Sacral

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Squire Robertsson, Mar 4, 2015.

  1. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Many here have sought to discredit Calvinism by citing John Calvins' dealings with the civil authorities of Geneva. Fom my POV, this doesn't wash as Calvin, Luther, et al lived in a sacral society. Sacralism was part of their DNA.
    Further unlike their Continental brethren, The English Calvinists (Puritans) had little influence on the civil authorities. English sacralism for the most part hewed to the episcopal party of the Church of England. However, in the Americas, the Puritans of New England and in particular Massachusettes had a firm grip on the civil authorities (e.g. Obediah Holmes and Governor Witherspoon).
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
     
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    good post do you think they had a better grasp of the idea that we are in a kingdom and supposed to be participating in it?
     
    #2 Iconoclast, Mar 4, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2015
  3. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    in other words did the author suggest that the Puritans were driven by the sense of the postmill view of the kingdom spreading worldwide rather than the secular teaching of Manifest Destiny the most of us were taught in public school or was it the Covenant the view of the church that they felt that if they had a strong church ....families would be strong what does he suggest as the driving force behind their view
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    My comments are my own not Dr. Verduin's. He kept himself to 16th century Continental Europeans. I take issue with the way the New England Puritan Establishment of the 17th century dealt with any Baptists or other non-Puritan who they found in their jurisdiction.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah_Holmes
     
  5. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Here is some more on the New England Puritan establishment:

    [FONT=&quot]From This Day in Baptist History, David L. Cummins & E. Wayne Thompson[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][John Cotton as the prosecuting attorney in the trial of Obadiah Holmes and John Clark at the sentencing] “’preached . . . that denying infants’ baptism would overthrow all; and this was a capital offense; therefore they were soul murderers.’ After this Cotton requested the death sentence.” Page 275[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][Concerning the trial of other Baptists, Governor Endicott said] “You have denied infant baptism, and deserve to die; I will have no such trash brought to our jurisdiction.” Page 276[/FONT]
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    And they have been completely discredited by doing so. I have brought forth quotes from dozens of Church scholars and specialists in Calvin's life who have entirely debunked the junk that has been dumped here by the revisionists.
    Unlike your claim, especially in the case of John Calvin, he had little influence on civil authorities as I have amply demonstrated for years on the BB. Only from 1555 to his death in 1564 did the situation improve.
     
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    And as I am dealing with the New England Puritans, your comments have little relevancy to this thread. As far as I am concerned, Genevan politics have little relevancy to the theological discussions except as ad hominum argumentation.
    It is the sacralism of the New England Puritans that is under discussion, not that of Geneva. Much of my distaste for the appelation (though not the theological positions) Calvinist grows out of how Calvinism was implimented in New England (save the Colony of Rhode Island).
     
    #7 Squire Robertsson, Mar 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2015
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    John Cotton (1585-1652) was the grandfather of Cotton Mather (1663-1728). The latter preached an ordination service for a Baptist preacher. He repented for his harassment of Baptists earlier. But recall, Mather had nothing to do with the brutal treatment of Obadiah Holmes --that took place twelve years before his birth.
     
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Are you suggesting we should support infant baptism? Because it was their oppostion to that practice which got them into trouble.
     
  10. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Where did I bring Cotton Mather into the discussion?
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    You didn't. I did for clarification for those who may have confused the two. And the information I provided was helpful.
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Squire Robertsson

    No...I am a Baptist based on scriptural teaching. To support infant baptism is error , but it is error based on a mistaken biblical model.
    What was valid in the OT has been changed. Padeos believe it is continuing and ongoing
    . I have stated that I do not grasp many of the things we read about outside of scripture[church history accounts]. I cannot go back in time and reconstruct with thoughts from our day all of what these people did in their day.
    While mistaken on this issue I do not think they were mistaken on the bulk of truth. I have to leave these men to the righteous judgement of God as well as the Baptists who committed sin in their day.

    yes ..this was sadly true there was sin all around.I am thankful that conduct does not take place today.
    The problem is because there were those who held to "believers baptism" does not mean they had it all correct either. They held more false ideas then the padeos, getting baptism correct but holding much error on other main teachings....
     
  13. Rebel

    Rebel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    One thing they didn't do was kill other Christians in the name of Christ, or hold to a church and state union.
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Of course, in your juvenile manner, the above is meant to target John Calvin. And he bears no relationship to your false assertions.

    Try to stick with the subject of the thread.

    I'm with Icon on this. Too many Baptists (of whatever stripe) pride themselves on seemingly getting it right on Baptism when there is the rest of the full counsel of God. And they have, and are, in need of furthering their scriptual knowledge. They would do well to seek out books and on-line literature from Presbyterian and Reformed authors. That is, unless their pride gets in the way.
     
  15. Rebel

    Rebel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    And of course in your condescending, insulting, attacking, un-Christian manner, you have posted another lie. Further, Calvin wasn't the only persecutor during the Reformation. All the state church reformers were persecutors also. Calvin was just the worst. And it is you who have brought the conversation back to Calvin, fixated as you are on your idol. It is you who have derailed the thread.

    Baptists would do well to stay away from Reformed authors and doctrine, especially those who continue to defend 16th century murderers.

    Really, your obsession with Calvin shows that you are mentally disturbed. I think you should get some help. Of course that won't do anything for your other problems.
     
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Rebel

    Rippon has offered a solid suggestion to you.You react against him personally because he has correctly posted on the issue and it hits a nerve with you evidently. You are showing some of the same attitude as those we are discussing in history.

    Baptists who do such remain biblically ignorant of many areas of biblical doctrine. Unless you are suggesting that Baptists alone are saved there is no rational excuse for this.
    In our day most Baptists could not defend the Baptist position biblically against a bible trained Padeo. The level of biblical ignorance is astounding.
    I know from the experience of many that this is a stumbling block to many a Presbyterian who visits a Baptist church and is stunned at the simplistic and many times contra- biblical ideas.
    This week I visit a Baptist church that was on life support, between ss and morning service the adults walked up by the pulpit...held their bibles in the air and chanted....this is my bible...it is a sword .and a weapon ...I will obey it!

    Meanwhile in ss ...no one opened a bible:wavey:
     
  17. Rebel

    Rebel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't have a problem with you because you don't talk to me like Rippon does. I react against him personally because he makes it personal instead of sticking to the subject. I do take issue with what you said about me "showing some of the same attitude as those we are discussing in history". I have not told anybody I would persecute, torture, or kill them because of what they believe.

    I feel like I can have a discussion with you. I can't with Rippon.
     
  18. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Okay Rebel... I get that to an extent.I have had similar experiences with people on here...and for the most part eventually worked through the conflicts. I would like to see you work through this with Rippon.
    Let's face it..a message board can incite such conflict, most times due to speaking past each other. It seems to me that much of this that is discussed in church history...did the same thing...they made it intensely personal. rather than purely scriptural.
    Rippon has a strong grasp on these historical issues....consider what he says.

    I personally like to:thumbs: stay in scripture and links to those who speak scripturally
     
  19. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt Rippon is overtly trying to be condescending or arrogant, but it always seems to show up whenever a Reformed/Calvinist person tries to tell others...there is this arrogance in their words. It's as though they believe someone who doesn't hold to Reformed theology is either willfully ignorant, or prideful to a fault. And here I thought most Calvinists on this board believed they came to the Doctrines of Grace by special revelation from God... "You would be better off if you read this Reformed author," or, as Brother Icon says, You are biblically ignorant if you don't read reformed authors. Again, I doubt this is an overt or intentional arrogance, but it is there nonetheless. I know non-Cals are the same way, but it seems like here on the BB I see this mindset from the Reformed side of the aisle more than from any other group.

    I agree that it is sad that most Baptists could not properly Biblically defend their doctrine. However, the same probably goes for any other denomination. It's not just Baptists, but Christianity as a whole has fallen into this complacency that is robbing future generations of true biblical teaching and knowledge. That said, I just cannot bring myself to label someone as "biblically ignorant" simply because they don't read authors who subscribe to the same doctrines I do.

    I'm sorry you had to see that, Icon. That is just sad.
     
  20. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    I see at least problem ariseing here. Holmes and company were Particular Baptists and would have held to the Baptist Confession of 1644. The Confession or 1644 is generally considered to be a Calvinistic Confession. The men were not General (Arminian) Baptists.
     

Share This Page

Loading...