Calvinism

[Guest]

Your a riot lol :

Tell me, does on have to have a "correct" view on baptism to recieve this free gift? :o

One can make a mistake as to who can be baptized and how they should be baptized. Baptism is merely the sign of that which it signifies: the washing of our sins by the Holy Spirit.

One can not make a mistake on the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, for the Gospel itself is at stake in this dogma. Baptismal regeneration contradicts the Gospel and is a heresy.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Where have you made a (real) case for God's "absolute determination"? Assuming that you hold to the view that God determines every event in history, I challenge to provide texts that support this view with the property that they are not also consistent with other views.

Of course, if you believe otherwise, please ignore this post.

I have already done this on my thread titled: Calvinism and the Meaning of Life. If anyone would like to see how I use logic to prove my views from Scripture, then use logic to dispatch with your views, then they are more than welcome to read that same thread under the "General" category of this forum.

You have recently abandoned the discussion on predestination and free-will on that thread and changed the subject to the immutability of God. Such a digression only shows that you are intellectually bankrupt on the subject of predestination.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

RC's claim they have an unbroken tradition and that tradition is what is used to understand scripture...

Good posts JM

R.B.

 

[stovebolts]

RC's claim they have an unbroken tradition and that tradition is what is used to understand scripture...

Well JM, I'm not going to defend the RCC in this regard and before anyone jumps on the band wagon and starts calling me a Roman Catholic, let me state that I disagree with much of their dogma. However, I also disagree with much of what is being posted in this thread by what I'll tag as, "Merchants of fear". (it's a Scientology term an no, I'm not a Scientologist, but I will borrow their term as it seems to apply)

Red,
Have you heard of John Mark Hicks? He is the Professor of Theology at Lipscomb University. He wrote a fantastic book on Baptism Theology, you should check it out.
http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/

While your at it, you might even enjoy this article :D
http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/cont ... ?CID=67970

John Mark writes on page 118 – 119:
John Calvin (d. 1564)
While sharing many persective with Zwingli, the Geneva Reformer believes that Zurich Reformer went too far. Calvin does not locate the chief or fundamental purpose of baptism in its public profession. On the contrary, he believes its primary significance is its correlation to saving faith. In other words, baptism is more about what God does in relation to our faith than about what we do in our profession of faith. Much of what Calvin writes about the sacraments in general and baptism in particular in his Institutes of Christian Religion (1559) is directed against those who would reduce the sacraments , including baptism, to some kind of anthropocentrism or mere public human profession. He writes: “but we do not tolerate that what is secondary in the sacraments be regarded by them as the first and even the only point. Now, the first point is that the sacraments should serve our faith before God; after this, that they should attest our confession before menâ€Â. (Institutes, 4.14.13)

Calvin also writes:…Baptism is the laver of regeneration, although the whole world should be incredulous (Titus 3:5); the Supper of Christ is the communication of his body and blood ( 1 Corinthians 10:16), although there were not a spark of faith in the world; but we do not perceive the grace which is offered to us; and although spiritual things always remain the same, yet we do not obtain their effect nor perceive their value, unless we are cautious that our want of faith should not profane what God has consecrated our salvation [sic]

On page 120:… Calvin, then, polemicizes against two extremes. He rejects Zwingli’s anthropocentric and merely symbolic understanding of baptism, but he also rejects any kind of sacramentalism that locates the virtue of baptism in the water…

 

[Guest]

Red,
Have you heard of John Mark Hicks? He is the Professor of Theology at Lipscomb University. He wrote a fantastic book on Baptism Theology, you should check it out.

If I get a moment, I would like to read the articles. Thank you for posting links to them.

Red Beetle

 

[christian_soldier]

Could you tell me where I might look up the gospel according to John Calvin in my bible? I can't seem to find his name anywhere. Isn't he your "pope"? (sarcasm intended)
Man exaltation isn't just happening in the catholic church....I even saw where you guys start small children out watching videos about John Calvin :o
I guess you need to get them while they're young!

I have no doubt in my mind that 'Fransisdesales' (a catholic member here) is a man of God, and seems to know the bible better than those who haughtily sit as judges over his salvation.
Not only that, he has actual evidence of fruit instead of 'doctrinal' know it all lip service, unlike the proud modern day pharisees.
The new sport around here is sweeping judgment and condemnation instead of fair doctrinal refutation. I have come to realize some things I found surprising in the past few weeks here, not good things.

Due to my indignation here, it is obviously time for me to take a much needed hiatus from this site.

So long

Destiny,

Don't let haughty followers of men and 'isms' chase you away. There are plenty of Bible believing Christians hangin' out here.

 

[stovebolts]

If I get a moment, I would like to read the articles. Thank you for posting links to them.

Red Beetle

Anytime :wink:

Now, What I would really like to here is your response to Calvin himself and Mr. Hicks take on Calvin.

One can not make a mistake on the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, for the Gospel itself is at stake in this dogma. Baptismal regeneration contradicts the Gospel and is a heresy.

Calvin does not locate the chief or fundamental purpose of baptism in its public profession. On the contrary, he believes its primary significance is its correlation to saving faith. In other words, baptism is more about what God does in relation to our faith than about what we do in our profession of faith.

...Baptism is the laver of regeneration...

 

[JM]

I'm a Calvinistic Baptist, the best of both worlds.

~JM~

 

[Guest]

John Mark Hicks wrote:

Calvin does not locate the chief or fundamental purpose of baptism in its public profession. On the contrary, he believes its primary significance is its correlation to saving faith. In other words, baptism is more about what God does in relation to our faith than about what we do in our profession of faith.


Calvin wrote:
...Baptism is the laver of regeneration...

So, the claim has been implied that Calvin teaches baptismal regeneration like the papists.

This is a false claim.
Let's see what Calvin actually teaches on the subject.

Calvin writes,

"Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the church...for it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins.

"Peter also says that "baptism also doth now save us" (1 Peter 3:21). For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses within itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament...Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?"
(The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 15, Sections 1 and 2, The Beveridge Edition, page 513)

John Calvin completely contradicts the idea that one can be regenerated by water baptism. And, as I have shown, he does it in his most serious work, his Magnum Opus.

John Mark Hicks is either misrepresenting Calvin out of ignorance, or he is intentionally lying, provided that Hicks is making such an assertion in the first place. If he gives no citation, and I didn't see any from the brief remark you quoted, then he is probably lying.

I suggest you read Calvin for yourself, rather than take my word or the word of another.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[christian_soldier]

Better yet, forget about Calvin and read your Bible with the Holy Spirit as your guide.

:angel:

 

[Veritas]

Yes, lets remember that Calvin is just a man. And even though he may have had some really good ideas, even his works cannot all be true.

We know only one holds the truth,

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."John 14:6

Let's remember we don't come to the Father through Calvin, nor Arminius, nor the Pope, nor Luther, nor anyone else.

 

[JM]

Let us also remember that we are prideful to ignore the advice of goodly men of God.

j

 

[christian_soldier]

Let us also remember that we are prideful to ignore the advice of goodly men of God.

j

Which ones?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Yes, lets remember that Calvin is just a man. And even though he may have had some really good ideas, even his works cannot all be true.

We know only one holds the truth,

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."John 14:6

Let's remember we don't come to the Father through Calvin, nor Arminius, nor the Pope, nor Luther, nor anyone else.

Let us also remember that we are prideful to ignore the advice of goodly men of God.

j

Both are true statements. Whenever I think of Calvinism I cannot help but think of what the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Akin, said about it…[I am paraphrasing of course]


If when you see the initials JC the first thing you think of is John Calvin and not Jesus Christ then there is something seriously wrong with your theology.


I happen to lean very much toward Calvinism but to be honest I don’t give it much thought most days because what matters most to me is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and telling others about him.

I certainly think the debate over Calvinism and Arminianism is of some value but the reality is that for some it becomes their god. So study both and debate if you will but do not allow it to become your god. Jesus Christ is the most important person to a Christian…not John Calvin.

 

[JM]

If you think of the Lord of Lords as "JC", you have a problem.

:-?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Red,
Don't worry, Hicks always gives a reference :wink:

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/c ... .htm#_fnf2

What he had said generally concerning the commandments he now applies again to the Sabbath, and not without reason. For, as we said yesterday, God not only wished by that day of rest to exact from the people what was due to him, but he rather commands it for another purpose, namely, that his Sabbaths should be sanctified. But the manner of keeping it holy was formerly explained, since mere rest was insufficient. God was not satisfied by the people's resting from their occupations, but the inward sanctification was always the chief end in view. And for this reason he also repeats again, that they may be a sign between me and you to show you that I Jehovah am your God. In this passage God bears witness, that if the Jews rightly observed their Sabbaths they should feel the effects of that favor which he wished to be represented thereby. For we said that the Sabbath was a sacrament of regeneration: now therefore he promises the efficacy of his Spirit, if they did not shut the door by their own impiety and contempt. Hence we see that sacraments are never destitute of the virtue of the Spirit unless when men render themselves unworthy of the grace offered them. When papists speak of the sacraments they say that they are efficacious, if we only remove the obstacle of mortal sin: they make no mention of faith. If a person is neither a thief, nor an adulterer, nor a homicide, they say that the sacraments produce their own effect: for example, if any one without a single particle of faith intrudes himself at the table of Christ, they say that he receives not only his body and blood, but the fruit of his death and resurrection, and only because he has not committed mortal sin; that is, cannot be convicted of theft or homicide. We see how they are steeped in blindness, according to God's just judgment. We must hold, therefore, that there is a mutual relation between faith and the sacraments, and hence, that the sacraments are effective through faith. Man's unworthiness does not detract anything from them, for they always retain their nature. Baptism is the laver of regeneration, although the whole world should be incredulous (Titus 3:5 the Supper of Christ is the communication of his body and blood, (1 Corinthians 10:16,) although there were not a spark of faith in the world: but we do not perceive the grace which is offered to us; and although spiritual things always remain the same, yet we do not obtain their effect nor perceive their value, unless we cautious that our want of faith should not profane what God has consecrated our salvation.

Also, I did site the Institute for the other Calvin quote as well. You can find it Here

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_htm ... htm#4.15.1

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him, and secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The nature of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," (Mar 16: 16).

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_htm ... tm#4.14.13

There is nothing in the argument which some found on the very term sacrament. This term, they say, while it has many significations in approved authors, has only one which is applicable to signs, namely, when it is used for the formal oath which the soldier gives to his commander on entering the service. For as by that military oath recruits bind themselves to be faithful to their commander, and make a profession of military service: so by our signs we acknowledge Christ to be our commander, and declare that we serve under his standard. They add similitudes, in order to make the matter more clear. As the toga distinguished the Romans from the Greeks, who wore the gallium; and as the different orders of Romans were distinguished from each other by their peculiar insignia; e.g., the senatorial from the equestrian by purple, and crescent shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a ring, so we wear our symbols to distinguish us from the profane. But it is sufficiently clear from what has been said above, that the ancients, in giving the name of sacraments to signs, had not at all attended to the use of the term by Latin writers, but had, for the sake of convenience, given it this new signification, as a means of simply expressing sacred signs. But were we to argue more subtilely, we might say that they seem to have given the term this signification in a manner analogous to that in which they employ the term faith in the sense in which it is now used. For while faith is truth in performing promises, they have used it for the certainty or firm persuasion which is had of the truth. In this way, while a sacrament is the act of the soldier when he vows obedience to his commander, they made it the act by which the commander admits soldiers to the ranks. For in the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be our God, and we that we will be his people. But we omit such subtleties, since I think I have shown by arguments abundantly plain, that all which ancient writers intended was to intimate, that sacraments are the signs of sacred and spiritual things. The similitudes which are drawn from external objects, (4.15.1) we indeed admit; but we approve not, that that which is a secondary thing in sacraments is by them made the first, and indeed the only thing. The first thing is, that they may contribute to our faith in God; the secondary, that they may attest our confession before men. These similitudes are applicable to the secondary reason. Let it therefore remain a fixed point, that mysteries would be frigid, (as has been seen), were they not helps to our faith, and adjuncts annexed to doctrine for the same end and purpose.

 

[JM]

I'm not sure how this turned into a baptism debate, but I suggest listening to the following debate found on this link.

http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26435

 

[stovebolts]

it's not a baptism debate JM. It's a debate on what Calvin says and doesn't say.
In reality, Red would have us believe that Calvin says X, when Calvin actually says Y. :-D

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

If you think of the Lord of Lords as "JC", you have a problem.

:-?

I think you missed my point entirely, and Dr. Akins.

 

[Guest]

Hello Red,
Don't worry, Hicks always gives a reference :wink:

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/c ... .htm#_fnf2

I think you need to reread Calvin, for you and Hicks are missing a big point, if Hicks is even making the point you claim he is.

Calvin states clearly and concludes that, "hence, that the sacraments are effective through faith" before he ever comes to your little highlighted remark.

The context of Calvin does not say that the sacraments effect faith, but they are effective through faith. It is faith, the work of the Holy Ghost, that makes the sacraments useful in conversion. This is why Calvin quotes Titus 3:5 which is the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. This is regeneration, not conversion. Those baptised by the Holy Ghost can make good use of the sacraments (that is conversion--big difference), those who are not elect merely multiply the sins of their judgment.

You also keep missing another important point vital to the context. Calvin clearly states that Baptism is the initial sign, not the thing signified. Do you not understand that there is a difference between the sign of baptism and the actual baptism of the Holy Ghost?
The quotes from Calvin support Calvinism, not your strange reading of it.
Nice try, but no cigar

Sola Fide
Red Beetle