Featured Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

He didn't kill anyone.

You will not get that from a majority of historians.

I disagree with his view on baptism. The KJV revisers agreed with him though.

Not sure if you consider him a heretic because he was amillennial or for other reasons.

He was certainly no heretic. And you would not be able to provide competent historians and thewho would agree with you on that.

I didn't say that Phil (we're close) didn't write anything about Calvin. I quoted the man! You are something else.

 

Ach
C

If you continue to read point 2 it clarifies............


2._____ Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 ) [/QUOTE]

Then you would be coming to a wrong conclusion.

 

Really? Calvin's a heretic? This is a ridiculous statement that has no base or bearing.

Please show me precise issues from the early creedal statements of the Church where Calvin erred in his theology.

Okay, hold on for a second. This is an actual area of research I worked on during my PhD seminars. I challenge you name me one person Calvin personally condemned or personally had executed in Geneva.

You can't make the point about Servetus since Calvin wasn't part of the Consistory or court which condemned him. He did appeal to the authorities in Geneva for a beheading instead of a burning. However, Calvin did not cast a vote to condemn Servetus.

If you're using Schaff for your history of Calvin this might explain the misunderstanding about Calvin. Schaff is a nice resource but dated and has gaps in his work because of that.

Listen, I'm no huge fan of Calvin nor his theology...but I do respect him and his place within theology. There are aspects of his conduct that I have problems with but I do not accept the accusations, like this one, against Calvin.

Again, you have to name names for me to believe you. Cite names, instances, and examples. Being a murderer is a huge accusation. Also, please note that the Consistory was not, this is agreed upon by almost all reputable historians, controlled by Calvin.

 

I'm quite surprised and sad that you of all people would take this position. In another thread I posted several links to Calvin's atrocities that no one ever responded to, to my knowledge. Calvin was one of the worst persecutors who ever lived, rivaling any Roman Catholic persecutor.

 

I was an undergraduate English major, including a study of linguistics. What I stated is a grammatical fact.

 

Of all the people on this board, your opinions and conclusions are on the bottom of the list for validity. Since I am a Christian, and not bothered by your feeble attempts to indirectly question that, your statements are meaningless.

You are the only one on this board I can think of, either Arminian or Calvinistic, that goes out of his way to paint a picture just short of glorification for his deeds on this earth. Some might agree with his overall demeanor, but they do not start threads praising and adoring him.

You cannot seperate the man from the doctrine, as your conclusion is that anyone who criticizes his life is an Arminian, which is a bold lie, as you like to say. There are only two possibilities, you are either a troll or have a total lack of common sense and perspective. We all know what Jesus, John, and Paul say about liars.

 

You will have to take that argument up with him himself inasmuch as he personally disagrees with you, and personally took credit for the Death of Servetus. You ignore or simply deny that blatant fact. Here's a hint: If the man PERSONALLY took credit for a death......than he's probably guilty, and no amount of revisionist history will change it.

Here are the stubborn facts: (As though they need to be posted yet again)
7 years before the incident:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

After the incident:
Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.
John Calvin

Again:
A 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre:
Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others] , who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.
John Calvin

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
John Calvin

Just for fun, I'd like to point out the red part again:
"I would like to kill again"
John Calvin

I know TWO things unequivocally:
These pure quotes from Calvin himself will mean nothing to you..........
All sane people will see them for exactly what they are, and it is for their benefit that they are posted........again.

 

I am not a defender of the character of Calvin nor Servetus, because frankly it is of little value.

We didn't live in that era, nor were privy to the horror of Romanist interrogation and inquisition thinking that carried over from place to place, situation to situation, and played upon people's perspective and thinking on all. Such horrors continue in some lands to pervert justice and judgment even to this day.

It would be far better for folks to quit looking at a man's character as reason to reject doctrine rather than looking at the actual doctrine taught.

History indicates:

Paul was a murderer.

Peter assaulted and did bodily harm with intent to murder.

David was a murderer.

Ehud was a murderer.

Moses was a murderer.

Samson was a murderer.

Need I go on?

Folks, I am not excusing sin, nor am I excusing the sinner. I am stating that if one is going to judge doctrine, then judge doctrine. Stack precept and principle of Scriptures against the doctrine and thinking written and taught.

Then one may have true authority to declare heresy, and not beg history for some "proof" that may or may not be accurate according to the life and times of the person in question.

 

You are being utterly absurd.

Despite your claims to academia...you have nary a clue. Calvin sticks to the text closer than most.

Schaff did not accuse Calvin of any deaths in that list that you have furnished.

 

He did not commit any atrocities. You are entirely wrong.

You are so wrong it is mind-numbing. Get your head into a real Church History book.

 

And the above comes from one known for his mendacious conduct on a repeated basis.

 

[quote="Dr"JamesAch]Calvinist's readily accept his views on sovereignty and TULIP, but ignore his views on eschatology and infant baptism.[/quote]
That is an asinine statement since we have already discusses many Calvies here are Amill.

 

You wouldn't know a hairy tick if it bit you.

You obviously don't know how to distinguish fundamental doctrines from secondary ones.

Well, your Arminian/semi-Pelagianism is rather Roman Catholic. that's far more serious than anything you are addressing.

 

You are funny.

A real church history book? Hmm, I believe I had to do a little of that in my doctoral studies. Wait, I forgot. I went to Billy Bob Tech and they didn't really study church history there.

 

One difference: Paul did not murder anyone after he was converted.

 

Maybe we should avoid attaching biblical doctrine to a man. When you do then who he is gets attached to that doctrine as well. And that is reasonable.