Basic question: Are Baptists Protestant?

[Rippon]

much of what Reformed theology teaches I can embrace.

That has not been evident in your many posts.

But not all of it, and it is so much more than Calvin's five points.

There is no such thing as "Calvin's five points" TND. Why do you need to continually have this pointed out to you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That has not been evident in your many posts.

There is no such thing as "Calvin's five points" TND. Why do you need to continually have this pointed out to you?

Doesn't that tell you something.....that's how he sees it. To him...and to many, Doctrines of Grace are manufacured (by Calvinists)....therefore they don't recognize its validity to scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That has not been evident in your many posts.

That's likely because you think that what is commonly referred to as Calvinism is all there is to Reformed theology, which goes so far beyond what is discussed on here as to render the opinions expressed as the equivalent of being uninformed and infantile, as though the posters know nothing but these ...

... "Calvin's five points" ...

... which, as you well know, is shorthand terminology not meant to label the five points as Calvin's, but to refer to the teaching that is commonly called "Calvinism." And it has been I, not you, who has consistently pointed out that Reformed theology is far more extensive, and John Calvin wrote far more broadly on numerous other topics, than what is boiled down in the five points. To look at your posts and those of others, one would think that Reformed theology or Calvin's writings are nothing more than the five points.

 

[ktn4eg]

Although I do tend to believe (at least to some extent) in the "Doctrines of Grace," I was wondering if John Calvin ever wrote (or at least commented on) the subject of baptism (i.e., the proper subject, the proper mode, and the proper authority to administer this very important ordinance)?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Although I do tend to believe (at least to some extent) in the "Doctrines of Grace," I was wondering if John Calvin ever wrote (or at least commented on) the subject of baptism (i.e., the proper subject, the proper mode, and the proper authority to administer this very important ordinance)?

Yes, unfortunately for those who revere him, he did.

John Calvin: Argument for Infant Baptism

 

[OldRegular]

In West Virginia, Catholics, Protestants and Baptists are all together in one accord. The tie that binds is that none of them can read, so Bible pictionarys sell like Crum hot cakes.

To the woodshed with you S/N.:tonofbricks::tonofbricks::tonofbricks: :tonofbricks:

 

[Rippon]

That's likely because you think that what is commonly referred to as Calvinism is all there is to Reformed theology,

Reformed theology is Calvinism. And you do not embrace much of it.

which, as you well know, is shorthand terminology not meant to label the five points as Calvin's,

Yet you said"Calvin's five points."

it has been I, not you, who has consistently pointed out that Reformed theology is far more extensive, and John Calvin wrote far more broadly on numerous other topics, than what is boiled down in the five points. To look at your posts and those of others, one would think that Reformed theology or Calvin's writings are nothing more than the five points.

You are intentionally dishonest. Exceptionally so.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Reformed theology is Calvinism. And you do not ebrace much of it.

This proves you choose to read and repeat, rather than actually investigate the two for yourself. By affirming Reformed theology, a person is implicitly denying certain other theologies, such as Catholic theology (which Reformed theology rose in opposition to) and Arminian theology (which later rose in opposition to Reformed theology). While Calvinism predates Arminianism, it was only codified in the five points after the rise of Arminianism. There is a sense in which Calvinism is both a cause of and the reaction to Arminianism. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Arminianism is a response to Reformed theology, and the codification of Calvinism is a response to Arminianism. The common usage of "Reformed theology" and "Calvinism" as interchangeable -- primarily by Calvinists -- is misleading, and wrong. There are differences, and the boiling down of Calvinism to the five points is just as misleading and wrong, given Calvin's writings were so much more greatly encompassing than the focus of his so-called adherents today.

Yet you said"Calvin's five points."

For the reason I explained.

You are intentionally dishonest. Exceptionally so.

The only one this thread that describes if the writer of the phrase.

 

[Rippon]

By affirming Reformed theology, a person is implicitly denying certain other theologies, such as Catholic theology (which Reformed theology rose in opposition to) and Arminian theology (which later rose in opposition to Reformed theology).

Duh,as if that is news.

the boiling down of Calvinism to the five points is just as misleading and wrong,

And to emphasize that I have never done that I have given many examples.

given Calvin's writings were so much more greatly encompassing than the focus of his so-called adherents today.

Calvinism is not the exact same thing as Calvin's writings. Are you so forgetful? Just a short while back you were extolling the virtues of Dr. Richard A.Muller who tried to explain that Calvinism is broader than merely a rehash of one individual's contribution i.e. John Calvin.

The only one this thread that describes if[sic]the writer of the phrase.

Please try to rephrase whatever you want to convey.

 

[DHK]

That has not been evident in your many posts.

There is no such thing as "Calvin's five points" TND. Why do you need to continually have this pointed out to you?

Perhaps you should do some reading of your own:

The Reformed churches, which originally used this designation to distinguish themselves from the "unreformed" Roman Catholic church, are those denominations of Protestants which are Calvinistic in theology and usually Presbyterian in church organization. They trace their origin to the reforming work in Zurich of Ulrich Zwingli and in Geneva of John Calvin.
The Reformed perspective spread rapidly to Germany, France, Holland, Hungary, Bohemia, and elsewhere on the Continent. In the British Isles, its principles shaped the Church of Scotland and influenced the Church of England, especially through Puritanism. The Presbyterians constitute the largest Reformed bodies in America. Active Reformed churches are found worldwide where European settlers have migrated (as in South Africa). Since 1877 a World Alliance of Reformed Churches has provided a forum for discussion and consultation.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/reformed.htm


Some of these individual churches have in their own statements of faith.
"We believe in the five points of Calvin." They then proceed to list them and describe each one.

For example:

We believe in the so-called Five Points of Calvinism.
In man’s total depravity:
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Psalm 53:2,3).
In unconditional election:
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:15-16).
In limited atonement:
“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me: for they are thine” (John 17:9).
In irresistible grace:
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44-45).
In the perseverance of the saints:
“And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28).

http://hnrc.org/our-beliefs

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Calvinism is not the exact same thing as Calvin's writings. Are you so forgetful? Just a short while back you were extolling the virtues of Dr. Richard A.Muller who tried to explain that Calvinism is broader than merely a rehash of one individual's contribution i.e. John Calvin.

You can't seem to understand that I can admire Calvin and disagree with his conclusions about what was later called the five points. Muller, if you will recall, was making the point that Calvin wasn't truly a Calvinist, by the standards of what you and your friends -- who seem to extol Reformed theology above Christ Himself -- call "Calvinism" and/or Reformed theology.

Yes, there is a reason I was trumpeting Muller's work: He knows Calvin is much bigger than Calvinism, but he also knows that he was wrong about several things, especially paedobaptism and transubstantiation, the latter of which Alister McGrath avers Calvin fell at a midpoint between Luther and Zwingli. Like Muller, I have to wonder how one can hold Calvin so high in regard almost to the exclusion of Christ and the Bible when he held to such wrong-headed doctrine. But also like Muller, I nonetheless embrace a lot of what Calvin taught and of that which he wrote.

Please try to rephrase whatever you want to convey.

I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

 

[Rippon]

Muller, if you will recall, was making the point that Calvin wasn't truly a Calvinist, by the standards of what you and your friends -- [who seem to extol Reformed theology above Christ Himself] -- call "Calvinism" and/or Reformed theology.

Blasphemy is not going to aid you in your various quests on the BB.

Yes, there is a reason I was trumpeting Muller's work: He knows Calvin is much bigger than Calvinism,

That much is true.

but he also knows that he was wrong about several things, especially paedobaptism

And that is not in the category of Calvinism proper.

and transubstantiation,

You are confusing Calvin with Roman Catholicism here.

And Luther,while insisting on consubstaniation sounded more like somone holding to transubstantiation. But Luther later agreed with Calvin's take on the ordinance.

Like Muller, I have to wonder how one can hold Calvin so high in regard almost to the exclusion of Christ and the Bible when he held to such wrong-headed doctrine.

Unlike Dr. Muller you are totally wrong and absurd to an infinite degree. R.A.M. and you are not at agreement at all based on your infantile remarks.

I nonetheless embrace a lot of what Calvin taught and of that which he wrote.

You still have not evidenced any proof of that at all.

 

[Van]

Would it be fair to say Calvinistic Baptists are Protestants, but non-Calvinistic Baptists are not Protestants?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Blasphemy is not going to aid you in your various quests on the BB.

Last I knew, blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. So perhaps you'd like to explain that comment.

That much is true.

Nice of you to notice.

And that is not in the category of Calvinism proper.

But relevant because of the propensity for you and others to limit Calvin to the discussion of the five points.

You are confusing Calvin with Roman Catholicism here.

Hardly. You are confused -- as was Calvin -- regarding transubstantiation and consubstantiation, which is nothing more than transubstantiation renamed.

And Luther,while insisting on consubstaniation sounded more like somone holding to transubstantiation. But Luther later agreed with Calvin's take on the ordinance.

Irrelevant. I offer you this: Calvin: Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper

We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it.

The interesting thing is that Calvin here discusses the presence of Christ in terms of “substance.” Not only that, Calvin speaks of the “internal substance” being “conjoined with the visible signs.” This comes close to what Luther taught, but it is also virtually the same thing the Catholic Church taught, and still teaches. In the same treatise, Calvin later refers to transubstantiation as “the devil’s doctrine”. In this context, it seems that Calvin assumes that the Catholic Church teaches that the substances of bread and wine are “annihilated.” However, this is not what Catholics teach. They like to say "Grace perfects nature – it doesn’t destroy it." Saint Thomas Aquinas explained that the substance of bread and wine are not annihilated but transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Consubstantiation says Jesus is "with, in and under" the bread and wine. In other words, there is little to no difference between transformation and "becoming the substance of" the bread and wine. And go ahead, defend Calvin's view if you wish. He is still undeniably wrong.

Unlike Dr. Muller you are totally wrong and absurd to an infinite degree. R.A.M. and you are not at agreement at all based on your infantile remarks.

Your words don't make it so, and I am sure I am infinitely more familiar with what Muller actually thinks, believes, and teaches than your are. I at least knew where to post a reference to him, which is more than I can say about you in any of your posts that express an opinion. It is always unsupported, either biblically or via scholarship.

You still have not evidenced any proof of that at all.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention. Or, as I said, you believe Reformed theology and Calvinism both boil down to the five points. Either way, you haven't a clue.

 

[Rippon]

But relevant because of the propensity for you and others to limit Calvin to the discussion of the five points.

I have tried to speak plainly. Either you are not attuned to English basics or are intentionally muddling-up things. I suspect the latter.

Calvin does not =Calvinism in totality. The five points are only a fraction of what is really biblical theology. Go to the 1689 for a fuller picture --not the five points or even the Canons of Dort.

I am sure I am infinitely more familiar with what Muller actually thinks, believes, and teaches than your are.

Dream on.

as I said, you believe Reformed theology and Calvinism both boil down to the five points.

You are intentionally bearing false witness. In the last hour or so I have given several of my quotes on my stance dating back to 2007 on the BB where I have repudiated that kind of thinking. But you continue your mendacious ways. There is no excuse for you.

Let me give you another quote of mine from 2/2/11:

"This needs to be repeated. Calvinism is a lot larger and more full-orbed than the famous 5 propositions. (And the famous T.U.L.I.P. is a severely shortened version of the decisions of the Synod of Dort.)"

 

[OldRegular]

Yes the best. The universal church becomes the focus at the Second Coming. Now, the local church carries out the work of God. The universal church never held a worship service, administered the Lord's Supper or a baptism, took up an offering, helped the poor, visited the sick, sent out folks to tell others about Jesus, or held a Sunday School. At this point in time, the universal church is a useless entity.

It may be useless to us but not to Jesus Christ. The universal Church will be revealed as His Chaste Bride, the New Jerusalem, at His return.

 

[saturneptune]

It may be useless to us but not to Jesus Christ. The universal Church will be revealed as His Chaste Bride, the New Jerusalem, at His return.

Totally agree, at the end times the Bride will be the church. There will be some former Catholics in heaven and Baptists in hell.

 

[OldRegular]

No Baptists are not Protestants.

Baptists have historically always protested infant baptism and believed in a regenerated church membership.

There is a trail of blood of those who would refuse to submit to infant baptism long before the Protestant reformation.

We have never been part of the Catholic Church and Baptists have historically been in opposition to state churches: While Martin Luther and John Calvin and many of the other protestant reformers had no problem forcing religion with the sword.

The Trail of Blood is there if you look for it.

I am quite aware of the fact that there have not always been a group with the name "Baptist" but there have always been those who have opposed the state churches and opposed infant baptism, Hence the name Baptist.

Well said as TND has already indicated!

 

[OldRegular]

That's likely because you think that what is commonly referred to as Calvinism is all there is to Reformed theology, which goes so far beyond what is discussed on here as to render the opinions expressed as the equivalent of being uninformed and infantile, as though the posters know nothing but these ... ... which, as you well know, is shorthand terminology not meant to label the five points as Calvin's, but to refer to the teaching that is commonly called "Calvinism." And it has been I, not you, who has consistently pointed out that Reformed theology is far more extensive, and John Calvin wrote far more broadly on numerous other topics, than what is boiled down in the five points. To look at your posts and those of others, one would think that Reformed theology or Calvin's writings are nothing more than the five points.

I have long contended that the Doctrines of Grace encompass much more than the 5 points!

 

[saturneptune]

I have tried to speak plainly. Either you are not attuned to English basics or are intentionally muddling-up things. I suspect the latter.

Calvin does not =Calvinism in totality. The five points ar only a fraction of what is really biblical theology. Go to the 1689 for a fuller picture --not the five points or even the Canons of Dort.

Dream on.

You are intentionally bearing false witness. In the last hour or so I have given several of my quotes on my stance dating back to 2007 on the BB where I have repudiated that kind of thinking. But you continue your mendacious ways. There is no excuse for you.

Let me give you another quote of mine from 2/2/11:

"This needs to be repeated. Calvinism is a lot larger and more full-orbed than the famous 5 propositions. (And the famous T.U.L.I.P. is a severely shortened version of the decisions of the Synod of Dort.)"

I do not appreciate you telling a friend of mine and a brother in Christ that he is intentionally bearing false witness. I also do not appreciate you demeaning his intelligence and his use of the English language. I demand you apologize to him.