[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Now, we can either discuss the actual Teachings of the Bible (in which case, the Arminians will lose); or, if the Arminians prefer (as they usually do), we can debate the persons of John Calvin and James Arminius.

In which case, they will also lose.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

RnMomof7 requested in FReepMail that I write up a short response to those Arminians who continue to insist of exchanging discussions of Christian Theology, for their favorite ad hominem guilt by association smears.

So, I wrote up a short response.

[irishtenor]

Bravo, bravo!!

[drstevej]

Well stated... and with the trademark OP sense of humor.

I will both bookmark this and save it.

Never can tell when the Calvin haters will start a flame war to try to get a thread pulled that debunks their favorite method of avoiding the content of Calvin's teaching.

[drstevej]

Servetus Charbroil Ping

[CCWoody]

Hmmmm. Howzabout that. ~ OP

ROTFLMAO! Hung by their own tongue.

Woody.

P.S. This toast is for you: May our beer not run out, nor our marshmallows, until Arminius is finished burning!

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - read later - Calvinism

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Bookmarking it before I even read it.

How's that for a compliment?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Servetus-shishkabob Bump.

[nobdysfool]

OP, thank you! Work has prevented me from tackling some of the more egregious piffle that has been thrown about in the last week, but I will be addressing it. This is a great help!

[Cvengr]

I find your 3 assertion argument a bit humerous. (referencing the first 'syllogism')

Leave it to a Calvinist to imply such an argument from past threads.

The Calvinist viewpoint seems to make themselves victims of such assumed implications.

[Corin Stormhands]

Ergo, John Calvin was not Christian; therefore his doctrines were not Christian; therefore his doctrines must be rejected.

For the record, y'all know I don't play over here much anymore, but if some Arminians are really saying that Calvin wasn't a Christian because of the Servetus incident, then they're just being goofy.

Admittedly, at first reading the Servetus story sounds like a "gotcha" for Calvin. But that's wishful thinking on the part of some Arminians.

Calvin's actions regarding Servetus, whether right or wrong, have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of his theology. The only perfect "theologian" (if you can really call Him that) was Christ. Every other one has/had human failings.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

[AZhardliner]

Good response, thanks for taking the time to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. Soli Deo Gloria!

[Conservative til I die]

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.

Huh? My head is still spinning.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, I think in both areas Arminius would win.

However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches.

Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security.

Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved.