Featured Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

I have not misstated Calvinism. I have watched the statements of all of the Calvinists on the Natural Disasters thread and seen how Calvinism has been applied and the consensus is that God controls ALL THINGS. I have read all of Calvin's Institutes, and it is uniform within Calvinism God controls all things. Calvinists who follow him define sovereignty as included total control. They assert logical contradictions by saying "God controls even what He permits".

From that axiom, the Bible says "they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH". John 4:24, and "if any man will do his will he shall KNOW of the doctrine" John 7:17. The Bible says the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. John 16:13.

Now, if man has free moral agency, then even though God's plans are infallible, those plans can be interfered with to the detriment of the one choosing to rebel against it. But if God CONTROLS all things, then there would never be room for dissent or disagreement. All correct belief systems should be uniform because correct doctrine is essential to ones identity as a Christian.

And that applies to John Calvin. If Calvin's system was of God, then how could he have believed in a heretical mode of salvation for infants? And if John Calvin's belief system was of God, then why did only part of it follow later generations?

 

On the baptism issue, this is why I do not debate creeds because they can be ambigious, and it forces you to interpret the creed instead of interpreting the Bible, but since I believe you will constantly throw the creeds out there, I'll pick one>

CHAPTER 29; OF BAPTISM

Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

A cursory reading of this shows that the Baptist Confession supports Baptismal Regeneration. One of the verses used (Acts 22:16) is a common verse used by Pentecostals (UPC) to prove one must be baptized to be saved.

There is nothing in the Confession that repudiates Baptismal Regeneration, nor infant baptism, and considering that this was a point of contention between Baptists and Calvin, I find it odd that a BAPTIST confession would forget to make those points clear as every other Baptist and anabaptist made clear in Calvin's day.

Thus I must conclude since you always use the Baptist Confession as your Biblical references, than I presume that you believe baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16)?

 

OK so now the debate goes from what the Bible says to having to interpret a confession. This is exactly why I chose not to respond to Iconoclasts postings of these confessions. But now since we're there....

The grammatical structure of these statements are all separated by semicolons, each statement within the paragraph is independent of itself as an antecedent to the opening clause. And again, of the verses quoted, Acts 22:16 is used. I don't know any Baptist that does not believe in Baptismal Regeneration use Acts 22:16 to show that baptism is symbolic of our death and resurrection in Christ. The only groups I have ever seen use that verse are those who believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

And again, those who were opposed to the RCC and Calvin were very specific in their denunciation of infant baptism. THEY WERE KILLED FOR IT. So it appears that this confession was left deliberately vague about the issue with no specific denunciation of infant baptism. Deliberate or not I admit would be speculative, but nevertheless, it is odd that given the history of contention over infant baptism that there is not a clause specific to that issue.

But again, this is the problem you get into when relying on "creeds" or "confessions"; you're stuck debating the interpretation of the creed before you even get to the interpretation of the Bible. Precisely one reason why God intended churches to be independent.

 

Yet the scripture in 1 John 3:15 teaches that if a man hates his brother he is a murderer, and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Now that doesn't mean that a murderer can't be saved (Paul for example), but this man claimed to be saved, and CONTINUED with impunity to slaughter Christians. I would say that is a very strong argument that John Calvin was not a saved man.

I certainly have a hard time believing that an unsaved man was correct on soteriology and the sovereignty of God, even when he did not practice that he believed it himself or he wouldn't have been consenting to the deaths of other believers over disagreement about doctrine, and baptizing infants.

 

This is not even worth arguing about with you because you even said that Philip Schaaf did not support the views against Calvin and I posted from his Church History Volume 8 an entire list of atrocities that Calvin committed in addition to those he had killed. You can post all the revisionist theories you want but EVIDENCE from an overwhelming majority of historians, including John Calvin's OWN STATEMENTS about Servetus is that Calvin was a murderous , baby sprinking, amillennial heretic.


Just for everyone's benefit, I'll post it again: This if from the man YOU SAID didn't write anything about Calvin, and even after it was posted, the book can be bought, the information can be verified, you still deny it.

From Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol. 8:

“The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”
Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’
A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’
Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
A banker was executed for repeated adultery. (Compare this incident with Paul’s handling of the man who committed adultery with his father’s wife – 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 2:1-7)
A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

 

Even if all John Calvin did was merely BELIEVED that the death penalty was appropriate for heresy and all other sins against the law, he is still a heretic.

So did John Calvin BELIEVE in murder for heresy and sins against the law? From HIS OWN COMMENTARY, YES!

This is just ONE example of TONS of his own writings (and I have already posted the ones he said about Servetus and the letters he wrote demanding that Servetus be burned alive):

Commentary on John 8:11

"Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law,

John Calvin's own writings show that he had a propensity for murdering those who disagreed with him, which fits perfectly with all the documented historical evidence that shows that he consented to and perpetuated the deaths of numerous Christians.

And regarding your statement toward S/N, I won't say that he has displayed the most consistent Christian character in how you 2 have debated, but that is a stretch to claim that he hates you. I have major disagreements with many on here, and there have been some quite rude exchanges, but I would not say that anyone that has opposed me who claims to be a Christian hates me over disagreements. That is an enormous burden to place on someone's character without evidence. With Calvin, there is beyond sufficient evidence that he was guilty as a murderer.