Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

[preachinjesus]

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

No reasonable person holds this position on calling other people murderers.

Also, state sanctioned execution isn't considered murder by Calvin. Go read his section on the role of the government in The Institutes. It's in book four and starts around chapter nine then hops around a bit and wraps up in chapter twenty.

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.

Wow, talk about ripping a verse out of context and beating up so badly it doesn't resemble its proper meaning. The explicit meaning of the text was referring to the coming times of trial and persecution the disciples would face. These things took place by end of their lives. Are you saying that we can appropriate the promises given to the disciples in our lives?

The larger issue here is that you're judging Calvin's salvation based on a verse of prophecy given to the disciples for their lives?

That is a dangerous system. First of all, given that Calvin proclaims personal spiritual journey with Christ throughout his writings we have to give pause to consider that he is proclaiming Christ. Second, it isn't up to us to judge whether the man is saved or not at this historical distance. Third, I'm not entirely certain it is proper or Christ honoring to call the salvation of a person on the carpet when you appear unfamiliar with his works and life. I could go on, but suffice to say it is highly Pharisaical to say Calvin wasn't saved.

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.

Provide me lists and names and we can talk. :thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

When 99% of people call themselves calvinists, they are speaking of their soteriology.

Have to agree.....Dr. Jame's Theology is obviously more in line with mine, and although I would agree with him on the vast bulk of these topics. I must say, it is not right to super-impose the bad actions of Calvin's ONTO what we call "Calvinism".

I maintain Calvin was a veritable beast......but that doesn't mean that the system of soteriology from which the name derives (only because he articulated it so clearly) is falsified. That's an avenue of attack that's not warranted.

It's a "genetic fallacy". And moreover......it's something of a misnomer on top of it in that....Calvin didn't exactly cut the system out of whole cloth anyway. Calvin simply articulated the ideas in a formulated (and efficient) system.

Dr. James: Love your posts.....but you can't attack the system merely because we call it "Calvinism"..........That's why many "Calvinists" (and that's the term they SHOULD use) adopt the obnoxious and less than meaningless phrase "Doctrines of Grace" or "Doctrine of Sovereignty" or some other contrived and useless phrase.

The term "Calvinism" is a term used by those knowledgeable about the topic because it is convenient........that's all.

Any fair weapon against the Soteriology we call "Calvinism" is good to go, and I'll use it......but we can't attack the Theology itself by bringing up Calvin's personal character. That's a NO-GO.

 

[preachinjesus]

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.

I haven't see that post but I would be happy to respond to it if you desire.

Calvin did a great many things in his time in Geneva that I'm certain none of us, even the most fundamentalist among us, would agree with. Calvin's actions were a product of his time. One of the things we must consider is that there was, especially during the Servetus incident, a power struggle in Geneva between Calvin and people who opposed him. Servetus' execution was brought by a prosecutor who sought to harm Calvin's reputation.

To call Calvin "one of the worst persecutors who ever lived is highly erroneous. He never brought harm to someone for their orthodox Christian beliefs. It is a difficult statement to reconcile in light of the lives of so many others who actually persecuted the Church and Christians that I am not sure how an informed person could make this statement.

Finally, we must keep in mind that Geneva was a theological and spiritual safe haven for thousands during Calvin's leadership and time there. He created a Church center quasi-theocratis state that protected thousands of Christians from actual persecution, trained up ministers, became highly prosperous economically, and provided a renaissance city in a region that needed it. All around Geneva people were being executed or imprisoned for relatively minor issues. In Geneva, we find a peaceful city.

The judicial times in which Calvin lived were terribly violent. Yet when we consider his life and work we must keep in mind that we are all often a product of the times in which we live. Having done research into Calvin's life, I simply do not concur with your above statements. Attempting to draw correlation between Calvin and Roman Catholic persecutors is erroneous and libelous. However, if you point me to the link I will provide an answer for you post.

Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[preachinjesus]

When 99% of people call themselves calvinists, they are speaking of their soteriology.

This is probably accurate. It is a good point.

 

[Rippon]

I haven't see that post but I would be happy to respond to it if you desire.

Calvin did a great many things in his time in Geneva that I'm certain none of us, even the most fundamentalist among us, would agree with. Calvin's actions were a product of his time. One of the things we must consider is that there was, especially during the Servetus incident, a power struggle in Geneva between Calvin and people who opposed him. Servetus' execution was brought by a prosecutor who sought to harm Calvin's reputation.

To call Calvin "one of the worst persecutors who ever lived is highly erroneous. He never brought harm to someone for their orthodox Christian beliefs. It is a difficult statement to reconcile in light of the lives of so many others who actually persecuted the Church and Christians that I am not sure how an informed person could make this statement.

Finally, we must keep in mind that Geneva was a theological and spiritual safe haven for thousands during Calvin's leadership and time there. He created a Church center quasi-theocratis state that protected thousands of Christians from actual persecution, trained up ministers, became highly prosperous economically, and provided a renaissance city in a region that needed it. All around Geneva people were being executed or imprisoned for relatively minor issues. In Geneva, we find a peaceful city.

The judicial times in which Calvin lived were terribly violent. Yet when we consider his life and work we must keep in mind that we are all often a product of the times in which we live. Having done research into Calvin's life, I simply do not concur with your above statements. Attempting to draw correlation between Calvin and Roman Catholic persecutors is erroneous and libelous. However, if you point me to the link I will provide an answer for you post.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Hear,hear. It's about time someone else came up to bat.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Have to agree.....Dr. Jame's Theology is obviously more in line with mine, and although I would agree with him on the vast bulk of these topics. I must say, it is not right to super-impose the bad actions of Calvin's ONTO what we call "Calvinism".

I maintain Calvin was a veritable beast......but that doesn't mean that the system of soteriology from which the name derives (only because he articulated it so clearly) is falsified. That's an avenue of attack that's not warranted.

It's a "genetic fallacy". And moreover......it's something of a misnomer on top of it in that....Calvin didn't exactly cut the system out of whole cloth anyway. Calvin simply articulated the ideas in a formulated (and efficient) system.

Dr. James: Love your posts.....but you can't attack the system merely because we call it "Calvinism"..........That's why many "Calvinists" (and that's the term they SHOULD use) adopt the obnoxious and less than meaningless phrase "Doctrines of Grace" or "Doctrine of Sovereignty" or some other contrived and useless phrase.

The term "Calvinism" is a term used by those knowledgeable about the topic because it is convenient........that's all.

Any fair weapon against the Soteriology we call "Calvinism" is good to go, and I'll use it......but we can't attack the Theology itself by bringing up Calvin's personal character. That's a NO-GO.

I am surprised that any of the Calvinists let you get away with limiting Calvin's involvement to Calvinism to him articulating it since it was Augustine that he articulated. That just as bad of an indictment against him as his character.:smilewinkgrin:

I don't say what I do against Calvin's character lightly. But the Bible is clear that any one that hates his brother is a murderer and has no eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15. John Calvin is the poster-boy for that verse. If there was ever an example of what that verse means, John Calvin fits the bill. The man unrepentantly consented to the murder and torture of numerous Christian men and women. I fail to see how that Spirit of God would work through a man like that to produce anything of fundamental value.

Had his acts been an isolated incident, or even the occasional fall which has happened to many many believers, I would say you have a valid point in attacking a man's character. But in Calvin's case, he demonstrated with impunity matters of which the Bible explicitly declares are the marks of an eternally condemned man.

 

[jbh28]

Yet the scripture in 1 John 3:15 teaches that if a man hates his brother he is a murderer, and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Now that doesn't mean that a murderer can't be saved (Paul for example), but this man claimed to be saved, and CONTINUED with impunity to slaughter Christians. I would say that is a very strong argument that John Calvin was not a saved man.

I certainly have a hard time believing that an unsaved man was correct on soteriology and the sovereignty of God, even when he did not practice that he believed it himself or he wouldn't have been consenting to the deaths of other believers over disagreement about doctrine, and baptizing infants.

Putting aside the debate on if Calvin murdered anyone...
If a murder believed as you, would you change your beliefs?

Of course not! we should believe what the Bible teaches, not what someone else believes. You don't believe something because somebody else does, nor should you not believe something because someone else does that you don't like.

That's why talking about the man Calvin is pointless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Have to agree.....Dr. Jame's Theology is obviously more in line with mine, and although I would agree with him on the vast bulk of these topics. I must say, it is not right to super-impose the bad actions of Calvin's ONTO what we call "Calvinism".

I maintain Calvin was a veritable beast......but that doesn't mean that the system of soteriology from which the name derives (only because he articulated it so clearly) is falsified. That's an avenue of attack that's not warranted.

It's a "genetic fallacy". And moreover......it's something of a misnomer on top of it in that....Calvin didn't exactly cut the system out of whole cloth anyway. Calvin simply articulated the ideas in a formulated (and efficient) system.

Dr. James: Love your posts.....but you can't attack the system merely because we call it "Calvinism"..........That's why many "Calvinists" (and that's the term they SHOULD use) adopt the obnoxious and less than meaningless phrase "Doctrines of Grace" or "Doctrine of Sovereignty" or some other contrived and useless phrase.

The term "Calvinism" is a term used by those knowledgeable about the topic because it is convenient........that's all.

Any fair weapon against the Soteriology we call "Calvinism" is good to go, and I'll use it......but we can't attack the Theology itself by bringing up Calvin's personal character. That's a NO-GO.

Thank you for this objective post HOS. To conflate the person and the theological title only obscures the discussion:wavey:

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

No reasonable person holds this position on calling other people murderers.

No reasonable person that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God rejects it.

Also, state sanctioned execution isn't considered murder by Calvin. Go read his section on the role of the government in The Institutes. It's in book four and starts around chapter nine then hops around a bit and wraps up in chapter twenty.

You can not excuse state sanctioned execution for heresy. Paul did not have the man in Corinth executed for sleeping with his mother, and Jesus didn't have the woman in John 8 executed. And these were overtly immoral acts, you are condoning execution for what someone BELIEVES.

It's obvious Calvin didn't consider state execution murder: that was the whole point of me quoting that there will be some that kill who think they are doing the service of God. Of course that was a prophecy, but the principle teaching of the verse still applies (ask any current Al Qaeda member).

However, 1 John 3:15 is NOT prophecy. No person lead by the Spirit of God would think that they are doing God's service by having Christians executed for heresy, not to mention all the other cruel things he did.

John Calvin ADMITTED to all of this IN HIS OWN WRITINGS. I am amazed at how many people continue trying to re-write history when the resources on John Calvins own writings are plenteous.

Wow, talk about ripping a verse out of context and beating up so badly it doesn't resemble its proper meaning. The explicit meaning of the text was referring to the coming times of trial and persecution the disciples would face. These things took place by end of their lives. Are you saying that we can appropriate the promises given to the disciples in our lives?

Again, the verse was not used for it's prophetical content, but to show that there are people who think that murder in the name of God is doing His service. Just because a verse may be prophetical doesn't mean the application doesn't apply. That's an absurd way to look at scripture.

The larger issue here is that you're judging Calvin's salvation based on a verse of prophecy given to the disciples for their lives?

Again, 1 John 3:15 is not a prophecy:

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

That is a dangerous system. First of all, given that Calvin proclaims personal spiritual journey with Christ throughout his writings we have to give pause to consider that he is proclaiming Christ. Second, it isn't up to us to judge whether the man is saved or not at this historical distance. Third, I'm not entirely certain it is proper or Christ honoring to call the salvation of a person on the carpet when you appear unfamiliar with his works and life. I could go on, but suffice to say it is highly Pharisaical to say Calvin wasn't saved.

What you profess and what you practice are two different things. The early Catholics all wrote about proclaiming Christ too while they were digging up Wycliffe's bones to burn them again.

Just because you disagree with the thousands of sources out there that document Calvin's history doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with it. Not even Johnny Cochran could find a glove that didn't fit John Calvin's hand with all the evidence even from Calvin's own writings that he believe in executing heretics, and plainly said he would do it again.

Provide me lists and names and we can talk. :thumbsup:

Rippon started a post defending Calvin's history, and got overwhelmed several of us that have posted tons of quotes, documents, links here http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86204 If I were to post every link on the subject the server would crash.

 

[Iconoclast]

No reasonable person holds this position on calling other people murderers.

Also, state sanctioned execution isn't considered murder by Calvin. Go read his section on the role of the government in The Institutes. It's in book four and starts around chapter nine then hops around a bit and wraps up in chapter twenty.



Wow, talk about ripping a verse out of context and beating up so badly it doesn't resemble its proper meaning. The explicit meaning of the text was referring to the coming times of trial and persecution the disciples would face. These things took place by end of their lives. Are you saying that we can appropriate the promises given to the disciples in our lives?

The larger issue here is that you're judging Calvin's salvation based on a verse of prophecy given to the disciples for their lives?

That is a dangerous system. First of all, given that Calvin proclaims personal spiritual journey with Christ throughout his writings we have to give pause to consider that he is proclaiming Christ. Second, it isn't up to us to judge whether the man is saved or not at this historical distance. Third, I'm not entirely certain it is proper or Christ honoring to call the salvation of a person on the carpet when you appear unfamiliar with his works and life. I could go on, but suffice to say it is highly Pharisaical to say Calvin wasn't saved.
Provide me lists and names and we can talk. :thumbsup:

Thank you also for writing objectively on this. To speak of some of these historical things,without all the facts is not easy. What happened or did not happen has already been judged by God ,one way or another.
To try and backtrack and try to undermine the biblical issues is futile.

 

[Yeshua1]

When 99% of people call themselves calvinists, they are speaking of their soteriology.

VERY astute point, as MANY would see themselves as bing a calvinist, as I do, due to my sotierology agreeing with DoG and those implications, NOT due toalso hold to A Mil/Infant Baptism Covenant theology proper etc!

Like Dr MacArthur, a "leaking Dispy!"

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

The mistake most make with Hebrews is trying to fit all of it into the contemporary church. There is a reason it is address to HEBREWS (Jews) specifically. Much of the book of Hebrews is addressing the tribulation Jews which is yet future.

I will read your link later on today.Without you taking offense....to say that much of Hebrews is future for tribulation saints...is why I have long ago left dispensationalism.

These Hebrews who were professed Christians were in danger of the Apostasy that was happening then.The hebrew religion was legal.The christian religion was not.They were being "exhorted to move forward with Confidence in Jesus as The Great High Priest who secured an eternal salvation for the elect seed of Abraham.
see here:
22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.

23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

There are numerous truths that are awesome in revealing OT rites and how they revealed Christ, but DOCTRINALLY, there is a large part of Hebrews that does not apply to the church.

This could not be more wrong.The certainty of salvation for the elect as well as a God given description of the current status of Our Lord's priestly work and rule is manifest for all Christians.

You will discover that all such dispensational thought is a plague upon the church.

What I posted from Hebrews 12.....about Jesus speaking ...now from Heaven, you ignored as you put it off into the future ,however it was written for them then,and us now.

Regarding, the millennium, I have written an article on my site regarding the problems of Preterism, Historicism and Covenant Theology that addresses the issues of the dating of Revelation, the events of Revelation that have yet to be fulfilled, and the problem with the Replacement Theology (Israel has become the church). Most of the arguments apply equally to amillenialism or post. http://dorightchristians.wordpress....-preterism-historicism-and-covenant-theology/

I will look later on, but I suspect to read a mistaken idea.the mistake being that Israel has been pruned and expanded with Gentile inclusion....not replaced.

The elect remnant and believing gentiles is now...the Christian Israel.
One new man In Christ.

 

[preachinjesus]

No reasonable person that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God rejects it.

What are you talking about?

You can not excuse state sanctioned execution for heresy. Paul did not have the man in Corinth executed for sleeping with his mother, and Jesus didn't have the woman in John 8 executed. And these were overtly immoral acts, you are condoning execution for what someone BELIEVES.

You can't apply the Pericope Adulterae to Calvin's situation. There was clearly a violation of due process and OT law in Jesus case for starters and secondly, John Calvin isn't Jesus. Show me specific examples of John Calvin signing off on a murder (not a state sanctioned capital punishment) and we can talk the point. Otherwise, you're just making bad arguments using poor hermeneutics.

As a note, I'm no fan of capital punishment. For a host of reasons I shall not enumerate here I object to capital punishment in the US. I cannot, however, apply my same objections historically to Calvin's era as it is vastly different than ours.

It's obvious Calvin didn't consider state execution murder: that was the whole point of me quoting that there will be some that kill who think they are doing the service of God. Of course that was a prophecy, but the principle teaching of the verse still applies (ask any current Al Qaeda member).

Really? Comparing Calvin to Al Qaeda? Really?

Well, red herring notwithstanding, the NT doesn't consider state sanctioned capital punishment either a sin nor murder. Read Romans 13:4-7.

However, 1 John 3:15 is NOT prophecy. No person lead by the Spirit of God would think that they are doing God's service by having Christians executed for heresy, not to mention all the other cruel things he did.

John Calvin ADMITTED to all of this IN HIS OWN WRITINGS. I am amazed at how many people continue trying to re-write history when the resources on John Calvins own writings are plenteous.

Okay, first of all you are likely the only person in the entire world apply the definition of murderer solely to someone who "hates" someone else. We understand that more properly as a hyperbolic statement which is more concerned with the state of our heart than anything else. Also, for everyone else in the world (including our judicial system) I've yet to see someone put in prison for murder on the grounds that they looked at someone and said, "I hate you."

Your attachment of an act to a predisposition is unsettling and unbiblical.

Again, the verse was not used for it's prophetical content, but to show that there are people who think that murder in the name of God is doing His service. Just because a verse may be prophetical doesn't mean the application doesn't apply. That's an absurd way to look at scripture.

Your overapplication is divesting the Scripture of any proper exegetical meaning.

The reality is that you cannot maintain your position consistently across the scope of the Scriptures. For instance, anyone on this board who has looked at a member of the opposite sex, even in a moment of weakness, and lusted would be guilty of adultery and should be divorced from their spouse.

Are you really saying that you have never hated someone in a moment or flash of passion? Or that you've never lusted after another at a moment of weakness? Or that you've never lied to another?

Just because you disagree with the thousands of sources out there that document Calvin's history doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with it. Not even Johnny Cochran could find a glove that didn't fit John Calvin's hand with all the evidence even from Calvin's own writings that he believe in executing heretics, and plainly said he would do it again.

Well if there are thousands of sources then you shouldn't have any problem showing us a list of people John Calvin actually murdered.

Listen, I'm not saying the guy was a saint nor am I saying I follow his specific theological system. However, you cannot just impugn a man's reputation because of your misread of Scripture and misapplication of its points.

Show me the list of people John Calvin actually murdered and let's move the conversation along. If you cannot show me that list, then you have no point.

No links, just a list with citations. Surely for a man in your position you can muster this resource as evidence of our deep research and thought on the subject.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ach



I will read your link later on today.Without you taking offense....to say that much of Hebrews is future for tribulation saints...is why I have long ago left dispensationalism.

These Hebrews who were professed Christians were in danger of the Apostasy that was happening then.The hebrew religion was legal.The christian religion was not.They were being "exhorted to move forward with Confidence in Jesus as The Great High Priest who secured an eternal salvation for the elect seed of Abraham.
see here:
22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.

23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.



This could not be more wrong.The certainty of salvation for the elect as well as a God given description of the current status of Our Lord's priestly work and rule is manifest for all Christians.

You will discover that all such dispensational thought is a plague upon the church.

What I posted from Hebrews 12.....about Jesus speaking ...now from Heaven, you ignored as you put it off into the future ,however it was written for them then,and us now.



I will look later on, but I suspect to read a mistaken idea.the mistake being that Israel has been pruned and expanded with Gentile inclusion....not replaced.

The elect remnant and believing gentiles is now...the Christian Israel.
One new man In Christ.

You highlighted only a partial part of my sentence, and left out the critical point. I didn't say that the book of Hebrews does not apply to the church, or is all future, I said DOCTRINALLY there are large parts of Hebrews that you can not apply to the church age (Hebrews 6 and 10 for example). But more on that later.

Dispensationalism is not a theology, it is a method of interpretation. There are theologies that arrive at their conclusions because of dispensational interpretation, but dispensationalism itself is not a theology. But dispensational interpretation was practiced long before Darby or Larkin popularized the term. It is impossible to interpret prophecy and the church without rightly dividing the word of truth. Even if you believe there is a difference between the OT and NT, you are still at least a partial dispensationalist

The only reason that dispensationalism got attacked was because the Roman Catholic Church didn't like the idea of Revelation 17 spelling their name WHORE. So what was the remedy? Kingdom Now theology.

I would love to know where the tree is for the healing of the nations because I am extremely accident prone. I would also like to know if the kingdom is now, when are the Muslims going to get booted out of Jerusalem, not to mention I don't believe their names are in the Lambs book of life, so what are they doing in Jerusalem? Rev 21:27

When did the sun stop shining? I believe the news just stated there was a solar flare. Rev 21:23

When did the New Jerusalem come out of the sky anyway? Rev 3:12

When did every eye see the physical return of Jesus Christ back to earth? Rev 1:7

I have about 100 more questions that I'd like to see answers on if the kingdom is now.

Now don't forget, you are not a dispensationalist so you can't claim that ANY of these events are yet future.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am off my lunch break now,and will answer later on....

however......answer the section on Hebrews 12:22-to the end...Who was being addressed and when does it say Jesus was speaking?

Does it say...receiving a Kingdom let us have grace,,,,or someday in the future...when someone in a future tribulation receives the Kingdom?

 

[Greektim]

You highlighted only a partial part of my sentence, and left out the critical point. I didn't say that the book of Hebrews does not apply to the church, or is all future, I said DOCTRINALLY there are large parts of Hebrews that you can not apply to the church age (Hebrews 6 and 10 for example). But more on that later.

Are you a hyper-dispie???

Dispensationalism is not a theology, it is a method of interpretation. There are theologies that arrive at their conclusions because of dispensational interpretation, but dispensationalism itself is not a theology. But dispensational interpretation was practiced long before Darby or Larkin popularized the term. It is impossible to interpret prophecy and the church without rightly dividing the word of truth. Even if you believe there is a difference between the OT and NT, you are still at least a partial dispensationalist

I think you are cutting hairs. Plus, many academic dispies would disagree. Have you ever read the Journal for Dispensational Theology??? As to the historicity of dispieism, where was it ever practiced???

The only reason that dispensationalism got attacked was because the Roman Catholic Church didn't like the idea of Revelation 17 spelling their name WHORE. So what was the remedy? Kingdom Now theology.

That is laughable. I attack dispieism b/c you think John of Patmos wrote to 7 churches in Asia minor about the RCC. And realized eschatology is not new. Have you read Augustine???

I would love to know where the tree is for the healing of the nations because I am extremely accident prone. I would also like to know if the kingdom is now, when are the Muslims going to get booted out of Jerusalem, not to mention I don't believe their names are in the Lambs book of life, so what are they doing in Jerusalem? Rev 21:27

The tree of life is in the new creation... notice it links w/ the garden of eden... oh but wait, you are blind to seeing Genesis in Rev.

As far as the kingdom, why does it have to be in Jerusalem? Why does it have to be physical? This earthly Jerusalem is not the goal. Thus Rev demonstrates that New Jerusalem is the goal. Heaven on earth.

When did the sun stop shining? I believe the news just stated there was a solar flare. Rev 21:23

When did the New Jerusalem come out of the sky anyway? Rev 3:12

When did every eye see the physical return of Jesus Christ back to earth? Rev 1:7

I have about 100 more questions that I'd like to see answers on if the kingdom is now.

Now don't forget, you are not a dispensationalist so you can't claim that ANY of these events are yet future.

If you are silly enough to read apocalyptic literally, then your theology will match in silliness. Isaiah used the same kind of language for Babylon's fall.

And as for Rev. 1:7, that is an allusion to Dan 7:13 where the Messiah is going TO God not FROM God. It is a statement of vindication as Jesus is enthroned.

And why does dispieism get to monopolize all forms of futurism. I hold to a future return of Jesus and a future consummation of all things.

AGain... from where did you get your "doctorate of theology." I believe if you are bold enough to call yourself "Dr" and post that you have a doctorate of theology, then you should be willing to tell us where you earned it (if you did earn it). Are you ashamed or hiding something????

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Putting aside the debate on if Calvin murdered anyone...
If a murder believed as you, would you change your beliefs?

Of course not! we should believe what the Bible teaches, not what someone else believes. You don't believe something because somebody else does, nor should you not believe something because someone else does that you don't like.

That's why talking about the man Calvin is pointless.

In a way JB....it isn't.........if debated CORRECTLY, and within the confines of reasoned logical debate. I will suggest why..

Because the premise you would wish to assume, and I will quote you

If a murder believed as you, would you change your beliefs?

Well...hate to break it to you...but, such a being simply does NOT even EXIST. There is no example of your hypothetical, thus, there is nothing to debate....despise it as you will JB....There are simply NO Baptist or Arminian atrocities of utilizing the force of government to punish theological detractors such as exist in the Calvinist system you espouse.........There are, however, Calvinists who have utilized some persecution against non-cals.
Again...that doesn't falsify your Soteriological system....and I un-ashamedly admit that to everyone everywhere...but don't paint yourself into an historical corner which isn't even in your best interest to debate sir.....C'mon...just be savvy about this one no?

I won't pretend that that falsifies your theology as long as you are similarly objective enough to admit that there was not a Baptist (non-cal) who ever murdered a Calvinist for believing as they do.....

Don't reach TOO FAR J.....if you wanna debate tit for tat on who was nasty...I don't think you'll win. That's not a debate a Calvinist should encourage...They won't win, I promise you, and this from a man who unequivocally will restate that it is nothing short of a "genetic fallacy" to pretend that atrocities committed falsify the so-called "Calvinist" position...That is NOT true, nor does it defeat "Calvinism" one iota...

But.....JB......DON'T.....try to get into the "who was nasty to whom" thingy with historical non-Calvie Baptists....I assure you, it's a debate you'll lose.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thank you for this objective post HOS. To conflate the person and the theological title only obscures the discussion:wavey:

Well, gotta be done, as I am a lover of "truth" as I see it....and I have to respond to James since he rejoindered me...You, Icon, know without question, that I am no "Calvinist"....but using the moniker of "Calvinism" to defeat an entire theological system is without warrant. I shall rejoinder Dr. James on those points...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am surprised that any of the Calvinists let you get away with limiting Calvin's involvement to Calvinism to him articulating it since it was Augustine that he articulated.

That's true...as far as it goes....but Augustine also supported Prostitution, and (again) physical and torturous persecution of the "heathen"...Augustine was garbage really.

That just as bad of an indictment against him as his character.:smilewinkgrin:

I respect neither Augustine nor Calvin.......but, that isn't the point.......we have beings like C.H. SPURGEON to deal with....and such creatures agreed with much or most of what is commonly known as "Calvinism" today....
SPURGEON was, essentially a "Calvinist"...so was Whitefield, so was William Carrey (father of modern Baptist Missions).........the particular name of "Calvin" (as a man) must be separated from the idea as a systematic explanation of Soteriology....

I don't say what I do against Calvin's character lightly. But the Bible is clear that any one that hates his brother is a murderer and has no eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15. John Calvin is the poster-boy for that verse. If there was ever an example of what that verse means, John Calvin fits the bill. The man unrepentantly consented to the murder and torture of numerous Christian men and women. I fail to see how that Spirit of God would work through a man like that to produce anything of fundamental value.

Brother....so do I...I seem to recall that you and I have BOTH demonstrated that Calvin as a person was a veritable BEAST of a human being...(but he was also a rather sissy form of "Calvinist" anyway) since he was Infra-lapsarian and he was too much of a wuss to admit to "double-predestination" as well....
The TERM
"Calvinism" is merely a nomenclature which we find convenient to explain certain Theological notions...That's all.

Had his acts been an isolated incident, or even the occasional fall which has happened to many many believers, I would say you have a valid point in attacking a man's character. But in Calvin's case, he demonstrated with impunity matters of which the Bible explicitly declares are the marks of an eternally condemned man.

Brother.....Calvin was a BEAST a BEAST (I'm pretty sure I have sufficiently staked my claim as a loather of Calvin PERSONALLY as a person and human being)...the history is irrefutable that John Calvin was nasty, brutish, un-regenerate....wicked, and he had a thirst for blood unlike any other reformer of his era....Even fellow "Calvinist" (he hates the term) Saturn-Neptune knows this...
We are on the same side as far as Calvin's personal history goes.....but, well, (thank the maker) we aren't on "Online Baptist" either wherein we aren't permitted to debate REAL topics either....

"Calvinism" is mere nomenclature at THIS point of the debate....and disparraging Calvin's personal character isn't particularly meaningful....For crying out-loud....Calvin was as sissy a "Calvinist" as one gets!...He was "Infra-lapsarian" at minimum....and he CLEARLY NEVER had the Hutzpah to admit to "double-pre-destination" either....frankly....as far as "Calvinism" goes...our brother Icon is far more "Calvinistic" that John Calvin himself was.

(That's actually and un-equivocally true...Beza had more influence on the modern definition of "Calvinism" than Calvin did)

However.......Calvin was a veritable Devil.......(I agree with you), but the Theological notions which are conveniently described as "Calvinism".....are legit.....

BTW: as proof in point, even though you don't know it yet....You are also a classic "Arminian" as well...You simply bought into the line that an "Arminian" doesn't believe in "eternal security"....They often do..."Arminians" always have....they are simply terms and they are convenient. They simply summarize Theological systems.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, gotta be done, as I am a lover of "truth" as I see it....and I have to respond to James since he rejoindered me...You, Icon, know without question, that I am no "Calvinist"....but using the moniker of "Calvinism" to defeat an entire theological system is without warrant. I shall rejoinder Dr. James on those points...

I have a theory on this that is becoming clearer as I view more threads on the BB.

All real believers are Calvinists.They do not fully realize it yet.:thumbsup:

That is why many times you see them say..."well I believe parts of Calvinism."

The part they believe is the part they have clarity on.
Many get sidetracked with other ideas, writings and theories...that actually work to confuse them.
They go for some of the glitter of the novelties offered, by carnal reasoning ,and carnal philosophy which always departs from biblical reasoning and philosophy.
Sometimes they like the writing style of a person and get taken in for a time...until life forces them re-examine these teachings.
I have several anecdotal stories of this, but anecdotal stories do not prove what only scripture can declare and prove.

Many professed Christians are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, because they have turned from truth that they have seen, but resist.

Most who fight hard against these truths usually come to be strong advocates of these doctrines....having first tried to oppose them for a long time.:wavey: