Featured What Doctrines should we separate over?

Someone being wrong is not a lie. They are just wrong. Calling everyone who is wrong a liar does not meet the definition. You just do it because you are mad.

 

Define the word: Mad

 

Post reported...........

 

Rip, the Bib is a Landmarkist, he has very strict standards that an 'institution' has to meet before he would even think about calling them a 'church'.

 

Well......let me ax you.......the sermon I heard last week stated that the 5 points were....to use this pastors words.....rediculous. Don't you think that's a clear starement against DoG?

 

Is that Baptist andhows he view us? I like the guy.

 

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Also, a wise man once said:
"The one thing we never learn from history is: we never learn from history."

The two founders of Calvinism: John Calvin and John Knox.
They were both Presbyterians, founders of the Presbyterian churches in Geneva and in Scotland respectively. Calvin persecuted those who did not agree with him. His was a "state-church." He did not believe in soul liberty, one of the most important of the Baptist distinctives, one that Baptists have shed their blood for. Baptists died under the rule of Calvin.

These men brought Calvinism ought of the RCC from which they came. Before that time it was known as Augustinianism, from whence it came. Calvin was a follower of Augustine's doctrine.
If a Calvinist today were to take his Calvinism to its logical end he would believe in infant baptism like Calvin did. But many stop short of that. Why? They are inconsistent in their beliefs.

There is a new brand of Calvinism on the horizon today. It is called neo-reformed or neo-calvinism. It indeed is hyper-calvinism practiced by many on this board. It is a resurgence of Calvinism that is splitting churches. A thread was recently started about this with a link about the errors of this new Calvinism, and the boundaries they have crossed. It should be carefully read and heeded. It is ironic that some so-called Calvinists of today are more "Calvinistic" or reformed than Calvin himself was. They really ought to be consistent and just embrace the infant baptism. Why stop here? Go all the way!

 

Post reported for reporting post.

 

Yes

PBs have their own share of Landmarkists.

I do too. Don't care much for Landmarkism though; actually it's the pharisaical attitude it engenders that I find to be repugnant, including among PBs or anyone else.

 

I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to defending my beliefs but as my young [45 year old] son sometimes says everyone should just "chill out" for a while. Before the moderator does it for usens!

 

Did he say "usens".....warn him, the grammer police are out:smilewinkgrin:

Seems like we are all getting tickets too :laugh:

 

Yes I do. Had I believed in infant baptism, elder form of government, hierarchies, creeds and the like, I would have stayed a Presbyterian. One of the distinctives of being a Baptist is immersion. There is no distinctive in the division between dispy and covenant theology dividing the two denominations. I can point out Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches that believe both. Ours believes in covenant.

For a person to masquerade as a theological scholar, and make statements like the ones have been made that divide the two denominations is ridiculous to even take the time to read.

The problem in associating people like Calvin with Baptists is so much of his theology is outside the Baptist realm, such as infant baptism, Christian liberty, and separation of church and state, plus on top of all that, an insatiable desire to hold on to some of the trappings, ceremonies, creeds and practices of the RCC. That does not even take into account the life the man lead.

On the positive side, Baptists and Presbyterians so share lots of common beliefs, security of the believer, Trinity, Divinity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and many others.

The only point I am making or was trying to make before the derailing, is that dispy and covenant theology are not distinctives of either denomination.

 

What in the world does that mean?

It is characteristic for most Presbyterians to believe in Covenant theology. It is also characteristic for most Baptists to hold to dispensationalism.

First of all,that makes no grammatical sense. A church covenant is not the same as Covenant theology. The latter is what is the focus here. Your church adheres to the 2000 BFM --and that has no covenantal propositions.

Cite any Calvinists scholar (not some two-bit, anti-Calvinistic,cultic website) who would agree that Calvin had "an insatiable desire to hold onto some of the trappings,ceremonies and practices of the RCC." Don't go for the fringe.

You have no idea, in those early years of the Reformation, how much of a break Calvin and other Reformers made from much that the RCC stood for. Sure, he and the others didn't go far enough from our comfortable vantage point in the 21st century. You weren't there to clear away the boulders and brush like they did.

As for the creeds of the early church --do you wish to deny the help and comfort they have been through the centuries? Do you wish to deny that those creeds tried to biblically counter heresies?

You and RIPPONWV constantly use the word "lead" when you need to use "led." Lead sounds like "leed." ...take into account the life the man leed. LOL! Try out led --you will like it.

The life that Calvin led was exemplary. He had his failings --but his life is worthy enough to model one's self after. Just as we should follow Paul as he followed Christ.

 

These are the reason I reject the name Calvinist being applied to me because I believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace!

My best friend is a Presbyterian Elder. He and I used to debate infant baptism routinely but eventually decided to agree to disagree. Occasionally I will remind him that he has hydrophobia!

 

That's totally bogus nonsense DHK. Baptists didn't even exist then. Under the rule of Calvin is a sillly construction. How could a non-citizen "rule" the city/state of Geneva? He wasn't a citizen until six years before his death.

If you are trying to say that Anabaptists were Baptists you are twisting history to your own ends.

Did Calvin have the authority to condemn anyone to death? No. Exactly who were these "Baptists" that were put to death in Geneva? What authorites authorized their supposed deaths? Mere allegations from you will not suffice --we need proof.

Have you ever heard of the concept of discernment DHK? Why do you deny the obvious? Who here imbibes every single teaching of the man from Geneva? No one. I have quoted the substance of a CHS quote many times :"I hold to what Calvin did --in the main." That's what we should do with every Bible teacher/scholar/pastor/theologian we admire. Spit out the bones as we say. You have expressed appreciation for John Gill,Matthew Henry and John Calvin yourself on numerous occasions. Just because you cite them approvingly in some instances does not mean you swallow every single nuance that they taught --does it? Common sense should prevail.

You are being silly in the extreme. Please furnish documentation for your wild charges. You came up empty for your silly charge that hyper-Calvinism is running rampant in Presbyterianism -- your current claims are in the same category I suspect.

 

Do you hold to Landmarkism?

 

I agree with that statement.

 

Do YOU hold to Landmarkism?

 

I believe that God has always had a people that are faithful to His word. If that is Landmarkism then I am one. I have been called worse, Calvinist of all things!