I know that Calvin was not a baptist, but was addressing that their theology would be a source of comfort, as they would uphold that the Lord never leaves us, and is always faithful to his promises towards us in Christ.
Right, Baptists didn't exist yet! I wish EVERY CHRISTIAN knew our history, from the time of Constantine, through the Popes there was an attempt to control scripture. At the time of Luther, the common man didn't have scripture, so they went with what the Roman Church told them. As a scholar, Luther was well aware the just were saved by Faith Alone. Luther had no plans of "Starting a new Church", he wanted to reform the Roman Church. When you read his letters, his goal is always putting the Roman Church on the right path. Many men proceeded him, Wycliffe, Huff (Who was Luther's "hero").
The Reformation came down to ONE THING, FREE WILL. Again most do not realize this, read "Bondage of the Will", and Luther spells out to Erasmus what the Reformation was all about, in fact in the first chapter.
Luther believed for the most part what Calvin believed, Luther finding out through teaching and studying, Calvin through systematic theology, going through the Scripture cold, little bias, and in Latin, Greek and English came up with our Pilgrims and most popular bible, the Geneva Bible (If you want a great translation, pick up a Geneva), the Pilgrims and Founding Fathers thought the King James too liberal (It's a good translation, completed by Anglicans, still a good translation).
So it's always frustrating when you hear the common "Well your system", or "You follow a man", wrong, Luther got the bible, via Guttenberg to the masses, Calvin helped show us what it meant, think, the common man had no idea of "Justification by Faith Alone", or the many things we know today, so it was "The Romans are wrong, WHAT DO WE BELIEVE". After Calvin died, the Church WAS REFORMED, that is Calvinistic if you like. A Roman Priest turned Protestant Jacob Arminius disagreed with some of what the Church was teaching, and came out with the "5 Remonstrants", these were 5 points of contention.
There was a massive debate if you will, the Synod of Dort, the greatest Theologians on the planet served as judges, and they debated the highlights of each, condemned Arminianism as a Heresy, and came out with a reply to the 5 Remonstrants, that is TULIP, the true 5 main points. Classical Arminianism is very far from today's Arminianism, today IE the Christians on this forum are largely Semi-Pelagians, if one were to expouse Classical Arminianism they'd be attacked as Calvinists.
It's an unfortunate term in my opinion, that is "Calvinism", would make Calvin spin in his grave, for it implies a man's theology, it was not, it WAS REFORMED, PROTESTANT THEOLOGY, it's just that Calvin put what others believed together better than anyone else. If you attack Calvin, you're also attacking Luther, for again aside from the Lords Supper and other minor things they agreed, surely agreed on Predestination, I mean just open and read your bible, agreed on everything. So I prefer Reformed, Arminianism is closer to the teachings of Rome than Protestant Theology, both are Synergistic, leave the ultimate outcome of all things upon man instead of God, take away the crazy sacramental system, repentance and you have modern Arminianism, problem is no one knows this, for they don't study.
It's so comical when I hear an Arminian pray. Why? Why pray? Isn't God doing everything in His infinite power to save all anyways? And since supposedly God can't violate the will, again why pray? Its really insanity, if man has free will how can we trust Scripture? What if free will man made a mistake? God can't violate our wills, so we'd be in deep trouble, never knowing. What of the massive amount of scripture of God hardening or softening our hearts? Just throw them out? I guess so, this is why I have no patience for liberalism, for Arminianism. Once I posted over 100 verses, in context of God's providence over man, it was ignored, so why even debate? Even Pagan King Nebuchadnezzar confessed that God is sovereign over all men, all kings, does all He wants with man, and man can do nothing to violate God's will. I would put Nebuchadnezzar over most on these boards as to knowledge of the Most High.
