History of Calvin

From Herman J. Selderhuis

Some contemporary Christians have something in common with the Roman Catholic Chruch of old in their detestation of John Calvin.
_________________________________________

It thus need not be said that Calvin was not that fond of Rome...On the other hand,the Catholic side was none too happy with Calvin,either. Even two years after his death,the Sorbonne theologians would claim that there had never been such an infectious and dangerous error as the doctrine of Calvin. With forty-nine titles,Calvin also topped the charts of forbidden works...In Calvin,Rome saw an even more formidable danger than Luther. (pages102,103)

 

Truth is Truth whether one knows of it or not; whether one believes it or not does not change the the Truth.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Agreed. But you are hesitant to document any authoritive sources for your various claims. I would surely like to see some evidence that millions of pre-Baptists before the Reformation were killed by the Roman Catholic Church,for instance.

You haven't acknowledged any errors you have made. You have posted a bunch of stuff that just plain isn't true. You have misunderstood a great deal.

If you sincerely endorse truth --then you will comply with a reasonable attitude. But again,I fear your tradition stands in your way of ascertaining truth --in this case, historical facts.

 

To the original poster:

Thank you very much for the link. The material presented was very edifying and educational. I heard things from Ferguson that I had not considered before. Very enlightening.

 

See: History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, By Sam Morland, a disinterested third party historian. It is written in King James English with lots of illustrations. Start with the illustration on page 345. Probably not fit for women and children. Warning: this will make one sick in the tummy and sad in the spirit. Sometimes Truth is very revolting.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Couple of problems...

First, you cannot demonstrate that ANY of the groups (the Cathari, the Novationists, the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Acephali, the Paternines, the Petrobrusiani, the Henricians, the Arnoldists, the Albigenses, the Waldensians, the Lollards, or the Anabaptists, for instance) were in fact true successors of the apostolic tradition. Much has been made of this, but there are no historical ties that that are noted to back up the comments of certain individuals who wrote on this subject.

Second, virtually none of the groups commonly associated with a "free church" movement were in fact baptistic in their theology and doctrine apart from the fact that they desired to be rebellious against the pope or Catholic church. That is not enough to be called Baptists in any sense of the word. None baptized believers by immersion, for instance, which is one of the determining factors for calling any particular group baptistic, for that IS the scriptural New Testament model. The Ana-Baptists (re-baptizers) "poured" water, and still do to this day, though they do baptize believers. None of the groups hold to the distinctive of the Baptist church in the way they are held today, even accounting for doctrinal differences between the various factions.

Third, the entire concept of Landmarkism was nothing more than a reaction to the sharp denominational distinctions that permeated the 1800s. With the advent of Alexander Campbell, originally a Presbyterian, crossed over and served with early Baptists for 15 years until he parted ways, with a credo, "We have no creed but the Bible" that implied that Baptists had some other source of authority beside the Bible for their faith and practice -- which has never been true. To combat persons like Campbell (Parker, Stinson, etc.,) who were splintering the Baptists into factions, some thought that "proving" that Baptists were THE singular holder of the truth of God passed down from the Apostles would once and for all settle the matter of who was doctrinally correct. It did not, for the entire work of Landmarkism was spurious, derived largely from silence (they were not "that" so they must be "this" type of points were made) and today, we find the Landmarkist influence detrimental and further splintering Baptist groups instead of uniting them. In addition, the credo of Alexander has now become one of the primary credos of the fundamentalist Baptists, they not even truly realizing just what they are saying by adopting this "holy sounding" phrase.

And, fourth, the entire notion of "apostolic successionism" is akin to the Roman Catholic system of succession which means that those that seem to disavow the RCC the most are in fact doing nothing more than copying that system. Both groups claim apostolic authority, and at the end of the day, both are arguing for the same thing instead of seeing themselves as Christ's church, standing with Him with other blood-bought believers as the Bride of Christ, autonomous in the local congregation and united in the universal church that is Christ's alone.

 

Firstly, this is not about following succession of apostolic tradition. For sure that is holy see practice. This is in fact about a faith and practice which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jesus gave the authority to carry out His commission to the New Testament Churches--not individual apostles--i.e. Peter. If Peter was the first in a long line of vicars of Christ, all others are separated without authority. This commission was passed to every generation. Jesus also promised to never leave them nor forsake them. Has He not kept His promise? To suggest that somehow The Bride of Christ has been misplaced, muddled and defiled is to suggest that Jesus cannot keep Her through the gates of hell--which He as promised to do--all through the age. It has not yet been two days since Jesus was here--in God's time--"a thousand years is a day...".

Secondly, this is not about the name of a group. It is about a Faith and Practice. Immersion is not necessarily a standard of identification--the LDS immerse--sometimes by proxy. Crank that one the the standard book of baptismal practice.

Thirdly, my reference to S. Morland was to establish that there is evidence of Christians(?) killing Christians-- I have never seen a biblical command in the NT which authorizes killing heretics. Just who the heretics were/are is an interesting study--if one does not spend too much time in the Catholic Encyclopedia. BTW:The popes have been kind of apologizing about Rome's adventures in the Inquisitions and such lately.

Lastly, we look at history backwards. Why not start with the First New Testament Church which is referenced in the Book of Acts and follow Her through the gates of hell with Jesus and The Holy Spirit guiding and directing? Jesus never authorized a Vicar nor a co-redemptrix.

True Baptistic practices can be found in the New Testament. This cannot be applied to everything called Baptist. There are dozens of groups called Baptist--all tooting a different horn.

Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns? He said He will.

Is our heritage important? Yes. Yes.Yes.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Interesting glfredrick.
A couple questions and/or observations.
First, the OP is Calvin. What do Landmarkists have to do with Calvin?
Second, I realize the topic has strayed a bit, but tell me who in this thread is from a Landmark church? Who are you addressing? If it is Bro. James, I think he is from Sovereign Grace. Many of the other contributors of this thread are even from the SBC. So it appears that you are "blowing in the wind."

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread at all!

Can we get back to the subject please?

If you want to open a thread on your personal convictions --please document. But don't bring up irrelevancies on this thread. Thanks.

 

Quoted out of context--probably true. I was trying to point out that the history of New Testament Churches does not go through Rome nor the daughters of Rome i.e. Luther, Calvin, etal.

Getting back to the subject: Increasing the accolades for John Calvin--500 years after much misinformation regarding his true character. Will we be elevating him to Sainthood or just a simple beatification? Are we going to overlook the fact he was a pedobaptist? Sorry to seem so unecumenical; but refusing to baptize infants was and still is a major issue among those still contending for The Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Multitudes died refusing to baptize their infants--extermination attempted but unsuccessful by Christian (?) Inquisitors. Praise the Lord, He as preserved His Bride even through the gates of hell.

Is Calvin forgivable having followed false doctrine? For certain. Is he now worthy of accolades? I think not. God is not a respecter of persons--why do we want to praise men? See I Cor. 3:1-15. " Vs. 4: For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Vs. 5: Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? Vs. 6: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Vs. 7: So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Only God is worthy of praise--He is also very jealous of it.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

There are many different theological viewpoints as well as Calvinism that are commonly known by the names of men who held them. Arianism, Arymaldianism (after Moses Amyraut), and Arminianism are just a few.

The great danger in doing that is that it can give the impression that those who hold to Arianism, Arymaldianism, Arminianism, Calvinism, or whatever are guilty of worshipping Arius, Amyraut, Arminius, Calvin, or whoever.

I would far rather be known as someone who believes the Doctrines of Grace, or "The Five Great Alones" of the Reformation. But when I joind the BB, I found that "Calvinist" seemed to be the usually accepted shorthand for someone who believes the DoG or "The 5 Alones".

The other danger, particularly when baptists use the term "Calvinist" of themselves is that it gives the idea that they believe and practice everything Jean Calvin did, and as you said, he was not a credobaptist!

I assure you that I don't worship Calvin, and I doubt anyone else on this Board does either. We may speak well of him, but that's not worship.

And I think you are pretty safe on the Sainthood/beatification issue. The only body I know of that lays claim to being able to grant sainthood or beatification is the RCC, and I hardly think Calvin would ever be on the shortlist for that!

 

Perhaps I've been led astray from the OP.

But this: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1655091&postcount=72 is why I have pursued this line of reasoning.

But, what convinces you that someraying: SBC churches are not also Landmarkist? The SBC invented Landmarkism.

 

The following is taken from :The Reformers And The Theology Of The Reformation by William Cunningham.

Calvin had received from God mental powers of the highest order. Distinguished equally by comprehensiveness and penetration of intellect,by acuteness and soundness of judgment,his circumstances,in early life,were so regulated in providence,that he was furnished with the best opportunities of improving his faculties,and acquiring the learning and culture that might be necessary with a view to his future labours. Led by God's grace early and decidedly to renounce the devil,the world,and the flesh,and to devote himself to the service of Christ, he was also led,under the same guidance,to abandon the Church of Rome,and to devote himself to the preaching of the Gospel,the exposition of the revealed truth of God,and the organisation of churches in accordance with the sacred Scriptures and the practice of the apostles. In all these departments of useful labour his efforts were honoured with an extraordinary measure of success. Calvin did what the rerst of ther Reformers did, and, in addition, he did what none of them did or could effect. He was a deligent and laborious pastor. He gave much time to the instruction of those who were preparing for the work of the ministry. He took an active part in opposing the Church of Rome,in promoting the Reformation,and in organising Protestant churches. Entering with zeal and ardour into all the controversies which the ecclesiastical movements of the time produced,he was ever ready to defend truth or expose triumphant error. This was work which he had to do in common with the other Reformers,though he brought higher powers than any of them,to bear upon the performance of it. But in addition to all this, he had for his special business,the great work of digesting and systematising the whole scheme of divine truth,of bringing out in order and harmony,all the different doctrines which are contained in the word of God,unfolding them in their mutual relations and various bearings,and thus presenting them,in the most favourable aspect,to the contemplation and the study of the highest order of minds.
The systematising of divine truth,and the full organisation of the Christain church according to the word of God,are the great peculiar achievements of Calvin. For this work God eminently qualified him,by bestowing upon him the highest gifts both of nature and of grace; and this work he was enabled to accomplish in such a way as to confer the greatest and most lasting benefits upon the church of Christ,and to entitlke him to the commendation and the gratitude of all succeeding ages. (pages 293,294)

 

> I was trying to point out that the history of New Testament Churches does not go through Rome nor the daughters of Rome i.e. Luther, Calvin, etal.

Documentation?

 

Documentation: Mt. 16:18; Mt. 28:20; Eph. 3:21.

The authority for Church was either given to Peter as first of many vicars of Christ, as the holy see claims or that authority was vested in the New Testament Churches, not the apostolic see. The answer cannot be: all of the above.

If Rome is apostasized usurpation, those who came from her have the same authority problem. Usurped authority is no authority at all. If the holy see is the authorized version, then all others have usurped her without authority. She has delegated to no one.

This presents a bit of a dilemma in terms of: "by whose authority do you do these things?.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

What are you continuing to talk about? You have been corrected several times about this stuff but you insist in stating nonsense.

Calvin and other Reformers of the 16th century came out of the Roman Catholic Church. They were against it -- hence the name P-R-O-T-E-S-T-A-N-T-S.

Other people throughout Church history have left the RCC.

Calvin left the RCC 30 years before he died. Please don't get confused.