Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where you denomination errs is in assuming that anyone has been completely perfected while still in their sinful flesh, which is certainly not supported by anything Scriptural, nor is it something that any of you could actually verify.
Well, sad as that theory may be, our confession is the response to the work of God, not the means to it. I know, I know. You see your works as just as integral to the forgiveness of your sins as Christ's work. Forgiveness is a joint venture.
You don't and can't know this she ran for her life until she lost it! From her father no less! Apparently not respectful of at least 1 commandment!
2 things....Servetus came to geneva trying to flee CATHOLIC persecution for denying the trinity....
John Calvin though known as the man whom burned servetus actually had nothing to do with it!
John Calvin though known as the man whom burned servetus actually had nothing to do with it!
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.htmlJohn Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail
The most significant controversy to centre upon the sacrament of baptism has arguably been the debate over whether it is legitimate to baptize infants or not(McGrath 443). In his most renowned work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin takes up this issue endeavouring to prove that infant baptism is a divine institution(Wendel 324). Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11). This essay will undertake the task of manifesting the coherence, profundity, and thoroughness of Calvin's reasoning, while illuminating the congruence of his arguments with Scripture.
Hero? Or a man that took scripture and believed and preached the word of God over the tradtion of a congregation claiming to be the only truth?
John Calvin though known as the man whom burned servetus actually had nothing to do with it!
"If he(Servetus) comes(to Geneva), I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."
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."
"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."
wow now if this is not the kettle calling the tea pot. Tee hee...Sure...
It's from my history book at home, I'll see to it that I do tonight!Now this is interesting. Could you post more about this
Peace
http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/longhurst/index.htmlJohn Calvin though known as the man whom burned servetus actually had nothing to do with it!
Yes, in The Institutes Calvin states that infant baptism is a Divine or Holy Ordinance by God.
Nor do we, but we respect what is written rather than nullify it with tradition. And we compare what isn't confined to what is written, to make sure it agrees with what is.we dont confine God to a book, thats the point. We realize God works outside the Bible. Not everything about Christianity is contained in the Bible, nor does the Bible ever claim that it is.
Because he stated that we could work for Grace and achieve a perfect life by working for Grace.
And we have the hope that God will remove all vestige of sin in this life by cooperating with God's Grace.
Your christian tradition does not teach this.
Definitions of Baptism
Part of the problem in this dispute lies with the existence of so many different interpretations as to what baptism represents. Calvin defines baptism as,
"the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God's children"(Inst.4, 15, 1).
J.I. Packer similarly defines baptism as the "union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection"(Packer 212). These two definitions stand in stark contrast to the ones put forth by Stanley Grenz. While acknowledging the different ways to define baptism, Grenz summarizes by stating that it is "a public affirmation of a person's conscious decision to place himself or herself under the lordship of Jesus"(Grenz 684 emphasis added). Grenz also interprets baptism as the "God-given means whereby we initially declare publicly our inward faith"(Grenz 689). He goes on to declare that "believer's baptism is obviously superior" on the grounds that infant baptism "simply cannot fulfill this function"(Grenz 689). He is in one sense quite correct. If baptism is all about a "conscious decision" then Calvin has indeed 'missed the boat' with his advocacy of infant baptism. However, if baptism has more to do with signifying the cleansing of sin and being "reckoned among God's children" then it does with a "conscious decision" then all should give careful attention to Calvin's assertion that infants of believer's must be baptized.
Here's Scripture that supports it, which I have already posted.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
Peace
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.htmlInfant Baptism in the Early Church
It is a matter of great debate as to whether the early church baptized infants(McGrath 443). Part of the difficulty arises because the New Testament contains no specific references to the baptism of infants(McGrath 443). While nowhere does the New Testament prescribe this practice, it does not explicitly forbid the baptizing of infants either. There are a number of passages which could be interpreted as condoning infant baptism, such as the references to the baptizing of entire households(Acts 10:24; 16:15; 16:31-34; 18:8; 1Cor.1:16). There is no consensus among scholars as to whether these households included infants or even young children. Alister McGrath believes they "would probably have included infants"(McGrath 443) while Grenz contests that the inclusion of infants in such baptisms, "while being possible, is remote"(Grenz 687).
Stanley Grenz asserts that it is likely that "the early church practiced believer's baptism exclusively"(Grenz 687). Calvin attacks the claim that many years passed after Christ's resurrection during which infant baptism was unknown. Calvin calls this claim "shamefully untruthful", noting that "there is no writer, however ancient, who does not regard its origin in the apostolic age as a certainty"(Inst.4, 16, 8). In his footnotes, Calvin cites Irenaeus, Origen, and Cyprian among some of the early advocates for infant baptism(Inst.4, 16, 8). It can be confidently said that by the second century the practice of baptizing infants had become "normal" if not "universal"(McGrath 443).
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.htmlBeliever's Infants Are A 'Holy Seed'
The case for baptizing infants rests primarily on the claim that "the transition from the 'old' to the 'new' form of God's covenant . . . did not affect the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community"(Packer 214). This is just an elaborate way of saying the Old Testament promise to bless to the thousandth generation(Ex.20:6) applies to the Church as well. Calvin plainly affirms that the promise is the same for both covenants(Inst.4, 16, 4). Both covenant promises receive God's fatherly favour of forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Calvin argues that circumcision was the token by which the Jews were "assured of adoption as the people and household of God"(Inst.4, 16, 4). Similarly, the people of the Church are consecrated to God through baptism, "to be reckoned as his people"(Inst.4, 16, 4).
Calvin reminds us that the children of the Jews were called a holy seed. They had been made heirs to the covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious. For the same reason, Calvin argues, the children of Christians are considered holy; and by the apostle's testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators(1Cor.7:14). It naturally follows then, that if infants share the covenant status with their parent, it is fitting "to give them a sign of that status and of their place in the covenant community"(Packer 215).
Do you think Calvin believed babies go to hell if they're not baptized?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?