Okay I know I said I would be done, but as Festus once told Paul “your great learning is making you mad (crazy)”. Here is a serious question. Did Calvin’s and the Reformers Ecclesiology force them to produce a faux flower? Given the fact that the Church and the State were in a ungodly marriage under the tyranny of the Reformers how could they both force people into Christendom and justify that these individuals, coerced by the sword as they were, were really part of the true Church? How about the invisible/visible church distinction?
So again if everyone in a given locale are in the “Church” (this was the doctrine of these gentleman ungodly as it was)who was genuinely saved? We understand that coercion of faith forced them to justify the erroneous doctrine of baptizing infants. So the questions are quite simple though maybe a bit more complex to answer.
We understand that Calvin’s false ecclesiology forced them to baptize infants so is the “TULIP” also a product of a false ecclesiology driven by the refusal to separate the State from the Kingdom? Also why do we feel that if Calvin was off on so much (and he was) why was he right on this?
Lionel,
So good to see that the blinds of errant church traditions/teachings are continuing to come off of your eyes!
Continue to revisit those things that you were taught while in these types of churches! I have found that alot of things that I thought were so fundamental/essential to correct doctrine were in fact not compatible with scripture rightly discerned. Subjects like tithing, speaking in tongues(babbling), speaking things into exsistence, so called promise of physical healing and financial prosperity, and most recently the existence of a literal place of eternal fire torment (hell). I know that you don’t currently agree with me on my understanding on hell and the coming judgment but I still believe if you continue to study this subject more indepth that you will probably come to a similar conclusion.
Nah,
I am good Jon on your last point! LOL
Lionel,
You give Calvin credit for something he did not do.
As a matter of fact Calvin was long dead when the T.U.L.I.P. bloomed!
Calvin simply emphasised the doctrines of grace. He died on May 27,1564.
The T.U.L.I.P. bloomed at the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-19.
Hey Aussie John,
I knew someone would catch that. LOL!!! I was more concerned with the doctrine than the systemazation of the TULIP. I need the title though to get a rise. So yeah I know that the construction of the acronym only came at the defense of the 5 points of Arminius.
My bigger point is that of the doctrine. Did his doctrinal position (that was later formulated) have anything to do with his ecclisology? Thanks.
Lionel,
Man, you have got to come up for air!
What do you mean Nicolle?
I light hearted joke….because your so deep.
Lionel,
I don’t believe his ecclesiology sprang from his soteriology. As with Luther, Calvin’s ecclesiology came from his R.C. roots.
This, I believe, is where Reformed theology has failed God’s peple miserably. I will probably be sent to purgatory for this but, I am convinced most Reformed ecclesiology is a watered down version of R.C. eccelsiology. I was convinced of this after visiting an evangelical, baptistic Reformed church in USA in N.J. I recogise the same in our country.
The same applies to leadership. Those claiming to be Reformed often lead more like R.C. priests with a similar magisterium mind-set.
Beware throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as Jon would have you do!
Aussie John,
I hear you Sir, and I definitely ain’t motivated by much of what Jon has to say (no offense Jon but your soteriology is waaaayyyy offfff).
What I am saying Mr. AJ, is that I believe that Calvins and they Synod’s soteriology was shaped by their ecclesiology. I could be wrong, but given the infant baptism and all in a paticular locale being part of the “church” even if by coercion I feel that this could have led to the Doctrines of Grace and eventually the sytemizing of the TULIP. I could be wrong, but it is wierd that Calvin produced this doctrine given his extremely erroneous ecclisiology and I believe one’s ecclesciology greatly effects their soteriology and vice versa.
Not to mention Augustine was of the same ecclesiological persuasion. He was much excited by Christiendom and was a spear header in church submission by the sword so for those (not you) who use him as an example we would have to say that Augustine and Calvin were one in the same correct? Just my opinion though let me know what you think.
Lionel,
I think old age must be dimming my mind. Are you thinking that it may be true that Calvin believed that salvation was only possible through belonging to the established church institution (as does R.Cism)?
My answer to that would be “NO!”
I think Lane Tipton, a Reformed professor of systematic theology,was right when he wrote: “Calvin’s central soteriological structure is Spirit wrought faith union with the crucified and resurrected Christ of Scripture”
I claim to be a Biblical Christian ( I loath appendages such as Calvinist, Wesleyan,etc.), not an apologist for Calvin, but Calvin, who was a product of his turbulen times, was very clear that EVERY aspect of salvation is grounded in the will of God, quite apart from the will of man; that it is totally a work of God by His Spirit, as declared by the Scriptures, which was his final authority on all matters, and for the glory of God alone.
J.I.Packer wrote the following, on pages 123-124, in his book, In My Place Condemned He Stood:
“Now the real nature of Calvinistic soteriology becomes plain. It is no artificial oddity, nor a product of overbold logic. Its central confession, that God saves sinners, that Christ redeemed us by his blood is the witness both of the Bible and of the believing heart.
The Calvinist is the Christian who confesses before men in his theology just what he believes in his heart before God when he prays. He thinks and speaks at all times of the sovereign grace of God in the way that every Christian does when he pleads for the souls of others, or when he obeys the impulse of worship which rises unbidden within him, prompting him to deny himself all praise and to give all the glory of his salvation to his Savior.
Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh.
Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says; that is the significance of the patristic testimonies to the teaching of the ‘five points’, which can be quoted in abundance. (Owen appends a few on redemption; a much larger collection may be seen in John Gill’s The Cause of God and Truth.)
So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology ‘Calvinism’ at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. ‘Calvinism’ is one of the ‘odious names’ by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel.”
Check out the conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian here: http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2005/08/charles-simeon-on-common-ground.html
Hello everybody, John Calvin here, along with this large group of other men here brandishing swords bringing you the good news of salvation through Christ.
Now just relax, and listen carefully as I lovingly and with meekness present God’s truth to you, there is absolutely no pressure to respond in a predetermined manner.
Being totally depraved, it just goes to reason in light of the unconditional election of God along with the fact that Christ has made atonement only for the elect, that most of you will not respond in a saving way to this gospel message.
Do not mistake the compelling urge to embrace the message I have brought to you with fear of the men standing with me, that feeling is not fear, but rather irresistible grace.
Do not give any consideration to that man over there burning at the stake, he is a political and academic foe of mine who disagrees with my doctrinal positions and is an obvious and convicted heretic.
His fate should not be used as motivation to continue with a profession of faith in Christ, that is what we call perseverance of the Saints.
Alright now, who would like to embrace the gospel of Christ according to John Calvin?
Everybody? Are you sure?
Well praise the Lord another miracle!
Hutch,
LOL! I am really trying to figure out if his ecclesiology drove his soteriology. One thing is for sure that all who came in contact with the Reformers were either Christian or dead! So I am trying to figure out if maybe that influenced his “doctrines of grace”
You guys are killing me over here. LOL!!!
Because this is what the body of christ has refused to do. We have refused to challenge the status quo or to stand on what the bible has saud versus what others have denoted at truth.
Hutch you are a funny dude……
Brian,
On the night table.
The Bible & Calvin’s Institutes both having the same authority! To question a theological great (regardless of proven faulty hermenutics shown by the refusal to seperate the state from the Kingdom of God and not only that the passion to pesecute those who did all under the banner of scripture).
Again if they were so wrong on some rather critical issues, why should’t we examine all the say. I guess because it would mean to question our current structure and the Western stronghold on the Christian Faith. Anything opposed to theology developed in Europe during the 16-17th centuries means you are treading on thin ice. Rather there were other brothers and sisters holding it down for faithful theology and practice (The Anabaptist anyone?)
Never really been a big fan of the anabaptist but their stance on Ecclesiology is awesome.
Brian,
What have you read by them or about them?
I am Methodist and have always taken issue with our perpetuation of Infant Baptism. It is interesting to note that this practice has been used as another strong armed tactic to build the church through the children of coerced converts… Hmmm.
We understand that coercion of faith forced them to justify the erroneous doctrine of baptizing infants.
Who is we? And what is so erroneous about this? Just because faith became more of an epistemological issue in the Reformation for the fact that the Enlightenment had made men worship their minds doesn’t mean that 2000 years of Church teaching is wrong.
Secondly, we know that the baptism of infants is long before there was any marriage of Church and State. Justin Martyr may well have been the earliest reference in 110 in his First Apology. For sure, Hippolytus and Origen in the 3rd Century both reference infant baptism as a practice done by the Church since its inception.
Lionel,
I’m not ignoring your last words to me. I tried to post a rather lengthy reply two days ago, and was repeatedly warned that it had been sent. A hiccup in the system I guess!
So! I’m taking the lazy way out for the moment
There is a quote I saved (I don’t know from where) a from a recent book which, I believe, is a combination of three papers J.I.Packer delivered at a conference. The title is “In My Place Condemned He Stood”, pp. 123-124:
“Now the real nature of Calvinistic soteriology becomes plain. It is no artificial oddity, nor a product of overbold logic. Its central confession, that God saves sinners, that Christ redeemed us by his blood is the witness both of the Bible and of the believing heart.
The Calvinist is the Christian who confesses before men in his theology just what he believes in his heart before God when he prays. He thinks and speaks at all times of the sovereign grace of God in the way that every Christian does when he pleads for the souls of others, or when he obeys the impulse of worship which rises unbidden within him, prompting him to deny himself all praise and to give all the glory of his salvation to his Savior.
Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh.
Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says; that is the significance of the patristic testimonies to the teaching of the ‘five points’, which can be quoted in abundance.
So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology ‘Calvinism’ at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. ‘Calvinism’ is one of the ‘odious names’ by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel.
There is confusion about what Calvin meant when he used the word ‘Church’, for instance in his “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” :
“She is first of all the living body of Christ and the company of true believers. We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the ‘pillar and ground of the truth,’ revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food, (that seed and food being the Word of God,) and which by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bossom.” (page 96)
He went on to say on the following pages, “In like manner, the unity of the Church, such as Paul describes it, we protest we hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it. The principle from which Paul derives unity is, that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all ‘Who hath called us into one hope.’ (Eph. 4:4 and 5) Therefore, we are one body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we adhere to God only, i.e., be bound to each other by the tie of faith. We ought, moreover, to remember what is said in another passage, ‘that faith cometh by the Word of God.’ Let us therefore, be a fixed point, that holy unity exists among us, when consenting to pure doctrine, we are united to Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence in any kind of doctrine were sufficient, in what possible way could the Church of God be distinguished from the impious factions of the wicked? Wherefore, the apostle shortly after adds, that the ministry was instituted ‘for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God: That we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ.’ (Eph 4:12-15) Could he more plainly comprise the whole unity of the Church in a holy agreement in the true doctrine, than when he calls us back to Christ and to faith which is included in the knowledge of Him, and to obedience to the truth?”
His contemporaries, along with Calvin were literally pioneers exploring their way out of deep darkness and I think we are foolish to argue points of difference about what they held to. Like many of us, they had baggage which clung to them, of which, I believe, they would have divested themselves if they lived in our time.
Let’s learn from and build upon the Biblical, Christo-centric work that these brethren pioneered instead of constantly trying to prove them right or wrong, of siding with one or the other. I’m certain they would have approved when what we build is according to the Scriptures.
It seems to me, that there are far too many (some I know) who want to discredit others (especially famous others) for their own egotistical satisfaction, and do it under the guise of legitimate inquiry!
Maybe it’s my old age, but I’m very tired of the Don Quixotes of today, who constantly run around tilting at windmills. They think they are fighting a good fight. I think they are as deranged (or confused) as was Don.
By the way, I think Packers introduction to Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” could be worth careful reading. It is available to download on the net.
Aussie John,
I definitely don’t want to contribute to the “Don Quixotes” that you speak of. However, I do want to challenge the status quo. There are many great brothers and sisters who died at the hand of such man who did not theorize and philosophize but literally lived out the Gospel truth in everday life. These same people differed with Calvin and other Reformers who held a bible in one hand a sword in the other.
I then must ask are the views that differ from Calvin’s and the other Reformer’s any less Christo-centric. Or does Calvin and the rest have the market cornered on “truth”.
This statement in the quote may be a bit overconfident you think?
“So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology ‘Calvinism’ at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. ‘Calvinism’ is one of the ‘odious names’ by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel.”
If that statement is true then all who stand against Calvinistic truth have an “unbiblical Gospel” correct?
That should be 150 on the First Apology, not 110 (I think Justin would’ve been about 10 if he wrote it in 110).
Josh,
Would you like to get in Church Father quoting. I have a couple of quotes that may differ greatly from both Martyr and Origen
Of course – as a student of history, I’m always wanting to get back to the primary sources. It’s why I became Catholic.
But, regardless of whether you agree with the tradition or not, my point was – paedobaptism was in practice long before the State and Church were in any kind of cooperation.
Lionel-
Have you read: The Trail of Blood -by- JM Carroll?
Lionel,
To answer your question: Absolutely not! I am blessed with many beloved brethren who would fit the Arminian mould. I think you have misunderstood me, and drawn an unjustified conclusion from the quote.
If you and I had the background of Calvin, and others of his time, you can be quite sure we would hold “a bible in one hand a sword in the other”; this was a result of the baggage that came from their backgrounds.
By the way, my views, which I’ve expressed regarding those who want to make a big deal out of Calvin and his ignorant mistakes, I also hold towards those who want to make a big deal out of Arminian men and women, who also made some stupid mistakes. Fortunately Wesley came from a much better background than Calvin.
There was a time, a long time ago, when I realised that the truths I had gleaned from the Scriptures were actually, what I later understood, were the doctrines of grace.
My attitude is expressed well in the short discourse between Charles Simeon (calvinist) and John Wesley (arminian):
Simeon: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
Wesley: Yes, I do indeed.
S :And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
W :Yes, solely through Christ.
S :But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
W :No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
S :Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
W :No.
S :What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?
W :Yes, altogether.
S :And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
W :Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
S :Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”
It seems they both had a firm grip on the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith.
I would like to say to those antagonists and protagonists who allow this issue to separate brethren and become the source of a lot of hot air, ” I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Calvin, and I of Arminius, and I of King James, and I of Christ. Has Christ been divided? Calvin was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Arminius? ”
(Apologies to Paul 1Cor. 1:11-13)
Aussie John,
Understood Sir. I was a little confused. Mostly because many who hold to the Doctrines of Grace would say to those who don’t “you believe another gospel” and to that I say I have to split with them though we may be uphold the same soteriology. That is what I see and hear and even after reviewing and purchasing the video produced by James White and crew I was left more uneasy than before. Though I do agree on a monergistic view of salvation.
Lionel-
The Trail of Blood, traces the historical fact that State churches be they murderous Romanists or violent Reformers have viciously persecuted believers throughout the centuries.
I do not agree with Carroll’s Baptist successionism, as I do not believe he makes his case, but the historical information regarding how State churches emerged with the idea of forced geographical conversions is very interesting.
It shows how those who became known as Anabaptists have always existed prior to the State Catholic Church, during the State Catholic Church, during the “Reformation” and are still with us to this day.
BTW, Anabaptists are not by default Arminian, they existed centuries before Calvin and Arminius were ever born. Many Anabaptists during the time of Calvin and to this day hold to the doctrines of grace as presented in the scriptures.
The main distinctive of groups labeled Anabaptist are as follows:
Believer’s Baptism
Baptism is to be administered to believers only.
Symbolism of Holy Communion
Communion is a memorial of the death of Christ, and transubstantiation does not occur.
Restricted Communion
The bread and wine should be broken with baptized believers only.
The Priesthood of all Believers
Religious Separation
Christians should be separated from the world.
Separation of church and state
Christians should not make an oath, accept the office of magistrate, exercise self-defense or go to war.
These are the distinctive that caused the Reformers to join the Romanists in slaughtering the Anabaptist groups-many historians would state that the Reformers exceeded the Romanists in the scope of their genocide.
Which begs the question: Would murderers in the name of a Reformation State Religion be considered followers of Christ?
This causes us to conclude that the Reformation of Catholic priests who left the Catholic Church such as Luther still had much that needed to be reformed doctrinally.
The Denominations/State Churches that sprang from the “Reformation” could not be considered biblical Christianity.
Thanks Josh McManaway for the further insight and some of the primary sources. I will read through the resources that I have for both of them for some further edification.
Sure, I do what I can! Digging into the Fathers is a wonderful experience.
Hutch,
Good looking on the book…
lionel,
What Hutch presented pretty much outlined what i know about the Anabaptist. Especially when he presented, “Christians should not make an oath, accept the office of magistrate, exercise self-defense or go to war.”
But there has been so much ambiguity of what has been presented.
Got you Brian. How is the family and Volume going? Can’t wait to partner up in the flesh my man.
Just for the record, in the spirit of full disclosure, I struggle with part of this one:
Separation of church and state
Christians should not make an oath, accept the office of magistrate, exercise self-defense or go to war.
I struggle with the part about not exercising self defense.
My wife has been trained in self defense, is the daughter of a Marine, and she can shoot better than I can.
Being a proud Texan, BTW: never ask a man where he is from, if he’s from Texas, he will tell you, if not, why embarass him?
Anyway, me being a proud Texan, and my wife the daughter of a Marine, it just so happens that we own a small arsenal of firearms.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no gun nut, we practice at the range from time to time and discreetly have our guns where we can get to them quickly if need be.
My rationalization has always been that suffering for Christ and being persecuted for Christ is different than being a victim of crime.
In fact, I used to jokingly say that if somebody wanted to break into my house that they should do it while I was home, becasue I would give them the option of leaving the way they came in, but if they knocked the door down while my wife was home alone, they would exit the house in a body-bag.
Texas law would support us…but is it right?
Nice and Christian huh? I know in the back of my mind that mentality is probably wrong. See I’m still trying to justify myself. Grin.
Self-defense in the name of the Gospel seems to be an oxymoron,
Self-defense in the name of a criminal seems to be logical. However, if my life is not threatened I could literally turn the other cheek.
War seems to be unjust if not in self-defense, thus most wars can be prevented by allowing someone to offend us and not seek the destruction of their lives.
My opinion, but I don’t think it is wrong to own a gun or to use it I just struggle in the fact that safety is found first their than in Christ.
Lionel,
The family is good man and things are going with Volume borther. You know it is a tough road but we are going to hold the course. Mosr definitely on the hooking up brother. I tell you it is a hardroad to get others to grab a whole of something that they are not use to.
To chime in on the self defense, I just got rid of my gun because of the tension that I was feeling. I knew if someone came in my house I would have shot them, no doubt. I wrestled with that and had to give it away. I am not sure if I could uphold to the Anabaptist belief of being victmized. That is what it seems like to me but in the name of the Lord, shaves the edge. This is a area where i am still being chiseled by the word of God.
Lionel-
Sounds like you and I think similarly about the issue, but, I would then be a hybrid Anabaptist as most of their writings indicate they really do mean not defending yourself at all against violence of any kind.
I apprecate and will take to heart your comments about trusting a gun for protection instead of Christ and really taking to heart what Christ said about turning the other check.
Brian-
Thanks for your transparency and insights.
I’m still struggling with this one.
I just wonder if I should follow the example of the lowly Anabaptist willing to be mistreated and following in the footsteps of and participating in the sufferings of Christ our Lord.
Hutch,
I would be willing to engage in that journey with you brother. Willing to submit to the accountability of another in the faith.