Calvin's (g)od and Allah

[heartstrings]

I'm sure most of you have seen or heard that the Romans adopted the gods of other empires, such as the Greeks and Babylonians, and worshipped them under new names. How many have also seen comparisons of the Catholics' "Madonna and child" to the Babylonians' "Queen of Heaven"  and to Baal worship? Same false gods, different name. I mentioned this before but, there are also similarities in the nature of "Allah" and the false god of Calvinism.  They're both deterministic, fatalistic, very limited in love and compassion, and their "prophets" (Calvin and Mohammed) were violent murderers. Some basically say that God created/made some people for the express purpose of sending them to Hell for his "glory" and always emphasize this "glory" as being his main desire. Others even go as far as to say or imply that "non-elect" babies go to Hell, when they die, for "god's glory" . Maybe the original name of this god was "Molech".

Just as Catholicism takes Biblical names of Jesus, God, Mary, Baptism, Saints and uses them, passing it off as real Christianity, so do other false religions including Calvin's.

Edited April 6, 2017 by heartstrings

[Ukulelemike]

“[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases … they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. … he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name be glorified in their destruction. ... God chooses whom he will as his children … while he rejects and reprobates others” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).

Some interesting facts of the punishments meted out in Geneva under Calvin's reign: http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

[DaveW]

Thanks for quoting that Mike.

That position is normally what calvinist point to as "hyper-calvinist", as it allows them to present as more reasonable, but it was ABSOLUTELY Calvin's teaching.

 

[heartstrings]

23 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

“[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases … they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. … he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name be glorified in their destruction. ... God chooses whom he will as his children … while he rejects and reprobates others” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).

Some interesting facts of the punishments meted out in Geneva under Calvin's reign: http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

“And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah’s permission; and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.” Surah. 10:99-100(Koran)

http://rdtw.blogspot.com/2012/04/calvinism-and-islam-shudder.html

https://newbraunfelsbible.org/uncategorized/islams-allah-and-calvinisms-god-an-uncomfortable-comparison/

[Tyndale]

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 3:53 PM, heartstrings said:

 the false god of Calvinism.  

Would you suggest that the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible and the majority of the translators of the 1611 KJV, who were Calvinists, followed a false god and not the true God of the Bible?

Would you suggest that Theodore Beza, who edited the primary edition of the Greek New Testament used in the making of the KJV, followed a false god?

Would you claim that Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, followed a false god?

I am not a Calvinist, but I wonder where your allegations against Calvinism are accurate.

[heartstrings]

You say the "tra

On 4/7/2017 at 3:42 PM, Tyndale said:

Would you suggest that the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible and the majority of the translators of the 1611 KJV, who were Calvinists, followed a false god and not the true God of the Bible?

Would you suggest that Theodore Beza, who edited the primary edition of the Greek New Testament used in the making of the KJV, followed a false god?

Would you claim that Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, followed a false god?

I am not a Calvinist, but I wonder where your allegations against Calvinism are accurate.

Prove both.

[Tyndale]

40 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

 

Prove both.

Prove what?  You are not clear in your response.  I asked a couple questions that you did not answer.

Do you practice what you preach and prove your allegations in the opening post of this thread including your allegation that the God of Calvinism is the same as the false god of Islam?

[heartstrings]

Prove what?  I highlighted two of your statements and said "prove both":  That isn't clear? Prove that these men you mentioned were Calvinists (I already know about Spurgeon) and prove that you are not, as well. I don't have answers to your questions, perhaps you will enlighten me.

As to Spurgeon; some of the things he said were contradictory to Calvinism so I think, in his case, he may have just been confused on the subject. But at any rate, I didn't get my faith from Spurgeon.

I said there are "similarities" between Calvinism and Islam, and I used the word "maybe'. But I do stick by any "allegations" of mine that "Calvinism" is unbiblical.

Edited April 10, 2017 by heartstrings

[fastjav390]

On 4/6/2017 at 4:25 PM, Ukulelemike said:

“[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases … they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. … he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name be glorified in their destruction. ... God chooses whom he will as his children … while he rejects and reprobates others” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).

Some interesting facts of the punishments meted out in Geneva under Calvin's reign: http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

I had one Calvinist admit to me once that there's millions of babies burning in hell that were predestined as such. Not sure what Calvin said about babies or those that die in the womb but if you follow the logical conclusion of his teachings you would end up believing the same. Unless, like I've heard other Calvinists say, that only elected babies die never the unelected.

On 4/7/2017 at 4:42 PM, Tyndale said:

Would you suggest that the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible and the majority of the translators of the 1611 KJV, who were Calvinists, followed a false god and not the true God of the Bible?

Would you suggest that Theodore Beza, who edited the primary edition of the Greek New Testament used in the making of the KJV, followed a false god?

Would you claim that Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, followed a false god?

I am not a Calvinist, but I wonder where your allegations against Calvinism are accurate.

Not all the translators of the KJV were Calvinist. I believe about half were. This is why King James was so strict with the translators so that none of them would try injecting their own theology into the translation. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by fastjav390

[No Nicolaitans]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't any type of a false representation of God denote promoting a false god to some degree?

[heartstrings]

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man........Romans 1:23

[Tyndale]

23 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 Prove that these men you mentioned were Calvinists

A study of the English history during this period and of the Church of England's doctrinal views at the time of the making of the KJV would show that the majority of the KJV translators would have been Calvinists.  All the KJV translators were members of the Church of England, and they accepted its doctrinal views of their day.

At the time of the making of the KJV, the Church of England's 1595 Lambeth Articles were still accepted.  Gerald Bray noted that these 1595 Lambeth Articles "express a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390).  Otto Scott noted that the Lambeth Articles "were unequivocally Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 129).  Did any of the KJV translators publicly express any opposition to these Lambeth Articles before 1611?

Patrick Collinson wrote:  "'Orthodox' meant Calvinist.  Calvinism an be regarded as the theological cement of the Jacobean Church" (The Religion of Protestants:  The Church in English Society 1559-1625, p. 82).  The term Jacobean Church would refer to the Church of England during the reign of King James I.

The Puritan party in the Church of England was Calvinist, and some of the KJV translators had been associated with the Puritan party.  Even the High Church party in the Church of England still accepted Calvinism [at least a moderate Calvinism] at the time of the making of the KJV.  It would be after 1620 [after the making of the KJV] when some or many in the High Church party in the Church of England would become associated with Arminianism.   Gerald Bray claimed that the Calvinistic 1595 Lambeth Articles faded from view in the Church of England during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649) (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390).  It would be during the reign of Charles I when several Church of England bishops would be identified as Arminian. 

Along with the 1595 Lambeth Articles, another historical fact that shows that Calvinism was still accepted in the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV is the fact that a Calvinist was named as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611.  After the death of Archbishop Richard Bancroft, King James I made George Abbot, who had been one of the translators of the KJV, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Otto Scott noted that George Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, was "a Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 143).

In 1618, King James I and Archbishop Abbot sent English delegates, including two men who had been KJV translators, to the Dort Synod.  Representing the Church of England, the English delegates voted for the Calvinist position.  Otto Scott noted that they "voted to uphold Calvinist principles in their entirety" (Great Christian Revolution, pp. 143, 146).  Thus, as late as 1618 at the Dort Synod, the Church of England still publicly supported Calvinism.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Tyndale

[heartstrings]

Well, at any rate, you know what they say... God can even draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

Otherwise, these dudes would have left out a whole lot of "whosoever wills" and things like that. Have a good day Brother

[DaveW]

Actually, there was disquiet about the process because James was Scottish and there was concern that his perceived Calvinistic position might produce a biased translation.

This itself shows that at least a visible group were opposed to calvinism in some fashion.

In fact, James was likely not Calvinistic at all, as he was independently taught and often opposed the mainstream thologists.

 

You have to be careful in reading histories that you are not relying on biased information. Calvinists are constantly rewriting history and misrepresenting historical characters to portray them as Calvinist when many were not, or in some cases not as much as they would like.

[Ukulelemike]

Regardless of whether they were Calvinists or not, they believed, to a man, as far as I can tell, that the work they were producing was the very word of God, and as such, not to be tampered with through their own thoughts and ideas. The KJV is a word for word translation, each part passing through numerous hands for verification that what had been translated from over 5,000 extant copies, manuscripts, unicals, etc, were correct and literal, while still beautiful and poetic, as it should be. No single man or group had total control over any part of the translation. This is proven out in the fact that the Bible clearly doesn't promote Calvinist doctrine. Otherwise, not only does God declare certain men to be irredeemable by His own choice, he also declares His own people to even commit murder (David, Moses), massive idolatry (Solomon and, gosh, the entire nation of Israel), to lie, (Jacob, Abraham, Isaac, et al), to backslide, (The church at Corinth), to worship incorrectly, (Nadab and Abihu), to disobey Him, (Moses).  When you really consider the implications of a God who controls and directs every aspect of life of all people on earth, saved and unsaved, certainly comes across as either vastly unjust, or at least, incompetent, possibly wicked.

As we see with Solomon, God directs His people through His word and commands, even, in Solomon's case, can give them the gre4atest amount of heavenly wisdom anyone can posess, and they can STILL fall to sin and ignore all they have been commaned. Wisdom just shows one what is sin and what is not, is doesn't keep them from sinning, they just sin knowingly. If God commanded Solomon to follow His commands, but then, forced him to fall into idolatry, seriously, who does that? If God commands all men everywhere to repent, but only ALLOWS a few to, how is this just? Will God command to do what He won't allow us to follow?