Baptist Called Calvinist?

Calvinist (former) no longer.

Where is your proof that he believed in these false doctrines?

Christians has always believed this doctrine and I thought that calvinist would affirm this from thier stand point.

If your post is true then:

The calvinist camp divided.
If it is true that Calvin believed in baptism regeneration then calvinist has to admit that he was not a christian, because the bible clearly states that salvation is by GRACE and not through works (good works, the law, BAPTISM, belief and etc.). We can never earn our salvation. Any one that mixes his works with GRACE is in the same boat as thos who believe in 100% thier works and 0% in GOD's grace. And if they (calvinist) say Calvin (if he believed in baptism regeneration) was a christian then that will prove that they do not believe in salvation by GRACE that they profess to believe in and therefore they will not be considered saved by the GOSPLE of GRACE.

If Calvin was not a christian, then all his teachings concerning the bible will come into question.

 

==Well there are several historical/theological problems with your post. First a Calvinist is not a person who follows John Calvin or agrees with him on every point of theology. Calvinism is a system of theology that explains certain soteriological positions. Some Calvinists, Presbyterians for example, agree with Calvin's views on baptism (etc). Other Calvinists, like many Baptists, disagree with Calvin's views on baptism. Second many Baptist churches in American history have been very Calvinistic. Just read the various statements of faith (The Philadelphia Confession of 1742, the SBC Abstract, etc).

 

Calvinism divided!

The calvinist camp divided.
If it is true that Calvin believed in baptism regeneration then calvinist has to admit that he was not a christian, because the bible clearly states that salvation is by GRACE and not through works (good works, the law, BAPTISM, belief and etc.). We can never earn our salvation. Any one that mixes his works with GRACE is in the same boat as those who believe in 100% thier works and 0% in GOD's grace. And if they (calvinist) say Calvin (if he believed in baptism regeneration) was a christian then that will prove that they do not believe in salvation by GRACE that they profess to believe in and therefore they will not be considered saved by the GOSPLE of GRACE.

If Calvin was not a christian, then all his teachings concerning the bible will come into question.

 

Some folks here and those apart from the BB are Calvinists . We are not John Calvinists . The two terms are distinct. ( Although I don't think you'll find any John Calvinists anywhere !)
There have been scores of theologians/authors/preachers who don't follow every particular of John Calvin's teachings . But they are still Calvinists i.e. they are Calvinistic . I'll stick to what C.H.S. has said : " In the main I agree with John Calvin " . I'll keep the nomenclature for better or worse .

 

Source please?

 

And you are a Christian because of what you believe, and not because of Christ who bought you and redeemed you ?

 

Xenos,

Are you going to deal with the facts presented here about Calvinism and Baptists or are you just going to continue presenting what you claim John Calvin believed?

 

Why Baptists should never be called Christians: A lot of Christians commit sins.


:laugh:

 

Face the reality that Calvinism has become synonymous with "believing in the doctrines of grace and election". I used to avoid the word Calvinist simply because I've hardly read anything by him, but I've long since adapted to the fact that it's the easiest way to get the point across about where one stands in terms of soteriology.

Hey, as R.C. Sproul (jr?) once said, Calvin is little more than a footnote to Martin Luther with respect to these doctrines. So maybe we should call ourselves Lutherans? Oh, that's taken? How about Martinists?

Edited to add: Teaching the doctrine could be called Martinizing. Dang, that's taken, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinizing

 

==I have already explained this. Calvinism is a form of systematic theology and does not necessarily follow John Calvin on every point of theology (the same with Armianism and Jacob Arminius). Therefore John Calvin's beliefs about the relationship between the church and the state, baptismal regeneration, or anything else does not affect Calvinism (the doctrine). The basic teachings of Calvinism were around before John Calvin. Calvin systemized that theology and thus it took his last name. However just like a child is not his/her parent, Calvinism is not John Calvin.

==Since many Arminians believe in salvation by grace alone I don't see how that belief makes anyone a Calvinist. There are five points to Calvinism and if a person is a Calvinist then they agree with those five points.

The issue is not John Calvin or his beliefs. The issue is whether or not Calvinism agrees with Scripture. On the basic five points (TULIP) I say yes, it does agree with the teachings of Scripture.

 

One of the Sproul's said that Calvin was little more than a footnote in comparision to Martin Luther ?! Nay ! In the grand scheme of things John Calvin has had far greater weight .

But to the points at-hand , Mr. or Mrs. X , you are calling John Calvin a false teacher ?! That amounts to calling him a false prophet . be cautious on the ground you are treading . Some one ( yes, even you ) may have error in their teaching here and there . That does not a heretic make . Augustine held to some mistaken views . But he was certainly no heretic .

John Calvin's teachings taken as a whole are very edifying . I wish I had half a grasp of his knowlege of the Bible . You can't read him for long without coming to the conviction that he was a saintly ( not in the R.C. sense )and scholarly man who the Lord has used mightily for the nurture of his Church through the centuries .

But again , the main thing here is that a Calvinist is not one who who is a slave to John Calvin's writings . Are you recently coming to the understanding that a fair number of Calvinists have read very little of his works ?

 

To which set of Baptist doctrines are you referring? The ones reflected in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith? Or one of the more contemporary sets of doctrines that contradict the 1689 confession on some points (and therefore one or more must contradict the Bible)?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

By the way, the 1689 confession embraces Calvinist soteriology, although the name Calvin never appears in it.

 

==All true believers identify themselves with the Word of God. That includes those in the Arminian camp and the Calvinistic Camp. If that is so why do these camps exist? Because in our current situation we don't have a perfect understanding of the Word of God (1Cor 13:12, 2Pet 3:15-16). These camps exist because different believers have come to different conclusions on these issues. These differences will not be worked out on this side of eternity. However in eternity, at "the wedding", things will be known and the differences will go away (1Cor 13:12). The Word of God is truth, no true Christian denies or questions that, however it is "our" understanding of God's Word that is not perfect. Btw, that "our" there includes you and me. Your understanding of Scripture is not perfect. I can say that about you even though I don't know you because it is true of all people. None of us are perfect and none of us have a perfect understanding of God's Word.

 

And how sure are you that the long line of predecessors Baptists like to identify themselves with have always held to correct teaching ?

 

==Great point (wish I had though of it :laugh: ). :thumbs:

 

I haven't yet found anyone who was a follower of john calvin, but of a theology named calvinism. thats 2 different things. not necessarliy thesame, except to those who purposely seek to misrepresent what calvinists beleive.
so which are you?