Was it Calvin who saved the Waldensians?

[Jarthur001]

Hello Eliyahu,

You resembled Calvin very much! You are like Calvin!

Thanks. I do wish I had the mind that Calvin was blessed with. I'm afraid I fall short of that.

You see...you do love me.

 

[Dustin]

as always...we have someone smarter then most joes. I'm not a presby....but it is my guess if one presby was reading this thread, they have not seen any thing new. quote]



Jarthur,

You are correct sir.

I'm Presbyterian, and I've heard all that.

Looks like 100% of the Presbyterians on the BaptistBoard have heard all that stuff before, so far.

Nothing new here for the BaptistBoard Presbyterian (s).

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Dustin]

snap, a double post.

 

[Dustin]

Hello Eliyahu,



Thanks. I do wish I had the mind that Calvin was blessed with. I'm afraid I fall short of that.

You see...you do love me.

Same here, same here.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don’t think Calvin saved Waldensians. Calvin addressed his book to Francis I, French King, not to any group of true believers, and Francis I exterminated Waldensians in 1545.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians)
Calvin thought Anabaptists worse than Papists. We must acknowledge the absurdities of Calvin theology from the view point of Bible.

1. Calvin derived the Infant Baptism often from OT, and illustrated Noah’s children passed thru the Baptism when they passed the rain showers and flood, but he forgot that they were grown up adults, Shem was 100 yr old and Japhet was even older and all 3 sons were married. Then he mentioned Abraham and Ishmael were circumcised. He didn’t know how to distinguish between Circumcision and Baptism. Circumcision is specifically commanded to be performed on the 8th day after birth, but Baptism is mentioned to be after “repent” or “ believe”. Acts 8;37 which he sometimes mentioned clearly states that “ if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”. Can the infants believe with all their hearts?

Then he illustrated Acts 16:30-32 saying all the household were baptized. But it doesn’t say there were any infants or babies among them. Then he mentioned often Cornelius. But he didn’t understand that all of them heard the Word and received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). None of them give any clue for the Infant Baptism.

He was quite wrong in saying that if the infants die without Baptism, then they are forfeited the opportunity of salvation. I wonder how he could resolve such problem as his children except one died without baptism.


2. Calvin connected the Baptism with the Salvation, and said the believers look unto the Baptism when they committed sins and repent, but the true believers who had the experience of salvation look back unto the time of salvation when they found their sins and repent. Those people who do not have the actual experience of salvation may not be able to think about such repentance. The main problem with this Baptismal Regeneration is that it can cause the problem with Soteriology. He interpreted John 3:5 as Water meaning Baptism, but failed to recognize Johanine style expressing Word, Water, Blood, Spirit as we read 1 John 5:6 and never mention that the water can mean the Word of God with the power of purifying sinners.


3. Calvin didn’t have the proper distinction between OT times and NT times. So, he mentioned the punishment as King David smote the neighboring nations. I wonder how he would have treated her if the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) had been brought to him. Would he have let the council kill her? Or release her? This was asked him by Anabaptist but I found no answer from him.

He seems to have in his mind the Theocracy like Israel, but failed to remember that even Israel which had many covenants, promises from God, prophesies and the direct instruction from God, failed and ended with killing the Messiah. There is nothing wrong with the hope to build a godly Christian state, but we live in the era of NT, and NT teachings must govern the state if we want such Christian state.

If he controlled himself with the NT teachings, he might have less problem with his anger, hatred, and revenge.

4. Calvin didn’t distinguish between the Civil Criminal Offences and the Conscience Violations, while Anabaptists or Waldensians had such distinction already.

I wonder how Calvin would have accepted the verdict if he was found to be heretic and guilty as he preached the heretic Infant Baptism and Clergy System which is another version of Nicolaitane Doctrine that Jesus hates ( Rev 2:15) and the human theory on the Holy Catholic Church (4th book of Institutes). In this sense he was not different from any of the popes who didn’t allow other doctrines.


5. Calvin mentioned the Baptism by Immersion or by Sprinkling should be left free.

Then he illustrated the sprinkling of the blood over the tabernacle, and sprinkling of the water from ashes of the red heifer unto the sinners and the lepers. Didn’t he know that the blood of the animals were the shadow of the blood of Jesus Christ. It was absolutely stupid illustrations.

The water from the ash of the red heifer indicates Blood of Jesus so well, but he didn’t think that way. No one would have dipped his whole body in the blood. Then he failed to notice those NT verses, Acts 8:38 they went down INTO the water,…. Come up OUT OF the water. Also he failed to mention John the Baptist baptized the people at Aenon ( John 3:23) because there was much water there. If it was just sprinkling, why did he need much water?, what about Jesus who came OUT OF the water ( Mt 3:16), let alone the meaning of the Baptizo which means immersion and the teachings in Romans 6 tell us that the sprinkling cannot give us such teachings.

6. The problem of clergy system doesn’t exist in Calvinism only, and therefore I would not blame him very much, but I believe the most of the Waldensians believed there is no distinction between clergy and lay people.

Calvin didn’t know how to distinguish between Offices ( Overseer and Deacon) and the Gifts ( mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Cor 12, 14). We notice that there are only 2 offices mentioned in Phil 1:1 and Paul called the elders of Ephesian church and told them that Holy Spirit made them as Overseers of the church, and thereby we can tell the elders were called Overseers as well and the qualifications of Overseers are well defined in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and the deacons are mentioned in 1 Tim 3:8-13.

We also notice that the deacons baptized the new believers ( Acts 8:37-39) preached the Gospel as we read about Stephen in Acts7. But Calvin said the church people must learn from one mouth, which means Mono-Pastoral system, I don’t think Paul dictated the baptism but assigned the sacrament of Baptism to his fellow believers ( 1 Cor 1:16) and Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel ( 1Cor 1:17) If the Baptism bring the salvation, why does Paul say so?

If Calvin could develop such ridiculous theology by distorting the Bible, what could his brain not invent?



7. I know several pastors of Presbyterian and many Presbyterian believers but notice they are mostly different from Calvin, because none of them performed the Infant Baptism. In the logic of Calvin they could have been declared as Heretics.


Many of them don’t connect the Salvation with the Baptism, but just say Baptism outwardly confirms the salvation by the faith. So, I think many of the Presbyterians are doing far better than what Calvin taught. I personally believe that such change was the result of the influence from other true believers groups such as Baptists and Brethren, and from reading the Bible, not the Institutes of Christian Religion by Calvin.

Most of the Presbyterians do not know much more about Calvinism than Predestination, nor about the cruel death of Servetus. Several pastors whom I know have actually the experience of the salvation, apart from the Baptism. They do better than Calvin did, not because they learned from Calvin but from Bible directly.

My belief is that we should let the dead man sleep until the Lord comes, and the Bible is enough and sufficient to teach us everything for the belief and that there were lots of problems with the Reformers even though we may have to recognize their contributions in many cases, but should not forget that there were much more great believers who lived the era of Reformation, with the names unknown to us..

 

[Eliyahu]

Today I read the article that Church of England and Roman Catholic are in discussion about their consolidation since the problem with Episcopal church about gay marriage arose. It is not a news that Catholic try to embrace many other religions and I expect many “Reformed Roman Catholics” will return to RCC eventually, Lutherans are different from Luther’s view against Catholic, and there will be some participants even among the Baptists and Brethren. The whole world is going to the direction as Revelation prophesied even though we may not recognize it consciously.

 

[Rippon]

And your latest postulations are related to the OP in what way E-Man ?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don’t think Calvin saved Waldensians. Calvin addressed his book to Francis I, French King, not to any group of true believers, and Francis I exterminated Waldensians in 1545.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians)
Calvin thought Anabaptists worse than Papists. We must acknowledge the absurdities of Calvin theology from the view point of Bible.

1. Calvin derived the Infant Baptism often from OT, and illustrated Noah’s children passed thru the Baptism when they passed the rain showers and flood, but he forgot that they were grown up adults, Shem was 100 yr old and Japhet was even older and all 3 sons were married. Then he mentioned Abraham and Ishmael were circumcised. He didn’t know how to distinguish between Circumcision and Baptism. Circumcision is specifically commanded to be performed on the 8th day after birth, but Baptism is mentioned to be after “repent” or “ believe”. Acts 8;37 which he sometimes mentioned clearly states that “ if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”. Can the infants believe with all their hearts?

Then he illustrated Acts 16:30-32 saying all the household were baptized. But it doesn’t say there were any infants or babies among them. Then he mentioned often Cornelius. But he didn’t understand that all of them heard the Word and received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). None of them give any clue for the Infant Baptism.

He was quite wrong in saying that if the infants die without Baptism, then they are forfeited the opportunity of salvation. I wonder how he could resolve such problem as his children except one died without baptism.


2. Calvin connected the Baptism with the Salvation, and said the believers look unto the Baptism when they committed sins and repent, but the true believers who had the experience of salvation look back unto the time of salvation when they found their sins and repent. Those people who do not have the actual experience of salvation may not be able to think about such repentance. The main problem with this Baptismal Regeneration is that it can cause the problem with Soteriology. He interpreted John 3:5 as Water meaning Baptism, but failed to recognize Johanine style expressing Word, Water, Blood, Spirit as we read 1 John 5:6 and never mention that the water can mean the Word of God with the power of purifying sinners.


3. Calvin didn’t have the proper distinction between OT times and NT times. So, he mentioned the punishment as King David smote the neighboring nations. I wonder how he would have treated her if the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) had been brought to him. Would he have let the council kill her? Or release her? This was asked him by Anabaptist but I found no answer from him.

He seems to have in his mind the Theocracy like Israel, but failed to remember that even Israel which had many covenants, promises from God, prophesies and the direct instruction from God, failed and ended with killing the Messiah. There is nothing wrong with the hope to build a godly Christian state, but we live in the era of NT, and NT teachings must govern the state if we want such Christian state.

If he controlled himself with the NT teachings, he might have less problem with his anger, hatred, and revenge.

4. Calvin didn’t distinguish between the Civil Criminal Offences and the Conscience Violations, while Anabaptists or Waldensians had such distinction already.

I wonder how Calvin would have accepted the verdict if he was found to be heretic and guilty as he preached the heretic Infant Baptism and Clergy System which is another version of Nicolaitane Doctrine that Jesus hates ( Rev 2:15) and the human theory on the Holy Catholic Church (4th book of Institutes). In this sense he was not different from any of the popes who didn’t allow other doctrines.


5. Calvin mentioned the Baptism by Immersion or by Sprinkling should be left free.

Then he illustrated the sprinkling of the blood over the tabernacle, and sprinkling of the water from ashes of the red heifer unto the sinners and the lepers. Didn’t he know that the blood of the animals were the shadow of the blood of Jesus Christ. It was absolutely stupid illustrations.

The water from the ash of the red heifer indicates Blood of Jesus so well, but he didn’t think that way. No one would have dipped his whole body in the blood. Then he failed to notice those NT verses, Acts 8:38 they went down INTO the water,…. Come up OUT OF the water. Also he failed to mention John the Baptist baptized the people at Aenon ( John 3:23) because there was much water there. If it was just sprinkling, why did he need much water?, what about Jesus who came OUT OF the water ( Mt 3:16), let alone the meaning of the Baptizo which means immersion and the teachings in Romans 6 tell us that the sprinkling cannot give us such teachings.

6. The problem of clergy system doesn’t exist in Calvinism only, and therefore I would not blame him very much, but I believe the most of the Waldensians believed there is no distinction between clergy and lay people.

Calvin didn’t know how to distinguish between Offices ( Overseer and Deacon) and the Gifts ( mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Cor 12, 14). We notice that there are only 2 offices mentioned in Phil 1:1 and Paul called the elders of Ephesian church and told them that Holy Spirit made them as Overseers of the church, and thereby we can tell the elders were called Overseers as well and the qualifications of Overseers are well defined in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and the deacons are mentioned in 1 Tim 3:8-13.

We also notice that the deacons baptized the new believers ( Acts 8:37-39) preached the Gospel as we read about Stephen in Acts7. But Calvin said the church people must learn from one mouth, which means Mono-Pastoral system, I don’t think Paul dictated the baptism but assigned the sacrament of Baptism to his fellow believers ( 1 Cor 1:16) and Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel ( 1Cor 1:17) If the Baptism bring the salvation, why does Paul say so?

If Calvin could develop such ridiculous theology by distorting the Bible, what could his brain not invent?



7. I know several pastors of Presbyterian and many Presbyterian believers but notice they are mostly different from Calvin, because none of them performed the Infant Baptism. In the logic of Calvin they could have been declared as Heretics.


Many of them don’t connect the Salvation with the Baptism, but just say Baptism outwardly confirms the salvation by the faith. So, I think many of the Presbyterians are doing far better than what Calvin taught. I personally believe that such change was the result of the influence from other true believers groups such as Baptists and Brethren, and from reading the Bible, not the Institutes of Christian Religion by Calvin.

Most of the Presbyterians do not know much more about Calvinism than Predestination, nor about the cruel death of Servetus. Several pastors whom I know have actually the experience of the salvation, apart from the Baptism. They do better than Calvin did, not because they learned from Calvin but from Bible directly.

My belief is that we should let the dead man sleep until the Lord comes, and the Bible is enough and sufficient to teach us everything for the belief and that there were lots of problems with the Reformers even though we may have to recognize their contributions in many cases, but should not forget that there were much more great believers who lived the era of Reformation, with the names unknown to us..

GE:

Never have I seen a man parade his ignorance and insolence like you do, Eliyahu. Please shut up?

 

[Eliyahu]

GE:

Never have I seen a man parade his ignorance and insolence like you do, Eliyahu. Please shut up?

Thank you for your nice comment. But Bible witness for me!

 

[Eliyahu]

[FONT=바탕]So many so-called Christians try to exalt the human theologians and the human theories, despite the teachings of the Bible, without learning from the Bible directly, instead of obeying the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel, and I wonder what would have happened to the Christendom if Calvin had humbled himself to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit instead of learning theories from the Roman Catholics, Augustine, and others at the college as we notice King David obeyed the voice of God and Paul followed the teachings of the Lord with all the obedience. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Could he teach the people in the world what he learned from the college, at the age of 27, without having been broken hearted, without knowing the tears of the believers in the life of persecution? (though the book may have been revised couple of times by 1559 and even by his followers).[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]1. What if Calvin had learned from this man[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Psalm 6:6[/FONT]
6 I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.

[FONT=바탕]1 Sam 24:[/FONT]
4 And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.
6 And he said unto his men, The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD.

[FONT=바탕]2. What about this man?[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Acts 20:[/FONT]
19 Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews
[FONT=바탕]1 Cor 15:[/FONT]
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
[FONT=바탕]1 Cor 4[/FONT]
11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;

[FONT=바탕]Corinthian Church had so many problems as Calvin pointed out such as ignorance about the resurrection, idolatry, adultery, fornication, disorder in the church. If Paul were like Calvin, he would have mobilized the army and then delivered them to the civil authority to kill or imprison them. I am glad that Paul didn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t do anything as Calvin did.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]3. What if Calvin had a certain close relationship with God in person as John Wesley had like this:[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]When Wesley traveled to America as a missionary, he was in a ship with the Moravians, but was troubled with the high waves in the sea, but noticed Moravians were very calm and peaceful singing the hymn songs. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Then he started to talk about his anxiety to the Moravians, then one of them ( I guess it was Spangenberg) asked him,[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]Do you know Jesus Christ? Wesley said I am a priest at the Church of England,[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]Then the Moravian told, I asked you if you know Jesus Christ. Then Wesley said again, I am a missionary to America from COE. Then the Moravian told him again, I asked you if you know Jesus Christ, then Wesley told in a very weak voice, I know him.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]After the failure in America he returned to England and there he met Peter Boehler, a missionary from Moravia. Thereafter he heard the Gospel and was born again in the Lord on May 24, 1738, which is still celebrated by many people among the Church of England, Methodists, Wesleyan today. The teachings that Wesley learned from his life has been much distorted later on among the groups, and especially when Methodists were separated from Wesleyans around 1843 on the issue of Slavery (Methodists supported Slavery), but have left a good influence onto the Christians, I believe.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]If Calvin had such experience and then he learned from Holy Spirit[/FONT][FONT=바탕] step by step, and then he tried to follow the bible teachings, then he would have been on the side of the persecuted people, instead of the persecuting people.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]4. It is not difficult for us to find out the ridiculous statements in every page if we read his book Institutes of Christian Religion.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]He derived that the church is our mother from Gal 4:22-31, which is talking about Sarah-Jerusalem as our mother, and coincides with 1 Peter 3:6 where Sarah is our mother. We the true believers are parts of the church, and the Church is the bride of Christ. Then how is the relationship between the Believers and Christ according to his theology? Explaining the Holy Catholic Church, he said the church is our Mother and there is no Salvation outside the Church (4th book, ch 1, 4) which sounds the same as Pope Pius 9 who said There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus)[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]What about the Robber at the Cross? Was he saved after he joined the church? What about the Japanese born again believer around 1900, Uchimura Kanjo who refused attending any church because he found no church which was faithful to the Bible teachings? How can he derive such theory from Isaiah 33:24? And then he says the keys are given to the church from Mt 16:19 and 18:18, which are interpreted as giving such privilege to any believers.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]5. He seems to have learned the church history only from Roman Catholics, and so mostly criticized the Cathari, Donatists, Novatians very much from the view point of Roman Catholics ( 4th book, ch1,2) but he doesn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t mention how horribly Roman Catholic persecuted them and burnt all the writings by them. He doesn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t mention the beliefs and faith of the truly born-again believers cannot be explained or transmitted by the idol worshippers such as Roman Catholic unless their own writings are discovered.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]He repeats the ignorant understanding about Nesotrius learned from Roman Catholic, saying he dissects 2 natures devising double Christ. The discovery of Bazaar Heraclides in 1895 http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fKeywords=Nestorius[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]shows us that what Catholic has been accused Nestorius of so far is quite different from what he actually believed. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Calvin doesn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t argue against the Theotokos in his book but says [/FONT]“[FONT=바탕]Nestorius was justly condemned in Council of Ephesus[/FONT]”[FONT=바탕] ( ch 14 of Book 2, article 4). Did he find anyone in the Bible calls Mary as Mother of God? But he just mentions mother of our Lord ( Luke 1:43). His stance on the history and on Marian worship is very much Catholic.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]6. It was ridiculous that Council of Geneva prohibited any criticism against Institutes of Christian Religion in 1552. What if there is any contradiction between Bible and that book? [/FONT]

 

[Eliyahu]

[FONT=바탕]7. Today[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]s Presbyterians are quite different from Calvinism, I believe.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]They don[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t baptize the infants, and perform Lord Supper only once or twice a year, but Calvin said Lord Supper should be commemorated at least once a week, desirably twice a week, Calvin thought Baptismal Regeneration connecting Baptism with Salvation. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]But I don[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t think many Presbyterians today believe the salvation by Baptism, but by faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]If Calvin applies his doctrines to the today[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]s Presbyterians, they would be found to be mostly Heretic![/FONT]

You may have to be at least imprisoned or in the worst case may be beheaded!

I may be less punished by him than you are, because I partake Lord Supper every week!


[FONT=바탕]Sorry to destroy your beloved Idol god! I enjoy providing the Funeral Service for the Idols! So that you may become True Believers in Christ![/FONT]

 

[Eliyahu]

[FONT=바탕]Have you not read his book?[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Read his heretic Institutes of Christian Religion from the view of Bible![/FONT]

 

[Eliyahu]

Calvin may have saved some of the refugees of Waldensians fled from the persecution, by converting them to his Religion.

 

[Rippon]

E-man , you should quit while you're behind . I think that the Institutes Of The Christian Religion are far from heretical . You better watch your cavalier use of the word heretical . One needs to read the Institutes with discernment as we treat all works by men . Calvin had his share of errors . But I know your ideas are more suspect . Would you like someone to rail against you as a perverter of God's Word ? I didn't think so . You need to read more from profitable sources , and stay clear of your trashy websites . Quoting from Peter Ruckman is a sign that you have lost it . Do you have any other subjects you'd like to start on a new thread which have nothing to do with your fictionalized Calvin ? And it is real annoying when you say that he is our "god " . It actually goes beyond annoying .

 

[Eliyahu]

E-man , you should quit while you're behind . I think that the Institutes Of The Christian Religion are far from heretical . You better watch your cavalier use of the word heretical . One needs to read the Institutes with discernment as we treat all works by men . Calvin had his share of errors . But I know your ideas are more suspect . Would you like someone to rail against you as a perverter of God's Word ? I didn't think so . You need to read more from profitable sources , and stay clear of your trashy websites . Quoting from Peter Ruckman is a sign that you have lost it . Do you have any other subjects you'd like to start on a new thread which have nothing to do with your fictionalized Calvin ? And it is real annoying when you say that he is our "god " . It actually goes beyond annoying .

Hi Rippon,

You don't have to be annoyed if you truly trust Bible, when I point out the ridiculous problems in the Institutes. My ultimate source is the Bible and His Words. Tell me any one of my points which I pointed out according to the Bible if they have anything wrong.

1. Tell me how you can justify the Baptism by sprinkling.
2.Tell me how the Infant Baptism can be justified but why you are not keeping it! I told you this is not a small problem at all.


Do you celebrate the Lord Supper every week? If not, you are quite disobedient to Calvin's teaching! You may have been imprisoned if you had lived in Geneva in his era. If you trust him despite all the ridiculous distortion of the truth, then you are worshipping him as your god. [Moderator's note: Edited to remove personal attack and name calling. Watch the personal attacks and name calling. Continue to post in such a manner and you'll find yourself suspended and/or banned just as some of the Calvinists did recently for doing the same thing. Such posting is in violation of BB Posting Rules 3 and 4.]

 

[Dustin]

[FONT=바탕]7. Today[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]s Presbyterians are quite different from Calvinism, I believe.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]They don[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t baptize the infants, and perform Lord Supper only once or twice a year, but Calvin said Lord Supper should be commemorated at least once a week, desirably twice a week, Calvin thought Baptismal Regeneration connecting Baptism with Salvation. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]But I don[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t think many Presbyterians today believe the salvation by Baptism, but by faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]If Calvin applies his doctrines to the today[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]s Presbyterians, they would be found to be mostly Heretic![/FONT]

You may have to be at least imprisoned or in the worst case may be beheaded!

I may be less punished by him than you are, because I partake Lord Supper every week!


[FONT=바탕]Sorry to destroy your beloved Idol god! I enjoy providing the Funeral Service for the Idols! So that you may become True Believers in Christ![/FONT]

Eliyahu,

We have the Lord's Supper every week. All conservative Presbyterian churches I know of practice it every week. The Baptist church I used to go to practice once a month if that, and I've never seen the Lord's Supper practiced in any pentecostal church I've been to.

I think once a week is in line with Scripture. Are you saying that if us Presbyterians practice the Lord's Supper once a week we are following the teachings of Calvin and not Christ? Because we have the Lord's Supper every week, does that mean we're not true believers in Christ?

Presbyterians do practice infant baptism, but on a forum board full of baptists, I'm not going to say much more than that. I haven't studied the issue enough to have an apologetic for it. I don't have an opinion about it either way, not yet at least.

At the risk of being kicked around on here, I don't think how one is baptized matters. Presbyerians immerse, pour, and sprinkle. I'm convinced that the mode doesn't matter so much as the act itself.

If Calvin affirms Biblical doctrines, such as Lord's Supper once a week, justification by faith alone, etc... does that automatically make them questionable? Luther and Calvin did put a lot of emphasis on baptism, in fact, Luther did believe in a form of baptismal regeneration, but as it's been said over and over, nobody's theology is 100% correct. Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop, he advocated infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, but his writings on salvation by grace are a vital help in the historical study of the doctrine.

Now if Calvin said that baptism by immersion was the only acceptable mode, and murdered people who baptized by sprinkling, would he be any more evil than you think he is now?

Like I said it before, you underestimate Presbyterian understanding on Calvin's doctrines. All the elders and laypeople I know are very aware of what Calvin taught theologically. I'd go so far as to say that Reformed/Presbyterian laypeople on average know more about them than Baptists or Lutherans. You shouldn't get on a soapbox and waste your breath because in most cases you'd be preaching to the choir.

WE'RE NOT AS DUMB AS YOU THINK WE ARE! OK?!?!?!?!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu,

We have the Lord's Supper every week. All conservative Presbyterian churches I know of practice it every week. The Baptist church I used to go to practice once a month if that, and I've never seen the Lord's Supper practiced in any pentecostal church I've been to.

The Presbyterian churches that I know usually practiced the Lord Supper once or twice a year. I know Rippon is in Korea where the Presbyterian churches are dominating and you can find more Presbyterian ratio than that in Scottland. Most of them practice Lord Supper twice a year. In that case, it is evident that they are disobeying Calvin. In Canada, the Presbyterian churches that I know don't commemorate Lord Supper every week. I don't know how much percentage of Presbyterians are really practicing Lord Supper every week. I still say this because often I have noticed what Presbyterians say is different from what they actually behave.

I think once a week is in line with Scripture.

Yes, you are correct. Weekly commemoration of Lord Supper is biblical as we read 1 Cor 11:23-26 and Acts 20:7

Are you saying that if us Presbyterians practice the Lord's Supper once a week we are following the teachings of Calvin and not Christ? Because we have the Lord's Supper every week, does that mean we're not true believers in Christ?

No! You are trying to accuse me in the way how Calvin tried to accuse the people! Weekly practice is biblical and following Christ! How can you draw such logic that I am saying you are not true believers because you perform it weekly ? You are quite Calvinisitic! because you try to accuse me of what I didn't say! You don't understand what I said! I know the situation where Rippon is doing there. They don't practice it weekly! Teach them that it is not right! It is absolutely disobeying the teachings of Calvin !

Presbyterians do practice infant baptism, but on a forum board full of baptists, I'm not going to say much more than that. I haven't studied the issue enough to have an apologetic for it. I don't have an opinion about it either way, not yet at least.

I haven't seen any Presbyterians performing Infant Baptism, but I expected there can be many exceptions depending on the locations and countries and it is not surprising. I already mentioned it is ridiculous that people baptize the infants who do not have the faith, do not believe in Jesus yet! It is absolutely unbiblical! Do they repent before Baptism? I said it is not a small problem because it is related to the Soteriology.

At the risk of being kicked around on here, I don't think how one is baptized matters. Presbyerians immerse, pour, and sprinkle. I'm convinced that the mode doesn't matter so much as the act itself.

I told you all the Bible references about the mode of Baptism which Calvin stupidly expounded in the wrong way. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by immersion, the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by immersion, Baptism by Sprinkling cannot materialize what is taught by Romans 6, John the Baptist chose Aenon because the water was much there. If he sprinkled, why did he have to choose the river of much water?
Why so many people dared to die for the Baptism by immersion?
Do you know the meaning of Baptizo in Greek?
So, there is no way to deny that the mode of Baptism in the Bible was Immersion. Historically the church group who said the mode of Baptism doesn't matter often persecuted the true believers performing the Baptism by immersion.

If Calvin affirms Biblical doctrines, such as Lord's Supper once a week, justification by faith alone, etc... does that automatically make them questionable?

No, that is not a problem but correct! I never argued against it, but what I pointed out was that many of Presbyterians and even other denominations even including Baptists do not practice it weekly.

Luther and Calvin did put a lot of emphasis on baptism, in fact, Luther did believe in a form of baptismal regeneration, but as it's been said over and over, nobody's theology is 100% correct. Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop, he advocated infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, but his writings on salvation by grace are a vital help in the historical study of the doctrine.

Yes, Salvation by Grace is the most important thing, and I don't argue against it. But the Baptismal Regeneration damages Sola Fide, Salvation by Faith. Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and other Reformers showed many different problems. We don't need them when we read the Bible. Infant Baptism is a serious problem as it is the tradition from RCC and it relates to the Soteriology and contains a big misunderstanding about the Salvation and Baptism.

Now if Calvin said that baptism by immersion was the only acceptable mode, and murdered people who baptized by sprinkling, would he be any more evil than you think he is now?

The people who obey the truth of NT fully doesn't kill the people as you are concerned about. I know RCC performed Baptism mostly by Immersion by 14 c but they killed many true believers even during such time.
What I said is that we cannot teach God, or alterate what is taught in the Bible. Apparently Bible teaches Immersion. You may have heard so many articles saying Sprinkling is the practice of Paganism, as you can see it when Pope sprinkle the so-called holy water here and there.

Like I said it before, you underestimate Presbyterian understanding on Calvin's doctrines. All the elders and laypeople I know are very aware of what Calvin taught theologically. I'd go so far as to say that Reformed/Presbyterian laypeople on average know more about them than Baptists or Lutherans. You shouldn't get on a soapbox and waste your breath because in most cases you'd be preaching to the choir.

WE'RE NOT AS DUMB AS YOU THINK WE ARE! OK?!?!?!?!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

What I mentioned is that Institutes has many flaws in it. There is no need to follow it, as we can read the Bible directly and follow the teachings of it.

It is up to you whether you follow this or that. I will follow the Bible, the Words of God, and will declare the Truth as long as the opportunity is available, telling Bible is enough, and that following anyone else than God is stupid.

 

[Rippon]

Presbyterians in South Korea . I don't know how often they observe the Lord's Table . I tend to doubt that it as infrequent as twice a year . I would think it is about once a month .

Please don't use terminology like " you are disobeying Calvin " to stress an ill-conceived point . Those who are biblical Calvinists here regard disobeying the Lord as the serious thing -- not going against some beliefs Calvin held .

I follow Calvin as much as I think he follows the Word of God . The same goes for Spurgeon , Pink , Reymond and a host of other God-ordained folks who God has raised up to nurture and strengthen His Body through the centuries .

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dustin:

"We have the Lord's Supper every week. All conservative Presbyterian churches I know of practice it every week. The Baptist church I used to go to practice once a month if that, and I've never seen the Lord's Supper practiced in any pentecostal church I've been to."

GE:

Colossians 2:16, "Do not you let yourselves be condemned (or) judged by anyone (of the world) concerning your eating and drinking ("feasting", of Jesus Christ spiritually), in fact, concerning (your feasting) of Feast, of month's or of Sabbaths', which thing is a spectre of things-a-coming, even the Body of Christ's Own . . . holding to the Head from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God!"

 

[Eliyahu]

Presbyterians in South Korea . I don't know how often they observe the Lord's Table . I tend to doubt that it as infrequent as twice a year . I would think it is about once a month .

This reveals that you don't know the Presbyterians there as much as I do. check out 10 churches there by phone call, or you can ask your collegues in your job site. None of them practice it once a month. Only 2 times or once a year. You cannot defend Presbyterian church practice or explain the difference between Calvinism and the actual Presbyterian practice without participating there at least one month. I know there are more than 30,000 Presbyterian churches in South Korea and some of them have the weekly attendants over 50,000. One great feature of Korea is that most of the Protestant Christians spend much time reading the Bible, resulting in that almost 2 million Bibles are sold in Korea every year, which means Korea has the highest ratio per capita Bible sold every year, as far as I understand.

Please don't use terminology like " you are disobeying Calvin " to stress an ill-conceived point . Those who are biblical Calvinists here regard disobeying the Lord as the serious thing -- not going against some beliefs Calvin held .

You must admit that there can be discrepancy between Bible and what Calvin taught, and the Bible is not farther than Calvin, it is in your hand! When you follow the Bible teachings which is different from what Calvin taught, you are obeying God, disobeying Calvin. You cannot serve 2 Masters as Jesus said.

I follow Calvin as much as I think he follows the Word of God . The same goes for Spurgeon , Pink , Reymond and a host of other God-ordained folks who God has raised up to nurture and strengthen His Body through the centuries .

They may have done their role in their era. It is not the will of God that we follow any specific person, forming a group like a denomination.
We should disagree with them when they deviated from the Bible. We should disagree with Calvin when we realize Infant Baptism is wrong. We should not smoke the cigarette as Spurgeon did until he was convicted by the Advertizement of the cigarette companies. Eventually we don't need them for our guidance. The Bible contains all the teachings necessary for our spiritual life in detail, and the Holy Spirit teach us every moment in our heart, and Jesus Christ is our great teacher and everything for us. Why do we need human theory for our guidance?