Are all Baptists Calvinists?

[Gojira323]

I think all Baptists are innocent of the horror that Calvin inflicted on Michael Servetus. If not, then they are as guilty as he was of having his hands in this murder. Did Jesus say love each other, love your enemies or did he say do a Calvin on someone? I can not believe that people are so ignorant of the horrors of the Christian history's shameful misaligned campaigns through their theologies against someone else's. Come on, where is the common sense of obeying Jesus over what another person would say for us to do?

Amen

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm wondering, since this always gets brought up at least once a year...

Has anybody besides myself and at least one other poster here read the history on Servetus and Calvin's actual role in this?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Dave-W]

No, not all are. It is debatable in fact who is in the majority, and truthfully Calvinist and Arminian Baptist churches all function in the same manner. Alhtough they differ in how the elect became the elect both believe and preach that only the elect are saved. Our differences are nothing more than a "tempest in a tea pot" in the long run.

Does that include "Freewill Baptists?" I had a boss some years back that was FWB. It seemed very different than other Baptists.

 

[DeaconDean]

Does that include "Freewill Baptists?" I had a boss some years back that was FWB. It seemed very different than other Baptists.

The key is their name: "Freewill".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I believe that theology is of vital importance but putting it before love is very, very bad. It can lead to people killing new Christians with their theology knowledge and those new Christians might turn away from God because of that.

Love is just an emotion. Treating it as a universal spiritual virtue would be like saying that one must put jocularity above theology. If new Christians are in love with love, then it means nothing. If they turn away from sound doctrine, then it means precisely that they rejected Christianity. You would have a person reject a painting in favor of the color blue, in a manner of speaking. The painting conveys an idea, but the color only conveys a feeling, of sorts.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.


Ergo, love is not always appropriate. Then, again, if you rejected doctrine a priori in favor of an emotional reaction, then the above passage is probably not going to reach you very effectively.

 

[Dave-W]

Love is just an emotion.

That is only one kind of love. God's love is action regardless of emotion.

 

[OzSpen]

The key is their name: "Freewill".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

There is also 'The General Association of General Baptists' that is more Arminian in emphases.

Oz

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

All Christians are Calvinists.
Some do not understand it yet.
Some do not like the label.
Some who say they are not struggle with the L because that takes the most study.
Some claim they are not one or the other...they are confused.
Once they see it they see it all through the bible.
Once they see it, they see it is the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and prophets.
Some who resist the most, become strong advocates of the teaching.

 

[twin1954]

All Christians are Calvinists.
Some do not understand it yet.
Some do not like the label.
Some who say they are not struggle with the L because that takes the most study.
Some claim they are not one or the other...they are confused.
Once they see it they see it all through the bible.
Once they see it, they see it is the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and prophets.
Some who resist the most, become strong advocates of the teaching.

The truth of God's sovereignty in salvation is not "higher learning" it is the Gospel. While you do not have to be a Calvinist to be saved you must at least know who God is. Failure to grasp that God is God and has the right to do whatever He will with His own without your consent or permission is not saving faith.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Has anybody besides myself and at least one other poster here read the history on Servetus and Calvin's actual role in this?

Yes. I was blessed to study Church history in general and John Calvin in particular with Dr. Scott Manetsch, a noted Calvin scholar, here at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

There are many things to consider when speaking of the affair between Calvin and Servetus. Here are five:

1) There were three classes of people in Geneva at the time of Calvin—bourgeois, citizens, and aristocrats. Only citizens and aristocrats had the right to vote; the bourgeois were simply foreigners who were kept for business. John Calvin was none of these until after the Servetus event. Even then, he was only granted bourgeois status; he was never a full citizen of Geneva.

2) Because of #1 above, Calvin had zero political authority. In fact, most of the time, the magistrates gave him nothing but trouble. He could hardly make decisions for the church in Geneva, for which he was responsible. For example, he wanted to have communion every Sunday, but the magistrates would not let him. They won.

3) Calvin was given absolutely no authority to administer any legal punishment to anyone at any time. He could not even physically punish those whom he and his consistory were putting under Church discipline. The magistrates had sole control over corporal punishment. The worst he could do was excommunicate someone, and then turn to the magistrates for banishment.

4) Servetus came into Geneva against the warning of Calvin, because Calvin knew that if Servetus were found (which, of course he would be; he was a known heretic across Europe), he would certainly be executed. Calvin had, in fact, tried to meet with Servetus outside of Geneva under cover (meeting with Servetus was risking his own life) to try to convert him. Anyone who says Calvin was out to get Servetus is delusional or utterly uninformed. If anything, it was the other way around. Calvin sent a copy of his Institutes to Servetus, and Servetus sent it back with blasphemies and obscenities scribbled on it; after Calvin risked his own life to meet with Servetus to try to convert him, Servetus was a no-show; and Servetus, as if a medieval suicide bomber, appeared in Geneva, and made no attempt of hiding his presence in service which Calvin was conducting. One wonders if Servetus, knowing he hadn't much longer to go given his infamy, decided to end his life in Geneva in hopes that the affair would taint Calvin's name. One has to wonder...

5) Once Servetus' presence was (very quickly) discovered in Geneva, the whole affair was entirely out of Calvin's hands; the magistrates took over from there. Calvin did, once again, risk his own life (because the magistrates already had their eyes on him) by going in to Servetus' prison cell to, once again, try to convert him. This, of course, failed. As has already been pointed out, he even went to the magistrates to try to have the method of execution lessened (which was, again, a bold move in medieval/Reformation Europe, as it could be seen as sedition to advocate in any way for a heretic), but this did not work, either. In the end, the Genevan magistrates were the ones who ended the heretic's life; Calvin had absolutely nothing to do with it. Anyone, therefore, who ever says, "Calvin killed Servetus," is already exposing their hand—and it is an uninformed one.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Let me say this, though:

Even though Calvin was, in my estimation (and quite biased opinion), the greatest and most capable theologian since the Apostles—with the possible exception of Augustine of Hippo—we simply must recognize his faults. Even though I explained at length above his involvement in the Servetus affair, we have to acknowledge that, yes, he probably could've done more for him. Indeed, he very well could have died trying to protect Servetus, unrepentant, God-hating blasphemer though he was. However, what if we held ourselves to this same unrelenting standard? How many times in our lives could we have done more for someone else? With the advent of social media and instantaneous news, how much can we really do for those suffering oversees? Since we are knowledgeable of such injustice, are we, too, responsible for it, at least in part? I think that, if we hold ourselves to the same standard to which we often hold Calvin, we certainly are.

Secondly, we have to acknowledge that, though Calvin was a very godly man, he was often ruthless to those who opposed him. He could be very nasty, mean, and belittling. But, again, if we are not hypocrites, how much of that same stuff goes on here on this very forum, from our own keyboards? This is not to excuse Calvin at all, for he was quite wrong in his language many times, but we need to be more careful about comparing holding ourselves to the same standard to which we hold others, for "[we] will be judged by the same standard with which [we] judge others, and [we] will be measured by the same measure [we] use" (Matt. 7:2).

Lastly, these things are actually good things to consider, because it forces us to acknowledge that we do not follow a mere man, but the God-man. As someone has already said before, even if Calvin were a joyful murderer, adulterer, fornicator, and blasphemer (although, to our knowledge, he was none of these things), it would not matter, because we do not follow a man. Contrary to popular belief, Calvin did not invent his doctrine; he actually goes to great lengths to explain to the Catholics that his doctrine is rooted in the early Church Fathers, weighed in the balances of most holy Scripture; one need only pick up his Institutes and read the preface to learn this. The fact that the doctrine is today commonly called "Calvinism" is an unfortunate vestige of history, and has led often to the accusation we have seen so much even in this thread: "Why do you Reformed follow the teachings of a man and not Jesus Christ?" Well, hopefully when we see Calvin's faults (and they, like ours, were many), we are forced to confess that we follow no man, except the God-man, and this accusation is exposed for what is truly is.

So, yes, Calvin had many faults—some severe. We Reformed should be quick to recognize that. We should even be joyful to recognize that, because if God could use Calvin so mightily—a sometimes harsh, unrelenting, unforgiving, unyielding, aggressive man—how mightily can he use us—people who can be equally as harsh, unrelenting, unforgiving, unyielding, and aggressive, if not more so? All this goes to show that God is greater than our sin, and even uses our sin to bring his sheep into the fold. For this God should be praised!

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Any trusted guide has faults. He has left his body and is not here to comment or debate.
The scriptures are here however and the same truths he and others saw is still here teaching the same truths

 

[twin1954]

Those who point thr finger of accusation at John Calvin concerning Servetus do so because they simply can't refute the truth called Calvinism. It is nothing but a red herring to take the focus off of their inability to refute truth.

 

[holyrokker]

Hi. I'm not technically a Baptist at the moment, but I have considered going to a Baptist church again. I would like to know, are all Baptists Calvinists? Most seem as if they are, so I'm wondering about that.

I am a member of a Baptist church and a deacon in the church.

I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I disagree with all five of the major tenets of Calvinism.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am a member of a Baptist church and a deacon in the church.

I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I disagree with all five of the major tenets of Calvinism.

I am a Baptist, ordained a deacon, and licenseed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am a Calvinist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I am a member of a Baptist church and a deacon in the church.

I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I disagree with all five of the major tenets of Calvinism.

Anyone who would be quoting Finney does not grasp the doctrines of grace....this is not a surprise.

 

[twin1954]

I am a member of a Baptist church and a deacon in the church.

I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I disagree with all five of the major tenets of Calvinism.

You do realize that Charles Finney is considered by most as a heretic don't you?

 

[MrJim]

No Baptists are true Calvinists because they practice "Believer's Baptism"... Calvin and Luther would have imprisoned or worse credobaptists...as much as Reformed Baptists respect the Reformers they'd been imprisoned alongside Mennonites back in the day...

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

No Baptists are true Calvinists because they practice "Believer's Baptism"... Calvin and Luther would have imprisoned or worse credobaptists...as much as Reformed Baptists respect the Reformers they'd been imprisoned alongside Mennonites back in the day...

What you say is correct, but Calvinism is not about Calvin, it is about scriptural truth.

 

[Dave-W]

No Baptists are true Calvinists because they practice "Believer's Baptism"...

So do many of us Arminianists. We are NOT calvinists.

"Believers baptism" is not a part of T*U*L*I*P.