Featured Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

No reasonable person holds this position on calling other people murderers.

Also, state sanctioned execution isn't considered murder by Calvin. Go read his section on the role of the government in The Institutes. It's in book four and starts around chapter nine then hops around a bit and wraps up in chapter twenty.

Wow, talk about ripping a verse out of context and beating up so badly it doesn't resemble its proper meaning. The explicit meaning of the text was referring to the coming times of trial and persecution the disciples would face. These things took place by end of their lives. Are you saying that we can appropriate the promises given to the disciples in our lives?

The larger issue here is that you're judging Calvin's salvation based on a verse of prophecy given to the disciples for their lives?

That is a dangerous system. First of all, given that Calvin proclaims personal spiritual journey with Christ throughout his writings we have to give pause to consider that he is proclaiming Christ. Second, it isn't up to us to judge whether the man is saved or not at this historical distance. Third, I'm not entirely certain it is proper or Christ honoring to call the salvation of a person on the carpet when you appear unfamiliar with his works and life. I could go on, but suffice to say it is highly Pharisaical to say Calvin wasn't saved.

Provide me lists and names and we can talk. :thumbsup:

 

Have to agree.....Dr. Jame's Theology is obviously more in line with mine, and although I would agree with him on the vast bulk of these topics. I must say, it is not right to super-impose the bad actions of Calvin's ONTO what we call "Calvinism".

I maintain Calvin was a veritable beast......but that doesn't mean that the system of soteriology from which the name derives (only because he articulated it so clearly) is falsified. That's an avenue of attack that's not warranted.

It's a "genetic fallacy". And moreover......it's something of a misnomer on top of it in that....Calvin didn't exactly cut the system out of whole cloth anyway. Calvin simply articulated the ideas in a formulated (and efficient) system.

Dr. James: Love your posts.....but you can't attack the system merely because we call it "Calvinism"..........That's why many "Calvinists" (and that's the term they SHOULD use) adopt the obnoxious and less than meaningless phrase "Doctrines of Grace" or "Doctrine of Sovereignty" or some other contrived and useless phrase.

The term "Calvinism" is a term used by those knowledgeable about the topic because it is convenient........that's all.

Any fair weapon against the Soteriology we call "Calvinism" is good to go, and I'll use it......but we can't attack the Theology itself by bringing up Calvin's personal character. That's a NO-GO.

 

I haven't see that post but I would be happy to respond to it if you desire.

Calvin did a great many things in his time in Geneva that I'm certain none of us, even the most fundamentalist among us, would agree with. Calvin's actions were a product of his time. One of the things we must consider is that there was, especially during the Servetus incident, a power struggle in Geneva between Calvin and people who opposed him. Servetus' execution was brought by a prosecutor who sought to harm Calvin's reputation.

To call Calvin "one of the worst persecutors who ever lived is highly erroneous. He never brought harm to someone for their orthodox Christian beliefs. It is a difficult statement to reconcile in light of the lives of so many others who actually persecuted the Church and Christians that I am not sure how an informed person could make this statement.

Finally, we must keep in mind that Geneva was a theological and spiritual safe haven for thousands during Calvin's leadership and time there. He created a Church center quasi-theocratis state that protected thousands of Christians from actual persecution, trained up ministers, became highly prosperous economically, and provided a renaissance city in a region that needed it. All around Geneva people were being executed or imprisoned for relatively minor issues. In Geneva, we find a peaceful city.

The judicial times in which Calvin lived were terribly violent. Yet when we consider his life and work we must keep in mind that we are all often a product of the times in which we live. Having done research into Calvin's life, I simply do not concur with your above statements. Attempting to draw correlation between Calvin and Roman Catholic persecutors is erroneous and libelous. However, if you point me to the link I will provide an answer for you post.

Thanks for bringing it up.

 

This is probably accurate. It is a good point.

 

Hear,hear. It's about time someone else came up to bat.

 

Putting aside the debate on if Calvin murdered anyone...
If a murder believed as you, would you change your beliefs?

Of course not! we should believe what the Bible teaches, not what someone else believes. You don't believe something because somebody else does, nor should you not believe something because someone else does that you don't like.

That's why talking about the man Calvin is pointless.

 

Thank you for this objective post HOS. To conflate the person and the theological title only obscures the discussion:wavey:

 

Thank you also for writing objectively on this. To speak of some of these historical things,without all the facts is not easy. What happened or did not happen has already been judged by God ,one way or another.
To try and backtrack and try to undermine the biblical issues is futile.

 

VERY astute point, as MANY would see themselves as bing a calvinist, as I do, due to my sotierology agreeing with DoG and those implications, NOT due toalso hold to A Mil/Infant Baptism Covenant theology proper etc!

Like Dr MacArthur, a "leaking Dispy!"

 

Ach

I will read your link later on today.Without you taking offense....to say that much of Hebrews is future for tribulation saints...is why I have long ago left dispensationalism.

These Hebrews who were professed Christians were in danger of the Apostasy that was happening then.The hebrew religion was legal.The christian religion was not.They were being "exhorted to move forward with Confidence in Jesus as The Great High Priest who secured an eternal salvation for the elect seed of Abraham.
see here:
22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.

23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

This could not be more wrong.The certainty of salvation for the elect as well as a God given description of the current status of Our Lord's priestly work and rule is manifest for all Christians.

You will discover that all such dispensational thought is a plague upon the church.

What I posted from Hebrews 12.....about Jesus speaking ...now from Heaven, you ignored as you put it off into the future ,however it was written for them then,and us now.

I will look later on, but I suspect to read a mistaken idea.the mistake being that Israel has been pruned and expanded with Gentile inclusion....not replaced.

The elect remnant and believing gentiles is now...the Christian Israel.
One new man In Christ.

 

What are you talking about?

You can't apply the Pericope Adulterae to Calvin's situation. There was clearly a violation of due process and OT law in Jesus case for starters and secondly, John Calvin isn't Jesus. Show me specific examples of John Calvin signing off on a murder (not a state sanctioned capital punishment) and we can talk the point. Otherwise, you're just making bad arguments using poor hermeneutics.

As a note, I'm no fan of capital punishment. For a host of reasons I shall not enumerate here I object to capital punishment in the US. I cannot, however, apply my same objections historically to Calvin's era as it is vastly different than ours.

Really? Comparing Calvin to Al Qaeda? Really?

Well, red herring notwithstanding, the NT doesn't consider state sanctioned capital punishment either a sin nor murder. Read Romans 13:4-7.

Okay, first of all you are likely the only person in the entire world apply the definition of murderer solely to someone who "hates" someone else. We understand that more properly as a hyperbolic statement which is more concerned with the state of our heart than anything else. Also, for everyone else in the world (including our judicial system) I've yet to see someone put in prison for murder on the grounds that they looked at someone and said, "I hate you."

Your attachment of an act to a predisposition is unsettling and unbiblical.

Your overapplication is divesting the Scripture of any proper exegetical meaning.

The reality is that you cannot maintain your position consistently across the scope of the Scriptures. For instance, anyone on this board who has looked at a member of the opposite sex, even in a moment of weakness, and lusted would be guilty of adultery and should be divorced from their spouse.

Are you really saying that you have never hated someone in a moment or flash of passion? Or that you've never lusted after another at a moment of weakness? Or that you've never lied to another?

Well if there are thousands of sources then you shouldn't have any problem showing us a list of people John Calvin actually murdered.

Listen, I'm not saying the guy was a saint nor am I saying I follow his specific theological system. However, you cannot just impugn a man's reputation because of your misread of Scripture and misapplication of its points.

Show me the list of people John Calvin actually murdered and let's move the conversation along. If you cannot show me that list, then you have no point.

No links, just a list with citations. Surely for a man in your position you can muster this resource as evidence of our deep research and thought on the subject.

 

I am off my lunch break now,and will answer later on....

however......answer the section on Hebrews 12:22-to the end...Who was being addressed and when does it say Jesus was speaking?

Does it say...receiving a Kingdom let us have grace,,,,or someday in the future...when someone in a future tribulation receives the Kingdom?

 

Are you a hyper-dispie???

I think you are cutting hairs. Plus, many academic dispies would disagree. Have you ever read the Journal for Dispensational Theology??? As to the historicity of dispieism, where was it ever practiced???

That is laughable. I attack dispieism b/c you think John of Patmos wrote to 7 churches in Asia minor about the RCC. And realized eschatology is not new. Have you read Augustine???

The tree of life is in the new creation... notice it links w/ the garden of eden... oh but wait, you are blind to seeing Genesis in Rev.

As far as the kingdom, why does it have to be in Jerusalem? Why does it have to be physical? This earthly Jerusalem is not the goal. Thus Rev demonstrates that New Jerusalem is the goal. Heaven on earth.

If you are silly enough to read apocalyptic literally, then your theology will match in silliness. Isaiah used the same kind of language for Babylon's fall.

And as for Rev. 1:7, that is an allusion to Dan 7:13 where the Messiah is going TO God not FROM God. It is a statement of vindication as Jesus is enthroned.

And why does dispieism get to monopolize all forms of futurism. I hold to a future return of Jesus and a future consummation of all things.

AGain... from where did you get your "doctorate of theology." I believe if you are bold enough to call yourself "Dr" and post that you have a doctorate of theology, then you should be willing to tell us where you earned it (if you did earn it). Are you ashamed or hiding something????

 

In a way JB....it isn't.........if debated CORRECTLY, and within the confines of reasoned logical debate. I will suggest why..

Because the premise you would wish to assume, and I will quote you

Well...hate to break it to you...but, such a being simply does NOT even EXIST. There is no example of your hypothetical, thus, there is nothing to debate....despise it as you will JB....There are simply NO Baptist or Arminian atrocities of utilizing the force of government to punish theological detractors such as exist in the Calvinist system you espouse.........There are, however, Calvinists who have utilized some persecution against non-cals.
Again...that doesn't falsify your Soteriological system....and I un-ashamedly admit that to everyone everywhere...but don't paint yourself into an historical corner which isn't even in your best interest to debate sir.....C'mon...just be savvy about this one no?

I won't pretend that that falsifies your theology as long as you are similarly objective enough to admit that there was not a Baptist (non-cal) who ever murdered a Calvinist for believing as they do.....

Don't reach TOO FAR J.....if you wanna debate tit for tat on who was nasty...I don't think you'll win. That's not a debate a Calvinist should encourage...They won't win, I promise you, and this from a man who unequivocally will restate that it is nothing short of a "genetic fallacy" to pretend that atrocities committed falsify the so-called "Calvinist" position...That is NOT true, nor does it defeat "Calvinism" one iota...

But.....JB......DON'T.....try to get into the "who was nasty to whom" thingy with historical non-Calvie Baptists....I assure you, it's a debate you'll lose.

 

Well, gotta be done, as I am a lover of "truth" as I see it....and I have to respond to James since he rejoindered me...You, Icon, know without question, that I am no "Calvinist"....but using the moniker of "Calvinism" to defeat an entire theological system is without warrant. I shall rejoinder Dr. James on those points...

 

I have a theory on this that is becoming clearer as I view more threads on the BB.

All real believers are Calvinists.They do not fully realize it yet.:thumbsup:

That is why many times you see them say..."well I believe parts of Calvinism."

The part they believe is the part they have clarity on.
Many get sidetracked with other ideas, writings and theories...that actually work to confuse them.
They go for some of the glitter of the novelties offered, by carnal reasoning ,and carnal philosophy which always departs from biblical reasoning and philosophy.
Sometimes they like the writing style of a person and get taken in for a time...until life forces them re-examine these teachings.
I have several anecdotal stories of this, but anecdotal stories do not prove what only scripture can declare and prove.

Many professed Christians are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, because they have turned from truth that they have seen, but resist.

Most who fight hard against these truths usually come to be strong advocates of these doctrines....having first tried to oppose them for a long time.:wavey: