Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

[Rippon]

I posted from his Church History Volume 8 an entire list of atrocities that Calvin committed in addition to those he had killed.

He didn't kill anyone.

You can post all the revisionist theories you want but EVIDENCE from an overwhelming majority of historians, including John Calvin's OWN STATEMENTS about Servetus is that Calvin was a murderous...

You will not get that from a majority of historians.

, baby sprinking,

I disagree with his view on baptism. The KJV revisers agreed with him though.

amillennial heretic.

Not sure if you consider him a heretic because he was amillennial or for other reasons.

He was certainly no heretic. And you would not be able to provide competent historians and thewho would agree with you on that.

This if from the man YOU SAID didn't write anything about Calvin,

I didn't say that Phil (we're close) didn't write anything about Calvin. I quoted the man! You are something else.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach
C

Chapter 29: Of Baptism
1._____ Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

If you continue to read point 2 it clarifies............


2._____ Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 ) [/QUOTE]

Thus I must conclude since you always use the Baptist Confession as your Biblical references, than I presume that you believe baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16)?

Then you would be coming to a wrong conclusion.

 

[preachinjesus]

Even if all John Calvin did was merely BELIEVED that the death penalty was appropriate for heresy and all other sins against the law, he is still a heretic.

Really? Calvin's a heretic? This is a ridiculous statement that has no base or bearing.

Please show me precise issues from the early creedal statements of the Church where Calvin erred in his theology.

John Calvin's own writings show that he had a propensity for murdering those who disagreed with him, which fits perfectly with all the documented historical evidence that shows that he consented to and perpetuated the deaths of numerous Christians.

Okay, hold on for a second. This is an actual area of research I worked on during my PhD seminars. I challenge you name me one person Calvin personally condemned or personally had executed in Geneva.

You can't make the point about Servetus since Calvin wasn't part of the Consistory or court which condemned him. He did appeal to the authorities in Geneva for a beheading instead of a burning. However, Calvin did not cast a vote to condemn Servetus.

If you're using Schaff for your history of Calvin this might explain the misunderstanding about Calvin. Schaff is a nice resource but dated and has gaps in his work because of that.

Listen, I'm no huge fan of Calvin nor his theology...but I do respect him and his place within theology. There are aspects of his conduct that I have problems with but I do not accept the accusations, like this one, against Calvin.

That is an enormous burden to place on someone's character without evidence. With Calvin, there is beyond sufficient evidence that he was guilty as a murderer.

Again, you have to name names for me to believe you. Cite names, instances, and examples. Being a murderer is a huge accusation. Also, please note that the Consistory was not, this is agreed upon by almost all reputable historians, controlled by Calvin.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Really? Calvin's a heretic? This is a ridiculous statement that has no base or bearing.

Please show me precise issues from the early creedal statements of the Church where Calvin erred in his theology.



Okay, hold on for a second. This is an actual area of research I worked on during my PhD seminars. I challenge you name me one person Calvin personally condemned or personally had executed in Geneva.

You can't make the point about Servetus since Calvin wasn't part of the Consistory or court which condemned him. He did appeal to the authorities in Geneva for a beheading instead of a burning. However, Calvin did not cast a vote to condemn Servetus.

If you're using Schaff for your history of Calvin this might explain the misunderstanding about Calvin. Schaff is a nice resource but dated and has gaps in his work because of that.

Listen, I'm no huge fan of Calvin nor his theology...but I do respect him and his place within theology. There are aspects of his conduct that I have problems with but I do not accept the accusations, like this one, against Calvin.



Again, you have to name names for me to believe you. Cite names, instances, and examples. Being a murderer is a huge accusation. Also, please note that the Consistory was not, this is agreed upon by almost all reputable historians, controlled by Calvin.

I will comment more on this later because it is almost 6 am here and I have gotten my schedule out of whack!

You do not have to actually kill someone to be Biblically guilty of murder.

" Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." I John 3:15

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" I John 4:20

"Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:21-22 (This verse shows that Christ had a completely different take on the OT application of the death penalty coming into the New Testament).

I quoted one source above from Calvin's own writings on the death penalty, and I have stacks of notes from his Institutes and letters he wrote about Servetus and others where even if it were true (and it isn't) that he did not himself lay a finger on anyone, he believed in his heart that it was justifiable to murder "heretics" and this was a consistently held believe and was expressed often.

Thus with such a personally held belief, there's no possible way that Calvin could have been a saved man. Calvin's theology was more philosophical than Biblical, and I believe that his theology is flawed because no man that holds that kind of error about murder has the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

Jesus addressed this type of person specifically:

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2

And Schaaf is not my primary authority, there are TONS of material on these issues. But I chose Schaaf in a particular response to Rippon because in his defense of Calvin, he claimed that Schaaf was one of the historians that did not mention these things about Calvin.

More later.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Really? Calvin's a heretic? This is a ridiculous statement that has no base or bearing.

Please show me precise issues from the early creedal statements of the Church where Calvin erred in his theology.



Okay, hold on for a second. This is an actual area of research I worked on during my PhD seminars. I challenge you name me one person Calvin personally condemned or personally had executed in Geneva.

You can't make the point about Servetus since Calvin wasn't part of the Consistory or court which condemned him. He did appeal to the authorities in Geneva for a beheading instead of a burning. However, Calvin did not cast a vote to condemn Servetus.

If you're using Schaff for your history of Calvin this might explain the misunderstanding about Calvin. Schaff is a nice resource but dated and has gaps in his work because of that.

Listen, I'm no huge fan of Calvin nor his theology...but I do respect him and his place within theology. There are aspects of his conduct that I have problems with but I do not accept the accusations, like this one, against Calvin.



Again, you have to name names for me to believe you. Cite names, instances, and examples. Being a murderer is a huge accusation. Also, please note that the Consistory was not, this is agreed upon by almost all reputable historians, controlled by Calvin.

I'm quite surprised and sad that you of all people would take this position. In another thread I posted several links to Calvin's atrocities that no one ever responded to, to my knowledge. Calvin was one of the worst persecutors who ever lived, rivaling any Roman Catholic persecutor.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

OK so now the debate goes from what the Bible says to having to interpret a confession. This is exactly why I chose not to respond to Iconoclasts postings of these confessions. But now since we're there....

The grammatical structure of these statements are all separated by semicolons, each statement within the paragraph is independent of itself as an antecedent to the opening clause. And again, of the verses quoted, Acts 22:16 is used. I don't know any Baptist that does not believe in Baptismal Regeneration use Acts 22:16 to show that baptism is symbolic of our death and resurrection in Christ. The only groups I have ever seen use that verse are those who believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

And again, those who were opposed to the RCC and Calvin were very specific in their denunciation of infant baptism. THEY WERE KILLED FOR IT. So it appears that this confession was left deliberately vague about the issue with no specific denunciation of infant baptism. Deliberate or not I admit would be speculative, but nevertheless, it is odd that given the history of contention over infant baptism that there is not a clause specific to that issue.

But again, this is the problem you get into when relying on "creeds" or "confessions"; you're stuck debating the interpretation of the creed before you even get to the interpretation of the Bible. Precisely one reason why God intended churches to be independent.

I was an undergraduate English major, including a study of linguistics. What I stated is a grammatical fact.

 

[saturneptune]

And I keep pointing that out to Sat/Nep because he has an obvious hatred for me. He is a murderer according to Jesus and John.

Of all the people on this board, your opinions and conclusions are on the bottom of the list for validity. Since I am a Christian, and not bothered by your feeble attempts to indirectly question that, your statements are meaningless.

You are the only one on this board I can think of, either Arminian or Calvinistic, that goes out of his way to paint a picture just short of glorification for his deeds on this earth. Some might agree with his overall demeanor, but they do not start threads praising and adoring him.

You cannot seperate the man from the doctrine, as your conclusion is that anyone who criticizes his life is an Arminian, which is a bold lie, as you like to say. There are only two possibilities, you are either a troll or have a total lack of common sense and perspective. We all know what Jesus, John, and Paul say about liars.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

He didn't kill anyone.

You will have to take that argument up with him himself inasmuch as he personally disagrees with you, and personally took credit for the Death of Servetus. You ignore or simply deny that blatant fact. Here's a hint: If the man PERSONALLY took credit for a death......than he's probably guilty, and no amount of revisionist history will change it.

Here are the stubborn facts: (As though they need to be posted yet again)
7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

After the incident:
Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.
John Calvin

Again:
A 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre:
Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others] , who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.
John Calvin

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
John Calvin

Just for fun, I'd like to point out the red part again:
"I would like to kill again"
John Calvin

I know TWO things unequivocally:
These pure quotes from Calvin himself will mean nothing to you..........
All sane people will see them for exactly what they are, and it is for their benefit that they are posted........again.

 

[agedman]

I am not a defender of the character of Calvin nor Servetus, because frankly it is of little value.

We didn't live in that era, nor were privy to the horror of Romanist interrogation and inquisition thinking that carried over from place to place, situation to situation, and played upon people's perspective and thinking on all. Such horrors continue in some lands to pervert justice and judgment even to this day.

It would be far better for folks to quit looking at a man's character as reason to reject doctrine rather than looking at the actual doctrine taught.

History indicates:

Paul was a murderer.

Peter assaulted and did bodily harm with intent to murder.

David was a murderer.

Ehud was a murderer.

Moses was a murderer.

Samson was a murderer.

Need I go on?

Folks, I am not excusing sin, nor am I excusing the sinner. I am stating that if one is going to judge doctrine, then judge doctrine. Stack precept and principle of Scriptures against the doctrine and thinking written and taught.

Then one may have true authority to declare heresy, and not beg history for some "proof" that may or may not be accurate according to the life and times of the person in question.

 

[Rippon]

there's no possible way that Calvin could have been a saved man.

You are being utterly absurd.

Calvin's theology was more philosophical than Biblical,

Despite your claims to academia...you have nary a clue. Calvin sticks to the text closer than most.

And Schaaf is not my primary authority, there are TONS of material on these issues. But I chose Schaaf in a particular response to Rippon because in his defense of Calvin, he claimed that Schaaf was one of the historians that did not mention these things about Calvin.

Schaff did not accuse Calvin of any deaths in that list that you have furnished.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin's atrocities

He did not commit any atrocities. You are entirely wrong.

to my knowledge. Calvin was one of the worst persecutors who ever lived, rivaling any Roman Catholic persecutor.

You are so wrong it is mind-numbing. Get your head into a real Church History book.

 

[Rippon]

Of all the people on this board, your opinions and conclusions are on the bottom of the list for validity.

And the above comes from one known for his mendacious conduct on a repeated basis.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

We didn't live in that era, nor were privy to the horror of Romanist interrogation and inquisition thinking that carried over from place to place, situation to situation, and played upon people's perspective and thinking on all. Such horrors continue in some lands to pervert justice and judgment even to this day

.

Regardless of the influence that the RCC had on Calvin, Calvinist's claim that God's sovereignty imposed grace on them that could not be resisted based on their being elected. I find it difficult to believe that God would put so much emphasis on imposing salvation, but not change their beliefs about murder.

The Holy Spirit changes a persons thinking upon conversion, and even moreso the longer one yields to Christ. Gal 5:16. This would be a factor in any believer's life regardless of what they came out of.

It would be far better for folks to quit looking at a man's character as reason to reject doctrine rather than looking at the actual doctrine taught.

Calvinist's readily accept his views on sovereignty and TULIP, but ignore his views on eschatology and infant baptism.

History indicates:

Paul was a murderer.

Peter assaulted and did bodily harm with intent to murder.

David was a murderer.

Ehud was a murderer.

Moses was a murderer.

Samson was a murderer.

Need I go on?

Each one of these people did not make murder a habitual lifestyle AFTER they were converted. John Calvin not only consented to such, but said that he would do it AGAIN. These examples you listed were repentant for their actions, John Calvin was not.

Folks, I am not excusing sin, nor am I excusing the sinner. I am stating that if one is going to judge doctrine, then judge doctrine. Stack precept and principle of Scriptures against the doctrine and thinking written and taught.

God IS concerned about the character of His people when it comes to doctrine:

"Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed" 2 Cor 6:3

And this is especially true of leaders:

"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." 1 Tim 3:7

"Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." Titus 2:8

Furthermore, Calvinism is a doctrine of man (Hence the name CALVINism):

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?" Colossians 2:22

Then one may have true authority to declare heresy, and not beg history for some "proof" that may or may not be accurate according to the life and times of the person in question.

The historical evidence against Calvin is overwhelming. When I worked in a law firm, I could only dream of having the kind of evidence against defendants that exist against Calvin. The man was a murderer at heart, which is no different in God's eyes than a person who physically commits the crime. This wasn't just something he DID, it was also something he BELIEVED and ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO. That is not the mark of a saved man, and therefore anything the flowed from that (TULIP) should be automatically suspect, especially since the majority of Calvin's views were adopted from the Roman Catholic Augustine.

These are facts that Calvinists repeatedly sweep under the rug. Reformed Theology is no different, it is merely rehashed Calvinism without the name [and even the name "Reformed" itself should be suspect. The Bible says be TRANSFORMED, not REFORMED]

 

[Greektim]

[quote="Dr"JamesAch]Calvinist's readily accept his views on sovereignty and TULIP, but ignore his views on eschatology and infant baptism.[/quote]
That is an asinine statement since we have already discusses many Calvies here are Amill.

 

[DrJamesAch]

That is an asinine statement since we have already discusses many Calvies here are Amill.

That's not an asinine statement considering that amillennialism is a heretical doctrine that denies the scriptures, and denies the covenant that God promised to Israel, and ignores the plain teaching of Revelation 20:4. It is a ROMAN CATHOLIC doctrine.

 

[Rippon]

amillennialism is a heretical doctrine

You wouldn't know a hairy tick if it bit you.

You obviously don't know how to distinguish fundamental doctrines from secondary ones.

It is a ROMAN CATHOLIC doctrine.

Well, your Arminian/semi-Pelagianism is rather Roman Catholic. that's far more serious than anything you are addressing.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

He did not commit any atrocities. You are entirely wrong.



You are so wrong it is mind-numbing. Get your head into a real Church History book.

You are funny.

A real church history book? Hmm, I believe I had to do a little of that in my doctoral studies. Wait, I forgot. I went to Billy Bob Tech and they didn't really study church history there.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You wouldn't know a hairy tick if it bit you.

You obviously don't know how to distinguish fundamental doctrines from secondary ones.



Well, your Arminian/semi-Pelagianism is rather Roman Catholic. that's far more serious than anything you are addressing.

You can tell Jesus at judgment day that His personal return to the earth, the gathering of His church is not a fundamental doctrine. You can tell Jesus that Calvin baptizing infants for salvation is not a fundamental heresy.

It is easy to see that since Calvin was off on grace and salvation, he was off of everything else too. Prophecy cover MOST of the Bible, and Jesus second coming was emphasized by Christ and all of the apostles. The very last book of the Bible is about prophecy, yet according to you it's not "fundamental".

And your silly attempts to classify me as an Arminian or anything else don't even deserve the time of day.

You can have your non essential theology, I'll stick to the "WHOLE counsel of God".

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am not a defender of the character of Calvin nor Servetus, because frankly it is of little value.

We didn't live in that era, nor were privy to the horror of Romanist interrogation and inquisition thinking that carried over from place to place, situation to situation, and played upon people's perspective and thinking on all. Such horrors continue in some lands to pervert justice and judgment even to this day.

It would be far better for folks to quit looking at a man's character as reason to reject doctrine rather than looking at the actual doctrine taught.

History indicates:

Paul was a murderer.

Peter assaulted and did bodily harm with intent to murder.

David was a murderer.

Ehud was a murderer.

Moses was a murderer.

Samson was a murderer.

Need I go on?

Folks, I am not excusing sin, nor am I excusing the sinner. I am stating that if one is going to judge doctrine, then judge doctrine. Stack precept and principle of Scriptures against the doctrine and thinking written and taught.

Then one may have true authority to declare heresy, and not beg history for some "proof" that may or may not be accurate according to the life and times of the person in question.

One difference: Paul did not murder anyone after he was converted.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am not a defender of the character of Calvin nor Servetus, because frankly it is of little value.

We didn't live in that era, nor were privy to the horror of Romanist interrogation and inquisition thinking that carried over from place to place, situation to situation, and played upon people's perspective and thinking on all. Such horrors continue in some lands to pervert justice and judgment even to this day.

It would be far better for folks to quit looking at a man's character as reason to reject doctrine rather than looking at the actual doctrine taught.

History indicates:

Paul was a murderer.

Peter assaulted and did bodily harm with intent to murder.

David was a murderer.

Ehud was a murderer.

Moses was a murderer.

Samson was a murderer.

Need I go on?

Folks, I am not excusing sin, nor am I excusing the sinner. I am stating that if one is going to judge doctrine, then judge doctrine. Stack precept and principle of Scriptures against the doctrine and thinking written and taught.

Then one may have true authority to declare heresy, and not beg history for some "proof" that may or may not be accurate according to the life and times of the person in question.

Maybe we should avoid attaching biblical doctrine to a man. When you do then who he is gets attached to that doctrine as well. And that is reasonable.