His lifestyle? From most accounts he lived an exemplary lifestyle. The worst that can be said was that he was peevish and irritable. But since he was dealing with about a dozen illnesses it's quite understandable.
You still haven't said if you have read any of his works or not.
You may be confusing his beliefs with those of Martin Luther's consubstaniation --not much different than transubstantiation.
The church didn't rule Geneva --the Genevan Council did.
Not according to Calvinistic scholars like J. Rainbow,Paul Helm,Roger Nicole and others.
The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 19, 2013.
Page 6 of 6
-
-
-
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: -
I am not trying to be overly critical, I am just stating that He and I wouldn't be that close of a friend.
Rippon said: ↑You still haven't said if you have read any of his works or not.Click to expand...
I understand well going to the "original source" for research purposes, I did enough of that during my career. So, yes I have read some of his translated writings as well as other source comments about his writings.
agedman said: ↑Sacriments (believed in a mixture of symbolism as physically only bread and wine, and by the spirit actually becoming the substance of the body and blood)
Rippon said: ↑You may be confusing his beliefs with those of Martin Luther's consubstaniation --not much different than transubstantiation.Click to expand...Click to expand...
agedman said: ↑the element of imposing upon society, the rule of the church.
Rippon said: ↑The church didn't rule Geneva --the Genevan Council did.Click to expand...Click to expand...
I really don't want to get into this, but those that fled to Geneva learned well how to control others through the "politics" of the church. But then the world was used to such rule by the papists for centuries.
agedman said: ↑Perhaps the area of atonement would also be an issue.
As best I can tell, Calvin would not have embraced limited atonement.
Rippon said: ↑Not according to Calvinistic scholars like J. Rainbow,Paul Helm,Roger Nicole and others.Click to expand...Click to expand...
I think it would express more clearly and give you more documentation than I have the time or inclination to dig out for the BB.
Besides the site embraces the "Calvinistic doctrines of grace." So, when they are either positive and especially critical it must comes with credible documentation.
Perhaps you can contribute to this site and improve it. That is always welcome if the contribution is accurate and documented. With your own knowledge, I am sure you may be a great benefit to them.
:godisgood: -
webdog said: ↑Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.Click to expand...webdog said: ↑You state you disagree with my comment...then essentially agree with me our efforts don't gain godliness, something I stated.Click to expand...
Perhaps you just didn't remember.
I have that problem - more and more each day.
I didn't think you were getting that problem, too. :)
webdog said: ↑What did God tell Cain? Who does Scripture state He rewards? The Bible is filled with such examples! Faith is never a meritorious work, but is essential...and required of us.Click to expand...6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?"In other words, "Why do you have the pout-y lips and bad attitude?"
In other words, "If you do what is correct, won't you have a bright smiley face?"
7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?"
"And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”In other words, "Sin has consequences and demands more and more until it masters you, but you must master it."
Now, Cains efforts did nothing to which we would agree, however again this is NOT in agreement with what you stated here:
webdog said: ↑Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.Click to expand... -
As YOU can see, your second statement does NOT conform to your first statement.
Perhaps you just didn't remember.
I have that problem - more and more each day.
I didn't think you were getting that problem, too.Click to expand...
It takes effort to turn from sin and turn to Christ. It takes effort to no longer want to live for yourself. It takes effort to reason with the Lord, as He tells us to do. None of that is considered works, meaning we don't earn salvation in any way, shape, or form.
You honestly believe the following verse is merely about a pouty face in contrast with a smiley face?!?
6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”
The irony is God was telling a spiritual corpse in your system he could do well and rule over sin.
Cain showed great "effort" and grace was certainly opposed to that effort.Click to expand...
It takes great effort to reason, especially when you are created bent towards sin and self gratitude. -
webdog said: ↑it conforms perfectly...you just don't like the definitions involved :)
It takes effort to turn from sin and turn to Christ. It takes effort to no longer want to live for yourself. It takes effort to reason with the Lord, as He tells us to do. None of that is considered works, meaning we don't earn salvation in any way, shape, or form.
You honestly believe the following verse is merely about a pouty face in contrast with a smiley face?!?
6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”
The irony is God was telling a spiritual corpse in your system he could do well and rule over sin.
Nobody said anything about any kind and all effort receiving His grace. He gives grace to the humble, humility in itself taking great effort in our fallen state. God is quite clear which effort saves, it is the effort of turning from yourself and your self righteousness that you think deserves a place in salvation and turning to the completed work of Christ.
It takes great effort to reason, especially when you are created bent towards sin and self gratitude.Click to expand...
Webdog,
This is far from the OP, and is going no where.
I quoted the passage, showed the meaning. That you disagree with the meaning is not obliging me to change.
I quoted you, and you don't see your own work as contradictory.
No point in continuing.
You desire some human effort out of some innate natural freedom of will and choice irregardless of any desires, motives or impress by the Holy Spirit. Calvinistic thinking does not agree.
You can continue your view on the Cal/Arm forum.
The continued discussion on this topic doesn't belong in this forum. -
agedman said: ↑Webdog,
This is far from the OP, and is going no where.
I quoted the passage, showed the meaning. That you disagree with the meaning is not obliging me to change.
I quoted you, and you don't see your own work as contradictory.
No point in continuing.
You desire some human effort out of some innate natural freedom of will and choice irregardless of any desires, motives or impress by the Holy Spirit. Calvinistic thinking does not agree.
You can continue your view on the Cal/Arm forum.
The continued discussion on this topic doesn't belong in this forum.Click to expand...
I showed quite succinctly and accurately how my quote is not contradictory. You just don't like the explanation.
I desire biblical truth, so please don't tell me what I desire.
It also cannot be denied it takes effort to reason. Just our exchange alone takes the effort to compile our thoughts, type them out, edit the spelling, etc. -
agedman said: ↑Calvin's life style is not my life style. I don't know what you consider "exemplary" but, being "irritable and peevish" is not in the list of what a Spirit controlled person would normally exude.Click to expand...
Of course I have read from some of his writings - why does that matter?Click to expand...
Calvin held that the wine and bread were symbolic until ingested, in which they became by the power of the Spirit the substance of the body and blood of Christ.Click to expand...
6) "Teaching that the substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of Jesus Christ's body and blood (usually called transubstaniation)through consecration by a priest,or through any other means,is contrary to Scripture and repugnant to common sense and reason. It contradicts the nature of the celebrated sacred event,having caused and continues to cause numerous superstitions and excessive idolatries.
7) Those worthily receiving the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper receive and feed on Jesus Christ crucified. Through faith, in reality and actually,not physically but spiritually,they assume to themselves all of the good results of his death. Christ's body and blood are not physically in,with or under the bread and wine. As the bread and wine are physically real to the senses, so through the faith of believers in the reality signified by the Lord's Supper, Christ is spiritually present with the celebrants."
Of course the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is substantially the same as the WCF in the same subject matter.
I just did a quick search and came up with this resource to which you might look: John Calvin
I think it would express more clearly and give you more documentation than I have the time or inclination to dig out for the BB.Click to expand...
I did like the site though and its links. -
Reformed said: ↑I know I am late to the party on this thread, but I have spent all of last week in sunny Florida hitting the links and traversing the Disney World theme parks with my family.
Allow me to dispel a misnomer. Most Calvinistic Baptists accept the label "Calvinist" as defining their belief in the doctrines of grace only. Calvin believed in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology (among other things). Calvinistic Baptists reject these teachings of Calvin. Calvin's name is prominently referenced because he was an eloquent statesman of the doctrines of grace. Any connection between Baptists and Calvin's theology ends there.
You are painting with a broad brush when you ask Calvinists to modify their behavior. Do you not mean some Calvinists? Specific Calvinists? You certainly do not mean the whole lot of us, do you?
I am not Southern Baptist and have never been a member of an SBC affiliated church. Could it be that there is something lacking in the majority of SBC churches that has lead to this "Young, Restless, and Reformed" as you put it?
As far as a "traditional understanding of salvation in the Baptist church" that depends on how you define traditional. The SBC has roots in Calvinistic soteriology. Tradition is often defined by the one doing the defining.
You are referred to as Arminian in your soteriology only. You are synergistic in your soteriology. Ariminus believed in a lot of other things that I am sure you reject. It is just like a Calvinistic Baptist being linked to everything else Calvin taught. The connection ends with soteriology.
I have to disagree with you. If the disagreement with Calvinist thought was a insignificant as you make it out to be then every Baptist would be a Calvinist! The fact is that the theological difference is the fundamental catalyst of division.
I agree that there are rude and crude Calvinists. This is not news. There are rude and crude people in every theological camp. Their attitude is often times reprehensible and they deserve to be castigated. But no one should make the mistake of judging a theological position based on the person who holds to it.Click to expand...
To my understanding, there are these distinct and seperate groups under the banner of calvinism:
Reformed Christians holding to all of cavinism, Covenant theology, infant baptism, Church government etc as held by calvin and followerers
Reformed baptists same as above, except hold to believers baptism and different church government...
reformed christians, usually the so called '4 pointers", baptists who would hold to the Doctrines of grace as regarding Sotierology, debate would be between those holding to limited/unlimited atonement views!
Would say in the SBC and overall baptist churches, group 3 would be most common 'calvinists"
Page 6 of 6