The Problem of Regeneration Preceding Faith

[Rippon]

Calvin to the Archbishop: "Anabaptists should be put to death!"

As I have often told you : Do not make absurdly reckless claims without supporting evidence. Document, document document.

An Anabaptist advocate, Dr. Jack L. Arnold, has said :"Even John Calvin, though he did not persecute them, could see little good in them."

 

[DHK]

As I have often told you : Do not make absurdly reckless claims without supporting evidence. Document, document document.

An Anabaptist advocate, Dr. Jack L. Arnold, has said :"Even John Calvin, though he did not persecute them, could see little good in them."

There is none so blind as will not see. I gave you documentation. You refused it.

 

[Internet Theologian]

There is none so blind as will not see. I gave you documentation. You refused it.

Firstly you've provided no documented proof. Let's not fool ourselves here.

Concerning the OP you yourself conflate regeneration with salvation, which it is not. You described, albeit in a rudimentary sense a raw understanding of regeneration though it is accidental and perfunctory at best here: https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...nd-commandment-violations.97726/#post-2198572

You stated:

Such a person would first have to "be made willing" to listen

That is a raw understanding of regeneration on your part, showing that the pre-convert must be made willing and that this is not dependent upon some innate faith a person does possess. Assuredly you still hold to that error, but perhaps you are coming closer to truth.

 

[DHK]

Firstly you've provided no documented proof. Let's not fool ourselves here.

This is called documentation:

The influence of John Calvin had begun to be felt in English affairs. His books had appeared in translations in England. He was responsible in a large measure for the demon of hate and fierce hostility which the Baptists of England had to encounter. He advised that "Anabaptists and reactionists should be alike put to death" (Froude, History of England, V. 99). He wrote a letter to Lord Protector Somerset, the translation was probably made by Archbishop Cranmer (Calvin to the Protector, MSS. Domestic Edward VI, V. 1548)) to the effect: "These altogether deserve to be well punished by the sword, seeing that they do conspire against God, who had set him in his royal seat"

The first to be burnt in this reign was Joan of Kent, who was probably a member of the church at Eythorne (Evans, The History of the English Baptists, I. 72 note). She was a pious and worthy woman, and a great reader of the Scriptures. She was arrested in the year 1548 on the charge of heresy and she was burnt April 30, the following year.

J.T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists," pp. 198,99.
Notice that Christian quotes from Froude's, History of England, and also gives reference to one of Calvin's letter to Protector of England, i.e., Edward VI. But you will deny this anyway so what is the use?

Concerning the OP you yourself conflate regeneration with salvation, which it is not. You described, albeit in a rudimentary sense a raw understanding of regeneration though it is accidental and perfunctory at best here: https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...nd-commandment-violations.97726/#post-2198572

You stated:
That is a raw understanding of regeneration on your part, showing that the pre-convert must be made willing and that this is not dependent upon some innate faith a person does possess. Assuredly you still hold to that error, but perhaps you are coming closer to truth.

I never said anything about regeneration, though many people, including Icon, agreed with me. The Holy Spirit is quite able to work in the heart of an unsaved person without regenerating him. His work is defined in John 16:8-11. Perhaps you should read that passage. Why do you assume that I was speaking of regeneration.
If I was speaking of regeneration, the rest of my post would be entirely redundant and foolish. How could a regenerated person be an atheist. Why would a regenerated person need to be convinced his atheism is wrong. and Christianity is right. Perhaps you better sharpen your comprehension skills and go and read my post again.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If everyone had/has faith, then everyone is/or will be saved. I keep reading that the unregenerate had not faith, and I agree with that assessment 100%. However, once given the faith necessary to the believing of the saving of the soul, they are no longer unregenerate, but regenerate.

Now, if one has innate faith, yet faith is a fruit of the Spirit, then how are they not saved?

 

[Rippon]

There is none so blind as will not see. I gave you documentation. You refused it.

You had said :"Calvin to the Archbishop:'Anabaptists should be put to death.' "

What Archbishop? Give me his name. And please cite any documentation that Calvin said "Anabaptists should be put to death."

As it is you are loading up on lies.

 

[DHK]

You had said :"Calvin to the Archbishop:'Anabaptists should be put to death.' "

What Archbishop? Give me his name. And please cite any documentation that Calvin said "Anabaptists should be put to death."

As it is you are loading up on lies.

I quoted Christian. Are you calling him a liar? Do you question his sources? You can check them if you wish?

 

[steaver]

If the word "saved" always means the same thing and there is only one aspect to being saved, no phases, how then did Paul declare separate, distinct, different times in history of when he was saved?

So let me get this straight. You believe Paul was saved several times?

In your pov, Paul himself was saved, even before his encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, even while having a heart filled with hatred for Christians, even while rounding them up to be put to death, and still would have went to heaven?

 

[Rippon]

I quoted Christian. Are you calling him a liar?

Well, he is not a reliable source. I'm calling you a liar because both things you said are false. You very well know it.

Calvin did not write to any archbishop to the effect that anabaptists should be put to death.

Again, please identify by name who the supposed archbishop was that he addressed a letter to, or face-to-face. And document that Calvin ever said to anyone (archbishop or no) --"Anabaptists should be put to death."

 

[JonC]

If everyone had/has faith, then everyone is/or will be saved. I keep reading that the unregenerate had not faith, and I agree with that assessment 100%. However, once given the faith necessary to the believing of the saving of the soul, they are no longer unregenerate, but regenerate.

Now, if one has innate faith, yet faith is a fruit of the Spirit, then how are they not saved?

I think that you may need to refine this, brother. Everyone has faith, and faith saves no one. It is the Object of faith that saves. Hence the term "repentance" and not "endowment".

 

[DHK]

Well, he is not a reliable source. I'm calling you a liar because both things you said are false. You very well know it.

Calvin did not write to any archbishop to the effect that anabaptists should be put to death.

James Anthony Froude, (born April 23, 1818, Dartington, Devon, Eng.—diedOct. 20, 1894, Kingsbridge, Devon), English historian and biographer whoseHistory of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada,12 vol. (1856–70), fundamentally altered the whole direction of Tudor studies. He was immensely prolific, producing also novels and essays.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Anthony-Froude

It is Froude, in his "History of England" Vol.V, p.99, who, quoting Calvin as saying,
"Anabaptists and reactionists should be alike put to death."

Again, please identify by name who the supposed archbishop was that he addressed a letter to, or face-to-face. And document that Calvin ever said to anyone (archbishop or no) --"Anabaptists should be put to death."

Accordingly Calvin wrote a letter to Lord Protector Somerset, the translation was probably made by Archbishop Cranmer, to the effect: "These altogether deserve to be well punished by the sword, seeing that they do conspire against God, who had set him his royal seat."
--You can find this quote written by Calvin as a letter to the Protector, in a MSS. Domestic Edward VI, V. 1548.

In fact Calvin tolerated no doctrine but his own. He would gladly put to death, or have the government in power put to death all those who opposed HIS doctrine, not the doctrine of Christ.
Don't believe me?

True it is, nevertheless, that it is both right and fitting to oppose the levity of some fantastic minds, who allow themselves in too great license, and also to shut the door against all eccentricities and new doctrines; but the method to be taken, which God hath pointed out to us, for dealing with such occurrences, is well fitted to dispose of them.

In the first place, there ought to be an explicit summary of the doctrine which all ought to preach, which all prelates and curates swear to follow, and no one should be received to any ecclesiastical charge who does not promise to preserve such agreement.

http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=/ethics/calvin_to_somerset.html

 

[Rippon]

Again, you have not furnished any documentation that Calvin wrote to any archbishop and told him:"Anabaptists should be put to death." It is simply false.
What you claim Froude saying that Calvin said has absolutely no verification. When,where and to whom did he ever say such a thing? Don't just give a page number.

 

[Rippon]

In fact Calvin tolerated no doctrine but his own. He would gladly put to death, or have the government in power put to death all those who opposed HIS doctrine, not the doctrine of Christ.
Don't believe me?

http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=/ethics/calvin_to_somerset.html

Your link does you no favors. It goes against your false claims.

I have cited dozens of actual historians and Calvin scholars over the years which you have brushed aside in favor of your revisionist version of history.

The man of Geneva had no secular power. He dealt in the realm of the ecclesiastical. The most he and the other pastors were able to do was excommunicate some people. In fact he was denied "that power" on various occasions. He did not run Geneva. He was no dictator. You know that, but you insist on your fables about the man.

You contine to promote falsehoods about the man despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[DHK]

Your link does you no favors. It goes against your false claims.

I have cited dozens of actual historians and Calvin scholars over the years which you have brushed aside in favor of your revisionist version of history.

The man of Geneva had no secular power. He dealt in the realm of the ecclesiastical. The most he and the other pastors were able to do was excommunicate some people. In fact he was denied "that power" on various occasions. He did not run Geneva. He was no dictator. You know that, but you insist on your fables about the man.

You contine to promote falsehoods about the man despite all evidence to the contrary.

You don't want the truth. You won't listen to the truth. You can't handle the truth!

Here Calvin himself recounts all the so-called "heresies" of the Anabaptists, many of them being false accusations, and then gives his conclusion:

Now for conclusion, I beseech all christian readers, to examine this wholly by the scriptures: as by that which is the true touchstone to examine all doctrines. I doubt not but that whosoever will suffer himself to be led by the truth of God, and will submit himself to reason, shall find sufficiently wherewith to be satisfied, touching the articles which I have here entreated of.

Besides this I have endeavoured myself, as much as I could, to accommodate myself unto the rudeness of the simple, for whom chiefly I travail. So the Anabaptists cannot make cavillation, as they are wont, that I would overcome them by subtlety, or oppress them by craft of man's eloquence: seeing I have used as homely and as simple manner as can be desired. Yet is it meet that I do advertise all faithful men of their malice, because they cannot make their matter appear good but in mingling all together, in such wise as all their doctrine is a confused mess. As a body without head, arms, and legs, they use oftentimes foolish and strange manner of speeches, and without a deliberate purpose, still leaping from the Cock to the Ass, do interlace divers matters, and bring in divers places of scripture {83.B.} cut and broken: and so pleasing themselves in this matter, make men believe that there is much more majesty to speak so brutishly, than well to digest the matter by order. Now to confound them, there is no better way, than to expound and deduce the matters distinctly, and by a certain order to bring forth one matter after another, well weighing and marking the sentences of the scripture, to draw out thereof the true and natural sense, and to use a simplicity and plainness of words, which is not strange from the common speech. Which thing if a man do, they cry out, that men go about to deceive and circumvent them by human subtlety and sophistry: as though it were the custom or intent of sophisters, to make dark things clear. For my part I confess, that asmuch as in me is, I do study to dispose by order those things which I speak, that I may give the more clear and easy understanding. If the Anabaptists may not abide thus, I wot not what to say, but that he which doeth evil, hateth the light. [John 3.20.]
http://www.truecovenanter.com/calvin/calvin_against_anabaptists.html
And to give the better colour to their doctrine, they have imprinted with their resolution, the history of the death of one Michael, their accomplice, and maintainer of their sect. And indeed they are wont to make a great buckler, of [the fact] that many have suffered death, to maintain their opinions, and would not recant although thereby they might have escaped death, and have redeemed their life. {84.A.}

His conclusion is to kill them. They should not escape death.

 

[Rippon]

You don't want the truth. You won't listen to the truth. You can't handle the truth!

Just like Jack Nicholson's character of Colonel Jessup --you, in fact are lying as he was in the movie. It's strange that people quote that line when the one who utters the line was lying.

I have asked you repeatedly to tell me the name of the archbishop in question who Calvin supposedly communicated the message :"Anabaptists should be put to death." You have not supplied his name despite the fact that I have asked repeatedly.

Here Calvin himself recounts all the so-called "heresies" of the Anabaptists, many of them being false accusations, and then gives his conclusion:


His conclusion is to kill them. They should not escape death.

Where in the link does it say that? He makes no such conclusion. Your link does not say what "your conclusion" asserts.

By the way, the first link refers to a letter Calvin wrote to Protector Lord Somerset written on October 22,1548.

The second link has to do with a number of other different treatises. Don't try to pull a fast one.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six hour warning. Sometime after 1 am PST this thread will be closed.

 

[Rippon]

Here Calvin himself recounts all the so-called "heresies" of the Anabaptists, many of them being false accusations,

You missed this terrible form of his persecution of the Anabaptists (said in sarcasm). This is from Treatise Against the Anabaptists (which is one of many works in your link having nothing to do with your original post regarding Calvin's letter to Lord Protector Somerset.)
"Now to confound them, there is no better way, then to expound and deduce the matters distinctly, and by a certain order to bring forth one matter after another, well weighing and marking the sentences of the scripture, to draw out thereof the true and natural sense, and to use a simplicity and plainness of words, which is not strange from the common speech...If the Anabaptists may not abide thus, I wot not what to say, but that he which doeth evil, hateth the light."

How dastardly, he wants to reason with them from the Scriptures!

and then gives his conclusion:

You are so dishonest DHK. You very well know that "his conclusion" is from another treatise.

His conclusion is to kill them. They should not escape death.

There is nothing there to warrant YOUR CONCLUSION. You wrest his words as you do the Scriptures. You should stop taking your mendacity pills.

 

[DHK]

Just like Jack Nicholson's character of Colonel Jessup --you, in fact are lying as he was in the movie. It's strange that people quote that line when the one who utters the line was lying.

I have asked you repeatedly to tell me the name of the archbishop in question who Calvin supposedly communicated the message :"Anabaptists should be put to death." You have not supplied his name despite the fact that I have asked repeatedly.



Where in the link does it say that? He makes no such conclusion. Your link does not say what "your conclusion" asserts.

By the way, the first link refers to a letter Calvin wrote to Protector Lord Somerset written on October 22,1548.

The second link has to do with a number of other different treatises. Don't try to pull a fast one.

1. The quote I gave was a "roughly translated quote" as the author said it was.
2. The links I gave you are straight from the mouth of Calvin himself.
3. It is evident that Calvin desired and authorized the murder of Anabaptists. You simply don't want to believe it.

 

[Rippon]

1. The quote I gave was a "roughly translated quote" as the author said it was.

Just admit it. Calvin did not write any such thing you attributed to him addressed to any archbishop.

The links I gave you are straight from the mouth of Calvin himself.

The links were not from the same letter as you falsely wanted folks to believe..

It is evident that Calvin desired and authorized the murder of Anabaptists.

That is a sinfully stupid lie on your part. Do take the time and re-read my last post that I extracted from his Treatist Against the AnaBaptists and admit you are wrong.

You simply don't want to believe it.

I don't believe lies --you, on the other hand propagate falsehoods by boadloads.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding that letter that Calvin wrote to Protector Somerset, David Constable translated the critical part as :Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they only attack the king, but strive with God who has placed him upon a royal throne and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty.

Who are the two parties? The Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists. And I think he is referencing the extreme elements of both groups. There is entirely no proof here that Calvin wanted the Anabaptists to die. Since Calvin is speaking of both groups then to be consistent you would have to say that he wanted Roman Catholics killed too. But that is completly false.

What does "repressed by the sword" mean? It's referencing what Romans 13 speaks of --especially in verse 14: "...for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Nowhere in the extract can it possibly mean 'Kill the Anabaptists." That's just your extreme prejudice and tradition coming to the surface.