• 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!

Can Reformers Really NOT Be Calvinists?

D

DrJamesAch

New Member
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance4.html

Excellent section taken from Laurence Vance's book, "The Other Side of Calvinism" that shows a DoG, SoG, Reformed Baptist, etc..can not separate themselves from the doctrine called "Calvinism".

Those who dogmatically claim they are not followers of John Calvin always show up on threads where a Non Calvinist is refuting Calvinism. If they are not really Calvinists, then why so defensive against those who write threads against Calvinism?

The Reformers, DoGs, SoGs, etc..are quick to defend the doctrines of a man they claim they do not follow, and then when John Calvin's murder of heretics, sprinkling of babies, heretical view of the sacraments, as well as the evidence of his heavy reliance on Augustine for the development of his views are addressed, these groups are quick to attempt to disassociate themselves with the person of Calvin.

Reformers, DoGs, SoGs, embrace the label of Calvin when it suits their debate tactics, and then ditch the term when it is inconvenient when the fallacies of Calvin and Augustine are brought up.

CALVINISTS (oh yes they are) do not consider it important that their entire belief system was derived from a heretic. What I wrote on another thread bares repeating:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" 2 Timothy 2:14

1. "CONTINUE in the things which thou hast learned" Where is the evidence that shows that any of the followers of John, Paul, whose writings are preserved in history, ever adhered to what is commonly called Calvinism? THERE IS NO LINK whatsoever from Polycarp or ANY of the early church writers that prove Calvinism, "Doctrines of Grace", "Sovereign Grace" showed up in the church BEFORE AUGUSTINE.

The early church must have been disobedient because had they CONTINUED IN THE THINGS THEY HAD LEARNED, and what they learned was Calvinism, THEN THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF IT BEFORE AUGUSTINE.

2. "Knowing of WHOM thou hast learned them". Paul was concerned about WHO believers got their information from. If John Calvin were alive in Paul's day, he would have made Paul's list of heretics along with Diotrophes, Alexander and Hymaneaus.

Calvinists spit in Paul's face and blatantly ignore Paul's admonition of avoiding those who cause offense to the doctrine of Christ (Rom 16:17). Is infant baptism an offense to the doctrine of Christ? ABSOLUTELY. Is consenting to the death of heretics an offense to the doctrine of Christ? ABSOLUTELY. So how is that Calvinism can separate what John Calvin believed and practiced and IGNORE what Paul said about 'KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED"?

And what's the typical circular answer "Oh but Calvin didn't INVENT 'Calvinism'". OH HOGWASH. It's just coincidence that ALL FIVE elements of TULIP and the Confessions are virtually verbatim from his Institutes.

Nobody on here wants to be a Calvinist when John Calvin's heresies are brought to light, but yet they show up on every thread to defend the doctrines of a person they claim they don't follow. All who say, "I'm a DoG, not Calvinist" or whatever you wish to call yourselves, never fail to engage when someone refutes CALVINISM, and then when John Calvin himself gets brought, you pull out the disassociation card as a convenient cop-out for avoiding the truth about the origins of Calvinism.

DoG, SoG, etc..always quote Reformers and Creeds to prove that they are not REALLY Calvinists, when every Reformer they quote including the authors of the Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, all ADMIT that John Calvin is the basis for their belief systems. Yet in Calvinist debate tactics, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IT'S A RHINOCEROS.
Click to expand...
 
Benjamin

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
EWF seemed to have a ..."strong opinion" ...on this but seems to have headed to the hills about the time this thread showed up.

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Schmuck...I'm not a Calvinist.
Click to expand...
crickets2kx1.gif
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many who embrace some of the TULIP say they are not Calvinists, meaning they do not embrace John Calvin, they embrace Christ. However, when asked which of the TULIP doctrines they disavow, they dodge the question.

It seems the common characteristic of Calvinists is they speak in code, not a Calvinist does not mean not an advocate of the Doctrines of Grace. God is sovereign means God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass. Both "love" and "draw" means "irresistible grace." Chose includes meaning non-choice.

Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no should be no, meaning we should speak clearly without guile. Telling us what they are not to hide what they are. Shuck and jive.
 
C

clark thompson

Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Many who embrace some of the TULIP say they are not Calvinists, meaning they do not embrace John Calvin, they embrace Christ. However, when asked which of the TULIP doctrines they disavow, they dodge the question.

It seems the common characteristic of Calvinists is they speak in code, not a Calvinist does not mean not an advocate of the Doctrines of Grace. God is sovereign means God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass. Both "love" and "draw" means "irresistible grace." Chose includes meaning non-choice.

Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no should be no, meaning we should speak clearly without guile. Telling us what they are not to hide what they are. Shuck and jive.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top