An Anti - Calvinist Parody - Circa 74 B. C. (Yes, You Read Rightly)

[3DOP]

Erik,

 

You're not fully persuaded double predestination is biblical? I appreciate the candor.

 

Every false doctrine is at least biblically plausible and frequently in truly clever ways. If I weren't Catholic...A Scripture only guy, I'd be confused because I know how to refute everything but prove nothing. But I'd probably be a confused Calvinist. That is what I respect the most from a Bible only approach. I dunno though. I'd be looking for a way to steer clear of any kind of Bible only approach that besides me, made Dad, makes my Mom, makes my aunts and uncles, my brothers and sister, my children, and my grandchildren need to have some knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and different schools of hermeneutics to find out what they should believe. Besides my own sorry plight, I would know that for them there would need to be an easier way. The only way we could ever be in agreement with my loved ones would be if we accepted the same extra-biblical authority, whether it be me, or something bigger, like the Catholic Church for instance. I know I am not up to the task, and neither are they. So instead of me as an authority, I have pointed them to Rome. I am trying in a hopefully humble way to point you there as well.

 

I saw Jimmy Swaggart tonight on TV for a few minutes preaching against Catholicism. He seems to think that we never noticed that St. Peter was a mere man and didn't have a ring for Cornelius to kiss. He thinks he has the Bible nailed. Good for him. Very few faith communities appreciate how hard the Scriptures are to figure out. They have foolish confidence.

 

"Understandest what thou readest?" Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch. "How can I except some man guide me", he replies. Indeed.  

 

The Bible alone is always inadequate alone to resolve biblical controversy. Always inadequate. Authority always has to come in. This applies to groups as well as individuals, when the "controversy" is interior.

 

I don't care to debate it unless you want to. Just ponder it while you are working things out.

 

God Bless,

 

Rory

Edited January 20, 2014 by 3DOP

[Five Solas]

I have pointed them to Rome. I am trying in a hopefully humble way to point you there as well.

Last year one of my uncles converted to Catholicism (he was inactive LDS for a long time previously).  He's really rolled up his sleeves and gotten involved in his local parish.  It's wonderful to see God at work in his life.  For me, the issues that divide are largely secondary concerns.  We agree on the most important parts.  Not everyone feels this way, I realize.

 

Thanks Rory!

 

--Erik

[Vance]

Calvin merely agreed and thought the penalty of death was just.

Ah, but it wasn't just, and THAT is the point. Regardless of the times, executing someone for the expression of an idea is something that a man of God would never do. Ergo Calvin was NOT a man of God.

But it appears that Calvin mercifully tried to prevent the slow and tortuous burning of Michael Servetus in favor of a swift death.

That doesn't change the fact that He did something that a man of God would NEVER do.

The "crime" committed by Michael Servetus against the Genevans was effectively espionage.

NOPE! There is a big difference between the expression of a religious idea in the open (or even in private) and the clandestine gathering the secrets of a nation and the passing of them to enemies of that nation.

[3DOP]

Ah, but it wasn't just, and THAT is the point. Regardless of the times, executing someone for the expression of an idea is something that a man of God would never do. Ergo Calvin was NOT a man of God.

That doesn't change the fact that He did something that a man of God would NEVER do.

NOPE! There is a big difference between the expression of a religious idea in the open (or even in private) and the clandestine gathering the secrets of a nation and the passing of them to enemies of that nation.

 

We disagree about the rights of peoples to suppress ideas that are perceived to be detrimental to the well-being of the common good. Additionally, you apparently think that because I defend Calvin against the charge of murder, that I must believe he is wonderful. That conclusion does not necessarily follow.

 

1) I don't take the position that Calvin is a "man of God".

2) I don't take the position that Calvin is admirable.

3) I take the position that Calvin is innocent of murdering Michael Servetus. 

Edited January 20, 2014 by 3DOP