The KJV is a Roman Catholic Bible with respect to the Word Church.

[Steven Avery]

Calvin certainly used the terms Trinity and Persons. Just because he didn't in that document means nothing.

You could say he learned his lesson by being brought up on charges.

In response to the charges of Pierre Caroli, the Calvin supporters laughed at the Caroli reading of the Athanasian Creed (which is a bit more negative than simply refusing to affirm the Creed.) Yet the Athanasian Creed seems to be the sine qua non of orthodoxy here.  Calvin avoided that topic even in his later more orthodox writings.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

You could say he learned his lesson by being brought up on charges.

Brought up on charges by a philanderer who drunkingly staggered from one theology to another. LOL!!! Irony makes such strange bedfellows! You got it all wrong... and intentionally so...

Pierre Caroli was a theological gypsy drinking from one toxic doctrine and another. Caroli was preaching about praying for dead people to be raised to the resurrection. When confronted, he made up the false charge that Calvin was an Arian. He was just distracting from his own heresy.

The non-mention of the word "trinity" or "persons" in ONE document proves nothing when Calvin was already using the terms, months earlier in his Institutes. Calvin refused to sign on to the Athanasian Creed... NOT because he disagreed with its theology. He refused on the basis of the last two lines which proclaimed those who reject the Trinity are Hell-bound. He thought they were a bit harsh and unnecessary for a confession.

Caroli was banished from Geneva for his lies and attempt to paint Calvin as a nonTrinitarian. It was Caroli that learned his lesson. Ironically, we are not going to banish you from this forum for pulling the same, exact stunt.

Avery, this is the second time, in our discussions you have tried to paint Calvin as a nonTrinitarian because he did not use the word "Trinity" or "Persons." We already demonstrated that you were very wrong because Calvin's Catechism and Institutes were very clear. Why continue with the nonsense?

 

[Just Ben]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

 

[praise_yeshua]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

 

[bibleprotector]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

We should not change the Bible to current sensibilities (which is to reduce the Word of God to the will of man).

And the KJB was not made by a special inspiration 1605 to 1611.

Changing even little things in God's Word is to bring in some level of inaccuracy.

 

[rsc2a]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

Straight from the horse's mouth! We should all be reading Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek!

 

[lnf]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

Straight from the horse's mouth! We should all be reading Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek!

Yeah, I was flabbergasted when I saw bibleprotector's response to Just Ben.  Because even though I'm no Bible scholar (or a scholar of any kind, truth be told), it seems to me that translating an entire work into a different language is is a much bigger change than substituting "you" for "thee" and dropping "...est" from a few words.

 

[bgwilkinson]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

Straight from the horse's mouth! We should all be reading Scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek!

Amen It sure would solve a lot of problems.
I think BP should learn all three.

 

[prophet]

Thanks for clearing up my confusing post.

They were in Paris at the same time, in University, just at different universities.

You are aware that Paris, Orleans, Bourges, and Toulouse are four different cities, right?

No, I wasn't.  When I read the account, I assumed that Servetus was also in Paris, since they declared him a heretic there, after Calvin "tattled" on him.

I appreciate you helping me with the facts.

The point I made is not really beholden to those details, but me not having the facts right distracts from the point.

I will reread the book, it has been too long, and I am rusty, obviously

I'll get back to you, after I brush-up.

 

[prophet]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

 

[praise_yeshua]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

What does that change about what I said?

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

Ye had generally been replaced by you even at the time of 1611. The supposed "nobler" language of the KJV is entirely embellished.

 

[subllibrm]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

We should not change the Bible to current sensibilities (which is to reduce the Word of God to the will of man).

And the KJB was not made by a special inspiration 1605 to 1611.

Changing even little things in God's Word is to bring in some level of inaccuracy.

Although the KJV translators did exactly that?

 

[Steven Avery]

Brought up on charges by a philanderer ...

The charges were taken seriously and Calvin left Geneva largely because of what came out. The problems of Caroli are hardly relevant to looking at those years.

Calvin refused to sign on to the Athanasian Creed... NOT because he disagreed with its theology. He refused on the basis of the last two lines which proclaimed those who reject the Trinity are Hell-bound. He thought they were a bit harsh and unnecessary for a confession.

Could you give a quote from Calvin, preferably close to the time of the charges, where he says something like:

"The Athanasian Creed is fine, except for the anathemas"?

As  I would like to separate out the 1536-37 period from revisionist perspectives, on any side.

And are you denying that they laughed and mocked the reading of the Creed by Caroli? 
Why do you think this is omitted in some accounts?  Rather basic.

Caroli was banished from Geneva.

 
They both were exiled.

The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition (1995)
George Huntston Williams
"Calvin and Caroli were alike exiles, respectively from Geneva and Lausanne."

Based on Williams, you have your facts off a bit.

[quote author=FSSL]Avery, this is the second time, in our discussions you have tried to paint Calvin as a nonTrinitarian because he did not use the word "Trinity" or "Persons." We already demonstrated that you were very wrong because Calvin's Catechism and Institutes were very clear. Why continue with the nonsense?[/quote]
You misunderstand the issues.  The Geneva Confession was the demand on the populace, developed by Farel and Calvin, and it very deliberately omitted the key words.  When the charges were brought up, Calvin was asked to acknowledge the Athanasian Creed, as the key focus, and not only did they refuse, the Calvin group laughed and mocked the reading of the Creed by Caroli. 

History of the life, works, and doctrines of John Calvin (1850)
Jean Marie Audin

"The sycophant has been driven away by the council, and we have been absolved, not only of the crime charged against us, but even of  every suspicion of error. Let Caroli, then, deck himself with the name of Athanastus! There is no great harm, that tho world should take him for a sacrilegious Athanasius, a debauchee, a homicide, quite covered with the blood of the blessed : and we would be able, if neceesary, to prove the truth of what we state." - John Calvin

Those are the facts being discussed. I consider them as very helpful in understanding the times and the nuances of the evolving positions of John Calvin that led to the Servetus execution. 

As to whether the Trinitiarianism of the Institutes of 1536 would be sufficient doctrinally to the wide swath of orthodox belief today, that is another question.  It is made complex by the competing and conflicting concepts that are put under the Trinitiarian umbrella.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

I will let Calvin answer you just like he answered the lying Caroli...

"Calvin was incensed at his arrogant and boisterous conduct and charged him with atheism. "Caroli," he said, "quarrels with us about the nature of God and the distinction of the persons; but I carry the matter further and ask him, whether he believes in the Deity at all?  For I protest before God and man that he has no more faith in the Divine Word than a dog or a pig that tramples under foot holy things" (Matt. 7:6) Schaff

Interestingly, this is given differently by Benjamin Cottret.

"whether he believes there is one God"

Calvin, A Biography
Bernard Cottret
https://books.google.com/books?id=Nn-xAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

We will always have the petulant scandalous nonTrinitarians with us. Your attempt to paint Calvin, other than a Trinitarian, is getting pretty funny! The absurdity is that we do not need the opinion of anyone to see for ourselves that...

The Institutes of the Christian Religion which contains the following CHAPTER: THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD

.... months later, he along with Farel presented the brief...

The Genevan Confession that did not address the Trinity.

... followed up by a wholly decisive loss to Caroli who, alone, got banished for his lies.

Go ahead and believe Caroli! We have Carolis among us today that really do not care about facts. They just drift like drunk men, prating about from one group to another, trying to spread doubt about God and His word. They move in and out of various theologies, but are unable to settle on any.

 

[prophet]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

What does that change about what I said?

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

Ye had generally been replaced by you even at the time of 1611. The supposed "nobler" language of the KJV is entirely embellished.

Ye and you, are the same word, now, and are always plural.

The problem isn't "ye" being changed to you, it lies with " thou" being changed to "you", which erases numerical distinction.

There are passages where this matters.

For instance:
1Co 3:16-17
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

 

[praise_yeshua]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

What does that change about what I said?

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

Ye had generally been replaced by you even at the time of 1611. The supposed "nobler" language of the KJV is entirely embellished.

Ye and you, are the same word, now, and are always plural.

The problem isn't "ye" being changed to you, it lies with " thou" being changed to "you", which erases numerical distinction.

There are passages where this matters.

For instance:
1Co 3:16-17
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

So you're going to completely ignore what I wrote and insert your own judgement? Why?

I asked for you to explain why you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural? Simple question. Give me a simple answer. You said it is always plural. Those are your words.

When I spoke of ye, I was making the point that you had already replaced ye as the word of choice in 1611. Yet, the KJV is full of instances in which "ye" is used instead. You're already admitting that ye and you plural are the same. Go a step further...

You're going to have to explain 1Co 3:16-17 again to me. Maybe I'm just slow but I can't understand what you're trying to say about "something" being impacted by the use of "you".

 

[prophet]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

What does that change about what I said?

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

Ye had generally been replaced by you even at the time of 1611. The supposed "nobler" language of the KJV is entirely embellished.

Ye and you, are the same word, now, and are always plural.

The problem isn't "ye" being changed to you, it lies with " thou" being changed to "you", which erases numerical distinction.

There are passages where this matters.

For instance:
1Co 3:16-17
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

So you're going to completely ignore what I wrote and insert your own judgement? Why?

I asked for you to explain why you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural? Simple question. Give me a simple answer. You said it is always plural. Those are your words.

When I spoke of ye, I was making the point that you had already replaced ye as the word of choice in 1611. Yet, the KJV is full of instances in which "ye" is used instead. You're already admitting that ye and you plural are the same. Go a step further...

You're going to have to explain 1Co 3:16-17 again to me. Maybe I'm just slow but I can't understand what you're trying to say about "something" being impacted by the use of "you".

OK, if generic "you", replaces ye, as understood in 2014, it is not necessarily plural.
This allows for the individual to believe that Paul is referring to his physical body, rather than the Church.

 

[prophet]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The way some KJVOist believe garbage like this... you'd think that "you" wasn't even in the KJV. You and its various forms, are found over 4000 times in over 2500 verses in the KJV.

And "you" is either plural or collective  every time.

What does that change about what I said?

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

Ye had generally been replaced by you even at the time of 1611. The supposed "nobler" language of the KJV is entirely embellished.

Ye and you, are the same word, now, and are always plural.

The problem isn't "ye" being changed to you, it lies with " thou" being changed to "you", which erases numerical distinction.

There are passages where this matters.

For instance:
1Co 3:16-17
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

So you're going to completely ignore what I wrote and insert your own judgement? Why?

I asked for you to explain why you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural? Simple question. Give me a simple answer. You said it is always plural. Those are your words.

When I spoke of ye, I was making the point that you had already replaced ye as the word of choice in 1611. Yet, the KJV is full of instances in which "ye" is used instead. You're already admitting that ye and you plural are the same. Go a step further...

You're going to have to explain 1Co 3:16-17 again to me. Maybe I'm just slow but I can't understand what you're trying to say about "something" being impacted by the use of "you".

The close of 2Timothy(4:22) is meant for all at Ephesus.
The phrase before it is still directed to Timothy.
As in..you, Tim, do well, and God bless you(all who are Christians at Ephesus, who will be affected by Timothy's implementation of the admonition in the Epistle).

 

[Steven Avery]

Your attempt to paint Calvin, other than a Trinitarian, is getting pretty funny!

Which was never the claim. 

It is simply your missing the points of looking at and understanding the history.

e.g. John Wesley has an interesting sermon where he says that the words persons and Trinity should not be insisted upon.  Quoting his position on that point, and agreeing that this is wisdom, is not saying that he is not in some sense Trinitarian.  It is pointing out that modern semantic claims are dubious.

Similarly pointing out that the first significant confession from Calvin, the Geneva Confession of Farel and Calvin, lacked the special Trinitarian code words, is very helpful in understanding the early history.  As are the history of the charges, the response, the laughing at the Athanasian Creed. It helps us to see some aspects we might otherwise miss.  Two decades before the Servetus execution. 

Some years later, Calvin wrote about the history, in a bit of a defensive circle-the-horses manner.  Remember, though, that he had been exiled from Geneva.

===============

e.g. You still have not even addressing the laughter at the Athanasian Creed (which is today arguably Trinitarian orthodoxy.) There are so many Trinity doctrines that I agree that it is very difficult to have a sensible conversation that goes past the polemic.  This is something we went over with the "social Trinity" doctrines that veer towards tritheism.

Caroli who, alone, got banished for his lies.

I showed you above that both Caroli and Calvin faced exiles after the whole brouhaha.  Calvin came back to Geneva some years later.

Steven Avery