ST. John Calvin

[Benedicta00]

If not, what is that you are rambling on about?

that you don't really know your hero very well.

 

[Ignatios]

Augustine taught that babies go to hell outside baptism because of his view of Original Sin/Guilt.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yep.

 

[Reformationist]

Michelle, what is the point of these latest posts of yours? Is it just your attempt to show the validity of baptizing babies and that Calvin agreed with the practice? If so, was there someone who said that he didn't?

 

[Benedicta00]

No, Ignatios he suggested it. It is not now nor ever has been a infallible teaching of the Church.

 

[Reformationist]

No Christian tradition teaches that... you present a false premise, a bogus dilemma.

If you'd stop looking for an argument every time you post you'd realize that it wasn't me that said Calvin believe any such thing. It was Yeznik.

 

[Ignatios]

Who cares if Calvin believed in baptizing babies. He didn't conform to the Church's triadology, soteriology, ecclesiology, etc. He just read a similar book, but dispensed with any previous, authoritative interpretation of that book.

 

[Reformationist]

Interesting how they advocated Sola Scripture but also took the liberty to decide what would be in the Bible and what would not, even down to making little corrections, such as, in the case of Martin Luther, adding "alone" behind the word "faith" despite that St. James says "not by faith alone, but by works also."

Wow. I wonder if you guys ever even consider context when you torture Scripture as you do. The passage in James speaks of justification before man. Paul speaks of justification before God. Seriously, this is stuff that you should learn early on in your study of Scripture.

 

[Reformationist]

that you don't really know your hero very well.

What does what you posted have anything to do with what I know about Calvin? I was already aware that Calvin endorsed paedobaptism.

 

[Yeznik]

Uh...great. I am not aware that that was being debated. What I'm interested in is something that validates your claim that Calvin believed if infants aren’t baptized they are going to Hell.

I'll be looking forward to seeing evidence of that belief in your response. Great. Thanks.

So you believe in infant baptism?

 

[mont974x4]

He got closer to what Scripture actually said and rejected the extrabiblical traditions of men.

 

[Benedicta00]

It is to show, like Luther, he viewed it as necessary. It is to show how far you all have, not only drifted away from the early Church but even the Reformers... it is to show, you don't even know what you are honoring when you say you "honor" these ppl.

It is to show that underneath it all, what you "honor" is sola scripture, that what these men did was put a bible in your hand and you are now the authority, the arbiter of "truth."

That is why y'all honor them, some honesty admitting that would be nice.

 

[Benedicta00]

and who gets to decided that, Mont? You...?

 

[Yeznik]

Wow. I wonder if you guys ever even consider context when you torture Scripture as you do. The passage in James speaks of justification before man. Paul speaks of justification before God. Seriously, this is stuff that you should learn early on in your study of Scripture.

Actually this is the classical tangent argument Protestants are taught early on.

 

[Benedicta00]

paedobaptism.

what is that? Some made up reformed word for infant baptism?

Oh and it is also to show that every nuance and practice of the Christian faith is not going to be found in scripture... and that's okay... not even Calvin was naive to believe that it will.

 

[Benedicta00]

Wow. I wonder if you guys ever even consider context when you torture Scripture as you do. The passage in James speaks of justification before man. Paul speaks of justification before God. Seriously, this is stuff that you should learn early on in your study of Scripture.

on who's authority do you speak?

 

[Benedicta00]

The Meaning of Circumcision
Before the Lord commands Abraham to observe circumcision, He states that He will be God to him and his descendents(Gen.17:7,10). The Lord also asks of Abraham that he should walk before him in uprightness and innocence of heart(Gen.17:1). Moses more clearly explains the purpose of circumcision elsewhere, when he exhorts the Israelite people to circumcise the foreskin of their heart for the Lord(Deut.10:16; Inst.4, 16, 3).

These passages make it obvious to Calvin, that circumcision is the sign of mortification, and that Israel has been chosen as the people of God out of all the nations of the earth(Deut.10:15; Inst.4, 16, 3). As Abraham commands them[the people of Israel] to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they ought to be circumcised in heart, "explaining the true meaning of this carnal circumcision"(Deut. 30:6; Inst.4, 16, 3). Calvin concludes that "we have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the patriarches in circumcision such as is given us in baptism, since it represented for them[the Jews] forgiveness of sins and mortification of the flesh"(Inst.4, 16, 3). Calvin argues that the symbols of the promise represent the same thing, "namely, regeneration"(Inst.4, 16, 4). For Calvin it appears "incontrovertible" that baptism has taken the place of circumcision "to fulfill the same office among us"(Inst.4, 16, 4).

..

 

[Rick Otto]

Truth is its own authority.
Resistance is futile.

 

[Benedicta00]

Circumcision vs. Infant Baptism
Calvin's leading premise in his argumentation in favour infant baptism is that baptism is parallel to circumcision from the first covenant and the differences that exist between them exist in externals only(Inst.4, 16, 3). When comparing circumcision with baptism Calvin asserts that we must "diligently" consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. Calvin maintains that the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming the covenant is common, namely regeneration(Inst.4, 16, 6). According to Calvin, "only the manner of confirmation is different"(Inst.4, 16, 6). What was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. The function of baptism is the same as the function of circumcision. It is,

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to assail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.

I wonder what Calvin would think of y'all today... "All baptism does is get you wet.."

 

[Reformationist]

So you believe in infant baptism?

Of course. Don't you?