• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Tale of Two Faiths

Status
Not open for further replies.

The American Dream

Member
Site Supporter
Icon
The post really was refreshing especially the comment about being more relaxed. I suppose the Lord has worked on me. I am an admin elsewhere and that kind of cooled my heels. The longer I was there the more I realized what a pain I had been here. Some posts were just to irritate. My Dad recently died and then this thing with Tom Butler. There is always time to debate, but time is too short for angry posts.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Icon
The post really was refreshing especially the comment about being more relaxed. I suppose the Lord has worked on me. I am an admin elsewhere and that kind of cooled my heels. The longer I was there the more I realized what a pain I had been here. Some posts were just to irritate. My Dad recently died and then this thing with Tom Butler. There is always time to debate, but time is too short for angry posts.

We should be about helping each other.....Threaten Tom that if he does not recover soon...I will show up and talk his ear off:laugh:
 

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Our Pelagian Baptist pastor has frequently referenced the fact of Jesus welcoming small children that come to Him as substantive proof that we are all born with faith. Therefore, faith is not a gift from God.

DHK wrote:
Jesus compared faith to that of a small child. If a small child can have faith obviously faith is innate.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


By using this Scripture to prove inherent faith, he has unwittingly given succor to his arch-enemies the ‘evil’ Presbyterians who see no reason why the blessing of Christ via water baptism should be refused little ones. Mind you, they do not view it as waters of regeneration. Nor do they believe the small child capable of having the knowledge required to be considered ‘saving’ faith.

But more importantly the subject of this thread concerns saving faith.

Christ is not teaching we should have the faith of little children.

Not once is their faith mentioned.

DHK forced that interpretation due to the free will sunglasses which he refuses to discard that he might see the light of day.

Rather, Christ is contrasting the teachable, compliant, docile, meek, unpretentious innocence of small children with that of the unteachable, proud, know-it-all, puffed up, slandering, sin-jaded religious.

In reading DHK’s posts I cannot help but find the exact opposite of the virtues exemplified by a small child; the very virtues whereby “of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Our Pelagian Baptist pastor has frequently referenced the fact of Jesus welcoming small children that come to Him as substantive proof that we are all born with faith. Therefore, faith is not a gift from God.
And he is correct, but the dirty accusation that he is Pelagian is wrong, but then you may be a follower of the pagan Emperor Constantine who influenced Augustine who also highly influenced Calvinism. Either way your beliefs stem from idolatry.
So you are not in a place to throw around names.
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


By using this Scripture to prove inherent faith, he has unwittingly given succor to his arch-enemies the ‘evil’ Presbyterians who see no reason why the blessing of Christ via water baptism should be refused little ones. Mind you, they do not view it as waters of regeneration. Nor do they believe the small child capable of having the knowledge required to be considered ‘saving’ faith.
Absolute nonsense with no scriptural connection whatsoever. Where does the account say that Jesus sprinkled/poured/immersed or in any way shape or form baptized these children? Just utter nonsense on your part.
But more importantly the subject of this thread concerns saving faith.
What is "saving faith"? Show me this phrase used in the bible? Is there even one mention of it?
Faith is faith. What is important is the object of the faith. I fear that the object of your faith is Calvin and not Christ. Am I right?
Christ is not teaching we should have the faith of little children.

Not once is their faith mentioned.
It doesn't have to be. Little children are known for their child-like faith.
They are also known for the silly things they do. Do you think Jesus was teaching that unless you do silly things you cannot enter into the kingdom of God? Is that your belief?
DHK forced that interpretation due to the free will sunglasses which he refuses to discard that he might see the light of day.
I examine the text in the light of the context; something you refuse to do. Therefore you force the meaning into your presuppositions and come to a false conclusion. Sad.
Rather, Christ is contrasting the teachable, compliant, docile, meek, unpretentious innocence of small children with that of the unteachable, proud, know-it-all, puffed up, slandering, sin-jaded religious.
You have never had children??
My children are not docile, meek, etc. They are full of energy--running here and there.
What do they need to be taught? They need to be taught to tell the truth, and not to lie. You are speaking lies that go against your own doctrine of the depravity of man to try and justify another of Calvin's doctrines, but in doing so you contradict the first of Calvin's doctrine in TULIP. Hilarious!! :laugh::laugh:
In reading DHK’s posts I cannot help but find the exact opposite of the virtues exemplified by a small child; the very virtues whereby “of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
The virtue that they exemplified is simplicity of faith--the same faith that they put in their parents and not in strangers. It is obvious. The blind will not see; they only lead the blind.
 

Rebel

Active Member
Rebel,
There was a time in the not too distant past that I literally hated John Calvin, which was quite awkward since I firmly believe God is sovereign. It is not that I have totally changed my mind, but you have to look at what he contributed to our understanding of doctrines like grace, sovereignty, depravity, faith and atonement among others.

You have to recognize that he was a flawed human being as any of us are. You also have to realize the culture back then is not America in 2015 and cannot judge by our standards. Back then heresy was considered a capital crime. Given if Calvin lived today he would not have fared well. He might of ended up behind bars or worse. So we have to look at the man in the 1500s culture. In the Servetus case, Calvin was the prosecutor. He was not the judge or executioner. That was his job and he was upholding the law as it existed at the time. Now I am thankful I did not live back then. But I cannot fault a man for doing his job.

Calvin is raked over the coals because he believed in infant baptism and wrote favoring seperation of church and state but did not practice it. One dies not have to dismiss all he accomplished because you disagree with some of his stances.

If you look at Calvin for what he did that lines up with Scripture and forget the rest, you will see the value of his contribution to church history.

Thanks for your civil post.

I have said it before and will say it again: The Anabaptists lived in the same time as Calvin and shared the same culture, yet they did not persecute and murder other Christians. They recognized that these things were not what Jesus taught. So, Calvin and other persecutors can't be excused. Calvin was in favor of persecution and putting others to death because of their beliefs, Just because it was lawful does not mean it was right. The same applies to abortion; it's legal, but it's still murder. So, you can't fault a man for doing his job? Really? So, abortionists are not guilty of murder?

I don't see anything that Calvin believed that lines up with scripture -- absolutely nothing. So, taking all of that together, I believe his contributions were nil. And in fact, he set back Christianity, or his part of it, into the Dark Ages.

I just want to be clear, though, that I hold no animosity toward Calvinists, except the really nasty ones. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rebel

Active Member
So you are not the least bit familiar with any of the 14 scholar/historians I listed. And you probably have not the slightest clue about any others I could list. Yet you make the ridiculous assertion that I am not being factual. The 14 that I have itemized are from different time periods,countries and denominational affilations. There has been no collusion among them.

You have boasted that you specialized in history in your educational background. But there is not the least bit of evidence that you even know the basics of Calvin's life. I really doubt that you know much of the other Reformers.

So why would you want to discuss anything with me? You'd better hightail it to a decent library and stay away from poisonous websites. Then, after researching actual history we could have an honest discussion.

Of course I am familiar with the people you listed. So what?

We cannot have an honest discussion for two reasons: It would require more than just myself being honest, and you have a long way to go before you have studied as much as I have. Come back in a few years, change your attitude, and we'll see.

BTW, what other Reformer would you like to know about? Luther? Zwingli? Melanchthon, Bucer, Cranmer, the radical reformers? There are lots more.

You still haven't said how you think you would have fared in Calvin's Geneva with your supposed Baptist views. How long do you think you would have lasted before you were banished (if you were lucky), imprisoned, burned at the stake, or guillotined? Woudl you have been praising your idol while he and his theocracy put the torch to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel
We cannot have an honest discussion for two reasons: It would require more than just myself being honest, and you have a long way to go before you have studied as much as I have. Come back in a few years, change your attitude, and we'll see.

looks like you cannot answer him at all.....your excuse is just that an excuse......no facts...no scripture. ...nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The average Presbyterian Church IMO, is Calvinistic. Your focus seems to be on liberalism.
You can't possibly be that dense. You have claimed that the great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in hyper-Calvinism. That has been your thesis.

The largest single group of "Presbyterians" is the PCUSA. If you claim the great majority then those are the folks you need to examine. They are quite liberal and the Westminster Confession of Faith is not something close to their heart. They are Presbyterian in name only. Don't you know what nominal means?

Of course the OPC and PCA are Calvinistic. But that is not the point. Their numbers are small. It is simple arithmetic. For you to cling to your old wild assertion you would have to address your hyper-Calvinistic charge against the PCUSA. Your accusation holds no water.

And I hope you can distinguish between Calvinistic and hyper-Calvinistic. If you want to lump the two together then you'll be dealing in falsehood once again.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Rebel
We cannot have an honest discussion for two reasons: It would require more than just myself being honest, and you have a long way to go before you have studied as much as I have. Come back in a few years, change your attitude, and we'll see.

looks like you cannot answer him at all.....your excuse is just that an excuse......no facts...no scripture. ...nothing.
I was going to post links to all the most recent posts of yours that was void of Scripture, but alas, I lost count!
Judge not lest ye be judged.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Of course I am familiar with the people you listed. So what?
You obviously are not the least bit familiar with the historians and Calvin scholars that I listed. Why do they all have a more well-tempered view of the man? Why are you into using vile language? You can't communicate without resorting to gutter-talk. If that's how you go about your daily life that's nasty. If you just do it on forums and conduct yourself properly in your life off forums then you are a hypocrite.

Your "historical" view of Calvin is against every single one of the men that I cited. And there are plenty more who are in agreement with them.

Your "specialty in history" is seen as a sham by the kind of posts you make here.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You can't possibly be that dense. You have claimed that the great majority of Presbyterians are swallowed up in hyper-Calvinism. That has been your thesis.

The largest single group of "Presbyterians" is the PCUSA. If you claim the great majority then those are the folks you need to examine. They are quite liberal and the Westminster Confession of Faith is not something close to their heart. They are Presbyterian in name only. Don't you know what nominal means?

Of course the OPC and PCA are Calvinistic. But that is not the point. Their numbers are small. It is simple arithmetic. For you to cling to your old wild assertion you would have to address your hyper-Calvinistic charge against the PCUSA. Your accusation holds no water.

And I hope you can distinguish between Calvinistic and hyper-Calvinistic. If you want to lump the two together then you'll be dealing in falsehood once again.
You argue just to argue even if you are wrong you will continue.
"Hyper-Calvinistic" has become a very relative term depending on who is using it. Ask six different "Cals" on this board and you will get six different answers. Those that are three and four point "Cals" will call a five point Cal, a hyper, whereas a five pointer will say that the three and four pointers are not Cals at all. Those that call themselves "moderates" differentiate themselves from those who they call "hyper," but in reality have not taken Calvinism to its full conclusion. They are inconsistent. And on it goes.
Even the five pointers are often not consistent. No five pointer would ever go witnessing. After all God does all the electing, and for that matter the saving. They will be saved whether you tell anyone the gospel or not. They have to be. They are the elect of God. Calvinism is fool-proof with or without you.
It is a system that dies without any evangelistic outreach whatsoever if left to its logical outcome.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You argue just to argue even if you are wrong you will continue.
Everything I said in my post was true and you want to save face by your gibberish.

There is no widespread hyper-Calvinism within Presbyterianism. The largest group identifying themselves as Presbyterian is the PCUSA. It is Presbyterian in name only. They are not known for their loyalty to the Bible or the WCoF.

By sheer numbers the PCUSA are the majority of Presbyterians in America. Yet it is laughable in the extreme for them to be called hyper-Calvinists.

The PCA and OPC are biblically conservative Calvinists. By no stretch of the imagination can they possibly be called hyper-Calvinists.

You are dishonest by continuing your vain campaign of maligning Presbyterians with the term hyper-Calvinist. You are incapable of admitting that you were wrong to make your reckless charge in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Everything I said in my post was true and you want to save face by your gibberish.

There is no widespread hyper-Calvinism within Presbyterianism. The largest group identifying themselves as Presbyterian is the PCUSA. It is Presbyterian in name only. They are not known for their loyalty to the Bible or the WCoF.

By sheer numbers the PCUSA are the majority of Presbyterians in America. Yet it is laughable in the extreme for them to be called hyper-Calvinists.

The PCA and OPC are biblically conservative Calvinists. By no stretch of the imagination can they possibly be called hyper-Calvinists.

You are dishonest by contuing your vain campaign of maligning Presbyterians with the term hyper-Calvinist. You are incapable of admitting that you were wrong to make your reckless charge in the first place.

Rippon, everything you just said in this post is true. To say otherwise is to parade one's ignorance.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon,
I thought in all my readings Calvin was prosecutor.
No, Philibert Berthelier was the prosecutor. Beza described him as "a man of the most consumate impudence and guilty of many iniquities."

Again, during the trial of Servetus the Patriots and Libertines were antagonistic toward Calvin. They hated him. They wanted to embarrass him. But they were stuck. The Christian world was focused on Geneva. Would Servetus be absolved or be condemned? Geneva would not be taken seriously if Servetus was simply let go.

Even more outrageous is lumping hypers with the whole denomination. Hyper is not Biblical. The PCA spends a large share of their budget on supporting missionaries. The Cumberland Church also does. How dare anyone, especially those claiming to be well versed put out the idea that the vast majority of Presbys do not believe in telling others the Good News. Presbys have doctrines that I do no agree with, but sovereignty and salvation, they are spot on.
I agree. But the facts that you have presented are simply brushed aside by those with an agenda that does not include telling the truth.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Calvin did not have the authority to arrest, torture or execute anyone. He did not do any of those things.

As long as any of you continue in lying about this subject your testimony as Christians is suspect.

Philip Schaff :

"It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense."

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec, and Servetus do not even appear in its records. Calvin wrote to the ministers of Zurich, Nov. 26,1553: 'The Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only the right to reprove according to the Word of God and its severest punishment is excommunication.' "
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
This is a flat out lie.
I am not saying they don't. I am saying that if they take all five points to their logical conclusion they would not go out witnessing. They wouldn't have a need to.

It is the same as the type of environment that William Carey lived in:
Carey's friend Andrew Fuller had previously written an influential pamphlet in 1781 titled "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation," answering the hyper-Calvinist belief then prevalent in the Baptist churches, that all men were not responsible to believe the Gospel. At a ministers' meeting in 1786, Carey raised the question of whether it was the duty of all Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the world. John Collett Ryland is said to have retorted: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)
Though some dispute the statement, it is still an example of the type of environment that Carey lived in, and that he had to fight against to get to the mission field.
 

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a flat out lie.
Yes it is. Some still do not understand the Calvinistic view. I hold to 5 points. I carry a personal evangelism bible with me almost every time I leave the house. I have been door to door.. .doing my "Jehovah witness impersonation" many of times.
The elect still must make a choice....and they need to hear what that choice is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Calvin did not have the authority to arrest, torture or execute anyone. He did not do any of those things.

As long as any of you continue in lying about this subject your testimony as Christians is suspect.

Philip Schaff :

"It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense."

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec, and Servetus do not even appear in its records. Calvin wrote to the ministers of Zurich, Nov. 26,1553: 'The Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only the right to reprove according to the Word of God and its severest punishment is excommunication.' "
Facts don't lie:
The truth of the character of Calvin can be seen in the heretic Michael Servetus and others who were accused of violating his laws. Servetus was a scholarly theologian, and a renowned physician. He was condemned as a heretic by both the Roman Church as well as the Protestants for his rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. In 1531, Servetus published a book titled “Errors of the Trinity” in which he referred to those who believed in the Trinity as believing in three Gods. He and Calvin corresponded for some time, but Servetus would not accept Calvin’s teachings on the Trinity. Calvin, having failed to convert Servetus, became vindictive and saw him as his devoted enemy. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to his friend Farel “If he (Servetus) comes (to Geneva) I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”15

For seven years Calvin sought to capture and try Severtus. When Severtus made the mistake of returning to Geneva and attending on of Calvin’s services he was recognized and arrested and put on trial. Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict in Servetus’ trial would be the death penalty.16

Calvin got his wish and Servetus was convicted of two of the thirty-eight charges brought against him. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake along with his books, and on October 27, 1553, his sentence was carried out. Outside of Geneva, he was taken to a hill and Nigg records that a “A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...." 17 It should be noted that Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, but was only visiting the city. Thus, the misdirected piety of John Calvin claimed but another victim.
_____________________________________________________________

Other Atrocities for which John Calvin was Responsible.
In February 1545, a man named "Freckles" Dunant was accused of applying plague venom to the removed foot of a man who was hanged. He was tortured to death in an attempt to make him confess. He died under the torture but would not admit to the crime of spreading the plague. His body was then dragged to the middle of town and burned. This demonstrates the utter lack of compassion or any legal recourse to those who were accused under John Calvin’s law. Clearly, Calvin approved and condoned such horrible acts.

On March 7, 1545, Two women were executed by burning at the stake of the crime of spreading the plague. Cottret wrote that “. . . Calvin humanely interceded the same day to keep the poisoners from being forced to languish in prison. The Council followed this happy directive and urged the executioner henceforth to "be more diligent in cutting off the hands of malefactors."19 Calvin’s actions are a testimony to his lack of character and warped sense of compassion.

The executions continued unabated and those who refused to confess were tortured skillfully in a way that would avoid killing them using a strappado. The strappado is a form of torture in which the victim is hung in the air by the wrists with their arms tied behind their back. During this time, two people who were accused sorcerers were decapitated. It was said they composed a plaster of grease and other villainous things that caused people to die. A number of the victims committed suicide to end their torture. One woman who was handcuffed to keep her from taking her life threw herself out of a window to escape the torture. John Calvin not only condoned, but approved of this hideous superstitious torment. Clearly Calvin was ruled by an irrational superstition that has its roots in paganism.

The last execution associated with the plague was on May 16, 1545, in which a total of seven men and twenty-four women were executed. A letter from Calvin attests to 15 of these women being burned at the stake. Calvin’s only concern was that the plague had not come to his house.

During this period, a total of thirty-seven people were condemned for spreading the plague. The majority had made confessions, which is not surprising considering the terrible tortures they were made to endure. Calvin also had thirty-four women burned at the stake after accusing them of being witches who caused a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545.20

In 1568, the plague returned and Calvin wrote that fifteen women had already been burned and men were punished more rigorously. Calvin’s only concern in all this was that his house had been spared from the plague.21 On June 23, 1547 several women were accused of dancing which John Calvin forbid. Francoise Favre was the wife of his close friend Ami Perrin who had brought him to Geneva. However, she fell in disfavor with the court because the year earlier she had refused to testify against several of her friends before the Consistory. She again refused to testify and stood up against Calvin. She was thus imprisoned for her actions of defying the Consistory and Calvin.

Under Calvin, the Anabaptists were cruelly persecuted. He saw them as his adversaries, mainly because they rejected infant baptism and his unbiblical beliefs and practices. Cottret records “Several Anabaptists from the Netherlands were in fact found in Geneva at this time. Among these were Herman de Gerbihan and Benoit d'Anglen, banished during the winter of 1537 with some of their disciples.”22

A man named Jacques Gruet, who was a confessed atheist was accused of writing a poster against Calvin accusing him of hypocrisy and hanging it on his pulpit. He was arrested and tortured until he admitted to the crime. He was then executed by beheading on July 26, 1547 because he spoke out against the tyrant of Geneva, John Calvin.

This and many other atrocities were conducted under the direction of John Calvin and clearly show that man was a religious fanatic, a criminal, and a murder. What makes his actions so vile is that he comitted these heinous atrocities in the name of Almighty God and under the banner of upholding the truth! These people were not condemned for viable crimes, but because of superstitions, speaking their opinions, or holding beliefs that John Calvin disagreed with. Judging him by his deeds and his warped sense of Christianity, reveals that Calvin was completely devoid of human kindness, and mercy. He certainly had no hint of having the love of Christ in his heart showing no love for his fellow man.
http://bible-truth.org/IsCalvinismBiblical.html

Where there is no fruit there is no Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top