You wrote: "The best that the adversaries of Calvinism can do is attack John Calvin, the man."
Honestly is anything else necessary? Christ founded our Church. He was perfect. Calvin founded your Church and he was far from perfect. Christ gave us God-given theology. You have Calvin's. Does that not matter?
"Because you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger."
No, I attack the source of the message showing that the flaws of the messanger should make any man think twice about the veracity of the message.
"This is the oldest and most transparent trick of Satan (The Adversary)."
So if Satan founded your sect would I not be allowed to talk about his flaws as well? LOL!
"Let's summarize your accusations:
1) John Calvin had Servetus executed.
2) John Calvin was sodomized."
No. I never said Calvin was sodomized. I posted evidence that suggests he was a sodomite. When can be a sodomite by choice whereas being "sodomized" usually indicated tat someone forced you.
"Therefore: John Calvin is a sinner. Everything he wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner."
Yes.
"But of course you know that Saint Paul had Saint Stephen executed."
No, he did not. He had no authority to do so. Paul's authority was about Damascus' Jews who had converted to the Way. He had no authority in Jerusalem.
"Do you therefore assert that everything Saint Paul wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner?"
The author of Paul's letters was God. Paul was more than an instrument, but less than the true author. You do realize that Paul's letters were actually written by God (who is sinless) through Paul (who was a sinner) correct? Again, you seem very confused about scripture.
"Why do you not contest the doctrines of Calvinism instead of misdirecting our attention to John Calvin, the man?"
Please show me where killing Servetus was a doctrine of Calvinists. I was talking about the actions of Calvin. I was not arguing over his doctrines. I see no reason to talk about Calvin’s doctrines when I am talking about his actions as a man.
“Answer: Because you cannot contest the doctrines of Calvinism.”
Yes, actually I can. I just see no point in doing so in a thread where the point became how Calvin worked to have Servetus killed.
“You believe that by attacking John Calvin, the man, you are being clever.”
No, I believe that telling the truth about Calvin will show the truth about Calvin. That was my intention and I have succeeded.
“You are not being clever.”
I wasn’t trying to be clever so I have apparently succeeded again. Thanks for letting me know that I am not doing what I wasn’t trying to do.
“You are being transparent and foolish.”
I am absolutely being transparent. I am telling the truth about Calvin and Servetus. That is exactly what I wanted to do. I am not being foolish. I have not tried to be either.
“Repent!”
Already did – that’s why I am not a Calvinist.
Oh, please. Your church dates no earlier to that St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, and arguably no earlier than the Catholic/Orthodox Schism of 1054. Your doctrine has certainly evolved over the years. This "only church dating to the Apostles" bit is exhausting. Certainly the Orthodox could give y'all a run for your money for being traceable to the Apostles, and they - unlike the Roman Catholic Church - have had a largely static body of theology since the Early Church Fathers.
I posted evidence that suggests he was a sodomite.
You most certainly did not. You posted an unsubstantiated allegation that someone, once upon a time, ran into rumors that he was homosexual. Show me some documentary evidence. Put up, or shut up.
Furthermore, this homosexuality charge is irrelevant. What he did in his pre-conversion life no more disqualifies him as a Christian theologian than Augustine's playboy days disqualify the most articulate theologian ever to live.
You are not a serious contender of the Faith.
It is obvious that you have not read "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.
You make slanderous accusations (rumors) without documentary evidence.
Read the "Institutes" and debate like an educated scholar.
The difficulty I have with your postings is simple: You use circular reasoning, which is a mark of insincerity and shallowness.
For example: You lead with you conclusion: "Calvin is a heretic".
You then proceed to use this conclusion as the basis of everything that follows; but you never show us exactly:
Calvin is a heretic; Ergo: Calvinism is heretical. Ergo: Calvin is a heretic. (This is circular nonsense).
Please show us the heresy! This is what I mean by not debating openly the content of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.
What, exactly, makes you conclude that "Calvin is a heretic"?
Which doctrines that John Calvin clarified are you concluding are "heretical"? And by what qualifications do you come to this understanding?
This is what an educated scholar must do, and you avoid doing it.
Instead you attack the man John Calvin with rumors and slanderous accusations, and think you have done a good job of analysis.
If you can't show us the "heretical doctrines" and debate them openly, then you are not what you represent yourself to be: An informed historian.
Please reply, when you find the time. We "Calvinists" await.
Thank you. I never knew that. I kind of assumed there had to be something weird about that dude. :-)