If it's new it ain't true

Good point, though I don't agree whole-heartedly. And I doubt if you do either. Calvinism itself is only about 500 years old.

 

have you read Augustine? I have, he seems to advocate reformed theology before Calvin.

 

Let me also add another point. If me and a few friends come up with a new doctrine not found in Christian history, who is more likely to be wrong? Me or my friends or 2000 years of Church history?

It is highly more likely that I am wrong than 2000 years of history. Some of the greatest minds in history and I think I am smarter than them all.

 

So DoG is the new Trail of Blood?

 

When I first turned to God I was very concerned about how I would get to know Him along with where I would turn and who was right in doctrine; there were so many people saying different things about God. Soon after I opened up the Bible and God quickly showed me where I would find Truth; in His Word. The Word spoke of gaining wisdom, faith, and understanding and also warned of being deceived. I prayed that I would not to be deceived by men and this is what God’s Word wrote upon my heart as I learn and grew about following traditions and histories of men:

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I take history with a grain of salt…and BTW history clearly shows that major mistakes have been made, I mean just taking a look at the doctrines of Calvinism should clearly confirm this fact.

 

BTW, on your position, where do you see your position in the early church?

 

You are absolutely right. I concede that Calvin himself admits that he got many of his ideas from Augustine. In essence therefore, Calvinism is simply Augustinianism. And Augustine was one of the founders of the RCC.

Calvin was a reformer. In the Reformation he wanted to reform the RCC from within--perhaps bring it back to where Augustine once had it theologically. Where does that leave Reformed theology? It has only two fountain heads: Augustine, the source for the RCC, or Calvin, the source for Presbyterianism. Logically a person would choose one of those two paths to follow, probably the latter. Baptists were not reformers. They were never of the Reformation; never a part of; but existed before it.

If the Reformed brethren are going to take their doctrine seriously and to its logical end it would seem logical that they would become Presbyterians, the true followers of Calvin, and those who espouse a more pure form of "reformed doctrine."

Yes Augustine preached the tenets of Calvinism, but he was also a Catholic.

 

Benjamin,

The problem with the verses you are quoting is that I am rejecting the traditions of men as well. I am embracing traditions of God. If you are the only one to espouse a doctrine despite our 2000 year history, do you think you are more likely to be in error or church history?

Traditions of man are traditions added to the Bible, but what I am advocating is the opposite. I am advocating that theology has been faihtfully espoused throughout history and we would be foolish to not embrace it.

BTW, do you realize that your interpretation of those verses is a "tradition of man?" Rather, you should embrace the Biblical understanding that extra Biblical ideas should be rejected but that the Bible is clear and people throughout history have held to true Biblical doctrine.

Finally, the Eph verse is exactly why I advocate what I advocate. If "winds of doctrine" come and go, then the only way to keep from it is to ensure Godly and Biblical men throughout history have held to that doctrine. If I hold to a doctrine that has never been espoused, then it probably is a wind of doctrine.

 

I wasn't going to get involved in any more discussions in the debate forum, but I feel I must on this one.

Why is it that Calvinists say that Calvinism goes all the way back to the Old Testament, but deny that the Baptist faith goes back past the Reformation?

Yes, I agree that the "denomination" of Baptists started in the 16th century, but the "faith" of Baptists goes back to the time of Jesus, and it was never interrupted. god preserved the faith thoughout history no matter how few followers it had. It wasn't called Baptist, but it was the same faith.

Also, "if it is new it aint true" is always true, then why are these people Baptists if they believe the Baptist faith is just 500 years old?

And I don't agree with the idea that despensationalism is a new idea. I believe it is taught in the Bible. I believe that there are two theological distinctions between the Church and the Jews, and that Darby didn't invent the idea, he just clarified the biblical teachings of it.

Besides, if the New Testament Church was non-existent for 1200 years as the reformers claim, then who was there to expound on the issue? I mean, if it was totally gone as you say, then how could it "evolve'?

John the cultist

spell check...grrrrrrrrr

 

The early "churches" followed the teachings of the Apostles, in general. I don't see a Church, as is commonly held until the 4th century when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion, introduced paganism, and out of it all the Catholic Church was born. But there were always churches that remained true to the Word of God. Paul started over 100 churches in three missionary journeys, but never a denomination.

 

DHQ, where do you get these things? First, you are going off topic but secondly you are espousing a genetic fallacy and a strawman argument in one post. I know you hate us and our doctrine, but please at least get the facts right and use proper logic.

and don't hijack this thread.

 

There are many misconceptions in this post.

First, I do not know of one reformer who claims that the church was non-existent for 1200 years. Can you give me a citation? They will say that it was tremendously overshadowed by the Catholic Church, but it still existed.

Darbyism was invented by Darby. The citations he and his followers use either misunderstands Covenant Theology and the role they play, misunderstands the historic pre-mill position, or uses the word "dispensation" as "evidence" of their view.

I don't deny there have been Baptistic churches in history. I do deny the trail of blood or other things that try to link one church to another all the way back in an unbroken line. I do not think believer's Baptism is a necessity for the church to believe and still be a true church. Yet, there is evidence of many times throughout history of Baptistic churches.

 

Most of the posters are Calvinists, I agree. But the OP was very strongly worded about doctrine not being in line with the historic church. I am simply stating the facts, that Calvinism as we know it today is not any older than 500 years. It does not fit within the time frame of the OP, and would be considered one of those new doctrines that should be rejected. If you want a fair playing field, then that should be considered on the same plane as premillennialism and other such doctrines that are being discussed.

 

You have a very poor outlook if not totally wrong view of both church history and Baptist history. "We ought to understand what it has historically meant."
That's true. A little study of church history on your part would do wonders for you.