Why Calvin and not Luther?

[Rebel]

Has anyone ever wondered why a specific Reformer's beliefs, Calvin's, gained such a foothold among Baptists, but Luther's beliefs did not? Why Calvin and not Luther?

If I was forced at gunpoint to choose between the two, I would choose Luther's beliefs.

 

[Zenas]

Has anyone ever wondered why a specific Reformer's beliefs, Calvin's, gained such a foothold among Baptists, but Luther's beliefs did not? Why Calvin and not Luther?

If I was forced at gunpoint to choose between the two, I would choose Luther's beliefs.

Calvin removed the altar from the front of the church. Luther did not.

Luther believed the sacraments are modalities of grace. Calvin did not.

Luther appeared to enjoy life. Calvin did not.

 

[Rippon]

Has anyone ever wondered why a specific Reformer's beliefs, Calvin's, gained such a foothold among Baptists, but Luther's beliefs did not? Why Calvin and not Luther?

If I was forced at gunpoint to choose between the two, I would choose Luther's beliefs.

Luther the initiator. But he was not systematic. He was like a bull in a China shop. Calvin devoted his ministry in educated the people --giving them the bread of life in a book-by-book fashion. He also developed men for the ministry. Sme stayed in Geneva and others were sent out to various contries such as france --even Brazil. Calvin was not content to let Geneva to be the only place where the Word of God could flourish among the populace.

His Institutes of the Christian Religion was instrumental in laying a foundation. Although Luther was no slouch, he didn't think ahead and prepare. He was more reactionary.

By the way, Luther might be considered more Calvinistic than John Calvin. He certainly sounded a bit more predestinarian.

 

[Yeshua1]

Has anyone ever wondered why a specific Reformer's beliefs, Calvin's, gained such a foothold among Baptists, but Luther's beliefs did not? Why Calvin and not Luther?

If I was forced at gunpoint to choose between the two, I would choose Luther's beliefs.

Luther still held unto some type of Sacramentalism in salvation though, and his views regarding some issues would conflict with Baptists!

 

[Yeshua1]

Luther the initiator. But he was not systematic. He was like a bull in a China shop. Calvin devoted his ministry in educated the people --giving them the bread of life in a book-by-book fashion. He also developed men for the ministry. Sme stayed in Geneva and others were sent out to various contries such as france --even Brazil. Calvin was not content to let Geneva to be the only place where the Word of God could flourish among the populace.

His Institutes of the Christian Religion was instrumental in laying a foundation. Although Luther was no slouch, he didn't think ahead and prepare. He was more reactionary.

By the way, Luther might be considered more Calvinistic than John Calvin. He certainly sounded a bit more predestinarian.

He also had a church founded upon his teachings, Luther did, and their view on salvation and the sacraments conflict with Baptist views...

 

[Rebel]

He also had a church founded upon his teachings, Luther did, and their view on salvation and the sacraments conflict with Baptist views...

And so did Calvin's.

 

[Yeshua1]

And so did Calvin's.

True, but he did hold to the sacrament of water baptism as being when original Sin was removed, and when the infant actually got saved!

 

[Bro. James]

What is wrong with the Pauline teaching? Apostle Paul was given direct revelation from Jesus. God does not author confusion.

Baptismal regeneration including infant baptism is a serious departure from The Faith, once, for all delivered to the Saints.

Luther and Calvin were both deluded by false doctrine which they received from their spiritual mother on Vatican hill

Of course this does not fit into the present day ecumenical evangelism.

It is still "another gospel, which is not another".

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rebel]

What is wrong with the Pauline teaching? Apostle Paul was given direct revelation from Jesus. God does not author confusion.

Baptismal regeneration including infant baptism is a serious departure from The Faith, once, for all delivered to the Saints.

Luther and Calvin were both deluded by false doctrine which they received from their spiritual mother on Vatican hill

Of course this does not fit into the present day ecumenical evangelism.

It is still "another gospel, which is not another".

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I believe you are right.

 

[Rippon]

Baptismal regeneration including infant baptism is a serious departure from The Faith, once, for all delivered to the Saints.

Infant baptism is against Scripture. Off-hand I don't know if Martin Luther actually held to baptismal regeneration. Calvin did not.

Luther and Calvin were both deluded by false doctrine which they received from their spiritual mother on Vatican hill

You've been spouting that nonsense for a long time. They were against the Roman Catholic Church, hence they were known as Reformers. Did they make a clean sweep of everything? No, but neither would you have given the circumstances of the time. They were pioneers and it took a century or more for more of a clean break to happen.

They did not have a spiritual mother on Vatican hill any more than you have.

Of course this does not fit into the present day ecumenical evangelism.

What does that statement have anything to do with anything being discussed?

It is still "another gospel, which is not another".

Back to your continual nonsense. By calling what Luther and Calvin believed as "another Gospel" is absurd. They were Christians, and lived closer to the Lord than many in mainline Christianity do today.

Just recently you expressed your admiration for A.W. Pink. Well, he highly regarded Luther and especially John Calvin. And the Puritans of largely the 17th century were his spiritual heroes. They certainly can not be truthfully regarded as following another Gospel.

 

[Bro. James]

Bless you for all the kindly aspersions. I apologize for being inconsistent--A.W. Pink was as fallible as any of us(we) mortals. The Apostle Paul was given one on one with Jesus.

Facts: Luther and Calvin persecuted anti-pedobaptists.

Infant baptism has been a bone of contention since long before they(Martin and Jon) were born and baptized Catholic. Obviously, baptism is still contested among those who know the truth.

"It is no wonder Satan himself is become an angel of light." Pauline teaching.

"If an angel from heaven preaches any other gospel... let them be anathema..." Pauline teaching.

I understand A.W. Pink quit preaching and went home-- for good--nobody was listening.

"Will the Lord find The Faith when He returns?"

"Let God be found True and every man lying"

"Even so, come, Lord Jesus".

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

Both Calvin and Luther held to the true Gospel, but Luther did also make the mistake of trying to keep over in his new understanding some form of Baptismal regeneration, as he held that God in the sacrament somehow infused infant with saving faith...

 

[JonC]

A Baptist would reject John Calvin's doctrine (as a whole) just as quick as he would reject that of Martin Luther as both stood in staunch opposition to doctrine that is distinctively Baptist. It is not fair to take one aspect of Calvin (i.e., soteriological doctrine that Beza expounded upon and systematized) as representative of the man’s life work, contribution or complete understanding. What many of us find is that John Calvin adequately and clearly expressed some biblical truths which were brought to the forefront as churches wrestled with and debated certain issues.

 

[Rippon]

Bless you for all the kindly aspersions.

You are unaware of the aspersions you have cast on Luther and Calvin? My,my.

I apologize for being inconsistent--A.W. Pink was as fallible as any of us(we) mortals.

Yes, he was a fellow mortal, but blessed by God with an extraordinary knowledge of the Scriptures with which he shared with the Church --limited in his time. But the Lord has used his works to bless many generations in ways AWP could not have imagined.

Facts: Luther and Calvin persecuted anti-pedobaptists.

Did they persecute like the pre-Paul did, from house to house killing along the way? Let's focus on Calvin. Tell me the "facts" about his persecution of Anabaptists.

"It is no wonder Satan himself is become an angel of light." Pauline teaching.

No, Satan sometimes masquerades as an angel of light.

And that has relevance here, in what way?

"If an angel from heaven preaches any other gospel... let them be anathema..." Pauline teaching.

There you go again with your aspersions on Luther and Calvin asserting they taught another Gospel. May shame rest on your head BJ.

I understand A.W. Pink quit preaching and went home-- for good--nobody was listening.

There you go with your inconsistencies. One day you praise Pink and the next defame him --throwing him under the semi-truck.

You ought to read his life story by Murray and Belcher. Those two authors can inform you. When AWP was engaged in preaching he also was writing --extensively. A younger man can keep that up --but not when the writing ministry becomes so overwhelming. There are exceptions. Calvin was able to do both --but he died at a young age of not quite 55. AWP wanted to do both but the Lord sovereignly placed him in a position of writing exclusively.

Quite a few ministers were indeed "listening" to his works. Men such as Barnhouse and Dr. David-M-L-Jones. He influenced many men in the ministry as well as common people with his Studies in the Scriptures. And from that periodical books with deep insight into God's Word have been made available to the Christian public for decades now.

 

[Bro. James]

Some interesting facts about reformers: Protestant Persecutions at: www.wayoflife.org/database/protestantpersecutions.html

Antipedobaptists and others have not been treated kindly by the reformation of Rome.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rebel]

Some interesting facts about reformers: Protestant Persecutions at: www.wayoflife.org/database/protestantpersecutions.html

Antipedobaptists and others have not been treated kindly by the reformation of Rome.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Yes, I've read that.

But get ready to be called a liar and a hypocrite by Rippon. That's his chief tactic when trying to deny historical facts and idolize persecutors and killers. Attacking the messenger is a poor defense, but desperation and having no ground upon which to stand leads to such.

Get ready now for the childish, foot-stomping rant: "Liar, liar, liar!"

 

[OldRegular]

Luther still held unto some type of Sacramentalism in salvation though, and his views regarding some issues would conflict with Baptists!

Baptismal Regeneration if I am not mistaken!

 

[OldRegular]

The Anabaptist Story by William R Estep is a good discussion of Anabaptist history! They were severely persecuted by the protestant churches, just as protestants were persecuted by Roman Catholics!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Luther appeared to enjoy life. Calvin did not.

Says he who does not know, obviously.

Who played golf on Sundays? Calvin; not Luther.

Who said if Whatshisnameagain Karlstadt kept on preaching the Sabbath we all would have to become Jews? Luther, not Calvin.

Who said the Christians' superstition over days specifically Sunday is three times greater than the Jews' superstition over the Sabbath? Calvin; not Luther.

Who played the devil's advocate when he had to preach on Deuteronomy 5? Calvin. Not Luther.

 

[Rebel]

The Anabaptist Story by William R Estep is a good discussion of Anabaptist history! They were severely persecuted by the protestant churches, just as protestants were persecuted by Roman Catholics!

And they were persecuted by the RCC, too. They were the only group that everyone hated equally.