The Third Baptism of Felix Manz

January 24, 2013

by Ron Hale

He has served as Pastor, Church Planter, Strategist (NAMB), Director of Missions, and Associate Executive Director of Evangelism and Church Planting for a State Convention, and now in the 4th quarter of ministry as Minister of Missions.

 


“He who dips shall be dipped” was the cruel catchphrase of the Protestant Reformers of Zurich, as Felix Manz (the Anabaptist) was sentenced to death by drowning.  I write this short essay on the day of his martyrdom, January 5, 1527 – 486 years ago.[i]

Manz and the small group that he associated with referred to themselves as the Swiss Brethren.  However, the Protestant Reformers of Zurich contemptuously called them the Anabaptists or the re-baptizers (“ana” meaning “again”).  The Anabaptists believed that a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ with baptism following their profession of faith. They saw infants as incapable of these spiritual conditions unto salvation.

In Switzerland, Conrad Grebel, a former disciple of Ulrich Zwingli, became the leader of the Anabaptist movement. Several public disputations took place as Zwingli sought to persuade the Anabaptists of their false doctrine and practice. Finally, the Zurich body of magistrates came together and declared that the Anabaptists would be banished from the area if they did not solely practice paedo-baptism (infant baptism).

The Anabaptists protested this threat by taking to the streets of Zurich with their message.  Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and George Blaurock were arrested by the leaders of the Grossmünster Church and the Zurich city council with the charge of revolutionary teaching.  The local leaders met again to sentence Felix Manz to death by drowning; five other executions took place between 1527 and 1532.

Drowning an Anabaptist was a cruel lampoon of their practice of water baptism.  This method was referred to as their “third baptism.”

With the support of Zwingli, Manz was taken from the Wallenberg prison tower on a cold winter day.  He was taken to the fish market by the Limmat River to be read his death sentence.  He was forced into a boat and escorted to a little hut in the middle of the river by a pastor and his executioner.  Manz heard the voice of his mother calling out to him on this short journey, as she shouted words of encouragement.

Felix Manz was securely shackled and pulled from the top of the fishing hut into his watery grave.  His friend Blaurock was whipped through the streets of the city and banished; while Grebel later died in prison.

Descendants of the Evangelical-Reformed Church of Zurich met on June 26, 2004 and corporately confessed their sins of the sixteenth persecutions and they asked descendants of the first Anabaptists to forgive them.  A historical marker was placed on the bank of the river where Manz was drowned almost five hundred years earlier.[ii]

The cause of religious liberty has been sacred to Anabaptists, Quakers, Baptists, and others in the New World, for Old World prejudices arrived with each ship load of adventurers. Nevertheless, people have suffered, struggled and died so that no ecclesiastical group or denomination would have dominance and political favor over all others in America.

A free church in a free state has been the ideal and without the interference of civil powers as we preach and teach our convictions.

 

© Ron F. Hale, January 5, 2013; updated on January 20th.


[i] This article was first published on The Christian Post Blog on January 5, 2013

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Les Prouty (@HaitiOrphanProj)

Ron,

Thank you for reminding us. What a terrible event in the history of the church.

Les

    Ron F. Hale

    Thanks Les … yes …history does reveal some amazing acts of cruelty and acts of courage. Blessings.

lydia

What is it that would make a teacher of the Word believe that such a thing was God’s design? These were not ignorant peasants but the leaders/preachers/teachers, the theologicallly educated, who made disagreement about the things of God an offense punishable by death. This is what I will never understand. It cannot be a “man of his time” argument because Manz and others are proof there were other sorts of men of the same time. Men who put their lives on the line for truth.

    Norm Miller

    I think the “men of their time” must never have read this verse: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” Rom. 12.2 (NKJV).
    And tangential to that, Ex. 20.13. — Norm

    Les Prouty (@HaitiOrphanProj)

    “What is it that would make a teacher of the Word believe that such a thing was God’s design?”

    Only the fact that even though born again, any one of us can be deceived by others or our own still sinful heart. What are any of us capable of doing? Is there any moral sin beyond us?

    Thankfully “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
    (1 John 2:1 ESV)

      Lydia

      Les, I still do not get it. Is this where i am supposed to believe all sin is equal?

      From my cheap seats, I understand 1 John talking about “walking in the light’ as a ‘lifestyle’. Does not mean we do not sin or are not sinful. My thoughts are sinful. Is that the same as executing someone for disagreeing about God?

      I could proof text 1 John, too:

      “We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.”

      6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

      We are talking about religious leaders who redefined sin to make executing believers for disagreeing about God, a “good’ event. One that pleases God. They did not consider it a ‘sin’ but necessary. That is the real problem, the theological giants of that time redefined sin. The ones we are told had the “true Gospel”.

        Les

        Hi Lydia. No I don’t think we are to think all sins are equal. I think the fundamental question is this: Can a born again person sin, grievously, and repeatedly? Can that person. can you or I, be self deceived? Can we have blind spots theologically?

        I think the scriptures say yes to all of that. Here’s another question, Can a born again person die having never repented of a grievous sin? I think so, unless we are going to go down the RC route of mortal and venial sins. And no one here wants to go there.

        Bottom line, never, never trust in any man more than you trust in God. Every “hero” of ours in the faith, whether Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Billy Graham, H. Hobbs, the author of the Traditionalist statement…all have one thing in common. They are all sinners and if we knew every thought they’ve had in the last week we would be mortified. Except we wouldn’t. Because we’ve had some of those horrible thoughts, and actions. No, we didn’t kill someone physically. But remember what Jesus said about anger.

          Lydia

          Les, we are talking about executions in the Name of God by the theological leaders of the time, some of the same ones that are promoted today as having the true Gospel.. We are getting into the nitty gritty here. you are making a distinction that thinking sinful thoughts are the same as carrying them out in the Name of God?

          So another problem this leaves me with is that their teaching had to affirm this or how would it work?They had to believe that Infant Baptism was important enough to kill over. Imputed guilt? The fact that the ana baptists rebelled against their God given authority?

          If we can truly be that dark AND born again, walking in the light, I do wonder why we are told we can be new creatures in Christ, growing in holiness and we can obey God. Sorry, it does not add up. We are talking about a “lifestyle” of walking in the dark, no matter what other things they got right. We have no real evidence of serious repentence from most of these leaders of this time. And we are not talking about adjudicating crimes such as murder, etc as they sat in judgement of these men and executed them.

          What they did was cruel and evil in the Name of God because they disagreed ABOUT God. What you are suggesting is that we, like them, can be like the evil of the world but use God as a shield for it and claim to be Born Again?

            Les

            Lydia,

            I’m glad you put a ? after this: “you are making a distinction that thinking sinful thoughts are the same as carrying them out in the Name of God?”

            No, I said above all sins are not equal. Calvin’s role in the death was reprehensible. David’s adultery and murder of Uriah was reprehensible.

            “If we can truly be that dark AND born again, walking in the light, I do wonder why we are told we can be new creatures in Christ, growing in holiness and we can obey God.”

            Where would you draw the line. specifically? Murder? Multiple murders? Adultery? Multiple adultery? Not obeying parents? Not obeying parents multiple times?

            Fact is you and I cannot draw the line. We can and must acknowledge that believers can sin, and do sin. And sometimes sin very seriously. Sometimes the anger (murder according to Jesus) leads to murder (actual killing).

            “We have no real evidence of serious repentence from most of these leaders of this time.”

            Publicly, that may be true. But no one here knows that they didn’t later repent. But even if they died w/o repenting of the murder of Severtus, did that lack of repentance send Calvin and others to hell? As I said earlier, RCs think so…at least to purgatory. I know you don’t advocate that.

            So question: What is your conclusion on Calvin? Do you think he is with Jesus or not?

              Lydia

              I don’t know, Les. That is above my paygrade. I know scripture tells us by their fruits you will know them. And Calvin was the guy, the main guy teaching. Zwingli was teaching Manz and even agreed with themat one point concerning infant baptism. Then he helped to convict them.

              I guess it confuses me how so many can think these men are not only theologically brilliant but have character and integrity

                Les

                Lydia, I don’t know what I did wrong to make this comment appear above rather than here.

                Lydia, I know it makes all of us shudder a bit. Or at least it should.

                “I guess it confuses me how so many can think these men are not only theologically brilliant but have character and integrity.”

                Same way we can think any well known theologians of all stripes have character and integrity. We just don’t know all of the things they think and do.

                I’m reminded of,

                “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.”

                (Galatians 6:1 ESV)

                And I might add:

                Regarding Calvin being in the presence of Jesus, I see only three options.

                1. Calvin was never born again.

                2. He was born again, yet flawed (a sinner) and committed grievous sins. Whether he ever repented or not of those specific sins we don’t know. But either way, unless we take the RC view, he is still with Jesus.

                3. He was born again, but because he never repented of serious sins, he lost his salvation or is in purgatory.

                Option 3 is out we all agree. Since we can’t know for sure, I go with option 2.

                  Lydia

                  Les, I was thinking more along the lines:

                  15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

                  Now if I add the Calvin filter to your comments, (God controls every molecule) then I have to come to the conclusion that Calvin, Zwingili, etc, as professing Born Again believers, were preordained by God to carry out banishments, imprisonments, drownings and burnings on other believers for disagreeing about God.

                  Your doctrine is a big black hole.

                    Les

                    Lydia, no I think I’ll stick to the Galatians passage. As to the molecule thing, and not wanting to sidetrack this otherwise delightful discussion, nothing happens outside God’s control. I think we can all agree with that.

                    Lydia

                    “Lydia, no I think I’ll stick to the Galatians passage”

                    I would to if I were a Calvinist. :o)

                    ” As to the molecule thing, and not wanting to sidetrack this otherwise delightful discussion, nothing happens outside God’s control. I think we can all agree with that.”

                    Outside His control or foreordained?

                    You guys are clever with the redirecting thing, you know?

                    Les

                    Clever? You give me way too much credit. I’m not trying to redirect. I like the Galatians passage since it speaks to all of us. Any one of us can be found in such a situation as falling into sin.

                    Outside His control or foreordained? I’ll refer you to the confession I have subscribed to:

                    “I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

                    And so on…

                  Christian

                  Les,
                  This is the way I as a traditional Southern Baptist feel about John Calvin, if my salvation depended upon whether John Calvin was saved, I would be concerned about my salvation.

                    Les

                    Christian,

                    As a Reformed believer, if my salvation depended on whether you, or Norm or Lydia or Billy Graham or Hershel Hobbs or anyone else was saved, I woud be concerned about my salvation.

                    In other words, if my salvation depended on anyone other than Jesus Christ and Hos saving and keeping work, I would be concerned.

                    All praise to Him and only to Him!

                    Les

                    Norm Miller

                    All:
                    My salvation was not dependent upon J. Calvin, but my very life was. And he turned me into a crispy critter.
                    Posthumously yours,
                    M. Servetus

                    Les

                    Thanks Norm. A little humor in a post such as this is always good. Crispy Critters were a fav of mine. They were “indubitably delicious.”

                    Norm Miller

                    Humor not intended. Nothing funny about martyrdom.

                    Les

                    Sorry to have misunderstood Norm/ The words “crispy critter” you used gave me the idea that you were trying to be a bit funny. I agree martyrdom is not funny.

                    Norm Miller

                    Perhaps too flippant on my part. Smoldering corpse would have been more accurate. Nonetheless, the executions of Servetus and Mantz- neither made for Sola Dei Gloria days.

Norm Miller

Oh, to be charged with revolutionary teaching. And what stellar examples of commitment to baptism the Anabaptists had — willing to die for it. How many of us have the same commitment to baptize others as did our forebears to scripturally have themselves baptized? — Norm

Les Prouty (@HaitiOrphanProj)

Hey Norm (or others),
I checked the box “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” after my two comments. On other sites I then get an email to confirm subscription. Didn’t get one here at all. And, I check the spam folder. Not there either. Do you know of a glitch issue with this? Others, does it work for you?

Thanks,

Les

wingedfooted1

1 John 3:13-15 (NKJV)….
Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Max

“That is the real problem, the theological giants of that time redefined sin. The ones we are told had the “true Gospel”.”

Lydia, as an old Southern Baptist, I find myself identifying with the Anabaptists more and more. Judgement day will reveal the heart and destiny of religious giants.

Les

Lydia, I know it makes all of us shudder a bit. Or at least it should.

“I guess it confuses me how so many can think these men are not only theologically brilliant but have character and integrity.”

Same way we can think any well known theologians of all stripes have character and integrity. We just don’t know all of the things they think and do.

I’m reminded of,

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.”

(Galatians 6:1 ESV)

Ron F. Hale

Max,

For a great resource on Anabaptistical … try MediaResources at SWBTS and their conference: http://www.swbts.edu/events/conference_audio.cfm?loc=conferences/anabaptism

John Gregory

One facet not spoken yet is that these leaders were powerful in their little kingdoms. Each one had a position to guard. There lives were spent in fighitng, debating, writing, & building a power base from which to rule their worlds. The truth of Scripture was NOT the issue to them. The truth of their interpretations, their theological seats, & the little kingdoms that each person had carved out of and in a hostle world were the main drives of most of these persons.
These people lived in warlike worlds. They were great thinkers? Yes. But the Love of Christ, the blessed presence of the Holy Spirit LEADING them, & a broken & contrite heart, was no where to be seen. Were they wrong? Yes. Are any of them now in heaven at home in the Lord? I do not know. Nor do I care.
What I do care about is learning from them what NOT to do. In the arena of today’s theological world I see patterns, similar situations, & amp; actions by some of our great leaders of today. I have encounterd pride, arrogance, rudness, & falsehood. I have seen many times persons misquoting, misinterpretating, & diliberatly using only the facts that aid their theology & ignoring facts that counter their interpretations etc.. These persons are not seeking the truth! They, like too many in our history have agendas! They have kingdoms (their own) to defend, protect, &
advance.
i have NO ill will toward anyone. The glorious Truth of our Lord Christ Jesus and Hisreturn is my truth. I do not work to build any kingdom. I live as His ambassador in an enemy held world. When I start to build my own little kingdom, my own little power base, to fight against other Christians etc, I become no different than a modern protestant reformer of Zurich
John Gregory

    Les

    John,

    You said, “But the Love of Christ, the blessed presence of the Holy Spirit LEADING them, & a broken & contrite heart, was no where to be seen.”

    I’m just wondering how you know this…”no where to be seen.”

      John Gregory

      Too judgmentle? O.K. But because of the Evangelical Reformed
      Church of Zurich’s confession & asking for forgiveness, I fail to see
      the Holy Spirit’s leading in the evil that was done and agree that they are correct in asking for forgiveness.
      God bless
      John G.

      Les

      John, I was talking about your broad statement, “But the Love of Christ, the blessed presence of the Holy Spirit LEADING them, & a broken & contrite heart, was no where to be seen” as if you could know such things. “No where to be seen” is a very definitive and absolute statement. That’s all.

      As to the Church of Zurich’s confession & asking for forgiveness, of course they were proper in doing that. But asking forgiveness does not necessarily mean that there was not the working of the Spirit in their lives. if that’s the case, well we’re all in trouble if we’ve ever had to ask forgiveness.

      I won’t belabor the point. Many blessings brother,

      Les

        John H. Gregory

        God bless you Brother Less for your wise input. What I do not understand I leave in the hands of
        our Lord. As one of His ambassadors, I take head of my ministry in order to fulfill it.
        John G.

Ron F. Hale

Les and Lydia,

The Swiss Brethren produced the Schleitheism Confession in 1527, maybe some early drafts were out before Manz was killed, but notice what this Anabaptist confession says about baptism:

I. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the Pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Matt. 28, Mark 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance.

The Radical Reformers (the Anabaptists) wanted a restoration of the NT mode and meaning of baptism and they were prepared go way beyond the Magisterial Refomers. I suspect the release of the Schleitheism Confession …increased the rheotoric and anger to a great degree. Just look back to this past June when a group of our Brothers released a Traditional Statement of Soteriology … things got fast and furious there for a while. Now imagine … one group with full legal, moral, and religious power? What would have happened?

    Les

    Ron,

    I suspect you are right about the rhetoric increasing. No doubt it didn’t go over well.

    Lydia

    Yep, I am grateful every day for our founders who rebelled against governmental authorities. :o)

    Randall Cofield

    Just look back to this past June when a group of our Brothers released a Traditional Statement of Soteriology … things got fast and furious there for a while. Now imagine … one group with full legal, moral, and religious power? What would have happened?

    Exactly which group would you like for us to imagine “with full legal, moral, and religious power,” Ron?

    :-)

Randall Cofield

My Fellow Calvinists

We’re being baited…again. Recognize it for what it is.

Soli Deo Gloria

    Norm Miller

    And yet, here YOU are, AGAIN! The bait must be scrumptious! — Norm.

    Multiplicitous Fishious Hookusthem Calvinisticans

    Johnathan Pritchett

    Or, perhaps, these articles are simply of interest to the readers of this blog. If you have no interest in the content, why read and reply at all?

    However, many of us are interested in history, church history, and aren’t scared of the ugly side of the Reformation and the Reformers.

Ron F. Hale

Randall,
Actually, I am of the persuasion that any group, religious or secular that controls “all” or most of the power devolves into a ruthless force in demanding adherence.

    Randall Cofield

    Then you would disagree with Rick Patrick’s insistence that we adhere to an 85% Hankinsian / 15% Calvinist ratio in all things SBC?

    :-)

      Rick Patrick

      I do not wish to hijack this excellent thread about Anabaptist martyrs, but since my name and view was brought up, let me clarify the general principle underlying Randall’s statement.

      I do indeed believe that the officers, trustees and leadership of the SBC should reflect, in proper proportion, the theological positions of the membership of the SBC. Whatever that ratio might happen to be, our denomination’s leadership should be theologically representative of our membership. If this is not the case, I believe it creates instability.

      One other point deserves to be mentioned. I consistently refer to my position as Traditionalist, derived from the word “Traditional” in the Traditional Statement authored by Eric Hankins. Although Randall suggests I insist on something being “Hankinsian” I never used that term.

      In an upcoming article, I will prove that the theological tradition I hold is indeed the earliest Baptist tradition possible. Traditionalists need not apologize for using this historically accurate term.

      Randall, when you refer to my positions, I would appreciate it if you would, in the interest of accuracy, also use my terminology.

        randallcofield

        Rick,

        You said:

        I do indeed believe that the officers, trustees and leadership of the SBC should reflect, in proper proportion, the theological positions of the membership of the SBC.

        Ron said:

        I am of the persuasion that any group, religious or secular that controls “all” or most of the power devolves into a ruthless force in demanding adherence.

        You obviously want “most” of the control in the SBC to be in the hands of “Traditionalists.” Ron is of the persuasion that any group which controls most of the power devolves into “a ruthless force in demanding adherence.”

        Your respective positions are not reconcilable as they stand.

        You state here:

        I consistently refer to my position as Traditionalist, derived from the word “Traditional” in the Traditional Statement authored by Eric Hankins. Although Randall suggests I insist on something being “Hankinsian” I never used that term.

        Yet you state here http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/2013/01/18/incineration-vs-decapitation-what-to-do-with-servetus/#comment-36260 :

        Personally, the formulation of salvation doctrine I embrace was reduced to writing by a Twentieth Century born Southern Baptist theologian who would have favored the pardoning of Servetus rather than sentencing him with either incineration or decapitation.

        Hence my use of the term “Hankinsian.”

        Then you complain:

        Randall, when you refer to my positions, I would appreciate it if you would, in the interest of accuracy, also use my terminology.

        I’m not particularly fond of being called a Calvinist. It ain’t accurate and it ain’t the terminology I would prefer, but I’ve stopped trying to explain the distinctions and learned to live with it.

        Perhaps you should not be hyper-sensitive to being labeled a “Hankinsian”?

Ron F. Hale

Randall,
When you make the charge of “baiting” …you are also saying that I am seeking to set some kind of trap or reel someone in; is that what you think of me?

    Randall Cofield

    Ron,

    Perhaps I judged too quickly. Maybe a couple of clarifications would change my mind:

    1) In the current climate, how was this post supposed to be edifying?

    2) Did you have any misgivings about this post in light of the vitriol-laden comment thread following Rick Patrick’s “satire” on incineration vs. decapitation?

    That one became so vicious it was unceremoniously shut down after 3 days and 242 surviving comments…

      Lydia

      I suppose it is unedifying to discuss the behavior of the Reformed leaders that are so popular these days. Negative truths are embarassing. So the only way to stop it is to use the same old shaming censoring tactic. Calvin did not need that tactic. He had the power of the magistrate behind him.

      But people should be informed about the brilliant theologians they are encouraged to follow.

      Rick Patrick

      Randall,

      I found it interesting how so little of the vitriol-laden comment thread had anything to do with Calvin, Servetus and Farel. I expected a discussion centered upon Calvin’s violent blind spot and the irony of his proposition that beheading was somehow a better fate than burning. Of course, I do think it tells us something of the man, and I think we tend to ignore this episode and pretend it did not exist.

      The comment stream became littered with strange arguments against the use of satire itself. People overstated what I had said, claiming that I believed Calvinism itself as a theology was discredited by this ugly chapter. I did not go so far as to say that, but merely that we need to look at Calvin more carefully and weigh his words by his deeds.

      You’ve mentioned me twice now in successive comments. Are you trying to bait Ron into identifying his post with mine or putting him in the position of distancing himself from me?

      I really fail to see any correlation between the two articles, except that they both discuss tragic events from church history. Since mine was about John Calvin, I necessarily mentioned his name. However, Ron’s article does not mention Calvin once. I see no reason to link the two.

        randallcofield

        Rick,

        In your “satire” piece you state:

        I knew upon writing this piece that more Calvinists would fault me for my humor than Calvin for his murder,

        Yet here you contend:

        I found it interesting how so little of the vitriol-laden comment thread had anything to do with Calvin, Servetus and Farel. I expected a discussion centered upon Calvin’s violent blind spot and the irony of his proposition…

        So, which is it, Rick?

        If it is the former, you were intentionally baiting Calvinists.

        If it is the latter, you just contradicted the former.

        What say you?

        This was particularly rich:

        I really fail to see any correlation between the two articles, except that they both discuss tragic events from church history. Since mine was about John Calvin, I necessarily mentioned his name. However, Ron’s article does not mention Calvin once. I see no reason to link the two.

        Really? You fail to see the correlation? Maybe this will help:

        RICK: Calvinism…Calvin…Geneva…Servetus…execution by Incineration…

        RON: Refromers…Zwingli…Zurich…Manz…execution by drowning…

        Is that helpful?

        Rick, Ron, to use such deplorable acts—and they were deplorable—to further drive a wedge between fellow Southern Baptists is…deplorable.

        The “who me?!” incredulity seems to strain the limits of credibility.

Ron F. Hale

Randall,
You ask: How was this post supposed to be edifying?
I’ve had previous posts on SBC Today concerning …Obadiah Holmes, The Whipping Boy of Baptists and Henry Dunster: The Price of Becoming a Baptist in Early America and I’ve got a few more on the drawing board; one soon on Michael Sattler.

I find the work and witness of the Anabaptists a great source of encouragement and I feel that all Baptists can be blessed to understand their courage and convictions. I have received numerous contacts from people indicating how much they appreciate the fearlessness of Anabaptist and early American Baptists in standing up for Believer’s Baptism of adults, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. So I would say that I have received signs of edification.

You, also, asked about Rick and Lydia. I don’t know Lydia, but she has the freedom to come on here and share her thoughts and it seems that Les and been interacting with her. Rick is a writer that I enjoy reading and I like him personally. He has his style and I have mine. I didn’t know he was writing his article and he didn’t know I was writing mine. Surely you are wise enough to know that you should respond to different people differently – if you have problems with Rick, then deal with Rick. Call him up; I’m sure he’d love to talk with you.

Blessings!

Ben Simpson (@JBenSimpson)

Ron,

I appreciate so much your insight and tone here. Weighty and terrible things such as the subject of Zwingli/Manz or Calvin/Servetus deserve to be treated with a heavy heart and not as a mocking point to drive a wedge. What you have written here is something that all Southern Baptists can gather around and grieve. What an awful thing state church religion is! Thank you for your historical work!

    Norm Miller

    Regardless of how these murders are recounted, whether in somber or satirical tones, they are tragedies all. — Norm

    Ben Simpson (@JBenSimpson)

    Norm,

    I won’t go around with you again over this. What Ron has done here shows maturity and sanctification because it wasn’t meant to slap anybody other than the tragedy of human sinfulness. May the free church always prevail! I’m so thankful for Ron’s approach and pray it will be emulated.

      Norm Miller

      Indeed, discretion is the better part of valour for you in this case, Ben. You won’t go around with me again because you cannot.
      You never answered:
      Of what is Calvin guilty if he was wrong? (If not murder, what?)
      Did God make a mistake in ordaining the “evil” church/state gov’t of Geneva? If yes, God is fallible, If no, God authored evil.
      You refused to call the judicial railroad job of Servetus murder when the premeditated, underhanded nature of it was revealed from historical documents by the very man whose post you now compliment.
      I submit that Rick’s post is no less mature and sanctified than Ron’s, and for you to draw such a distinction is little more than another slap at Rick despite the pious windowdressing of your verbiage. — Norm

      Ben Simpson (@JBenSimpson)

      Norm,

      I’ll not let you goad into tangling with you, not because I can’t go around with you as you so arrogantly stated but because it’s a complete waste of time. More important things to do for you and for me, brother! Find somebody else to waste your time with.

      Again, may Ron’s example in both the Calvin/Servetus stream and this present article be followed.

        Norm Miller

        You need not “go around” with me. Just answer two simple questions:
        1. Since you said Calvin was wrong, identify his sin. What was it?
        2. Did God in his sovereignty mistakenly ordain the church/state gov’t of Geneva that you deemed “evil”?
        I suppose there is a difference in “cannot” as I say, and “will not” as you say. May I suggest another option for you: “dare not”?
        I guess if you dare not attempt to answer these questions, then, truly, I have wasted my time in some respects. However, I do not consider it a waste of time to defend a brother against specious attacks. You are free to characterize my actions as “arrogant”; I am sure I am not alone in considering them relevant and necessary. — Norm

        Ben Simpson (@JBenSimpson)

        Norm,

        Why don’t you just go ahead and call me a “chicken” and then strut around flapping your wings and saying, “Bok-Bok-Bok.” It only worked on the playground when I was being ruled by the flesh, but it won’t work now.

          Norm Miller

          You were right. A waste of time. I do not consider you a chicken. You have demonstrated courage at this site, but, in some cases, not all, that courage outweighs your wisdom.
          I consider you a wise man not to step into your own traps which have produced the questions I posed that you dare not answer.
          Is that carousel music I hear, Ben? For someone who initially stated he would not “go around” with me — you certainly seem to be doing so. Unless and until you want to answer the legitimate questions I raised, you are correct — we both have better things to do.

          Ben Simpson (@JBenSimpson)

          Thanks, Norm. May we be fruitful today.

            Norm Miller

            Thank you, Ben. Meanwhile, my questions regarding your assertions remain unanswered.

Ron F. Hale

Ben,

I appreciate your kind words — I really do!

wingedfooted1

Regarding the Westminster Confession Calvinist Vincent Cheung writes…..

“If I am right, then they must be wrong. The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to ‘mystery’, ‘paradox’, and ‘antinomy’, which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, ‘Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.’ Instead, it seems to me that divine sovereignty is an altogether clear and coherent doctrine. It is so easy to understand.”

Cheung adds……..

“The Bible teaches that God decrees, causes, and controls all things. God’s sovereignty is both exhaustive and effectual. He does not only arrange all things to happen, but he causes all things to happen. This means that he is the author of sin, in the sense that he is the metaphysical cause of thoughts, decisions, actions, and events that he himself has defined as sinful……. If our doctrine falls short of stating that God ordains and causes sin, then we should admit that we reject the biblical doctrine, that he exercises total power over all things…….. We affirm that God’s sovereignty is exhaustive and effectual, and extends to all things, even to sin and evil. He teaches us this. We believe it, and we like it…… If God ordains and causes all things, then of course this applies to the rape of a child, or to five billion children. There is no refutation.”

    Les

    Hey wingedfooted1,

    You sure seem to have some sort of obsession with Cheung. Here’s a quote from a non-Calvinist regarding James White. Let me know if you agree with him:

    “White selfishly refuses to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated, though he could be saved (born-again) if he were willing to come to God with an honest heart. As of 2009 let the record show White remains an unregenerate. He would have to repent of Calvinism, come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith to be regenerated. No longer would he continue to believe children go to Hell just because they were born into sin. Jesus said in Matt. 11.28, “Come to me….” Thus, God affords you the choice. Would God say that if you were Totally depraved? Of course not.

    White is an ignorant man without empathy. His spirit is dead to God. Picture people arguing on a train. They arrive at the station and when they get off they are still arguing. They go to their respective towns, but over time they move outward and leave those towns. They head off into the horizon. Eventually they build their own shack and keep repeating the phrase “I told you so.” That’s what Hell is like for James White. Hell is getting what you want even eternal separation from God under the pretention of a false salvation.”

    Is this guy representative of non-Calvinist thinking?

      wingedfooted1

      Les,

      I certainly believe James White has issues, but regarding his personal salvation, only God know his heart.

      I know where you are going with this, however, your analogy doesn’t apply. “Non-calvinist” could apply to a wide range of different schools of thought; each totally independent of the other. However, calvinism is a rigid and iron-clad system. Each petal of the tulip is dependent upon the others. Even you would admit that if one point is rejected, the whole system must be rejected as well.

      If a Mormon had said… “God ordains and causes all things that comes to pass, however, He is not the author of sin”, I would bet you would sing a different tune. Anyone from an unbeliever to a traditional Baptist clearly sees the contradiction. Only within Calvin-Land can this even remotely make sense. However, as Cheung points out regarding his reformed brothers… “Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.”

      And he is right.

      What I appreciate about Cheung (far from an obsession) is he honestly and objectively admits to the contradiction and inconsistency of the WCF (among other things). He just has the integrity to admit what non-calvinists have always believed.

      Vincent Cheung writes….

      “Who are you, O Calvinist, to say that God cannot be the author of sin, and the one who directly creates and hardens wicked men? Who are you to say that God merely passes by the reprobates, when Scripture states that he forms them by his own hands as a potter molds clay into trash cans and toilets? You hypocrite! You pretend to defend the justice and holiness of God, when the matter arises only because you have judged him by the standard of man. With one hand you rob God of his divine sovereignty, and with another you repay him in human righteousness. Who are you, O man, to think that you can get away with this? You are nobody. You are nothing. Who are you, O Reformed theologian? Are you much better than the Arminian? Again and again, in planting one foot in orthodoxy and one foot in blasphemy, you generate countless paradoxes and contradictions, and you call this the high mystery of God! Oh vanity of vanity, a theology of systematic futility!”

      O so true.

        Les Prouty (@HaitiOrphanProj)

        wingedfooted1,

        I do not admit to a contradiction. Chung doesn’t represent me or other Reformed folks. Nor does the author of the quote I provided above represent you or other non Reformed.

        You can keep trying to lay the hyper C Cheung to us, but it shall not work…except in your own mind.

        Anyway, we have been led by Lydia off topic so I shall leave the Cheung and the WCF discussion for another day.

        Les

          wingedfooted1

          Les,
          You said… “I do not admit to a contradiction.”

          Of course you don’t.

          You said… “Cheung doesn’t represent me or other Reformed folks.”

          But he is your reformed brother. Even if he doesn’t represent you and other reformed folks, you and the other reformed folks are far closer to his way of thinking than non-reformed folks are. In other words, I am about as far away from Cheung as it gets. However, those like you are only a stone’s throw away.

          But let me ask you this. Do you believe that those who go by the label of “calvinists” and yet reject limited atonement as being consistent? In other words, do you consider the 4 point calvinists as being consistent? No need to elaborate. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

            Les

            wingedfooted1,

            The subject of this post is Manz, not limited atonement. I’ll repeat what I said earlier,

            “Anyway, we have been led by Lydia off topic so I shall leave the Cheung and the WCF discussion for another day.”

            Except I’ll exonerate Lydia. I brought up the WCF after she asked a related question. Now back on topic?

            Les

            wingedfooted1

            Sure Les.

            I understand.

            God bless.

Ron F. Hale

Rick,
Thanks for sharing since your name was mentioned yesterday and thanks for the clarity you bring. I look forward to next article!

Ron F. Hale

Rick, Thanks for sharing since your name was brought into the conversation yesterday! I look forward to your next article.

Blessings!

Lydia

“Any one of us can be found in such a situation as falling into sin.”

If any pastor today supported or worked toward the execution of another professing believer for disagreeing on doctrine, would we really believe he knows the true Gospel? Besides none of this is about “falling” into sin. This reminds me of using the word “affair” to soften the sin. We are talking about premeditated, planned executions of professing believers who were actually brothers in Christ.

That is why, when discussing Calvin, etc, it is best to stay away from the “Fruit” passages. It becomes too obvious.

    Les

    “If any pastor today supported or worked toward the execution of another professing believer for disagreeing on doctrine, would we really believe he knows the true Gospel?”

    If any pastor today developed a habit for some length of time of viewing porn, would we really believe he knows the true gospel?

    Or better, in recent times (say about the time of the founding of the SBC) , if a pastor sided with the pro-slavery side and worked for human trafficking, would we really believe he knows the true Gospel?

    I know you and others here eschew the idea of viewing things that happened hundreds of years ago in the context of the times, but many others think it is appropriate. Hmmm. what will they write about Lydia in a hundred years? Why didn’t she do more to stop babies from being slaughtered?

    Yes the fruit passages. At times in all our lives they can be uncomfortable. Unless you and other non-Cs don’t sin.

    In fact, I know you know that you do sin. Why do you keep doing those things?

    Now, except for answering Robert next, I’m done with the Calvin discussion on this post. If you want to discuss calvin, post something about him.

    Les

      Lydia

      “Or better, in recent times (say about the time of the founding of the SBC) , if a pastor sided with the pro-slavery side and worked for human trafficking, would we really believe he knows the true Gospel?”

      That is an excellent question. Although I would differentiate between premeditating and planning executions for those who disagree about God and being pro slavery. I can understand one saying,’ well they are here, let us teach them about Christ’. What I could not understand is Boyce’ insistence and personal motivation on the institution of slavery being defended so they could be discipled. I am sad we have a college named after him, truthfully.

      I don’t know about anyone else but I can never remember any focus on our “Founders” in the SBC I grew up in. In the last 15 years or so that focus has been big. Founders websites, leaders saying we should go back to our founding, etc. This only made me curious to find out about them.

      The lesson for me is the focus should not be on promoting a man’s doctrine (ST) but on Christ. And that was the SBC I grew up in and one reason the historical founders were never an issue. Sadly it has become more and more man focused.

      I doubt that was the result they were looking for when some have promoted our going back to our “founding” and promoting the “Founders”. I am very glad my church is not focused on such things.

      ” know you and others here eschew the idea of viewing things that happened hundreds of years ago in the context of the times, but many others think it is appropriate. Hmmm. what will they write about Lydia in a hundred years? Why didn’t she do more to stop babies from being slaughtered?”

      Again, I might be wrong,but I do make a differentiation between one who is trying to stop evil and one who has premeditated,planned and carries out evil. I keep seeing this theme of all sin as equal in your comments. Not doing enough to stop evil vs doing evil seem to be the same in the sin category for you.

      Les, there is an irony in our exchange. You are a “ruling” elder in the Presbyterian church commenting on an SBC blog and defending the behaviors of the Reformers. There really ARE two SBC’s. I think more and more people are starting to wake up to that.

        Les

        Lydia,

        “The lesson for me is the focus should not be on promoting a man’s doctrine (ST) but on Christ.”

        Agree totally.

        “I keep seeing this theme of all sin as equal in your comments.” I’m sorry my poor communication skills are leading you to see that. I’ve said before that I dont believe all sins are equal. But, all sins are SIN. And, all sin is and all sins are an affront to a holy God.

        “Not doing enough to stop evil vs doing evil seem to be the same in the sin category for you.”

        Sins of commission and sins of omission are still sin.

        “You are a “ruling” elder in the Presbyterian church commenting on an SBC blog…”

        Yes, and…I’m also an ordained SB preacher. But I do love that “ruling” title. :)

        “…and defending the behaviors of the Reformers.”

        Where have I defended the behaviors of the reformers where they sinned? If I have given that impression, please forgive me and let me state categorically now that whatever sins the Reformers committed, I do not defend and in the strongest terms I repudiate.

          Lydia


          I’ve said before that I dont believe all sins are equal. But, all sins are SIN. And, all sin is and all sins are an affront to a holy God.”

          There it is again. you say they are not equal but then treat them as equal before God. What is the difference?

          Perhaps a better way to view this is a pure heart vs sinless perfection that is unattainable?

          It seems it was an “affront” to God for Manz to advocate and practice adult baptism as it went against the religious authorities of the time. That is what comes of redefining sin.

            Les

            No Lydia, you are reading into what I said. Unless you don’t believe that all sin, unrighteous anger and murder for example, are both sins. Do you? They are not equal. But they are both sins, right? Will you go n record here and now agreeing that all sin is sin and an affront to a Holy God?

            Stated another way, “…sin is lawlessness.”
            (1 John 3:4 ESV)

            Agree? Is not unbelief lawlessness? Is not coveting lawlessness? Is not unrighteousness lawlessness? Of course it is. Anything that violates God’s law is sin. Not all sin is equal. But all sin is sin…and lawlessness.

            Unless you think otherwise?

            “It seems it was an “affront” to God for Manz to advocate and practice adult baptism as it went against the religious authorities of the time.”

            No. Your “seems” is incorrect.

            Les

            PS, it is really good to be conversing again. Was I really the kind of commenter Robert remembers?

            Lydia

            “No Lydia, you are reading into what I said. Unless you don’t believe that all sin, unrighteous anger and murder for example, are both sins. Do you? They are not equal. But they are both sins, right? Will you go n record here and now agreeing that all sin is sin and an affront to a Holy God?

            Funny how we have come full circle. Not sure I can read into anything that you have “said”. It is what you have not said that is interesting.

            So, if I agree that all sin, whether anger or murder are “sin”, then what? The heinous, evil behavior of the Reformers is lessened?

            I am standing outside the bubble and looking at where this thinking can lead and where I have seen it go.

            It leads to pastors telling victims of molestation they are sinners, too, so must forgive the molester who is also a sinner and feels badly. (This is what was taught at SGM)

            Is the victim a sinner? Yes. Of course. Is the molester a sinner? Of course.

            Now what?

            Where I see this going is a morass of confusion when it comes to moral standards. The victim is a sinner and the molester is a sinner. We are all sinners. All our sins are an affront to God. How dare us not admit that.

            And so, any standard of morality becomes impossible to maintain with that sort of thinking.

            Les

            Lydia,

            I must be clear as mud here for you to keep not getting what I’m saying.

            “It is what you have not said that is interesting.”

            I have used a phrase to people before, “Don’t hear what I’m not saying.” I use it here to you now.

            “So, if I agree that all sin, whether anger or murder are “sin”, then what? The heinous, evil behavior of the Reformers is lessened?”

            Nope, at least I’m not saying that.

            “The victim is a sinner and the molester is a sinner. We are all sinners. All our sins are an affront to God. How dare us not admit that.”

            Of course victims are sinners. Of course molesters are sinners. I know you agree with that. “All have sinned…”

            But, you haven’t heard me say that a victim of a crime is/was the cause of said crime. I have no implied such. And the fact that both victim and molester (in your example) are sinners does not lessen the crime or make the victim deserving of said crime.

            You seem to keep trying to tag something to us Reformed folks that just won’t stick, except in your mind.

            Have a great day.

            Les

          Lydia

          “Where have I defended the behaviors of the reformers where they sinned? ”

          I think you are right. “Defending was a poor word choice”. “Excusing” seems to fit better with the overall theme of your comments.

            Les

            Nope. Excusing is a miss too. I have not excused their sinful behavior except in your interpretive mind.

            lydiasellerofpurple

            “You seem to keep trying to tag something to us Reformed folks that just won’t stick, except in your mind.”

            The Reformed leaders you claim had the right ST and follow would be considered criminals today by the world’s standards much less Christian “love” standards since Christ. And nothing like Christ in practicing their systematic theology. We see the same result in various ways with the Puritans and their “practices”. Does that not concern you or cause you to question their interpretive paradigm?

            I do think it follows perfectly with the determinist God paradigm. And I think we are seeing a big push for increased human authority over others in the SBC which also follows the Reformed ST pattern. Tyrants are in style these days.

            Les

            Lydia,

            Is Calvin’s theology a follow on Augustine? You probably would know. I’m not as well learned in these matters.

            Les

            Lydia,

            I also meant to ask, if Reformed theology leads to killing people, if that’s your theory or conclusion based on Calvin and other Reformers, then if that theology is the reason, where are the killings? Oh, I’m sure you’ll point to clergy abuse cases, and dictatorial pastors, etc. But we can all find way more non Reformed cases of abuse and clergy dictatorships. Many, many more.

            So I propose your, and others’, attempts to link killing and those other things to Reformed theology fails. You cannot even come close to proving the case. A grand jury of thinking people wouldn’t even bring a charge.

              Norm Miller

              L&L
              Please resort to private email to continue your thread as subsequent posts will be moderated. Thank you.

            Les Prouty (@HaitiOrphanProj)

            Thanks Norm and sorry for getting off track. Lydia my email is les at haitiorphanproject dot org if you so desire.

Robert

Les are the guy that used to post here a few months back and then either you got banned or you took yourself out of the discussions here. I recall you posting in a very nasty and mean spirited manner back then. Hopefully you are not the same guy.

You quote the Westminster confession, but that is NOT the Bible and it is rejected by non-calvinists (which includes so called “Traditionalists”) and so has no authority except for a calvinist. The portion you quote alludes to a major contradiction within the calvinistic system (i.e. that God predetermnes everything and yet is not the author of sin, in fact if he predetermines everything not only is he the author of sin but the author of every detail of history, unfortunately most calvinists are not forthright nor honest about this because if he is the author of the whole play, decides every detail about it, decides who the heroes and villians, all the characters are and what they will say and do, then he is the author of whatever happens in that play that we call history).

Earlier in the thread the issue was that the Reformers had persecuted the anabaptists to the point of murdering them. Calvin and other Reforemers hated the anabaptists and persecuted them unfairly and severely. There was no justification for what they did. Les then changed the topic to whether or not Lydia knows if Calvin was saved or not. None of us is in the position to judge whether or not Calvin was saved. We can however apply biblical tests of an elder (i.e. the descriptions of elders/pastors in the New Testament) to Calvin and conclude he did not meet these standards. He was a harsh and hateful man who was ruthless in his dealings with people. Instead of being honest about this calvinists try to rationalize this away and do so because they like his theology. But noncalvinists understand that if we think biblically about a subject we do not divorce a person’s character from their teachings. In the Bible the two are connected which is why one of the give aways of a false teacher is their character. Jesus warned us to be fruit inspectors, to evaluate a ministry by the fruit it produces. But being a fruit inspector does not mean that we have to determine whether or not Calvin was saved. And Yes all of us sin and godly men sin and do atrocious things at time, but bringing this up is done to rationalize away Calvin’s actions and lack of Christian character.

Robert

    Les

    Robert, I am a Les and I stopped posting about mid year 2012…of my own volition. I wasn’t banned.

    “I recall you posting in a very nasty and mean spirited manner back then.”

    Well, I don’t remember posting in such a way, but I suppose I could have. My apologies if i did and offended you.

    The rest of your stuff about Calvin is pretty pedestrian NC stuff. I’ve already said to WF1 and Lydia that I’m done talking about Calvin on this post about Manz. To the extent that I contributed to getting off topic, I apologize. Post on Calvin Robert here at SBC Today and we can have that discussion. But it won’t be the first time and likely won’t shed any new light.

    Have a great day brother.

    Les

Robert

Wingfooted1 quoted Vincent Cheung. While I disagree with Cheung he is a perfect example of what **consistent Calvinism** involves. Cheung understands and really believes what must be true if God does in fact predetermine all things. It is sometimes comical to see how other calvinists while holding the same belief that God predetermines all things, try to distance themselves from Cheung, declare him to be a “hypercalvinist” for instance. But Cheung is no “hypercalvinist” he is instead a CONSISTENT CALVINIST. Cheung believes exactly what John Calvin himself believed: that God predetermines everything.

Here is the quote again:

Cheung adds……..
“The Bible teaches that God decrees, causes, and controls all things. God’s sovereignty is both exhaustive and effectual. He does not only arrange all things to happen, but he causes all things to happen. This means that he is the author of sin, in the sense that he is the metaphysical cause of thoughts, decisions, actions, and events that he himself has defined as sinful……. If our doctrine falls short of stating that God ordains and causes sin, then we should admit that we reject the biblical doctrine, that he exercises total power over all things…….. We affirm that God’s sovereignty is exhaustive and effectual, and extends to all things, even to sin and evil. He teaches us this. We believe it, and we like it…… If God ordains and causes all things, then of course this applies to the rape of a child, or to five billion children. There is no refutation.”

Now note that Cheung believes both that God “controls all things” and God predetermines all things. If that is true, we need to carefully consider the analogy of an author and what it logically entails. When we use the God as author analogy we are claiming a commonality between a human author of say a play and God’s providence. None of us would dispute that the author of a play decides EVERYTHING about his play. He decides the characters, what they will be like, what they will think, say and do. He decides the settings of the play, every context in which the characters find themselves. The author of the play decides all of this BEFORE the play occurs on the stage. This also means that nothing that happens in that play was not first preplanned and even desired by the author of that play to be part of the story. Nothing happens in that story that the author did not think of first, preplan, and desire to occur as part of the play. Calvinists/theological determinists want us to believe that in the same way God conceived of what we call history, conceived its every detail first, preplanned it and then actualized it as this world in which we find ourselves.

If the determinist is consistent he/she will believe that since God is the author of all of human history, that includes every aspect of human history, with no exceptions whatsover. Now this is where I find determinists to be both disengenous and not forthright. They will claim that God is the author of everything (just as the human author is the author or every detail of his play) and yet try to SIMULTANEOUSLY claim that God is NOT the author of sin.
But that cannot be, if he is the author of all of it, then he is the author of every part of it.

Just as the human author of author of every aspect of his play as well.

And part of it is the reality that humans and angels commit sin. So if he is the author of all of it then he is the author of the part that incudes sin as well. Cheung recognizes this and openly grants it as seen in his quote here.
This shows him to be a consistent Calvinist, consistent with his belief/claim/presupposition that God predetermines all things. He is not a “hyper” calvinist for recognizing this, he is a **consistent** calvinist. And his views are identical to those of John Calvin (and why do we never hear Calvin being labeled as a hypercalvinist by these calvinists who distance themselves from Cheung???).

Other calvinists are not so consistent as they want to claim that God predetermines all things but then will try to argue/claim/explain that God is not the author of sin.

If you want to see pure unvarnished Calvinism read John Calvin. If you want to see a modern version of the same thinking read Vincent Cheung. If you want to be biblical you will reject both of them.

Robert

Ron F. Hale

Randall,
Give it up Brother, this thread is dead!

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available