Were Calvin and Luther 'saved'?

[JonC]

For clarity-

You believe Mormons are saved?

No.

It is wrong to lump Mormons into Christianity just as it is wrong to lump the followers of Matthys into the Anabaotists.

The term "anabaptist" was just used to describe any sect that holds to believers baptism.

But we use the term to describe the common beliefs of baptistic groups that were a part of the Protestant movement without having been a part of the Catholic Church. So Matthys' cult would be excluded from Anabaotist theology.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you believe they're 'saved'?

Well we could alter Sproul a bit. RC Sproul once said that, Calvinists are saved, but just barely.

Does that work for you KY?

 

[JonC]

Sir, I know church history, having studied it intensively and extensively for 50 years. Anything I state about it is fact. Facts are stubborn things; they can't be changed. Someone with deficient knowledge, such as yourself, might challenge them, but facts remain.

You are correct.

The Münster rebellion was not an Anabaptist rebellion.

The reason is Anabaotist theology includes more than believers baptism. At the time of the rebellion any sect that was baptistic was called "anabaptist".

But the sect involved in the Münster rebellion was a cult that rejected most of what constituted Anabaptist beliefs.

They rejected Anabaptist separation.
They rejected Anabaptist non-violence.
They rejected the Anabaptist ecclesiology.

This sect was a cult.
They viewed Jan Matthys and Jan van Leiden as prophets.

What @Tea is doing, I believe unintentionally, is characterizing a group of Christians based on a cult that was led by men who left the Anabaptist faith.

If Matthys' cult were Anabaptists then Jehovah Witnesses are Baptists.

 

[JonC]

@Tea

I agree that men are human and can do horrible things while blind to their actions. I agree that we cannot know the state of their souls. We address them by their fruits.

Regarding the Anabaptists and the cult that broke off from Anabaptist and were led by Jan Matthys and Jan van Leiden, I think you may want to read of that cult before characterizing them as "Anabaptist".

It really does not matter, but it is a very interesting history (if you are interested in these things).

 

[easternstar]

Luther and Calvin, like everybody else, were sinners saved by grace because the Lord Jesus Christ had graciously taken their sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for then in full.
The apostle Paul was by his own confession, a murderer (Acts 22:4; 26:10). Just as he was used in an extraordinary way by God, so were Luther and Calvin.

The difference between Paul, and Luther and Calvin, is that Paul stopped murdering after his conversion.

 

[easternstar]

So far, you've made at least one factual error regarding the Anabaptists, and it looks like you've turned to deflection, which should cause you some embarrassment.

It also appears that your goal is to bash Luther, Calvin, and anyone who has anything positive to say about them.

Yeah, we’re going to get along just fine.

I have made no factual error regarding the Anabaptists. I am not embarrassed about facts, but you clearly are.
I don't have a goal regarding Luther and Calvin or their supporters. I asked a question and stated an opinion.

 

[easternstar]

Point of clarification - Matthys (and the Anabaptists involved in the rebellion) were "Anabaptists" like Mormons are "Christians".

They did hold to believers baptism but they rejected most of what we consider to be Anabaptist theology (most of what Anabaptists believed).

Yes, that was my point -- the 'Munsterites' were an aberration; they had nothing in common with the Anabaptist movement except believers' baptism. Their church-statist opponents tried to link them with Anabaptists in order to smear Anabaptists and further justify killing them. Anabaptists were pacifists.

Thank you for your excellent and factual point of clarification.

 

[easternstar]

To clarify: My purpose is not to bash Calvinists. I previously stated that two of my friends are Calvinists, and they are two of the finest people I know. I do have a problem with certain points of Calvinist theology.

 

[Tea]

I asked a question and stated an opinion.

No, what you've done so far is demonstrate your intention to stir the pot.

You began by accusing @kyredneck of being judgemental without first making an honest effort to get to know the man.

You're quick to judgement, aren't you?

You've also accused us of defending "murderers."

I'll add that it strikes me as strange to see the murderous actions and beliefs of Calvin and Luther defended on a Baptist forum.

On top of that, you stated that you possess infallible knowledge of church history.

Sir, I know church history, having studied it intensively and extensively for 50 years. Anything I state about it is fact.

So please tell me why I should believe that you have anything credible to say from this point forward.

 

[easternstar]

No, what you've done so far is demonstrate your intention to stir the pot.

You began by accusing @kyredneck of being judgemental without first making an honest effort to get to know the man.



You've also accused us of defending "murderers."



On top of that, you stated that you possess infallible knowledge of church history.



So please tell me why I should believe that you have anything credible to say from this point forward.

I don't care what you believe. You're dishonest, so I have no desire to talk with you.

 

[Tea]

I don't care what you believe. You're dishonest, so I have no desire to talk with you.

And I'm inclined to believe that you're a troll, so I will do you a solid by putting you on ignore and letting that situation sort itself out.

Good day.

 

[easternstar]

And I'm inclined to believe that you're a troll, so I will do you a solid by putting you on ignore and letting that situation sort itself out.

Good day.

And I'm inclined to believe you're a Pharisee, so good riddance.

 

[JonC]

To clarify: My purpose is not to bash Calvinists. I previously stated that two of my friends are Calvinists, and they are two of the finest people I know. I do have a problem with certain points of Calvinist theology.

I am the same way. I was a Calvinist for years. A lot of my friends are now (both Baptists and Presbyterians). A lot of my friends are Calvinistic (not quite a Calvinist, but not quite not one either).

I have a problem with most of their doctrine (the doctrine that stands apart from Christian doctrine held in common).

The reason I argue strongly against Calvinism is that I have experienced it. Having left, I now know what it replaces.

But there is a huge difference between opposing Calvinism and hating Calvinists. I don't even hate the Greek Orthodox. I love lamb.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Also, the Protestants proposed a doctrine of the atonement that was hideous and worse than the RCC ever held, that of PSA.

The RCC practices the Celebration of 'Christmas', which is their religious rite where they symbolize 'the massacre of Christ', just as all of their other 'Masses', actually making the term 'Christmas' an abomination, in and of itself.

Do you Celebrate 'Christmas'?

PSA makes its God a monster instead of the loving and merciful God that Jesus taught.

Do you have any thoughts along these lines that you could start a new thread on, if you think that would be needed, to describe what you are talking about here?

I guess it's just Love and Mercy you Attribute to God, without Justice, like everywhere else I've seen this, and therefore no Atonement at all, no possibility of Salvation for anyone, and the whole Human Race has gone or is going to Hell.

While at the same time, trying to say, "God made it possible for anybody to be saved", in a General 'Do Not Go to Hell' Offer He has for them and then He sits back to see who is smart enough to just say "no" to Hell.

I hate PSA with a passion.

Do you believe the "God can do anything He wants to" thing and "has His Own Righteousness" to give out, so Jesus' Perfect Life being Crucified was for some other reason we don't know anything about?...

Just as long as God Delivering Up His Only Begotten Son, by His Determinate Council and Foreknowledge, did not involve any of the same Judicious Wrath being Poured Out Forever and Ever on lost sinners in Hell, for breaking God's Universal Moral Law and Infinitely Offending Him as their Eternally Holy Creator,...

and has nothing to do with what Jesus Suffered, which could never have been anything like a Commiserate Judicious Wrath Smiting God's Perfect Son with the Rod of Justice, as the Substitute of His Chosen Elect and in their Place, to the same extent they would have been Tormented Eternally, in the Lake of Fire.

Just because that is PSA and you got hold of something that told you that there was a big enough deal that could be made about it, to self-righteously hate it, according to them?

Who and/or where was that?

Given a choice of being forced to accept PSA or become a RC, I'd choose the latter.

RC still has 'mayrtering' whoever they feel like since day one and has that as their current methodology, and if they don't, why are they doing so?

Is RC the real you? Is RC the New you?

 

[easternstar]

I am the same way. I was a Calvinist for years. A lot of my friends are now (both Baptists and Presbyterians). A lot of my friends are Calvinistic (not quite a Calvinist, but not quite not one either).

I have a problem with most of their doctrine (the doctrine that stands apart from Christian doctrine held in common).

The reason I argue strongly against Calvinism is that I have experienced it. Having left, I now know what it replaces.

But there is a huge difference between opposing Calvinism and hating Calvinists. I don't even hate the Greek Orthodox. I love lamb.

In general, I hate evil, not people. I believe there are evil people who act accordingly. I believe there are good people who sometimes do evil things. I believe there are Christians who err, stumble, fall, and sometimes do evil things. I must admit that I come close to hating people who have purposely and willfully aligned themselves with evil, those who love the darkness rather than the light. But I have to remind myself that God can save even those.

 

[easternstar]

The RCC practices the Celebration of 'Christmas', which is their religious rite where they symbolize 'the massacre of Christ', just as all of their other 'Masses', actually making the term 'Christmas' an abomination, in and of itself.

Do you Celebrate 'Christmas'?

Do you have any thoughts along these lines that you could start a new thread on, if you think that would be needed, to describe what you are talking about here?

I guess it's just Love and Mercy you Attribute to God, without Justice, like everywhere else I've seen this, and therefore no Atonement at all, no possibility of Salvation for anyone, and the whole Human Race has gone or is going to Hell.



Do you believe the "God can do anything He wants to" thing and "has His Own Righteousness" to give out, so Jesus' Perfect Life being Crucified was for some other reason we don't know anything about?...

Just as long as God Delivering Up His Only Begotten Son, by His Determinate Council and Foreknowledge, did not involve any of the same Judicious Wrath being Poured Out Forever and Ever on lost sinners in Hell, for breaking God's Universal Moral Law and Infinitely Offending Him as their Eternally Holy Creator,...

and has nothing to do with what Jesus Suffered, which could never have been anything like a Commiserate Judicious Wrath Smiting God's Perfect Son with the Rod of Justice, as the Substitute of His Chosen Elect and in their Place, to the same extent they would have been Tormented Eternally, in the Lake of Fire.

Just because that is PSA and you got hold of something that told you that there was a big enough deal that could be made about it, to self-righteously hate it, according to them?

Who and/or where was that?

RC still has 'mayrtering' whoever they feel like as their current methodology, and if they don't, why are they doing so?

Is RC the real you? Is RC the New you?

Thank you for your post.
I'd rather not start a thread on PSA. In the past, and in other places, I have argued and discussed that to the point I wearied of it. I'll just say this: My atonement views align with those held by the earliest churches; those views were neither RC nor Protestant. The atonement theories of those Communions (RC and Protestant) developed much later, and I totally reject them.

 

[JonC]

I'd rather not start a thread on PSA.

Oh....you won't have to.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The difference between Paul, and Luther and Calvin, is that Paul stopped murdering after his conversion.

You make it sound as if Luther and Calvin were mass murderers. Someone has written, The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. It was generally believed for hundreds of years that allowing freedom of religion would spark violence and revolution, a belief that was only supported by the pacifism promoted by Anabaptists at a time when the Turks had very recently been beseiging Vienna (1521), and by the goings-on in Munster. In fact, freedom of religion is a pretty radical thing today, as people all over Africa will tell you, not to mention in Ukraine, where in the areas where Russia has taken over, the Baptist churches are being suppressed and Ukrainians are being frog-marched into the Russian Orthodox Church.

We owe the Anabaptists a debt for being the first to press for religious tolerance, but for may of them, their theology does not stand scrutiny. Many of them, including Menno Simons, cast doubt on the humanity of the Lord Jesus by denying that He received his human body from Mary ('Melchiorism' after Melchior Hoffman, or 'heavenly flesh' theology). Others denied the Trinity, original sin and justification by faith.

As a young Christian, I read The Anabaptist Story by William Estep and The Reformers and their Step-children by Verduin, and for a while I was a big fan of Anabaptists. But both those books are white-washes of Anabaptism. There were very serious defects in the movement, and while they do not at all justify the horrendous persecution many of them endured, one should avoid an idealistic view of them.

 

[easternstar]

You make it sound as if Luther and Calvin were mass murderers. Someone has written, The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. It was generally believed for hundreds of years that allowing freedom of religion would spark violence and revolution, a belief that was only supported by the pacifism promoted by Anabaptists at a time when the Turks had very recently been beseiging Vienna (1521), and by the goings-on in Munster. In fact, freedom of religion is a pretty radical thing today, as people all over Africa will tell you, not to mention in Ukraine, where in the areas where Russia has taken over, the Baptist churches are being suppressed and Ukrainians are being frog-marched into the Russian Orthodox Church.

We owe the Anabaptists a debt for being the first to press for religious tolerance, but for may of them, their theology does not stand scrutiny. Many of them, including Menno Simons, cast doubt on the humanity of the Lord Jesus by denying that He received his human body from Mary ('Melchiorism' after Melchior Hoffman, or 'heavenly flesh' theology). Others denied the Trinity, original sin and justification by faith.

As a young Christian, I read The Anabaptist Story by William Estep and The Reformers and their Step-children by Verduin, and for a while I was a big fan of Anabaptists. But both those books are white-washes of Anabaptism. There were very serious defects in the movement, and while they do not at all justify the horrendous persecution many of them endured, one should avoid an idealistic view of them.

Since Calvin and Luther were directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians, in that sense they were indeed mass murderers.

I don't idealize the Anabaptists or the Baptists or the Quakers. But while the Protestants and Catholics were professing Jesus while their churches were killing Christians in His name, they were actually following the teachings and actions of Jesus.

And, I have more disagreements with Protestant and Catholic theology than I do with Anabaptist theology. I find Anabaptists to be much closer to the New Testament and its authors, first century followers of Jesus.

 

[Walter]

Thank you for your post.
I'd rather not start a thread on PSA. In the past, and in other places, I have argued and discussed that to the point I wearied of it. I'll just say this: My atonement views align with those held by the earliest churches; those views were neither RC nor Protestant. The atonement theories of those Communions (RC and Protestant) developed much later, and I totally reject them.

IMHO, I think you align much closer to Orthodoxy in your atonement position