• 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.

ST. John Calvin

Status
Not open for further replies.

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
and who gets to decided that, Mont? You...?
yep, I'm my own pope, don't ya know?


Of course, that's what many rc's here have claimed we protestants beleive, but it isn't true.


The Bible is the authoritative text and the Holy Spirit is within every saint to teach him or her.




We don't agree with everything and like everything another beliver does, but we must recognize them as brothers and sisters and their God given sainthood.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is to show, like Luther, he viewed it as necessary.

It is necessary. It is necessary because God commanded that His people be baptized and the children of believers are part of that covenant community and, as such, should share in the pracitices of the covenant community.

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.

Apparently, you're just flapping your jaws without knowing whether we agree with infant baptism.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.

LOL! Because you haven't heard the word paedobaptism means that it is a "made up reformed word?" You've got issues.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Differences Between Circumcision and Baptism Are Falsely Alleged

In Calvin's day there was a vocal minority called the "Anabaptists" who had a myriad of objections to the baptizing of infants. John Calvin, however, is rather convincing in his refutation of these objections.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this assertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.


One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodÕs institution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).


Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.


Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).

So Mont, you still want to "honor" him now? He believed and taught FROM SCRIPTURE the exact opposite of what you believe the bible teaches about baptism...

Care to explain to me how you bible only's can come up with so many contrasting interpretations?
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
LOL! Because you haven't heard the word paedobaptism means that it is a "made up reformed word?" You've got issues.

Oh so now I have issues...? And you say you don't believe that you personal insult me? Are you implying I'm crazy? Don't do it again, please.

and that word is not in scripture... so I have to dismiss it, sorry. I'm a bible believing Christian.
 
Upvote 0

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So Mont, you still want to "honor" him now? He believed and taught FROM SCRIPTURE the exact opposite of what you believe the bible teaches about baptism...

Care to explain to me how you bible only's can come up with so many contrasting interpretations?
oh no a point of disagreement?! Whatever shall we do?! Blindly follow traditions?


They don't limit the power and working of the Holy Spirit in us. They don't negate our salvation/sainthood.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It is necessary. It is necessary because God commanded that His people be baptized and the children of believers are part of that covenant community and, as such, should share in the pracitices of the covenant community.



Apparently, you're just flapping your jaws without knowing whether we agree with infant baptism.
It is necessary because it incorporates you into the new covenant, thus it saves... Calvin as did Luther recognized that baptism is regenerational.

and that last paragraph I cited was very well written, it is almost the same point I argue on here daily almost.. that in Acts the apostles were dealing with grown Christian converts, of course they needed to 'believe' first in order to receive baptism. You can't force it on a person who is grown.

I'm glad to know that even Calvin recognized that there was no dicthomy, babies are not held to that same standard that they have to "believe" in order to be baptised.

They can freely receive the gift since it's a gift and we can't earn it with "belief" anyway.

And I am glad to see that your view as changed because I remember vividly how you criticize Catholics for baptising babies.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
oh no a point of disagreement?! Whatever shall we do?! Blindly follow traditions?


They don't limit the power and working of the Holy Spirit in us. They don't negate our salvation/sainthood.
got scripture to support that opinion Mont?
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟27,453.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is necessary because it incorporates you into the new covenant, thus it saves... Calvin as did Luther recognized that baptism is regenerational.
The Saints were wrong in this case!
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is necessary because it incorporates you into the new covenant, thus it saves... Calvin as did Luther recognized that baptism is regenerational.

Calvin believed no such thing. Calvin understood the covenantal relationship of baptism. He did not, however, contend that it was regenerational.

And I am glad to see that your view as changed because I remember vividly how you criticize Catholics for baptising babies.

Michelle, please cite evidence of what you here accuse me of or remove it. You have proven that you care not whether you bear false witness against others but, at least your blind aspersions will not go unchallanged.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So why would you listen to people who believed or taught wrong things?

Why do you listen to people who believe and teach wrong things? Or is it that you think those who profess the views which you hold to be true are incapable of believing or teaching wrong things?
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh so now I have issues...? And you say you don't believe that you personal insult me? Are you implying I'm crazy? Don't do it again, please.

Wow. You sure are quick to jump to the assumption that I'm implying you're crazy even though I've never implied any such thing. Maybe it's your own conscience making you feel that such a thing is likely.
 
Upvote 0

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
got scripture to support that opinion Mont?
yep, and it's been posted more than afew times. DO a search yourself, there's verses that say we all get the Holy Spirit as a teacher.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
yep, and it's been posted more than afew times. DO a search yourself, there's verses that say we all get the Holy Spirit as a teacher.
and that is why we all believe differently, in practice sola scripture just doesn't work.

The bible does not ever say that the Holy Spirit will teach us the true and correct bible interpretations, Mont.

The bible says Christ promised that His Spirit will lead and guide His Church in and to all truth. The bible says that the Church is the bulwark of truth, not the scriptures. And the bible never goes on to say that *we* are the Church but that we are the body of Christ who is the Church. He is the head and we are the members, not the whole enchilada. We submit to the Church, not to what *we* say is in the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Wow. You sure are quick to jump to the assumption that I'm implying you're crazy even though I've never implied any such thing. Maybe it's your own conscience making you feel that such a thing is likely.
Then please define what you mean when you say I have "issues?"
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.