Calvin Was A Man...

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

So you refuse to answer the question?

Ok so let me rephrase my question:

Why is my being a baptist an equal comparison? Or for that matter what does it have to do with this conversation?

 

[npetreley]

Johnny Yuma was a rebel.




Sorry, I thought we were doing free association...

 

[David Lamb]

Ok so let me rephrase my question:

Why is my being a baptist an equal comparison? Or for that matter what does it have to do with this conversation?

I would suggest that it is an "equal comparison" in that both terms, "baptist" and "Calvinist", were originally nicknames given to the groups concerned by their opponents. Those godly folk who saw from the Word of God the rightness of baptising believers by immersion didn't gather together one day and decide, "Let's invent a new name for ourselves. We'll call ourselves "baptists"!" In a similar way, those who believed the same doctrines concerning salvation as John Calvin didn't make a decision to call themselves after him. In fact, historically, it would not have made much sense to do so, because in those days, almost all of the Reformers believed that Salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. It was the followers of Arminius who went against those things to some degree, and published their teachings under five points. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were an answer to these. In the days of the Reformation, the sort of teach espoused by Calvin was essentially the same as that of the other Reformers. Just one example - Martin Luther didn't teach that natural man's will was free to choose or to reject Christ - the very title of his book, "The Bondage of the Will" gives a strong indication of what he did believe on that matter. That being so, there was no reason why those who believed the Reformers' doctrines should name themselves after Calvin.

Does that make the matter any clearer?

 

[npetreley]

I would suggest that it is an "equal comparison" in that both terms, "baptist" and "Calvinist", were originally nicknames given to the groups concerned by their opponents. Those godly folk who saw from the Word of God the rightness of baptising believers by immersion didn't gather together one day and decide, "Let's invent a new name for ourselves. We'll call ourselves "baptists"!" In a similar way, those who believed the same doctrines concerning salvation as John Calvin didn't make a decision to call themselves after him. In fact, historically, it would not have made much sense to do so, because in those days, almost all of the Reformers believed that Salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. It was the followers of Arminius who went against those things to some degree, and published their teachings under five points. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were an answer to these. In the days of the Reformation, the sort of teach espoused by Calvin was essentially the same as that of the other Reformers. Just one example - Martin Luther didn't teach that natural man's will was free to choose or to reject Christ - the very title of his book, "The Bondage of the Will" gives a strong indication of what he did believe on that matter. That being so, there was no reason why those who believed the Reformers' doctrines should name themselves after Calvin.

Does that make the matter any clearer?

Extremely well explained! Bravo.

 

[Brother Bob]

I always thought the name Baptist came from the scripture of John Baptist????

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarthur001
Do you belong to a "Baptist Church", or a "Church of Christ"?

Please give reason why based on 1 cor 1

Thanks


This ought to be good....
__________________

What about the Church of Jesus Christ, called Baptist.

Such as, The Church of Jesus Christ, called Sardis.

 

[npetreley]

What about the Church of Jesus Christ, called Baptist.

Such as, The Church of Jesus Christ, called Sardis.

I think I would be afraid to attend a church with a denomination called Sardists.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I would suggest that it is an "equal comparison" in that both terms, "baptist" and "Calvinist", were originally nicknames given to the groups concerned by their opponents. Those godly folk who saw from the Word of God the rightness of baptising believers by immersion didn't gather together one day and decide, "Let's invent a new name for ourselves. We'll call ourselves "baptists"!" In a similar way, those who believed the same doctrines concerning salvation as John Calvin didn't make a decision to call themselves after him. In fact, historically, it would not have made much sense to do so, because in those days, almost all of the Reformers believed that Salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. It was the followers of Arminius who went against those things to some degree, and published their teachings under five points. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were an answer to these. In the days of the Reformation, the sort of teach espoused by Calvin was essentially the same as that of the other Reformers. Just one example - Martin Luther didn't teach that natural man's will was free to choose or to reject Christ - the very title of his book, "The Bondage of the Will" gives a strong indication of what he did believe on that matter. That being so, there was no reason why those who believed the Reformers' doctrines should name themselves after Calvin.

Does that make the matter any clearer?

What a clear explaination. Thanks! If I quote it elsewhere, and site your for the reference, will that make me a Lambite?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

You'd better say Lambite.

"Davidian" is not such a good name.

 

[David Lamb]

What a clear explaination. Thanks! If I quote it elsewhere, and site your for the reference, will that make me a Lambite?

I sincerely hope note. As a Lamb, I need to be a follower (of the Good Shepherd), not one who has a following.

But thanks to you and to NPetreley for your kind comments.

 

[TCGreek]

I would suggest that it is an "equal comparison" in that both terms, "baptist" and "Calvinist", were originally nicknames given to the groups concerned by their opponents. Those godly folk who saw from the Word of God the rightness of baptising believers by immersion didn't gather together one day and decide, "Let's invent a new name for ourselves. We'll call ourselves "baptists"!" In a similar way, those who believed the same doctrines concerning salvation as John Calvin didn't make a decision to call themselves after him. In fact, historically, it would not have made much sense to do so, because in those days, almost all of the Reformers believed that Salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. It was the followers of Arminius who went against those things to some degree, and published their teachings under five points. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were an answer to these. In the days of the Reformation, the sort of teach espoused by Calvin was essentially the same as that of the other Reformers. Just one example - Martin Luther didn't teach that natural man's will was free to choose or to reject Christ - the very title of his book, "The Bondage of the Will" gives a strong indication of what he did believe on that matter. That being so, there was no reason why those who believed the Reformers' doctrines should name themselves after Calvin.

Does that make the matter any clearer?

I wish to add my endorsement as well. Nicely done. :thumbs:

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I would suggest that it is an "equal comparison" in that both terms, "baptist" and "Calvinist", were originally nicknames given to the groups concerned by their opponents. Those godly folk who saw from the Word of God the rightness of baptising believers by immersion didn't gather together one day and decide, "Let's invent a new name for ourselves. We'll call ourselves "baptists"!" In a similar way, those who believed the same doctrines concerning salvation as John Calvin didn't make a decision to call themselves after him. In fact, historically, it would not have made much sense to do so, because in those days, almost all of the Reformers believed that Salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. It was the followers of Arminius who went against those things to some degree, and published their teachings under five points. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were an answer to these. In the days of the Reformation, the sort of teach espoused by Calvin was essentially the same as that of the other Reformers. Just one example - Martin Luther didn't teach that natural man's will was free to choose or to reject Christ - the very title of his book, "The Bondage of the Will" gives a strong indication of what he did believe on that matter. That being so, there was no reason why those who believed the Reformers' doctrines should name themselves after Calvin.

Does that make the matter any clearer?

The problem isn't in a nickname alone. It is in the name of a man. So there is no equal comaprison. We are not in Calvin nor are we in Arminian (although most who are accused of being in arminian are in no way related to him) We are all in Christ. In 1 Cor paul took issue with saying that they were of other men meaning they held to the teaching of those men. Saying that someone is a calvinsit is no different.

 

[TCGreek]

The problem isn't in a nickname alone. It is in the name of a man. So there is no equal comaprison. We are not in Calvin nor are we in Arminian (although most who are accused of being in arminian are in no way related to him) We are all in Christ. In 1 Cor paul took issue with saying that they were of other men meaning they held to the teaching of those men. Saying that someone is a calvinsit is no different.

1. I believe in the doctrines of grace because they are taught in Scripture. Calvin may have expounded on them, but my authority for the doctrines of grace is not Calvin or any other man.

2. As David Lamb pointed out, this label was attached to those who "followed" Calvin on those points.

3. If my exposure to a particular truth came through a book that Dr. John Piper wrote and it is scripturally based, how does that make me a follower of Piper?

4. Let us not confuse the messenger for the message, and no well-bred Calvinist does this.

***edited

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. I believe in the doctrines of grace because they are taught in Scripture. Calvin may have expounded on them, but my authority for the doctrines of grace is not Calvin or any other man.

2. As David Lamb pointed out, this label were attached to those who "followed" Calvin on those points.

3. If my exposure to a particular truth came through a book that Dr. John Piper wrote and it is scripturally based, how does that make me a follower of Piper?

4. Let us not confuse the messenger for the message, and no well-bred Calvinist does this.

Hear hear! Well-said. But he won't accept it.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

1. I believe in the doctrines of grace because they are taught in Scripture. Calvin may have expounded on them, but my authority for the doctrines of grace is not Calvin or any other man.

2. As David Lamb pointed out, this label was attached to those who "followed" Calvin on those points.

3. If my exposure to a particular truth came through a book that Dr. John Piper wrote and it is scripturally based, how does that make me a follower of Piper?

4. Let us not confuse the messenger for the message, and no well-bred Calvinist does this.

***edited

I do not care that one follows after biblical teachings of John Piper. But then calling yourself a Piperite would be unbiblcial. The following of biblical doctrine is not the issue. Using nicknames is not the issue. But to say that we are of anyone other than Christ is unbiblcial. Calling one a calvinist or Arminian does just that.

 

[TCGreek]

Using nicknames is not the issue.

1. "Using nicknames is not the issue," but you have a problem with the nickname "Calvinist/Calvinism." Tell me, how does it work? How are you able to affirm that which you deny?

But to say that we are of anyone other than Christ is unbiblcial. Calling one a calvinist or Arminian does just that.

2. No well-bread Calvinist says that he is of Calvin. At least, you can represent us properly. Calvinism is a nickname. That is all it is.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think I would be afraid to attend a church with a denomination called Sardists.

Sardis!!!

Rev 3:4Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

 

[npetreley]

If someone could popularize a different nickname for Calvinism (say, for example, "electionism"), would you other Calvinists feel comfortable switching to the new nickname?

I would feel perfectly comfortable. I bet almost all, if not all Calvinists would. Doesn't that tell you something? With the possible exception of some weird ones out on the fringe, I bet no Calvinist is attached to the name Calvin and would object to switching nicknames.

 

[webdog]

If someone could popularize a different nickname for Calvinism (say, for example, "electionism"), would you other Calvinists feel comfortable switching to the new nickname?

I would feel perfectly comfortable. I bet almost all, if not all Calvinists would. Doesn't that tell you something? With the possible exception of some weird ones out on the fringe, I bet no Calvinist is attached to the name Calvin and would object to switching nicknames.

I've heard it referred to as "determinism"...does that count?

 

[Jarthur001]

If someone could popularize a different nickname for Calvinism (say, for example, "electionism"), would you other Calvinists feel comfortable switching to the new nickname?

I would feel perfectly comfortable. I bet almost all, if not all Calvinists would. Doesn't that tell you something? With the possible exception of some weird ones out on the fringe, I bet no Calvinist is attached to the name Calvin and would object to switching nicknames.

Yes...I also would like to know the answer to this.

Is the name the problem or was this just being used as a stawman?

The name means very little to me. I use to just call it "the doctrines of grace", because some hate the phrase "Calvinist" just as Tim has shown. However I was then faced with this....

You know good and well you are just a Calvinist, so don't try and change the name. Why hide from the name Calvinist?

Whatever they want to call me that is fine. Just when the "C" name 1st came about, it was not those that believed the doctrines that called themself this dreadful name. It was the haters of the doctrines of grace that came up with the name. Non_Calvinist used this "C" name in mock...in a way to make light of the doctrine, and even laugh at them.

I just hold to the doctrines as I see them in the Bible. I follow no man. I believe and trust in God and God only for my salvation. God elected me from the pits of sin, and I was saved from those sins because of this election. Was it good that God seen in me? In no way. There is nothing good in this old man. I was saved even though I was not good. If Paul be the chief of sinners, and knowing all that Paul did, I must be lower then the snakes under a cold rock, for I cannot measure up to Paul let alone Gods standards. Yet God opened my eyes to the truth of the gospel and I can not claim it was my goodness He saw.

Christ paid the price for my sins. Christ bought me with his death. He now owns me. I cannot leave, even if I tried. He has the power not only to save me, but also to keep me. I now belong to Him.

Also Christ blood removed the guilt of my very sins, so that I can stand right before the Father. Now it is just as if I had never sinned.

Being born again, I now stand in the family of God in sonship. God takes care of His loved ones. We see this in the OT in a nation, and in the NT in the church. Salvation is a love story. Just as the love story of Gomer.

Why me and not a better person? There are much better folks then I. I have no idea why me, other then God loved me. Salvation is by God and from God.

Now you can call this any name you want...it matters little to me. You don't like the name Calvinist..fine call it the gospel.