-
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!
Calvin and Holy Spirit
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
- Status
If you believe something is taught in Scripture, nowadays the modern church will crucify you over it. This is why we such such vitriol here. Loathed is the man who stands and says "This is truth." What our itching ears lust for is the "Well.....this might be true for you, but here's my opinion...just my opinion, now........."
God help us. :BangHead:
God help us. :BangHead:
Tom Butler
New Member
And, some of the grief may come from fellow Christians. After all, doctrine divides, you know. Can't we all just get along, cum-bah-yah?
That's exactly who I was referring to. Naturally, the lost don't want truth. It's sad when professing believers don't want it, either, or refuse the authority of God's Word.
so would you prefer holy wars because two theologies cant agree? You seriously would prefer doctrine to divide?
Reformation of the reformed Reformation
A few observations which may be totally unrelated to this discussion:
1. The Apostle Paul told us plainly in I Cor. 1:10-16 that we are not to follow men/women. This was written long before Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, the Eighth Henry, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, etal.
2. The reformation, so-called, in the 16th century was among Romish priests who were eventually defrocked. While they were effective in making some changes, they retained some of the faults of their mother. Namely: infant baptism.
3. True Baptists were not part of this effort. In fact they were persecuted by the "reformers", perhaps not as much as by the Holy See. The issue: infant baptism; also the authority to carry out any "church" function.
4. So now we are reforming the reformed reformers. How can that be? Jesus said He would never leave or forsake his sheep, through the gates of hell, throughout the age. Are we saying Jesus has not been faithful?
5. We seem to be mired in the supposed nuances of soteriology. Paul puts these things quite sure--see Eph. 1 and 2. God saved His elect from before the foundation of the world for His purpose and good pleasure.
These things were believed and practiced long before Arminius, Calvin and Augustine, by those who had The Faith once, for all, delivered unto the Saints, Jude 3.
They are still here. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Selah,
Bro. James
A few observations which may be totally unrelated to this discussion:
1. The Apostle Paul told us plainly in I Cor. 1:10-16 that we are not to follow men/women. This was written long before Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, the Eighth Henry, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, etal.
2. The reformation, so-called, in the 16th century was among Romish priests who were eventually defrocked. While they were effective in making some changes, they retained some of the faults of their mother. Namely: infant baptism.
3. True Baptists were not part of this effort. In fact they were persecuted by the "reformers", perhaps not as much as by the Holy See. The issue: infant baptism; also the authority to carry out any "church" function.
4. So now we are reforming the reformed reformers. How can that be? Jesus said He would never leave or forsake his sheep, through the gates of hell, throughout the age. Are we saying Jesus has not been faithful?
5. We seem to be mired in the supposed nuances of soteriology. Paul puts these things quite sure--see Eph. 1 and 2. God saved His elect from before the foundation of the world for His purpose and good pleasure.
These things were believed and practiced long before Arminius, Calvin and Augustine, by those who had The Faith once, for all, delivered unto the Saints, Jude 3.
They are still here. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Selah,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
What? Where are you getting this? I'm merely making an observation. How in the world did you extrapolate all that?
Truth does divide whether I want it to or not (I don't. Interestingly, neither did Calvin (IV.I.12)
James...I appreciate where you're coming from but I believe you grossly misstate somethings, and I believe unintentionally. For instance, some of the "Reformers" retained infant baptism to be sure - not to be salvific, but rather, as a statement of the continuity of the covenant, something in opposition to Romish doctrine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
ok
1 Cor 1 does indeed say this.
Now most of the time people post this verse when the subject is Calvinist, what they mean is that Calvinist worship John Calvin. But to say such things, only shows they don't know Calvinism. It is, I do believe, because of the name that many make this error. They see the words that seem to them the same, and believe Calvinist do not read the Bible, but only John Calvin. Calvinist must hold to every word the man says ......as if they are programed and can't help themselves.....so the idea goes
It is clear that people that claim such things has never even been in a Calvinist home. They hate Calvinist, therefore they say stupid things like this. Hate changes peoples hearts. If one would take the time to get to know a Calvinist, they would see they read the Bible and base all doctrine on the Bible and not John Calvin.
Then why do they call themselves Calvinist. If one would study history, one would know. It was used by Calvin haters to label those that had followed the teachings of grace as found in the Bible. It is the same thing that happened to Baptist. BTW..I do not see John The Baptist in that list. You call yourself a Baptist, does this mean you break 1 Cor 1?
Of course not. See how silly this statement is?
1st, it was not just so called, it was a real reformation.
2nd, this sounds like a Baptist successionism statement. In Baptist successionism any link to RCC is evil and must be denied. The fact is Baptist successionist who try to link a Baptist succession through the years to the church, will find that many of the groups they want to say are Baptist, hold to infant baptism.
That of course is full error and shows my guess was right. Baptist successionism is not true my friend.
The Oxford dictionary states John Smyth was educated at Cambridge university and ordained in the church of England. As a Calvinist he became a puritan preacher at Lincoln (1603-5) and later a preacher at a separatist congregation at Gainsborough, which is about twenty miles north of Lincoln (1606). In 1608 Smyth led a company of people to Amsterdam, where Smith baptised himself hence the title 'Se-Baptist'.
He styled the community 'The Brethren of the Separation of the Second English Church at Amsterdam'. Membership was for baptised believers during which time Smyth came under Mennonite (Anabaptist) influence. Possibly while at Gainsborough Smyth rejected Calvinism which caused a split.
Mennonites of today is more what you find in Smyths teachings.
Thomas Helwys left Smyth returned to England, it is from this church in London that many historians date the Baptist denominations, both the General Baptists, who rejected Calvinism and the Particular Baptists, the forerunners of the Calvinist Baptists. Historians do disagree, some claiming Smyth was the founder of the General Baptists only.
Shortly after Smyth arrived in Holland he repudiated his former baptism.
This was probably about the year 1609. He remained convinced of believers baptism and then was excluded by the church which he had organized, leaving Thomas Helwys who became leader. At a later date Smyth applied to the Mennonites for membership, but after much discussion and disturbance among them, his application was rejected. It was the occasion of a great debate and much acrimony among the Mennonites. Letters were written by many parties and some of the Mennonite churches went so far as to formally condemn the union in severe terms. Two Mennonite preachers, Ris and Gerritz, wrote Confessions which were favourable to the Mennonites and had Smyth and others to sign them. The Confessions only dissatisfied both parties and failed to bring union of the forty-two English who signed one of them, eleven erased their names, and the gravest dissatisfaction arose over it among the Mennonites themselves. The result was that Smyth was not received by the Mennonites and the remnant of his company was only received after years of waiting, and then not without friction.
Smith died in 1612 without returning to London.
It is clear Smith had little influence on the churches in the UK, and the later Baptist denomination. He had been dis-fellowshipped and died in Holland.
This sounds like "local Onlyism" as it relates to the church. The gates of Hell passage is often used to support this view. However, it holds no water. If this applies to the local church than the verses has failed us. Many many ...yes countless of local churches have opened and closed. The fact is, it does not mean the local church at all, but rather it s talking about Christ.
I have to agree with you on this,
This I would disagree with. Arminius came one with a novel theory that never had been taught before in the church. Its all based on man over-powering Gods will. In other words, even if God wanted to do something...(save the man) Arminius said man can over-power Gods will and say NO. God must listen.
Again this was a novel theory ...never before heard of. Many people believed it. This was not what Calvin, Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther and all the other men that held to the doctrines of grace believed.
indeed
Last edited by a moderator:
Continuity of the covenant
TomVols:
I am not sure what you are saying. How does infant baptism provide anything but a continuity of heresy? Baptismal regeneration was one of the earliest heresies assailing the New Testament Churches. It is another attempt by depraved man to save himself. It follows naturally that babies would be saved by the same sacrament. That is holy see heresy--and it is still found in the doctrines of the daughters of Rome. Are there any who are not pedobaptists?
There were millions of anabaptists who went to the death for refusing to baptize their infants and for baptizing again(?) those who would join them having had infant baptism. (It was an authority issue which incensed the holy see.) The reformers did not appreciate the anabaptists either. Luther and Calvin were certainly not their friends.
What part of this is over stated?
Selah,
Bro. James
TomVols:
I am not sure what you are saying. How does infant baptism provide anything but a continuity of heresy? Baptismal regeneration was one of the earliest heresies assailing the New Testament Churches. It is another attempt by depraved man to save himself. It follows naturally that babies would be saved by the same sacrament. That is holy see heresy--and it is still found in the doctrines of the daughters of Rome. Are there any who are not pedobaptists?
There were millions of anabaptists who went to the death for refusing to baptize their infants and for baptizing again(?) those who would join them having had infant baptism. (It was an authority issue which incensed the holy see.) The reformers did not appreciate the anabaptists either. Luther and Calvin were certainly not their friends.
What part of this is over stated?
Selah,
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
My basic point is: we are plainly told not to follow men/women but rather Jesus, The Christ.
I understand James Arminius was contemporary with Calvin. His teachings go all the way back to Cain: there is something man can do to save himself. There are a lot of folk who believe that even today.
Successionism: if Jesus' promise to build, maintain, and preserve His Bride throughout this age, without spot or blemish or any such thing, or in need of reforming, then I must be a successionist. This is not about a name but rather a Faith and Practice--see Jude 3.
We are still here, Bro.
Selah,
Bro. James
I understand James Arminius was contemporary with Calvin. His teachings go all the way back to Cain: there is something man can do to save himself. There are a lot of folk who believe that even today.
Successionism: if Jesus' promise to build, maintain, and preserve His Bride throughout this age, without spot or blemish or any such thing, or in need of reforming, then I must be a successionist. This is not about a name but rather a Faith and Practice--see Jude 3.
We are still here, Bro.
Selah,
Bro. James
Jarthur001
Active Member
infant baptism has nothing to do with Calvinism.
Like Methodist are Arimiain. They believe in infant baptism
Most Presbyterians are Calvinist. They also believe in infant baptism.
Most Pentecostals believe in Believers baptism.
Seventh-day Adventists are Arimiain and hold to believers baptism
Reforemed baptist (LBC 1689) are Calvinist that believe in believers baptisim
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in believers baptism.
It has nothing to do with Calvinism. Its not even one of the points...is it?
2nd...
In Baptist successionism, (which is what you seem to believe), you will not find the same Baptist beliefs in the groups that MOST Baptist successionist list. They were not baptist.
Like...the Waldensians Now I love the waldensians. I think God for them. But they were not Baptist.
Peter Waldo wanted to stay within the Roman church. I went to Rome like, 5 times( don't hold me to that number) petitioned the pope.
Baptist historian James Edward McGoldrick published a definitive debunking of successionism entitled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History. In the preface, McGoldrick says.....:
Now notice this...
The truth is, Baptist started AFTER the reformation. Please read the account I gave you.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Point understood. Calvinist do not.
Not so.
John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564)
Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609
I would say the garden. But I'm not going to debate you on this one. WE pretty much agree on this
He does. But this is not talking about the local church. The invisible church or Catholic (Not Roman Catholic which is error, but Catholic as in universal) is made up of all the elect.
The visible church is when the church shows herself..(gathers in a local church).
The elect in the invisible church is known only to God.
The visible church when it is gathered, is made of both the elect and the non-elect.
The local visible church has undershepherds.
The invisible church has only one shepherd.... Christ
The invisible church....all of the elect of God, he will..as you say.." build, maintain, and preserve as His Bride throughout this age, without spot or blemish...."
Indeed the invisible church is. But local churches have closed. right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bro. James replied: True Baptists never really started in a denominational sense--they are not a denomination, they have no headquarters. They are not part of the 16th century Reformation started by Luther. They have a Baptistic Faith and Practice which can be found in the Book of Acts.
Selah,
Bro. James
Sorry I got the quote counter-quote messed up. I know not how to fix it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
yes...well I said from the beginning you sound like a successionist.
Look, don't take my word for it. Read history. read McGoldrick debunking of successionism called..... Baptist Successionism. It will be worth it.
So you Calvinists don't follow his chronology here?
Jarthur001
Active Member
follow who?
All people have the opportunity to be a part of the Elect
Hello Iconoclast,
Since you offered a serious answer (and one that is fundamental to the Calvinist view) I'll be happy to respond to you in kind with a counter view.
You quoted Matthew 13:11
"He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
This is not the easiest verse to understand so it does lend itself to honest misunderstanding. However, at least some Calvinists overplay their hand on honest misunderstanding and simply twist the meaning to fit their view point.
This is not beyond accurate understanding for most of us. It doesn't suggest that God has withheld understanding salvation or how to find eternal life in Christ or that only the elect as preordained by God can understand it.
If you read the verses around it and get a little context it means those who don't understand aren't following Jesus because they seek to learn how to have the proper relationship with God through Christ. They don't understand not because God withheld that understanding from them, but because they are there for the wrong reasons. For example, the Jewish leaders who reject Jesus because they want to hold on to the Mosaic law and keep their positions of power. In the case of the general population because they only seek after Jesus so he can heal their physical ailments or lead Israel to political independence and freedom from Roman rule. Whatever their reason in their heart they are not seeking a relationship with God. Understanding is available to all of these people if their heart is in the right place. You can't blame the will of God for blinding them--the blame is on them for having hardened their hearts to Jesus' teachings. Salvation and understanding is there for all.
As for “all” having different connotations I have no problem with that as a general statement; however, “all” as it applies to all men having salvation available to them is not in doubt. The bible states that enough different places and ways that salvation being available to all is not at issue or in doubt.
As for those people who live and die and never hear the Word of God or have the plan of salvation explained to them--yes there are those people. Having to reach for this to prove limited atonement just exposes how desperate and weak the Calvinist position really is. I've heard a number of explanations for how God deals with these people--but this is beyond the real scope of the Calvinist debate we are having so I'm not chasing that rabbit tonight. Besides I already have one added comment I want to make at the end.
You referenced the "eternal covenant of Redemption before the world was."
By this I assume you are referring to the elect. I would agree there are references to the elect in the bible as a group or corporate body and there are references to them before the world was; however, what Calvinism fails to comprehend is that all men have the opportunity on an individual basis to choose salvation and be a part of this preordained corporate body of the elect which is being referred to. I think this is an honest misunderstanding on the part of Calvin, but his followers just don't seem to think it through.
And, the comment I mentioned above which is on a different subject, but relates to the “thought of the day” you mentioned. People are always interpreting the bible anew in regards to current events. During the Cold War it was common practice to see an antichrist figure coming out of Western European alliances, recently with the rise of radical Muslim conflicts some people claim he will come from a Muslim background. Well now that China is coming on to the world stage in a prominent way I'm going to confidently predict you will see those who will predict an antichrist figure arising from China. You can see this coming and probably not long off. I of course don't buy into any of those scenarios. I'm just saying I see the predictions of a Chinese antichrist figure not long off.
"Trash-talking, saying stupid things, lie in blatant manner, you say such junk"... Rippon
If sweet talking was honey, bees would circle the earth to find Rippon.
Hello Iconoclast,
Since you offered a serious answer (and one that is fundamental to the Calvinist view) I'll be happy to respond to you in kind with a counter view.
You quoted Matthew 13:11
"He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
This is not the easiest verse to understand so it does lend itself to honest misunderstanding. However, at least some Calvinists overplay their hand on honest misunderstanding and simply twist the meaning to fit their view point.
This is not beyond accurate understanding for most of us. It doesn't suggest that God has withheld understanding salvation or how to find eternal life in Christ or that only the elect as preordained by God can understand it.
If you read the verses around it and get a little context it means those who don't understand aren't following Jesus because they seek to learn how to have the proper relationship with God through Christ. They don't understand not because God withheld that understanding from them, but because they are there for the wrong reasons. For example, the Jewish leaders who reject Jesus because they want to hold on to the Mosaic law and keep their positions of power. In the case of the general population because they only seek after Jesus so he can heal their physical ailments or lead Israel to political independence and freedom from Roman rule. Whatever their reason in their heart they are not seeking a relationship with God. Understanding is available to all of these people if their heart is in the right place. You can't blame the will of God for blinding them--the blame is on them for having hardened their hearts to Jesus' teachings. Salvation and understanding is there for all.
As for “all” having different connotations I have no problem with that as a general statement; however, “all” as it applies to all men having salvation available to them is not in doubt. The bible states that enough different places and ways that salvation being available to all is not at issue or in doubt.
As for those people who live and die and never hear the Word of God or have the plan of salvation explained to them--yes there are those people. Having to reach for this to prove limited atonement just exposes how desperate and weak the Calvinist position really is. I've heard a number of explanations for how God deals with these people--but this is beyond the real scope of the Calvinist debate we are having so I'm not chasing that rabbit tonight. Besides I already have one added comment I want to make at the end.
You referenced the "eternal covenant of Redemption before the world was."
By this I assume you are referring to the elect. I would agree there are references to the elect in the bible as a group or corporate body and there are references to them before the world was; however, what Calvinism fails to comprehend is that all men have the opportunity on an individual basis to choose salvation and be a part of this preordained corporate body of the elect which is being referred to. I think this is an honest misunderstanding on the part of Calvin, but his followers just don't seem to think it through.
And, the comment I mentioned above which is on a different subject, but relates to the “thought of the day” you mentioned. People are always interpreting the bible anew in regards to current events. During the Cold War it was common practice to see an antichrist figure coming out of Western European alliances, recently with the rise of radical Muslim conflicts some people claim he will come from a Muslim background. Well now that China is coming on to the world stage in a prominent way I'm going to confidently predict you will see those who will predict an antichrist figure arising from China. You can see this coming and probably not long off. I of course don't buy into any of those scenarios. I'm just saying I see the predictions of a Chinese antichrist figure not long off.
"Trash-talking, saying stupid things, lie in blatant manner, you say such junk"... Rippon
If sweet talking was honey, bees would circle the earth to find Rippon.
Jarthur001
Active Member
do you ever notice that so called non-calvinist talk about Calvin more that Calvinist. Why is this? it's like they are obsessed with him.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
- Status