Non-Calvinist theologians?

I prefer more reputable sources, such as the National Enquirer. </font>[/QUOTE]Npete, I'll second that motion. I took a look at that web site and whewh! what a cartoon. All sorts of character assassinations and the like. The old "Calvin murdered Servtus" ploy, mostly.

 

well, actually, Calvin is largely responsible for Michael Servetus' death. Whether Calvin's theories are right or wrong (and I've been here long enough to know that is the favorite topic of debate here), he still has some responsiblity in the tragic murder of Servetus. That is an undisputed historical fact. And Calvin (read Institutes of the Christian Religion) did not hide the fact that he couldn't stand Servetus.

 

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think he liked anabaptists much either.

 

The problem arises when one attempts to say that election is wrong because someone who was instrumental in the death of Servetus happened to believe in election.

This erroneous reasoning is made even worse by the fact that the people who use this tactic are exploiting the fact that election is often referred to as Calvinism. It isn't anything Calvin invented, and it isn't something Calvin first discovered.

First of all, it's in the Bible. So if you want to discredit election through character assassination, you're going to have to assassinate the character of God. Second of all, it is just an accident of history that Calvin gets all the attention for writing about election. Luther stated the case for election very clearly in Bondage of the Will before Calvin dealt with the topic. So you have to assassinate the character of Luther AND God. (Some people HAVE attempted to assassinate the character of Luther in order to discredit election, but most of the focus is on Calvin.)

Third, you're going to have to assassinate the character of those who formed the 1689 Baptist confession. That'll be tricky on the Baptist Board, but you have to do that if you want to be thorough, because the 1689 confession is based on election.

The funny thing is that when people resort to character assassination, it is generally because they are threatened by a truth and have no other ammunition to use against it. So they go after the proponents of that truth instead.

 

Whatever, I just wish everyone had as much energy to burn when it came to evangelism.

 

Also, if it was that obvious in the Bible you wouldn't be spending so much time arguing with Fundamentalist, Biblicists and Arminians.

I say we all get together at someone's home town and walk the streets leading the whole town to Christ. Then, when we are done and real close to God's heart, we sit down and see what the Holy Spirit leads us all to understand about man, sin and salvation. Who knows, we might all be suprised what we end up agreeing on.

 

One more thing (I was going to say "one last thing" but I'm studying for a Greek quiz and looking for any excuse to ignore it)...

1689 Baptist confession was written by reformed baptists so I don't see how that can play into anyone's argument.

Well, Cathy called, I have to pick her up from the metro and head to class. Could all ya'll pray for us - Greek is not our strong point and we have to be ready to translate any verse between 1 Cor 10:12-11:16.

I'm sure Calvibaptist can relate - he probably took Greek from Dr Edgar as well.

 

Uh, what happened to the point of the OP?

Millard Erikson- solid theologian- compatibilist
Ergun Caner
Emir Caner
Daniel Akin

 

Ah, yes. I remember it well. You are in my prayers. And yes, I like the idea of all of us getting together in someone's town and sharing the gospel with everyone we see. Our church used to go to downtown Annapolis with an evangelist from Open-Air Campaigners (yes, that's a Calvinistic church with a Calvinistic evangelist witnessing).

 

izzaksdad said:

Millard Erikson- solid theologian- compatibilist

Compatibilism != non-Calvinism.

Apart from the extent of the atonement, Erickson's soteriology is Calvinist. On the atonement, he suggests a compromise position and identifies it as "a modification of Calvinism" (Christian Theology, 2nd ed, 852).

 

It is evangelism, Bob. It is the proclamation of God's Sovereignty and Glory. It is in the Bible, should we not proclaim it?

It is being declared along with the WHOLE Gospel because it is PART of the Gospel. Those who are unwilling to receive it are not receiving the whole Gospel. They might be saved, but they are missing out on some of the most comforting news possible - that they can rest in the fact that God has everything under control and not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will. It doesn't say "apart from His knowledge" or even "his foreknowledge". Not even a sparrow falls to the ground UNLESS HE WILLS IT TO BE SO.

To me, that's such "good news" it calls for a celebration every day.

 

Exactly. Yet here you have a Baptist Board filled with people posting in Baptist-only forums, and they are arguing against the very foundation upon which the 1689 Baptist Confession rests. Don't you find that at least a bit sad? Or are you telling me that the reformed Baptists were part of a splinter group, and the mainstream Baptists were Arminians?

 

No, actually, I think I'm saying that Baptists (originally and most of them today) are neither Calvinists nor Arminian.

I want to say this gently so, if it doesn't come off right, I apologize up front. But, I think some of my Calvinists brothers have a misunderstanding of history that causes them to see everything in terms of Calvinist or Arminian and nothing else.

I think you need to keep in mind that the Calvinist/Arminian argument is a family squabble with ya'll. Calvin trained Beza and Beza trained Arminius. Then Arminius left the fold (Christianity Through the Ages, p 317). He went against Calvin and company by giving arguments against what is today the 5 points (or, something close). Again, this was an internal family fight.

There were, before Calvin, during his lifetime, and afterward scores of Christians that were not in this debate and never even heard of it. These Christians have their own pedigree that has nothing to do with this debate. I think you guys will have a much better time interacting with the others on this board and even be able to understand us better if you can see it in you to drop that “Calvinist or Arminian and nothing else” mentality.

Oh, and one last tidbit of history, I believe most Baptists trace their heritage back to the Anabaptists - a group of people that Calvin (to say the least) did not get along with.

 

Is this true? Can someone else vouch for this? If it is true, then it explains why most modern Baptist churches don't seem to agree with the 1689 Baptist confession. I don't know about Calvin but I know Luther wasn't fond of the anabaptists.

 

Through the wonders of computer software and the magic of cut and paste, here are some excerpts from Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:

The Anabaptists, not content with this moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our Saviour’s general prohibition, “I say unto you, Swear not at all:” “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil,” (Mt. 5:34; James 5:12). In this way, they inconsiderately make a stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him in opposition to the Father, as if he had descended into the world to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not only permits an oath as a thing that is lawful (this were amply sufficient), but, in a case of necessity, actually commands it (Exod. 22:11). (II, viii, 26)

This discussion, which would have been most useful at any rate, has been rendered necessary by that monstrous miscreant, Servetus, and some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who think of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine, absurdly imagining that the Lord gorged them with temporal blessings here, and gave them no hope of a blessed immortality. (II, x, 1)

And I will begin with a proof which, though I know it will seem futile and almost ridiculous to supercilious Anabaptists, will have very great weight with the docile and sober-minded. (II, x, 7)

I allude to great numbers of Anabaptists, those of them especially who plume themselves on being spiritual, and their associates the Jesuits, and others of the same stamp. Such are the fruits which their giddy spirit produces, that repentance, which in every Christian man lasts as long as life, is with them completed in a few short days. (III, iii, 2)

Some Anabaptists in the present age mistake some indescribable sort of frenzied excess for the regeneration of the Spirit, holding that the children of God are restored to a state of innocence, and, therefore, need give themselves no anxiety about curbing the lust of the flesh; that they have the Spirit for their guide, and under his agency never err. It would be incredible that the human mind could proceed to such insanity, did they not openly and exultingly give utterance to their dogma. It is indeed monstrous, and yet it is just, that those who have resolved to turn the word of God into a lie, should thus be punished for their blasphemous audacity. (III, iii, 14)

Now, if in excuse of themselves and the ungodly, either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans (for it is with these four sects we have to discuss this matter), should object the necessity by which they are constrained, in consequence of the divine predestination, they do nothing that is relevant to the cause. (III, xxiii, 8)
The Novatians, in ancient times, agitated the Churches with this dogma, but in our day, not unlike the Novatians are some of the Anabaptists, who have fallen into the same delirious dreams. (IV, i, 23)

Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them. (IV, xvi, 31)

This chapter consists of two principal heads,—I. General discourse on the necessity, dignity, and use of Civil Government, in opposition to the frantic proceedings of the Anabaptists, (IV, xx)

 

I think you misunderstood my question. I didn't care if Calvin didn't like the anabaptists. The fact that Luther didn't like them made that a no-brainer. I wanted to know if it is really true that today's Baptist church really has mosts of its roots in the anabaptists.

 

I wanted to know if it is really true that today's Baptist church really has mosts of its roots in the anabaptists.

Historically speaking, the Baptist church has its roots in both the continental Anabaptists, and the English Nonconformists.

 

That explains why I have to search for reformed Baptist churches in order to get one that preaches the Bible!

 

THere are thousands of churches out there other then the [Edited: Name calling] who preach the gospel.

Oh, yeah,

 

Mathew Henry was not a 5 point Calvinist. He was moderate at most. He was a non-conformist minister.