True calvinism

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I am probably Calvinistic and not Reformed but most people don't know the difference.

I read the old translation of the Institutes twice and that convinced me to dump dispensationalism. Calvin is the clearest theological writer I have read. He in the most internally consistent and requires the fewest axioms/assumed stuff that is unprovable. The new translation is supposed to be easier to modern ears.

GE:

I very much like this extract and the translation of it.

I have been Reformed and Calvinist since what I call my 'enlightenment' fifty odd years ago, and Calvin was everywhere I looked.

Calvin here states one uncompromisable 'doctrine' by which any individual or church-body is judged, truly or not at all, Christian : Who do you think is Jesus Christ? If you do not believe He is GOD, you have separated yourself, and the Church of Christ has excommunicated you. On this point there is NO compromise!

And I agree and accept!

Then Calvin makes a mute second condition whereby a person or his church-affiliation is judged, condemned, or approved, and it is, Does he abide with the two 'sacraments’ of the Church as Calvin understood it and the 'church'.

Now I want to be a good disciple of Calvin, and remain a faithful follower of him DESPITE his violation of his own principles and standards with this very silent condemnation which he without saying, pronounces upon anyone or every one who may differ with him in respect to it.
Calvin, bluntly, flatly dis-fellowships anyone not believing in water-baptism of babies through sprinkling. I REJECT it in toto!

And Calvin automatically unavoidably and irrevocable dis-fellowships - cuts off all membership of the Body of Christ's -, the believer believing the Seventh Day Sabbath, against the church order in public worship on the First Day of the week. There is NO grace or love allowed that poor soul and that unfortunate Assembly, in Calvinism. Man and church have NO right to call him or itself, Christian. Let us be frank. And let us be frank this a priori status quo in the Church of God until this day, belies the pious paragraphs quoted as it belies the whole confession of Christian Faith from the beginning.

 

[billwald]

>Calvin, bluntly, flatly dis-fellowships anyone not believing in water-baptism of babies through sprinkling.

BECAUSE the Church replaces Israel and baptism replaces circumcism. Most Baptists were Reformed until Darby invented dispensationalism and two means (paths) of salvation in the middle of the 1800's.

 

[Eric B]

The church replacing Israel is understandable, but where did they ever get the authority to have baptism replace circumcision? Baptism actually existed side by side with circumcision before Christ; at least for awhile leading up to the NT period. It was obviously the antitype of the passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor.10:2), and then took on the NT meaning of death and rebirth. That had nothing to do with circumcision which was a "sign" of God's people (and whose NT antitype is actually the "circumcision of the heart/ears" Act 7:51, Col 2:11, where people become open to the Gospel).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

...............

Typically, "calvinistic" means adherence to Dortian soteriology, i.e., the five points. "Reformed" typically means a broader acceptance of the theology of the reformers, .................

GE:

Where's the 'difference between what you call 'the five points', and 'Reformed ... broader acceptance..."?

I am 'n 'Dopper' ('without permission'), that is, of Reformed Protestant Faith. 'We' strictly believe what the Reformers taught for Gospel, and they taught TULIP.

Proudly and thankfully,

GE.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The church replacing Israel is understandable, but where did they ever get the authority to have baptism replace circumcision? Baptism actually existed side by side with circumcision before Christ; at least for awhile leading up to the NT period. It was obviously the antitype of the passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor.10:2), and then took on the NT meaning of death and rebirth. That had nothing to do with circumcision which was a "sign" of God's people (and whose NT antitype is actually the "circumcision of the heart/ears" Act 7:51, Col 2:11, where people become open to the Gospel).

GE:

Good! Correct!

... provided ... water baptism was an apostolic distinction that "took on the NT meaning of ..." the death and resurrection OF CHRIST (e.g. Colossians 2) and ended with the 'apostolic age'.

 

[DHK]

BECAUSE the Church replaces Israel and baptism replaces circumcism. Most Baptists were Reformed until Darby invented dispensationalism and two means (paths) of salvation in the middle of the 1800's.

The "Church" never replaced Israel. That is a heresy known as Replacement Theology. Israel still exists today, just not as God's chosen people. They haven't been replaced. When Christ comes again he will come for Israel. According to Romans 11:22, "so then all Israel shall be saved." The entire Millennial Kingdom will focus on the nation of Israel. God is not done with the nation of Israel. Israel has not been replaced.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The "Church" never replaced Israel. That is a heresy known as Replacement Theology. Israel still exists today, just not as God's chosen people. They haven't been replaced. When Christ comes again he will come for Israel. According to Romans 11:22, "so then all Israel shall be saved." The entire Millennial Kingdom will focus on the nation of Israel. God is not done with the nation of Israel. Israel has not been replaced.

GE:

And yours is what I think they call 'dipensationalism' and I would rather call the heresy of dispensationalism.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus wept, it is written on one occasion. If I'm not mistaken, I vaguely remember it was on that occasion when he compared Israel with a hen and chicks. It fits, in any case... God is done with Israel after the flesh -- for ever. Now Paul says the wrath of God remains on them until the end and day of judgment. DHK's "Millennial Kingdom" which "will focus on the nation of Israel" is the figment of his imagination. DHK thinks what he thinks because he thinks "ALL Israel" is all Israel genealogically and that a 'Spiritual Israel' is the figment of the imagination of just about every 'normal' believer.

 

[billwald]

> It was obviously the antitype of the passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor.10:2), and then took on the NT meaning of death and rebirth.

OK. Then unless you claim that there were no infants in Israel when they left Egypt we had biblical authorization for infant baptism.

 

[billwald]

> When Christ comes again he will come for Israel. According to Romans 11:22, "so then all Israel shall be saved."

Then the Jews are all saved even though they reject Jesus as God. There are two avenues to Heaven. Does your theology also protect those who convert to Judaism? According to Torah converts have the same rights and protections as natural born jews.

 

[DHK]

GE:

And yours is what I think they call 'dipensationalism' and I would rather call the heresy of dispensationalism.

Replacement Theology is a heresy. It teaches that the Church replaced Israel, and we can show from Scriptures that that view is unscriptural. Paul, as his custom was, went to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (Gentile). The Jews existed alongside of the Jews. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 Jews were saved. Jews are still being saved today. The nation of Israel still exists today. To deny this very basic fact is on the level of denying the holocaust.

I would be careful about calling dispensationalism heresy on this board, since more than half of the posters believe in it. Remember it is a Baptist Board, and you are the guest here. For you to come on here and tell us that Baptist doctrine is heresy is uncalled for. If you want to post on a board that is primarily of another persuasion then you can find one and post there. Don't come here and post what many or most believe, heresy. Consider it a warning.

Replacement Theology has a successor.
Islam believes it will replace Christianity. Do you believe this also. That is the natural succession in replacement theology. They are trying to drive Israel into the sea and are trying to take over the world with their religion. Belief in Replacement Theology will naturally lead to this belief also. Is this one of your beliefs??

 

[billwald]

>Replacement Theology is a heresy. It teaches that the Church replaced Israel, and we can show from Scriptures that that view is unscriptural. Paul, as his custom was, went to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (Gentile). The Jews existed alongside of the Jews. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 Jews were saved. Jews are still being saved today. The nation of Israel still exists today. To deny this very basic fact is on the level of denying the holocaust.

1. Paul went to the Jews first because he was most comfortable dealing with Jews and because Jewish tradition demanded that he be given a hearing as a traveling rabbi.

2. "The Jews existed alongside of the Jews." Say again?

3. If the Church didn't replace Judaism there there would be no reason for Jews to be saved because, as Moses and Jesus taught, "The Law" was sufficient for salvation.

The Nation of Israel still exists as a political entity since 1948 mostly because of money and political support from American Jews and American Dispensationalists.

If you want to argue that Israel has existed since Abraham then so have the Arabs existed from Abraham and we have a draw.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Replacement Theology is a heresy. It teaches that the Church replaced Israel, and we can show from Scriptures that that view is unscriptural. Paul, as his custom was, went to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (Gentile). The Jews existed alongside of the Jews. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 Jews were saved. Jews are still being saved today. The nation of Israel still exists today. To deny this very basic fact is on the level of denying the holocaust.

I would be careful about calling dispensationalism heresy on this board, since more than half of the posters believe in it. Remember it is a Baptist Board, and you are the guest here. For you to come on here and tell us that Baptist doctrine is heresy is uncalled for. If you want to post on a board that is primarily of another persuasion then you can find one and post there. Don't come here and post what many or most believe, heresy. Consider it a warning.

Replacement Theology has a successor.
Islam believes it will replace Christianity. Do you believe this also. That is the natural succession in replacement theology. They are trying to drive Israel into the sea and are trying to take over the world with their religion. Belief in Replacement Theology will naturally lead to this belief also. Is this one of your beliefs??
[/SIZE]

GE:

DHK, what you describe here is YOUR skew idea of Reformed Faith. Reformation Faith is not 'dispensationalism', and it is not 'replacement Theology'. REFORMATION-FAITH IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN. 'CALVINISM', WITH TWO RESERVATIONS, A SUNDAY-SABBATH, AND A WATER-BAPTISM.

And you love it to try scare me off Baptist Board. Do as you like; see if it will change truth.

I am here sharing on a Baptist Board yes --- but on the section which BAPTIST BOARD allows "OTHER Christian Denominations". So it is you who act against your OWN Board rules, not allowing me my say on here.

Is it because I hold PERSONAL views and Beliefs or rather COMBINATION of views and Beliefs which no Denomination on earth holds, that you ever so often threaten me with expulsion?

Do as you see fit DHK, my persuasions I am convinced FULLY, are FULLY Scriptural and therefore inextinguishable TRUTH THAT WILL TRIUMPH by inherent integrity and power of content. Go along, throw me out, God's everlasting arms are stretched out ready to catch me and carry me wherever HE, may want me to go or be.

One verse from God's Word makes more and more sense to me the older I get and nearer the end: Revelation 14:4. I believe 'women' is metaphor for churches.

 

[DHK]

GE:

DHK, what you describe here is YOUR skew idea of Reformed Faith. Reformation Faith is not 'dispensationalism', and it is not 'replacement Theology'. REFORMATION-FAITH IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN. 'CALVINISM', WITH TWO RESERVATIONS, A SUNDAY-SABBATH, AND A WATER-BAPTISM.

And you love it to try scare me off Baptist Board. Do as you like; see if it will change truth.

I am here sharing on a Baptist Board yes --- but on the section which BAPTIST BOARD allows "OTHER Christian Denominations". So it is you who act against your OWN Board rules, not allowing me my say on here.

Is it because I hold PERSONAL views and Beliefs which no Denomination on earth holds, that you ever so often threaten me with expulsion?

Do as you see fit DHK, my persuasions I am convinced FULLY, are FULLY Scriptural and therefore inextinguishable TRUTH THAT WILL TRIUMPH by inherent integrity and power of content. Go along, throw me out, God's everlasting arms are stretched out ready to catch me and carry me wherever HE, may want me to go or be.

One verse from God's Word makes more and more sense to me the older I get and nearer the end: Revelation 14:4. I believe 'women' is metaphor for churches.

I don't care what forum you are posting in.
Does that give you the right to call Baptist doctrine heresy?
Does it??

 

[DHK]

If you want to argue that Israel has existed since Abraham then so have the Arabs existed from Abraham and we have a draw.

Exactly, but no draw.
Did Christianity replace Arabs too? No--absurd position.
Did Islam replace Arabs? That would parallel replacement theology.
Obviously not. The doctrine is heretical.
Both Jews and Arabs exist to this day.
Both the children of Abraham and the children of Ishmael exist to this day.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't care what forum you are posting in.
Does that give you the right to call Baptist doctrine heresy?
Does it??

GE:

And what 'right' do you think you have to call Reformed Faith – which ever called "Baptist doctrine heresy" –, heresy?

In any case, I categorically DENY I "call(ed) Baptist doctrine heresy". You accuse me falsely, DHK!

But I won't say another word in this vain vein. Period.

 

[DHK]

GE:

And what 'right' do you think you have to call Reformed Faith – which ever called "Baptist doctrine heresy" –, heresy?

In any case, I categorically DENY I "call(ed) Baptist doctrine heresy". You accuse me falsely, DHK!

But I won't say another word in this vain vein. Period.

It was even worse GE. You made it personal. You directed it right to me:

Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn


GE:

And yours is what I think they call 'dipensationalism' and I would rather call the heresy of dispensationalism.

I can hardly find a more offensive and obnoxious post concerning doctrine than this one.

 

[Eric B]

> It was obviously the antitype of the passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor.10:2), and then took on the NT meaning of death and rebirth.

OK. Then unless you claim that there were no infants in Israel when they left Egypt we had biblical authorization for infant baptism.

It was a type, so all of the analogies do not follow perfectly. There were infants there, but the directive was given to the adults, and that would match believer's baptism today.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The _TYPE_ of the passing through the Red Sea of Israel took on the NT meaning of death and rebirth, secondarily. But in harmony with all the analogies of Biblical types, it took on more specifically the NT meaning of CHRIST'S death and resurrection ("rebirth") --- of HIM, as THE ANTI-TYPE of all 'biblical authorization' and not of a water baptism of any.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So after all this.....What is "True" Calvinism?