Featured Sacral

good post do you think they had a better grasp of the idea that we are in a kingdom and supposed to be participating in it?

 

in other words did the author suggest that the Puritans were driven by the sense of the postmill view of the kingdom spreading worldwide rather than the secular teaching of Manifest Destiny the most of us were taught in public school or was it the Covenant the view of the church that they felt that if they had a strong church ....families would be strong what does he suggest as the driving force behind their view

 

And they have been completely discredited by doing so. I have brought forth quotes from dozens of Church scholars and specialists in Calvin's life who have entirely debunked the junk that has been dumped here by the revisionists.

Unlike your claim, especially in the case of John Calvin, he had little influence on civil authorities as I have amply demonstrated for years on the BB. Only from 1555 to his death in 1564 did the situation improve.

 

John Cotton (1585-1652) was the grandfather of Cotton Mather (1663-1728). The latter preached an ordination service for a Baptist preacher. He repented for his harassment of Baptists earlier. But recall, Mather had nothing to do with the brutal treatment of Obadiah Holmes --that took place twelve years before his birth.

 

You didn't. I did for clarification for those who may have confused the two. And the information I provided was helpful.

 

Squire Robertsson

No...I am a Baptist based on scriptural teaching. To support infant baptism is error , but it is error based on a mistaken biblical model.
What was valid in the OT has been changed. Padeos believe it is continuing and ongoing
. I have stated that I do not grasp many of the things we read about outside of scripture[church history accounts]. I cannot go back in time and reconstruct with thoughts from our day all of what these people did in their day.
While mistaken on this issue I do not think they were mistaken on the bulk of truth. I have to leave these men to the righteous judgement of God as well as the Baptists who committed sin in their day.

yes ..this was sadly true there was sin all around.I am thankful that conduct does not take place today.
The problem is because there were those who held to "believers baptism" does not mean they had it all correct either. They held more false ideas then the padeos, getting baptism correct but holding much error on other main teachings....

 

One thing they didn't do was kill other Christians in the name of Christ, or hold to a church and state union.

 

Of course, in your juvenile manner, the above is meant to target John Calvin. And he bears no relationship to your false assertions.

Try to stick with the subject of the thread.

I'm with Icon on this. Too many Baptists (of whatever stripe) pride themselves on seemingly getting it right on Baptism when there is the rest of the full counsel of God. And they have, and are, in need of furthering their scriptual knowledge. They would do well to seek out books and on-line literature from Presbyterian and Reformed authors. That is, unless their pride gets in the way.

 

And of course in your condescending, insulting, attacking, un-Christian manner, you have posted another lie. Further, Calvin wasn't the only persecutor during the Reformation. All the state church reformers were persecutors also. Calvin was just the worst. And it is you who have brought the conversation back to Calvin, fixated as you are on your idol. It is you who have derailed the thread.

Baptists would do well to stay away from Reformed authors and doctrine, especially those who continue to defend 16th century murderers.

Really, your obsession with Calvin shows that you are mentally disturbed. I think you should get some help. Of course that won't do anything for your other problems.

 

Rebel

Rippon has offered a solid suggestion to you.You react against him personally because he has correctly posted on the issue and it hits a nerve with you evidently. You are showing some of the same attitude as those we are discussing in history.

Baptists who do such remain biblically ignorant of many areas of biblical doctrine. Unless you are suggesting that Baptists alone are saved there is no rational excuse for this.
In our day most Baptists could not defend the Baptist position biblically against a bible trained Padeo. The level of biblical ignorance is astounding.
I know from the experience of many that this is a stumbling block to many a Presbyterian who visits a Baptist church and is stunned at the simplistic and many times contra- biblical ideas.
This week I visit a Baptist church that was on life support, between ss and morning service the adults walked up by the pulpit...held their bibles in the air and chanted....this is my bible...it is a sword .and a weapon ...I will obey it!

Meanwhile in ss ...no one opened a bible:wavey:

 

I don't have a problem with you because you don't talk to me like Rippon does. I react against him personally because he makes it personal instead of sticking to the subject. I do take issue with what you said about me "showing some of the same attitude as those we are discussing in history". I have not told anybody I would persecute, torture, or kill them because of what they believe.

I feel like I can have a discussion with you. I can't with Rippon.

 

Okay Rebel... I get that to an extent.I have had similar experiences with people on here...and for the most part eventually worked through the conflicts. I would like to see you work through this with Rippon.
Let's face it..a message board can incite such conflict, most times due to speaking past each other. It seems to me that much of this that is discussed in church history...did the same thing...they made it intensely personal. rather than purely scriptural.
Rippon has a strong grasp on these historical issues....consider what he says.

I personally like to:thumbs: stay in scripture and links to those who speak scripturally

 

I doubt Rippon is overtly trying to be condescending or arrogant, but it always seems to show up whenever a Reformed/Calvinist person tries to tell others...there is this arrogance in their words. It's as though they believe someone who doesn't hold to Reformed theology is either willfully ignorant, or prideful to a fault. And here I thought most Calvinists on this board believed they came to the Doctrines of Grace by special revelation from God... "You would be better off if you read this Reformed author," or, as Brother Icon says, You are biblically ignorant if you don't read reformed authors. Again, I doubt this is an overt or intentional arrogance, but it is there nonetheless. I know non-Cals are the same way, but it seems like here on the BB I see this mindset from the Reformed side of the aisle more than from any other group.

I agree that it is sad that most Baptists could not properly Biblically defend their doctrine. However, the same probably goes for any other denomination. It's not just Baptists, but Christianity as a whole has fallen into this complacency that is robbing future generations of true biblical teaching and knowledge. That said, I just cannot bring myself to label someone as "biblically ignorant" simply because they don't read authors who subscribe to the same doctrines I do.

I'm sorry you had to see that, Icon. That is just sad.