Thank Calvin for your freedom

[matt wade]

Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.
Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.
Not only did you found this land,
but you did it from the grave.
Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.

 

[Amy.G]

This has to be the most asinine thread in the history of the BB.


:BangHead:


No wonder people don't want to post here anymore.

 

[Old Union Brother]

This has to be the most asinine thread in the history of the BB.


:BangHead:


No wonder people don't want to post here anymore.

I agree.....If you notice I'm posting but not debating....

 

[Amy.G]

I agree.....If you notice I'm posting but not debating....

Yes. And I'm glad you're still here with us. We need you!

:1_grouphug:

 

[webdog]

I bet Servetus thanked Calvin for his freedom

Now that I think about it, didn't a young Brook Shields thank her Calvins for her "freedom"? :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you are really obsessed with Calvin, aren't you?

No, I'm really not. I started this thread in response to an ignorant remark made by someone that Calvinism is a "scourge".

I like Calvin. I think he was a brilliant man and mightily used of God- but I recognize his feet were made of clay just like you and I.

You might consider Calvin to be somewhere between the Apostles and the Trinity, but it just isn't so.

Just under the Apostles.:thumbsup::smilewinkgrin:

And, as far as Calvin being the father of America, you are delusional.

Historians disagree. Do they count for anything so far as you are concerned?

Are all of them delusional- or might you just be knee-jerk reacting in ignorance?

BTW, have you put up your Calvin...uh...I mean Christmas tree yet? :tongue3:

You know, it's funny that you mention that. My son brought home some papers from school the other day that explain how we got our Christmas tree. According to those papers it was Luther who was thoroughly Calvinistic (theologically).

So, if that is so, have you put up your Martin Luther tree yet?

 

[RAdam]

I can't help but think of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. Instead of people saying they are of Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, we have people saying whether or not they are of Calvin. I'll ask the same questions Paul asked. Was Calvin crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Calvin? Quit following a man and follow the Lord.

Calvin is not someone to be adored. His spiritual successors persecuted our baptist forefathers. Should I thank him for that?

 

[Luke2427]

Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.
Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.
Not only did you found this land,
but you did it from the grave.
Oh John Calvin! Oh John Calvin!
Luke is truly in love with you.

Not bad but the rhythm is off a bit.

 

[Luke2427]

This has to be the most asinine thread in the history of the BB.


:BangHead:


No wonder people don't want to post here anymore.

It's true. I figured you wouldn't like it.

I think you ought to google it and learn so that you will not disrespect your history or your forfathers.

 

[Luke2427]

I can't help but think of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. Instead of people saying they are of Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, we have people saying whether or not they are of Calvin. I'll ask the same questions Paul asked. Was Calvin crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Calvin? Quit following a man and follow the Lord.

Calvin is not someone to be adored. His spiritual successors persecuted our baptist forefathers. Should I thank him for that?

You recall in that text that there was also a group who Paul reprimanded who pompously and piously slipped their holier than thou thumbs under their lapels and said- "I am of Jesus!!!!"

No one is saying they are OF any man. We are making a point that only ignorant people would spit in the eye of Calvinism or call it a scourge when those people are Americans who enjoy freedom and a nation that came to them via John Calvin, the Pilgrims, the Puritans and mostly Calvinistic forefathers.

 

[matt wade]

We are making a point that only ignorant people would spit in the eye of Calvinism or call it a scourge when those people are Americans who enjoy freedom and a nation that came to them via John Calvin, the Pilgrims, the Puritans and mostly Calvinistic forefathers.

So, is it OK for non-Americans to spit in the eye of Calvinism and call it a scourge?

 

[Luke2427]

So, is it OK for non-Americans to spit in the eye of Calvinism and call it a scourge?

It makes better sense. It makes NO sense for AMERICANS to do it though.

Americans can disagree with it- but they show themselves to be stupid and uneducated about their heritage, or to be despisers of their heritage if THEY call Calvinism a scourge.

 

[RAdam]

You recall in that text that there was also a group who Paul reprimanded who pompously and piously slipped their holier than thou thumbs under their lapels and said- "I am of Jesus!!!!"

No one is saying they are OF any man. We are making a point that only ignorant people would spit in the eye of Calvinism or call it a scourge when those people are Americans who enjoy freedom and a nation that came to them via John Calvin, the Pilgrims, the Puritans and mostly Calvinistic forefathers.

And we are making the point that Calvin didn't give us this freedom. Calvin would have set up a church state and persecuted those who didn't agree with him. That's exactly what his successors did. Calvinism didn't give us anything. Baptists, who were not followers of Calvin, are the ones who fought for religious freedom. They were the ones who everyone persecuted. Quit giving credit to Calvin, he doesn't deserve it on this issue.

 

[Luke2427]

And we are making the point that Calvin didn't give us this freedom. Calvin would have set up a church state and persecuted those who didn't agree with him. That's exactly what his successors did. Calvinism didn't give us anything. Baptists, who were not followers of Calvin, are the ones who fought for religious freedom. They were the ones who everyone persecuted. Quit giving credit to Calvin, he doesn't deserve it on this issue.

I figure you are right to some degree. Calvin would not have set up the exact kind of governement that we have, perhaps.

But he is directly repsonsible for the founding of America. That is not up for debate. You'd might as well argue that water is not wet. You are arguing against a plain and simple historical fact.

And if you think Baptists did any more fighting for our freedom than Presbyterians- you are sadly mistaken.

And MANY of those Baptists- if not MOST- were Calvinists.

Calvin does deserve credit as many historians testify. Does what historians say count for anything in your book?

 

[Luke2427]

And we are making the point that Calvin didn't give us this freedom. Calvin would have set up a church state and persecuted those who didn't agree with him. That's exactly what his successors did. Calvinism didn't give us anything. Baptists, who were not followers of Calvin, are the ones who fought for religious freedom. They were the ones who everyone persecuted. Quit giving credit to Calvin, he doesn't deserve it on this issue.

This is an Excerpt taken from Lorraine Boettner's book Calvinism in History.

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."2 When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).

History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.

Text
The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.


All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies.

 

[Amy.G]

John Calvin was long dead when this country was formed. He had nothing to do with the founding of it anymore than I did.

 

[BobinKy]

Paul writes to Timothy...

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Timothy 1:3-7; NIV 1984)​

...Bob

 

[Luke2427]

John Calvin was long dead when this country was formed. He had nothing to do with the founding of it anymore than I did.

Wycliff was long dead by the time of the Reformation but he is called the Morning Star of the Reformation.

Bancroft is a respected historian. Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

That ought to be enough. If not read the post above your own. If that is not enough- then you are simply obstinately opposed to any truth that doesn't sit well with you.

 

[Luke2427]

Paul writes to Timothy...

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Timothy 1:3-7; NIV 1984)​

...Bob

We are familiar with the text. What is your point?

 

[Amy.G]

That ought to be enough. If not read the post above your own. If that is not enough- then you are simply obstinately opposed to any truth that doesn't sit well with you.

No. I'm obstinately opposed to anything that isn't truth. Falsehoods do not sit well with me.