted on 08/15/2003 3:18:17 AM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
CTD: I find thjis interesting and wonder how many of the Calvin apologists realize that in most of the United States a confession without any other evidence or witnesses is insufficient for a conviction.

Yeah, but we aren't talking about 21st century USofA now are we?

I supppose if Calvin practiced cannabalism, you would still say, "Yeah, but that was the 16th Century." This legal principle is rooted in the Magna Carta, signed well before Calvin hatched his plan to have Servertus executed.

Maybe you can bring a posthumous indictment against Calvin at the International Criminal Court?

Straw man. Why do you defend the indefensable? The times in which sins are committed are no excuse. Does the truth change with the times? If it does, then one must conclude that Nazi concentration camp guards did not sin/commit crimes when they murdered millions of Jews. Based on your logic, the Nuremburg Trials were unjust to many of those prosecuted. After all, weren't they 'just following orders'?

98 posted on 08/15/2003 4:41:38 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
You have your crusade against all things Calvin. The way you're going, you may as well go for the indictment.
99 posted on 08/15/2003 9:07:53 AM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots; Wrigley; RnMomof7; drstevej; nobdysfool; CCWoody; Aggressive Calvinist
In two paragraphs you manage to compare Calvin to cannabalism and the Nazis.

What's left? Ringworm and cellulite?

Calvin was the greatest of all Protestant reformers. Luther never sought to leave the Church of Rome. Wesley remained an Anglican all his life.

It was Calvin and his followers, like John Knox, who knew the necessity of returning to the church of Christ and reaffirming the sovereignty of God, not man.

ctd, I think your history with some misdirected, cold-hearted people has closed your eyes to what the reformed position really is.

If it's Total Inability/Depravity/Original Sin you challenge, you should know most Protestant faiths, as well as all Catholics, affirm it.

Calvinists are not alone in the belief that man is fallen, and only God saves.

But Calvin stands apart from many when he asserts the human experience and the pleasure that comes with a healthy, robust, productive life is good and should be enjoyed because it is all righteous and it is all of God as He intends.

"The purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."

100 posted on 08/15/2003 10:08:26 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 981-984 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson