Why don't they just line the walls with some dry wall and paint.
2006-12-27 09:01:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brandi H 2
·
6⤊
2⤋
Infants, Hell & John Calvin......and False Accusations of Ignorance
It always amazes me the historical inaccuracies of peoples claims about John Calvin. Mostly, there are gross distortions that do not line up with actual historical fact. Some call Calvin a tyrant. The pope of Geneva. And so much more. But when we actually take the time to read history and read the books and articles of the men and women who knew him intimately, a different portrait of Calvin is painted. He is seen as a loving pastoral figure, yet bold and uncompromising in the Word of God.
An attack that is most recently seen, again and again, is that Calvin taught that infants go to hell. I wonder where this pseudo teaching came from? Without any doubt Satan himself, who has always tried to pull down the stronger, truer things of God. Anyway, so what does Calvin REALLY say on this issue. "What Happens to Infants and Young Children Who Die?"
Here it is, from Calvin s own pen. The controversy can stop. Quote:
“I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit.” (Amsterdam edition of Calvin’s works, 8:522).
“I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers’ arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested.” (Institutes, Book 4, p.335).
2015-05-19 14:44:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Carl 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
You really don't know your denominations very well, do you? John Calvin was the father of Presbyterianism, not Baptist. The Baptists do not believe in baptizing children. Baptists believe that all babies that die (even the aborted ones) are in heaven. Calvin also believed that if you weren't one of the chosen ones, you could never go to heaven, no matter how much you tried or wanted to. His beliefs are not in line with Baptists beliefs at all.
2006-12-27 09:04:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I really think that you have come up with some misinformation here. Calvin believed in predestination - salvation goes to the predestined, no matter whether they died unbaptised in infancy or not. Check Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 15, Section 22:
"But this controversy will at once be disposed of when we maintain, that children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them in water, are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Now, it has been seen, that unless we admit this position, great injury is done to the covenant of God, as if in itself it were weak, whereas its effect depends not either on baptism, or on any accessaries. The sacrament is afterwards added as a kind of seal, not to give efficacy to the promise, as if in itself invalid, but merely to confirm it to us. Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ."
While it is true that the majority of Baptists can trace their roots to the Reformed movement, the Baptist theology of baptism owes much more to the Anabaptist movement than to the Reformed, because of the emphasis on being conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ is preferred in Baptist confessions over against the Reformed comparison of baptism to circumcision.
Please check your facts before picking fights with people with different beliefs than yourself. Misinformation is not helpful to anyone, even if it bolsters your rhetorical purposes.
2006-12-27 09:18:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by wozzeck33 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Because men are sick in their heads, as world history has proven. You don't hear of women in history or today starting wars, it's all men and their egos and jealousy. Men by nature hate babies because babies take the women's attention away from them. Even today,, they go to such an extent that they will demand the woman let the baby "cry it out" so she can make him a meal or do whatever he wants to do. Babies are innocent. There is no reason they would be in hell. Why? Did they themselves eat the apple or commit some atrocious sin?
2006-12-27 09:09:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, no, it was St. Augustine that wrote this. Your tip off should have been the reference to unbaptised babies going to Hell -- this is a Catholic belief.
Additionally, Baptists do not tend to be Calvinists, since most Baptists are Evangelicals. These two cannot exist within the same Church, since Calvinists see no need to evangelize.
Peace.
2006-12-27 09:17:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Suzanne: YPA 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
John Calvin is wrong. Babies go straight to heaven. Our four million aborted children are in heaven with Jesus. Jesus said about little innocent children "such is the kingdom of heaven."
2006-12-27 09:07:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jeancommunicates 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
that's yet another logical inconsistency in Christianity(marvel, marvel!) maximum Christian you'll ever meet will allow you to recognize little ones/little ones are innocuous until eventually they get a chance to hearken to about God and decide/reject him. regardless of the indisputable fact that, the full baptism device looks to signify in the different case. I propose why would there be any opt to baptise little ones in the journey that they are innocuous? And as one among your different answerers stated, unique sin looks to signify the your interpretation is ideal too. The church I went to for a pair of years as a teen did not baptise little ones/little ones, it became basically adults who had the right to settle on to attempt this or not. They weren't a large denomination, they received't even exist anymore, i recognize the actual church has been grew to develop into into someones domicile. yet their were Christians at one degree(a minimum of) who strongly disagreed with what you're declaring, and that i can not help yet ask your self why that's. of route as you propose, the theory that new born little ones who happen to die with out listening to about the bible will bypass to hell is undesirable. maximum individuals of folk will be sickened through that theory. yet then why be counted on Christianity in any respect? that's sparkling that a minimum of a few Christians believe this, so why be linked with them in case you do not? i really don't have an answer to that. i imagine it would want to easily be a case of folk ignoring the bits they don't like and focusing on the positives. that's given me an theory for yet another question though, so we are going to see how we bypass with that :)
2016-10-16 21:54:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, there are two forms of Christianity, Calvinists who believe in hard election, ie. you are either of the elect or not. No real choice, and Arminianism, who believe you wink in and out of salvation daily..... Both are foolish perversions of Scripture. If you want to know the truth, read it prayerfully!
2015-03-30 16:55:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Fred 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow. There is so much wrong with this post, and most of the answers, that I'm just going to leave y'all with your beliefs. wozzeck33, right on, great post. It's amazing how people can live so easily with hearsay without any investigation whatsoever.
2006-12-27 18:48:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by ccrider 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Baptists havn't been Calvinists for centuries. The first Baptists were actually anti-Calvinist. Why don't you pick up a copy of the Baptist Faith and Mission Statement and see for yourself?
2006-12-27 09:02:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by NONAME 7
·
4⤊
1⤋