• 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's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrJamesAch

New Member
The plan is infallible. The people are not. No Calvinists hold that they are perfect or that their knowledge of the Word is complete and absolute.

I think you are, again, dealing with a hypothetical calvinist that doesn't actually exist.

I have not misstated Calvinism. I have watched the statements of all of the Calvinists on the Natural Disasters thread and seen how Calvinism has been applied and the consensus is that God controls ALL THINGS. I have read all of Calvin's Institutes, and it is uniform within Calvinism God controls all things. Calvinists who follow him define sovereignty as included total control. They assert logical contradictions by saying "God controls even what He permits".

From that axiom, the Bible says "they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH". John 4:24, and "if any man will do his will he shall KNOW of the doctrine" John 7:17. The Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. John 16:13.

Now, if man has free moral agency, then even though God's plans are infallible, those plans can be interfered with to the detriment of the one choosing to rebel against it. But if God CONTROLS all things, then there would never be room for dissent or disagreement. All correct belief systems should be uniform because correct doctrine is essential to ones identity as a Christian.

And that applies to John Calvin. If Calvin's system was of God, then how could he have believed in a heretical mode of salvation for infants? And if John Calvin's belief system was of God, then why did only part of it follow later generations?
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
PJ,



That is because they take it from the OT root,and believes it carries over...that there is a covenant continuity.They have a biblical position....I do not believe it is the correct biblical position however.

On the baptism issue, this is why I do not debate creeds because they can be ambigious, and it forces you to interpret the creed instead of interpreting the Bible, but since I believe you will constantly throw the creeds out there, I'll pick one>

CHAPTER 29; OF BAPTISM

Paragraph 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;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

A cursory reading of this shows that the Baptist Confession supports Baptismal Regeneration. One of the verses used (Acts 22:16) is a common verse used by Pentecostals (UPC) to prove one must be baptized to be saved.

There is nothing in the Confession that repudiates Baptismal Regeneration, nor infant baptism, and considering that this was a point of contention between Baptists and Calvin, I find it odd that a BAPTIST confession would forget to make those points clear as every other Baptist and anabaptist made clear in Calvin's day.

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)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Helwys

New Member
On the baptism issue, this is why I do not debate creeds because they can be ambigious, and it forces you to interpret the creed instead of interpreting the Bible, but since I believe you will constantly throw the creeds out there, I'll pick one>

CHAPTER 29; OF BAPTISM

Paragraph 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;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

A cursory reading of this shows that the Baptist Confession supports Baptismal Regeneration. One of the verses used (Acts 22:16) is a common verse used by Pentecostals (UPC) to prove one must be baptized to be saved.

There is nothing in the Confession that repudiates Baptismal Regeneration, nor infant baptism, and considering that this was a point of contention between Baptists and Calvin, I find it odd that a BAPTIST confession would forget to make those points clear as every other Baptist and anabaptist made clear in Calvin's day.

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)?

You have misread the confession. The wording says that baptism is a sign of the remission of sins.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Most of the debating I have seen between Calvinists and Non Calvinists on here has been about TULIP, and one thread on Calvin's treatment of Servetus among others. Yet there are other reasons why Non Calvinists reject John Calvin's teaching, and 2 of the other contentions with Calvin that I have that I want to address is:

1. Amillennialism
2. Infant Baptism

The question I had for Calvinists that went unanswered was that if salvation is only for the elect, and can not be resisted being preordained, then would it not follow that a saved person's belief system would also be preordained and covered under election? Surely, if God controls all things, then there should be no disagreement among Calvinists (but there are).

If God elects, ordains, and saves against the will and controls all things according to the Calvinistic interpretation, then how can there be a disagreement among Calvinists about amillennialism and infant baptism? How could God preordain Calvin's theology regarding TULIP, but not the Biblical view of the 1000 year reign and infant baptism?

The Bible is clear that there will be a coming great tribulation followed by Christ's visible return to the earth in which Christ and the saints will rule and reign with Him for 1000 years. Rev 20:4. Regardless of what view many take concerning the rapture, (pre trib, mid trib, post trib) most agree that Christ is coming back after a 7 year period of tribulation. Even most Preterists do not deny this (they merely contend that Revelation 1-19 was fulfilled in AD 70, but still allow for a 1000 year reign).

The Bible is also clear that Baptism is only for those who have been saved. Acts 8:37, and is an answer of a good conscience toward God. 1 Peter 3:21. Yet Calvin continued the Roman Catholic practice of baptizing infants.

Are Calvinists willing to defend John Calvin's view of eschatology and baptism?

ONLY Reformed preby do that, NOT reformed baptists!

And Iam a dospy cal like Dr MacArthur, so my answer is nope also!
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
You have misread the confession. The wording says that baptism is a sign of the remission of sins.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
I did not, necessarily, deal with the content of the claims, just the equivocation of the statements. They are not to be equivocated.

No, the OP states that there are those who are saved AGAINST their will. That is something different than being elect. Election entails a changing of the will. Therefore, no one is saved against their will and, conversely, no one is damned against their will.
Since all of our wills are inclined towards sin and self from birth, any salvation is against such a will. You are creating a distinction without a difference.
 

jonathanD

New Member
Since all of our wills are inclined towards sin and self from birth, any salvation is against such a will. You are creating a distinction without a difference.

Do dead men have wills? Saying that the elect are saved against their will is a rhetorical device. I am merely pointing out that the hypothetical saint who is dragged into the kingdom does not actually exist.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Most of the debating I have seen between Calvinists and Non Calvinists on here has been about TULIP, and one thread on Calvin's treatment of Servetus among others. Yet there are other reasons why Non Calvinists reject John Calvin's teaching, and 2 of the other contentions with Calvin that I have that I want to address is:

1. Amillennialism
2. Infant Baptism

The question I had for Calvinists that went unanswered was that if salvation is only for the elect, and can not be resisted being preordained, then would it not follow that a saved person's belief system would also be preordained and covered under election? Surely, if God controls all things, then there should be no disagreement among Calvinists (but there are).

If God elects, ordains, and saves against the will and controls all things according to the Calvinistic interpretation, then how can there be a disagreement among Calvinists about amillennialism and infant baptism? How could God preordain Calvin's theology regarding TULIP, but not the Biblical view of the 1000 year reign and infant baptism?

The Bible is clear that there will be a coming great tribulation followed by Christ's visible return to the earth in which Christ and the saints will rule and reign with Him for 1000 years. Rev 20:4. Regardless of what view many take concerning the rapture, (pre trib, mid trib, post trib) most agree that Christ is coming back after a 7 year period of tribulation. Even most Preterists do not deny this (they merely contend that Revelation 1-19 was fulfilled in AD 70, but still allow for a 1000 year reign).

The Bible is also clear that Baptism is only for those who have been saved. Acts 8:37, and is an answer of a good conscience toward God. 1 Peter 3:21. Yet Calvin continued the Roman Catholic practice of baptizing infants.

Are Calvinists willing to defend John Calvin's view of eschatology and baptism?
No they are not. That is why I do not use the term Calvinism. One must pick and choose his beliefs to be Biblical. Aside from the life he lead, and the two subjects you mentioned, you fail to notice he also writes of the seperation of church and state in his writings, yet ruled over a theocracy. He also persecuted the local, autonomous churches of the day, the very ones that were preserving the NT church.

The point is, you ignore some of his greatest errors, and pound on him where he is correct, on the subject of sovereignty.
 

Gabriel Elijah

Member
Site Supporter
Do dead men have wills? Saying that the elect are saved against their will is a rhetorical device. I am merely pointing out that the hypothetical saint who is dragged into the kingdom does not actually exist.

While I somewhat agree with the problem you are presenting here—I must ask you—did God choose you or did you choose God? Who moved first in the salvation process? And while I understand your quandary with the notion of irresistible grace—I also have to ask—does man have the capability to thwart something God has predetermined (lets say prophecy for example)?
 

jonathanD

New Member
While I somewhat agree with the problem you are presenting here—I must ask you—did God choose you or did you choose God? Who moved first in the salvation process? And while I understand your quandary with the notion of irresistible grace—I also have to ask—does man have the capability to thwart something God has predetermined (lets say prophecy for example)?

I love because he first loved me. He chose me, so I then chose him. I would answer your last question with Isaiah 14:27 and Job 42:2.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aside from the life he lead,[sic]

Would to God any of us on the BB even approached his wonderful example.
you fail to notice he also writes of the seperation [sic]of church and state in his writings, yet ruled over a theocracy.

He wasn't even a citizen until five years before his death. The Libertines ruled in civil matters and they opposed him at every turn.
He also persecuted the local, autonomous churches of the day,

No matter how often you repeat a lie...it is still a lie.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Would to God any of us on the BB even approached his wonderful example.


He wasn't even a citizen until five years before his death. The Libertines ruled in civil matters and they opposed him at every turn.


No matter how often you repeat a lie...it is still a lie.

Whatever you say.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
No they are not. That is why I do not use the term Calvinism. One must pick and choose his beliefs to be Biblical. Aside from the life he lead, and the two subjects you mentioned, you fail to notice he also writes of the seperation of church and state in his writings, yet ruled over a theocracy. He also persecuted the local, autonomous churches of the day, the very ones that were preserving the NT church.

The point is, you ignore some of his greatest errors, and pound on him where he is correct, on the subject of sovereignty.

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.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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.

Now that doesn't mean that a murderer can't be saved (Paul for example)

David too.

, but this man claimed to be saved, and CONTINUED with impunity to slaughter Christians.

He did no such thing. John Calvin did not slaughter anyone,Christian or not. Disagree with what your understanding of Calvinism is but please don't lie about the man John Calvin to seemingly prove that Calvinism isn't biblical.

I would say that is a very strong argument that John Calvin was not a saved man.

You don't even have the facts,much less an argument.

he wouldn't have been consenting to the deaths of other believers over disagreement about doctrine,

Your same old lies.
 

DrJamesAch

New Member
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.



David too.



He did no such thing. John Calvin did not slaughter anyone,Christian or not. Disagree with what your understanding of Calvinism is but please don't lie about the man John Calvin to seemingly prove that Calvinism isn't biblical.



You don't even have the facts,much less an argument.



Your same old lies.
This is not even worth arguing about with you because you even said that Philip Schaaf did not support the views against Calvin and I posted from his Church History Volume 8 an entire list of atrocities that Calvin committed in addition to those he had killed. 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 , baby sprinking, amillennial heretic.


Just for everyone's benefit, I'll post it again: This if from the man YOU SAID didn't write anything about Calvin, and even after it was posted, the book can be bought, the information can be verified, you still deny it.

From Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol. 8:

“The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”
Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’
A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’
Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
A banker was executed for repeated adultery. (Compare this incident with Paul’s handling of the man who committed adultery with his father’s wife – 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 2:1-7)
A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJamesAch

New Member
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.

So did John Calvin BELIEVE in murder for heresy and sins against the law? From HIS OWN COMMENTARY, YES!

This is just ONE example of TONS of his own writings (and I have already posted the ones he said about Servetus and the letters he wrote demanding that Servetus be burned alive):

Commentary on John 8:11

"Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law,

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.

And regarding your statement toward S/N, I won't say that he has displayed the most consistent Christian character in how you 2 have debated, but that is a stretch to claim that he hates you. I have major disagreements with many on here, and there have been some quite rude exchanges, but I would not say that anyone that has opposed me who claims to be a Christian hates me over disagreements. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ach,
Quote:
God's grace is resisted by all men...even those who are elect.In the case of the elect however...............it is not ultimately resisted.....it is always effectual because God has purposed it to happen that way.God has in His providence ordered all the means necessary to effect salvation.
That is an extraordinary contradiction in terms. All men resist God's grace, even the elect, but the elect don't not ultimately reject it? If it is not ultimately rejected, then it was never resisted at all. God's grace could only be rejected when given the opportunity to reject it. But in Calvinism, when that opportunity arises, it can not be rejected.

So then at what point did any elect or non elect resist? That statement is a total contradiction.

There is no contradiction at all.
That is an extraordinary contradiction in terms. All men resist God's grace, even the elect, but the elect don't not ultimately reject it? If it is not ultimately rejected, then it was never resisted at all.

For the elect,they might resist and be religious for many years before God effectually draws them
All men are born dead in Adam...Children of wrath...even as others
The elect are picked out of the multitudes who were born dead in Adam.
They are called unto salvation to be conformed into the image of Jesus.
Before they are saved...they are dead in sin...and children of wrath;
2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top