• 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!

History of Calvin

Status
Not open for further replies.

billwald

New Member
>When one is born again, all things become new, former things are passed away--a new creature in Christ.

True, but this is only known by God and you. There is not objective test for regeneration thus no denomination may logically claim a monopoly on "real" Christians.


>The Lord knows them that are His.

has morphed into "kill them all and let God sort them out."
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I could not agree more. (And one of the reasons I put rippon on "ignore" ages ago! :))My spiritual as well as physical heritage traces back through those who were persecuted, both before and after the so-called Reformation. I too have been accused of being a "Landmarker" usually by those who don't have a clue as to what the term really means. My great, great, great, great grandfather a godly Huguenot, fled France in the early 18th century for America, and settled in the wild and wooly west, Ohio! There is no doubt as to the Protestant identity of Huguenots as they probably originated in Calvin's Geneva, and the name Huguenot probably stems from the early leader in Geneva, Besancon Hugues. However, the other side of my family descends from even older believers not associated with the Church of Rome. Clear back to the 8th century. What most on this forum seem incapable of understanding is that "Baptist" is not a denominational name but rather a doctrinal identity. There were true believers all down through the ages of history, largely hidden in out of the way places to avoid the persecution of the Church of Rome. Although I do not believe in a chain-link succession I do believe there has been a spiritual kinship of those believers down through the ages as asserted by William Kiffin (1616-1701).

As to the "universal church" theory: Although I think this argument is more one of semantics than theology I still have to ask, do the "universal church" defenders have two different definitions of the word "church?" I believe a church is an organized assembly of baptized believers. Let's apply that definition to the "universal church."

Is it organized? With Pastors, deacons, and a membership list?
Where does it presently assemble?
Are all members scripturally baptized by immersion upon credible profession of faith?
Are all believers?

It seems to me that only the last question could honestly be answered in the affirmative.

In my opinion the better term for all believers collectively would be "the Family of God" (Ephisians 3:14-15) or "the Kingdom of God on Earth" (many, many references). This prevents having to have two contradictory definitions of the word "church."Yes, and no. There is no doubt that some British Baptists, of the Particular Baptist persuasion, are Protestants in the loose sense of the word. I say "loose" due to the fact that, technically, there are only 3 true Protestant churches rising from the Reformation, The Reformed Church (Presbyterian), The Lutheran Church, and the Anglican Communion (Church of England and Episcopal Churches). The next generation of groups such as Methodist, which broke away from the Anglican Communion, the Bible Church movement which, largely broke away from the Presbyterians, and others, are not technically Protestant as they were never part of, nor protested from within, the corruption of the Church of Rome.

As with all groups, there is much diversity under the name Baptist. And I would be the last one to suggest that all who fly the Baptist banner are theologically correct or even regenerate. Just as I could not claim that all who flew the banner of Novatian, Donatist, Monatist, Turtillianist, Petrobussian, etc. were regenerate or practiced scriptural baptism. In all probability most were/did not, but again, within those ranks it is more than just likely that "the faith once delivered" existed just as that same faith still exists in the great cacophony of present day Baptists.

I will close with an aside to Earth, Wind & Fire. You said, May I suggest that is not all you need to know to understand Brother James' position? Why not discuss the particulars with him? You may be able to find a consensus. :)

As for nomenclature, I am not a Calvinist. I am a Particular Baptist. I accept all 5 points of TULIP as being true and scriptural. I have two different translations of Calvin's Commentaries. I agree with most, but strongly disagree with some. And I agree, we should respect the man for his achievements without elevating him above that which is proper. The same can be true of many men, including some from the Church of Rome. Girolamo Savonarola, prior to the Reformation, preached against the corruption of the Roman Clergy including Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, who became Pope Alexander VI, who excommunicated him and had him put to death. Was he a saved man? Was he a Protestant? We don't know. Just as with so many others in our history, we rely, for the most part, on the opinions of their opposition as most of their own writings were burned with their martyred bodies. Being too dogmatic about history can be very dangerous, especially when we don't know as much as we would like to think we do. :)

No thanks Tom.....Im done with this thread. If you want to start a Landmarker post, thats your prerogative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

glfredrick

New Member
What do you believe a Landmarker is? What do they believe?

I'll play!

They (mistakenly) hold that they can trace their hierarchy all the way back to John the Baptist via all the separatist groups that were not Roman Catholic (for starters).

Other than the fact that there were various groups that dissented from RC over the millennia, including the Protestants, this theory actually holds no real water, for there are no real ties between the groups and the various groups held all sorts of weird and heretical beliefs, some contra another, which makes the entire concept of an unbroken line of saints that can trace back to the time of Christ nothing more than a myth (in the way Landmark Movement people claim).
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I'll play!

They (mistakenly) hold that they can trace their hierarchy all the way back to John the Baptist via all the separatist groups that were not Roman Catholic (for starters).
And there it is. The very first response shows that the average forum member has a false understanding of what Landmarkism really is!

Here are the points or marks of Landmarkism:

1. The church is a Divine institution.

2. The church is a visible institution.

3. The church is located on the Earth.

4. The church is a local organization, a congregation.

5. The membership are all professedly regenerate in heart before being baptized into it.

That is the totality of what Landmarkism is. It simply identifies the local church as belonging to the Lord, is visible, located on Earth, a local congregation, made up of professedly saved persons baptized into its membership.

Now, what would you disagree with about that? Which of those particulars do not apply to your home church?

Notice there is not a single word about "Baptist Perpetuity" or an "unbroken succession."
Other than the fact that there were various groups that dissented from RC over the millennia, including the Protestants, this theory actually holds no real water, for there are no real ties between the groups and the various groups held all sorts of weird and heretical beliefs, some contra another, which makes the entire concept of an unbroken line of saints that can trace back to the time of Christ nothing more than a myth (in the way Landmark Movement people claim).
But, of course, the above clearly shows that this supposed "unbroken line" is not a tenet of Landmarkism! :)
 

glfredrick

New Member
And there it is. The very first response shows that the average forum member has a false understanding of what Landmarkism really is!

Here are the points or marks of Landmarkism:

1. The church is a Divine institution.

2. The church is a visible institution.

3. The church is located on the Earth.

4. The church is a local organization, a congregation.

5. The membership are all professedly regenerate in heart before being baptized into it.

That is the totality of what Landmarkism is. It simply identifies the local church as belonging to the Lord, is visible, located on Earth, a local congregation, made up of professedly saved persons baptized into its membership.

Now, what would you disagree with about that? Which of those particulars do not apply to your home church?

Notice there is not a single word about "Baptist Perpetuity" or an "unbroken succession."But, of course, the above clearly shows that this supposed "unbroken line" is not a tenet of Landmarkism! :)

That is in no way "the totality" of Landmarkism. I've studied the doctrine as much as anyone else, and I know several Landmark pastors. We've had extensive discussions and they well understand that they "see things" in a way that may not coin out according to accurate history, but they persist because of the ideals of the doctrine.

You neglected to mention that Landmark churches see themselves as the ONLY church -- all others calling themselves churches are in error or heretical, including all the churches that stemmed from the Reformation.

You neglected to mention that Landmark churches hold to closed communion, because of the hierarchical issues, i.e., who handed down the church from whom, to prove that they are THE authentic church.

You neglected to mention that successionism is the way that Landmark churches make the claim that they are indeed the ONLY true church.

Further, you neglected to discuss the issue of the advent of Landmarkism, which arose as a response to Campbell and the Campbellite movement in the 19th century.

There is nothing ancient, nothing theologically necessary, and nothing biblically mandating Landmarkism, and to promulgate the practice as that of one congregation (for all others are not the true church!) over Christ's church, universal in scope, is an error of magnificent proportions.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
That is in no way "the totality" of Landmarkism.
Of course it is! Those marks were taken right from the book that coined the phrase "Landmarkism."
I've studied the doctrine as much as anyone else, and I know several Landmark pastors.
I see. So, your study and talking with some pastors who claim to be Landmarkers proves that historic Landmarkism is not what the founder of the movement says it is? That would be like me saying that some pastors I know who believe in the inspiration of scripture are KJVO therefore all those who believe in the inspiration of scripture are KJVO!
We've had extensive discussions and they well understand that they "see things" in a way that may not coin out according to accurate history, but they persist because of the ideals of the doctrine.
So you are basing your understanding of Landmarkism on some revisionist's opinions?
You neglected to mention that Landmark churches see themselves as the ONLY church -- all others calling themselves churches are in error or heretical, including all the churches that stemmed from the Reformation.
Some, but not all Landmarkers, see a church as an organized assembly of baptized believers. Those groups which practice infant baptism or sprinkling are not true churches in the biblical sense as a church is "an organized assembly of baptized believers." They do recognize these groups as "religious societies" and it is a given that these societies often contain true born-again believers.
You neglected to mention that Landmark churches hold to closed communion, because of the hierarchical issues, i.e., who handed down the church from whom, to prove that they are THE authentic church.
And many baptists, Landmarkers and non-Landmarkers, believe the Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance and is a symbol of the unity of the local church united under the Headship of Christ.
You neglected to mention that successionism is the way that Landmark churches make the claim that they are indeed the ONLY true church.
Again, revisionistic opinions of a few wack jobs does not define historic Landmarkism.
Further, you neglected to discuss the issue of the advent of Landmarkism, which arose as a response to Campbell and the Campbellite movement in the 19th century.
What does that have to do with the 5 Marks?
There is nothing ancient, nothing theologically necessary, and nothing biblically mandating Landmarkism, and to promulgate the practice as that of one congregation (for all others are not the true church!) over Christ's church, universal in scope, is an error of magnificent proportions.
Again, my definition of a church is an organized assembly of baptized believers. Many so-called churches don't fit that description. And again, I don't believe in the universal church as I pointed out in my initial post. All the redeemed make up the Family of God or the Kingdom of God, but the church is limited to baptized believers assembled to keep the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

Allow me to ask you a question. Who defines Calvinism for you? Calvin or an Arminian? Who defines soteriology for you? The bible or the Church of Rome? See the problem? We can't allow revisionists to define our terms. :)
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I could not agree more. (And one of the reasons I put Rippon on "ignore" ages ago!

You are as insincere as the day is long. You have called me a pathetic liar and a loser. That runs directly contrary to one of your signature lines.

I guess you have repudiated your quote from Elbert Hubbard:"If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From Herman Selderhuis

[Jacques ]Gruet was condemned to death on the grounds of blasphemy and of threatening the magistrate and pastors,and this punishment was administered on July 26,1547. Calvin had nothing to do with the affair and kept out of it. In a sense,Gruet's condemnation was nothing remarkable:eek:ne who so openly threatened the civil order and the Christian faith would have received the death penalty elsewhere as well. (p.157)
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[Jacques ]Gruet was condemned to death on the grounds of blasphemy and of threatening the magistrate and pastors,and this punishment was administered on July 26,1547. Calvin had nothing to do with the affair and kept out of it. In a sense,Gruet's condemnation was nothing remarkable:eek:ne who so openly threatened the civil order and the Christian faith would have received the death penalty elsewhere as well. (p.157)
Refusing to baptize infants was considered a threat to civil order by the holy see and the protestants, including Luther and Calvin. These are not real friends of true Baptists. When did this disparity change?

Infant baptism is still a major test of fellowship.

Now what?

Avoid tall buildings and nuclear power plants--probably hard to do in Japan--Korea too.
Peace,

Bro. James
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From Herman Selderhuis :

Starting in 1549,Calvin preached twice every Sunday,and every other week preached no less than daily,which worked out to some 4,000 sermons. Three times a week he lectured on biblical exegisis. Each Friday he was an active participant in the Congregations. (p.222)
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
>When one is born again, all things become new, former things are passed away--a new creature in Christ.

True, but this is only known by God and you. There is not objective test for regeneration thus no denomination may logically claim a monopoly on "real" Christians.


>The Lord knows them that are His.

has morphed into "kill them all and let God sort them out."
The objective test: "...for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 2. This is not about weekly obligation, but rather a daily walk with the One who redeemed through His Grace.

More: the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit (Faith, Hope and Love).

Reproving, rebuking, exhorting in Love.

God cannot forgive us if we cannot forgive others.

Bless someone you do not like today. It will make your day--theirs too.

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S.

The morphology sounds like something from the adventures of the Jesuits in the Dark Ages. They too can be forgiven. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do", Jesus, Golgotha, circa A.D. 33.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From A Pilgrim's Life

If one wonders how Calvin ever managed to turn a chaotic,politically volatile Geneva into a city that experienced rest and prosperity,and that exerted influence throughout Europe as an independent state,one need look no further than the sermon and the catechism. It is difficult to estimate the influence of the daily exposition of the Bible and the years of biblical teaching given to the youth in Calvin's Geneva. Instruction was given by well-trained pastors,strong ministers who knew the languages and the rules of rhetoric,and who could hold their own against church people and politicians. Their instruction formed the people of Geneva from childhood on,corrected them,gave them knowledge in the Scriptures,and instructed them in how the world fits together and how the church ought to fit together. In addition,this education that was given within the triangle of church,school and family was supported by a theology that taught that though humanity might well be completely corrupt,God's grace could completely change people,and God's Spirit could spur them on to great deeds of blessings and renewal. What Calvin did from 1541 on is proof that a society can be changed. It also attests to his conviction that simply leaving things as they are is completely un-Reformed. (p.211)
 

glfredrick

New Member
If one wonders how Calvin ever managed to turn a chaotic,politically volatile Geneva into a city that experienced rest and prosperity,and that exerted influence throughout Europe as an independent state,one need look no further than the sermon and the catechism. It is difficult to estimate the influence of the daily exposition of the Bible and the years of biblical teaching given to the youth in Calvin's Geneva. Instruction was given by well-trained pastors,strong ministers who knew the languages and the rules of rhetoric,and who could hold their own against church people and politicians. Their instruction formed the people of Geneva from childhood on,corrected them,gave them knowledge in the Scriptures,and instructed them in how the world fits together and how the church ought to fit together. In addition,this education that was given within the triangle of church,school and family was supported by a theology that taught that though humanity might well be completely corrupt,God's grace could completely change people,and God's Spirit could spur them on to great deeds of blessings and renewal. What Calvin did from 1541 on is proof that a society can be changed. It also attests to his conviction that simply leaving things as they are is completely un-Reformed. (p.211)

One then thinks of American cities like Detroit, New Orleans, etc., champions each of liberal free will values (rejecting all conservative values pertaining to God, church, soverignty, etc., by the political culture) and compares the end result to Geneva during Calvin's day.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Their instruction formed the people of Geneva from childhood on,corrected them,gave them knowledge in the Scriptures,and instructed them in how the world fits together and how the church ought to fit together. In addition,this education that was given within the triangle of church,school and family was supported by a theology that taught that though humanity might well be completely corrupt,God's grace could completely change people,and God's Spirit could spur them on to great deeds of blessings and renewal. What Calvin did from 1541 on is proof that a society can be changed. It also attests to his conviction that simply leaving things as they are is completely un-Reformed. (p.211)

Oh my, by somebody's (WD's) reckoning, that would be tad amount to a Cult society & heaven forbid we should ever consider using that as a model! :tongue3:
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From :A Pilgrim's Life

Drive

What drove Calvin to devote himself to his cause with such conviction...The answer has everything to do with his walk with God...In short,Calvin's motives were thanksgiving and obedience to God the Father.
He was further fully convinced that God had given him his office,and that he had to fulfill the duties of that office faithfully. He thought the same about making good on his promises. If Geneva had committed itself to a church order,that church order must be followed. If Calvin was to be hindered in the duties of his office,he would rather be forced to flee than to abandon it. (p.211,212)
 

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
I often wondered how men like Calvin and Luther would have responded to-day in our western culture. Political and social conditions are far different to-day.

Cheers,

Jim
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I often wondered how men like Calvin and Luther would have responded to-day in our western culture. Political and social conditions are far different to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

Out of curiosity, how did Pink handle it? He shut himself in I think. now conversely, Martyn Lloyd-Jones promoted breaking away from liberalism.....a more radical approach. I think by temperaments, Luther would have railed while Calvin would also have railed but from a scholarly position via books & articles. Both would have loved the Internet because they could have reached a plethora of people with blogs & such. Would have been interesting.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From :A Pilgrim's Life

Calvin did not separate quickly from Rome,even after he had already been of evangelical conviction for several years.(p.25)

On May 4 [In 1534 --Rip]he renounced the income from his chaplaincy. This step was further necessiated by the requirements of canon law,according to which he would have to decide at age twenty-five whether he wanted to continue in the church and be ordained as a priest,or to give up his ecclesiastical career altogether. Calvin chose to end his ministerial service -- and yet did not: the chaplain did not become a priest but he did become a pastor. (p.27)

Until May 4,1534, Calvin was still an official member of the Roman Catholic clergy,and so during his stay in Angouleme,he was called several times to preach in Latin for the chapter. (p.40)
 

glfredrick

New Member
I often wondered how men like Calvin and Luther would have responded to-day in our western culture. Political and social conditions are far different to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

I'd suggest that you take a peek at those who are doing likewise in our generation, such as R. Albert Mohler, John MacAurther, and John Piper, to name but a couple, who's influence is great and reformational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top