Calvinism's Roman Catholic Origin: Part 7

Welcome to the Preaching the Cross Radio Podcast, featuring the radio ministry of Pastor James W.

Knox of the Bible Baptist Church of Delamp, Florida.

Our prayer is that these half-hour Bible study programs will bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and enable the saved to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Savior.

Now here's your host, Pastor James W.

Knox.

And a very, very pleasant good day to each and every one of you.

I'm Brother James, and I greet you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

And I welcome you one more time to the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast.

We're very happy that you tuned into the program today.

We are making our way toward the conclusion of a series of radio broadcasts in which we are drawing upon the excellent work of a man by the name of Paul Bailey.

Paul Bailey was born in London.

He uh was raised in Anglican, became a Jehovah's Witness, but then trusted Jesus Christ as his Savior in 1985 as a result of reading the Word of God.

And those of us that were saved through reading the Bible, we always find ourselves with a real special common bond to those who have been converted in like manner.

But uh anyway, Brother Bailey studies the scriptures, he's a student of the word, and he produced some years ago a little a little booklet, tremendous little booklet, entitled The Supreme Irony.

And in this booklet he exposes the fact, and it is a fact, that all millennial Calvinism has its roots not in the writings of John Calvin, but in John Calvin's training, which he received, of course, during his days as a Roman Catholic priest.

And we have shown you throughout the course of this study that what we call Calvinism is uh not at all uh original to John Calvin, but rather it finds its origin in the writings of Jerome and Augustine.

Now, maybe I should explain something to you that most people don't know and don't understand.

The Roman Catholic Church for centuries held to a theological worldview, held to an interpretation of the scriptures that is identical to what we would call five-point Calvinism.

When the Jesuit order was founded, it was founded by a group of men who, while Roman Catholic in their principles and in their beliefs, believed that evangelism was necessary.

They did not believe in the fatalistic approach of their forefathers.

They believed that you had to go into all the world and make converts, and that the issue of eternity as regards the individual soul was in doubt.

And hence the great schism within the Roman Catholic Church between the Franciscan order and the Jesuit order.

The Jesuits were the non, well, we'd say non-Calvinistic wing or branch of the Catholic priesthood.

So we can't go back over all of the material.

We were wrapping up at the close of the last broadcast the fact that John Calvin taught a number of heresies in addition to his not the least of which was the denial of the one thousand year reign of the Lord Jesus Christ on this earth.

Not only do many A millennial writers seek to destroy the truth of the pre-tribulation rapture by stigmatizing it with untrue conspiracy theories about Jesuits, charismatics, and crazy women, they also try to build up their own Amillennial case by falsely linking some big names with it.

For instance, doctor Peter Masters, who was uh minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, riding in the sword and trowel, nineteen eighty nine, number two, pages twenty eight through thirty nine, attempted to portray his predecessor C.

H.

Spurgeon as an amillennialist, whereas experts on Spurgeon's prophetic views, like Stephen Tom's of Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, have documented many statements of Spurgeon's which clearly demonstrate his consistent lifelong premillennialism.

For example, Spurgeon signed a confession of faith in the summer of eighteen ninety one, which included the unambiguous statement Our hope is the premillennial return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory.

Now that's clear enough.

I don't believe in the premillennial coming of Jesus Christ because Charles Hedden Spurgeon believed it.

But I am not going to base my denial of the premillennial coming of Jesus Christ on the false idea that a preacher blessed greatly of God like Mr.

Spurgeon was also an omillennialist when obviously he was not.

Peter Masters actually misses out sections of quotes from Spurgeon, which would contradict his own faulty analysis of Spurgeon's views.

For example, he cites Spurgeon concerning the millennium as follows They shall not say one to another, Know the Lord, for all shall know him from the least to the greatest.

There may be even in that period certain solemn assemblies and Sabbath days, but they will not be the same kind as we have now, for the whole earth will be a temple, every day will be a Sabbath.

Now Masters took out he deleted the middle of that statement.

There may be even in that period certain solemn assemblies and Sabbath days, he deleted that, but did not indicate that he had deleted that statement when he quoted Spurgeon.

So here's what he did he took a quotation from a man, from a preacher, that obviously contained premillennial truth.

He deleted the portion of the quotation that that uh was the premillennial truth, and then he used that quotation to try and prove that the man was not premillennial.

That's about as crooked as you can get.

In the name of Christ, of course.

Uh C.W.

Griffiths examined uh this case in depth, and here was his conclusion.

It appears that Masters has been overzealous in his attempt to identify the character of Mr.

Spurgeon's millennium with that of the Amillennialists, and that this has led to manipulation of the quotations for this end.

A crooked outfit if you ever saw one.

William E.

Cox, another well-known A Millennialist, has a chapter called Others in Like Mind in his book Biblical Studies and Final Things.

He lines up a list of well-known men who are all supposedly amillennials, as though that made any difference at all.

I know, listen, I know good saved men.

I know saved men, born-again men, who are wrong about any number of things, who err in any number of doctrinal points.

What does that mean?

It means absolutely nothing when it comes to the truth and when it comes to sound doctrine.

Right is right, wrong is wrong.

You go to the Bible.

You stand on the Word of God.

You don't stand on the shoulders of good men or great men, whether they were right or wrong.

You stand on the Word of God anyway.

Um Cox selectively quotes from uh Haley's uh clearly premillennial Bible Handbook to make it look as if Haley was actually a millennial.

However, on the page immediately preceding the page from which Cox quotes, and uh Cox quotes some things from Haley's Bible Handbook to try and prove that Haley was a millennial, but listen to this.

This is from Haley's handbook.

But the expression, the rest of the dead live not till the thousand years should be finished, seems to imply that there will be two resurrections, one before and one after the millennium, which of course there will be.

In fact, contrary to Cox's portrayal of him, Haley actually goes into detail to explain his belief in two separate literal resurrections.

He states, and I quote, New Testament teaching generally links together the Lord's coming, the resurrection and judgment day, all in one perspective, as when looking at distant mountain peaks nearly in line, one behind the other, they seem to be close together, when in reality they may be separated by immense distances.

However, Jesus, in using the phrase resurrection of the just, Luke 14, 14, may have intended it as a hint that the resurrection of all would not take place at the same time.

Paul speaking of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 23 says, each in its own order, Christ the first fruits, then they that are Christ at his coming, then comes the end, as if the end might be sometime after the resurrection of his people, as theirs will have been some time after his.

Now he's got that absolutely right.

That was from page 735 of the 1965 edition of Haley's Bible Handbook, and he's right.

And he's right.

The uh the all millennial Calvinists are faced with the enormous problem that premillennialism was the all but universal belief of Christians in the early centuries.

The so-called church fathers, Ignatius, Papius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, without exception, up until the end of the second century all believed in the premillennial coming of Jesus Christ.

Any Encyclopedia Britannica will confirm this.

Full documentation can be found in a book by George N.

Peter called The Theocratic Kingdom, or J.

Drake's Pentecost's book, Things to Come, or Lewis Sperry Schaefer's work on systematic theology.

It's it's well known, it's well known.

That up until the time the church settled down in the world, they were looking for the coming of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom.

They were not deluded by the false notion that they would bring in the kingdom for him and without him.

Why the kingdom without the king would be a joke.

Were the church fathers post-tribulational or pre-tribulational?

Now that's a good question.

John Wolver, commenting on the first draft of this uh uh material that we're citing, Paul Bailey's work, wrote, and I quote from John Wolver the fact is the other church fathers would write that Christ would come any day, which of course is pre-tribulational.

Then on the next page they would say something had to happen first.

They were confused by the fact that the rapture is declared to be imminent and that the second coming had preceding events.

The same probably existed in the Old Testament when they put the first and second comings of Christ together and did not understand that these were two comings.

And it makes perfect sense because tens of thousands of preachers in the world today continue to confuse in their preaching and their reading, in their teaching, the rapture of the church and the second coming of Jesus Christ to this earth.

All millennialists, however, have at various times made feeble attempts to avoid to avoid this fact.

Classic case is uh W.

J.

Greer's in chapter three of his book, The Momentous Event, he tries to water down Justin Martyr's fervent premillennialism.

The fact is, Justin Martyr, who lived from one hundred to one hundred sixty-eight AD, strongly believed in the premillennial coming of Christ.

In fact, he stated, and I quote, I and whoever are on all points right minded Christians, know that there will be resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare, and further, a certain man with us named John, one of the apostles of Christ, predicted by revelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem and thereafter the general, or, to speak briefly, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

You couldn't get any more premillennial than that.

That from a man who testified, who testified that he got this material from John the apostle.

What about John Calvin and the Millennium?

Well, even the great John Calvin's statements about the millennium are distorted to bolster the Ah Millennialist weak case.

The fact is, Calvin hardly said anything about the millennium.

He deliberately avoided delving into prophecy in detail.

He refused to write a commentary on Revelation because in his own words, quote, the study of prophecy either finds a man crazy or it leaves him so.

End of quote.

That's a pretty sad testimony from a man who's renowned for his biblical scholarship and his knowledge of the word.

You know why it drove him crazy?

You know why the study of prophecy left John Calvin crazy?

Because he didn't believe it.

He kept trying to interpret it.

He kept trying to decipher it.

He wouldn't believe it.

Any part of that Bible you don't believe will mess up your mind.

John Calvin testified it messed up his mind.

Now it's true that Calvin was a millennial, but the form of premillennialism that he attacked was not orthodox premillennialism.

Here's what he said.

I'm quoting Calvin now in his Institutes, Book 3, chapter 25, page 266.

Those who assign only a thousand years to the children of God to enjoy the inheritance of future life, observe not how great an insult they offer to Christ in his kingdom, how stupid and frivolous their fear that too much severity will be ascribed to God if the reprobate are doomed to eternal punishment, even the blind may see.

So Calvin rejected the doctrine of the millennial kingdom because he was so shallow in his knowledge of the Word of God that he thought it meant that those who were saved and born again would only enjoy a thousand years of salvation and of reign with Jesus Christ.

That's too bad.

Now listen, he knew a lot about the Bible, a lot more than most people in his day, but if you stop with John Calvin, you you stop five hundred years too soon.

There's a great deal of truth John Calvin never did find.

Well, there's confusion in the reformed ranks, apart from the specific examples that we've cited in this study.

There is in A millennial Calvinistic literature a great deal of general misunderstanding, misrepresentation of dispensational teaching.

So often an opponent of dispensationalism will set up a straw dummy before shooting it down.

For instance, A millennialists often pose the question as to how the rapture could be secret when the Bible says in Revelation one seven that every eye shall see him.

The problem with this criticism is that no pre tribulationalist believes this passage is a reference to the rapture.

We all know it's a reference to the second coming of the Lord in power and glory.

Amelinists sometimes portray dispensationalists as extreme, fanciful, confused, and contradictory, as if conversely there was some kind of unified body of prophetic doctrine on the Reform side that has remained orthodox, stable, and consistent through the centuries.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reformed theologians cannot claim historical continuity for their ominoidal views from apostolic times until today, nor can they claim to have much agreement among themselves even on fundamental points.

Reform theologians contradict one another on prophecy at almost every turn.

For example, they can't agree on the binding of Satan from Revelation twenty.

Some say it was bound partially, some say totally.

Some say it was bound at the time of the Edict of Constantine.

What a joke.

Again, Warfield, the great Reformed theologian, teaches that quote there is indeed no literal binding of Satan to be thought of at all.

What happens happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented as happening to Satan for the purpose of the symbolical picture.

Well that's about as fouled up as anything could be.

Isn't that amazing?

Now the Bible says that Satan's bound for a thousand years, and Warfield, writing in his biblical doctrines, page 651, banner of truth trust, says there is indeed no literal binding of Satan.

So the Bible says Satan is bound, and this man says he's not bound.

The Bible says Satan's bound, and this man says, Well, God said it was Satan, but it's really the saints.

How do you put any confidence in a man that confuses Satan and the saints?

Then there's the first resurrection.

Some reformed theologians say it is a symbol of the new birth.

Others claim it symbolizes the death of a Christian during the present age.

Even as to the very nature of the thousand years of Revelation chapter twenty, there is wide disagreement among all millennialists.

What does the thousand figure represent?

When did it start?

When will it finish?

Is Christ ruled in heaven among the glorified saints or on earth in the church?

It's also clear.

But when you start interpreting rather than believing, you fall in a ditch.

When one spiritualizes, and that's the word that's used to make it sound like they're doing something God wants them to do, when one spiritualizes one's way through the Bible, like the Reformed theologians do, all kinds of ridiculous and incredible interpretations abound.

Take, for example, the well the well known A millennial commentator Homley H A I L E Y, whose commentary on Revelation is highly regarded in Reformed circles.

He teaches that the Great Tribulation took place in the period between the days of the apostles and the Edict of Constantine in three hundred thirteen AD.

I'm not kidding.

At that point in time the beast and the false prophet were cast in the lake of fire.

Amazing.

He then concludes that a thousand years symbolizes that period of victory beginning with Constantine, when Roman persecution ended, and continuing until some time before the Lord's return when Satan will be loosed from his present restraint.

So the Dark Ages and the rule of the Roman Catholic Church this man calls the millennial kingdom.

Pretty sad.

Pretty sad.

Now the completely ironical nature of the Jesuit conspiracy theory regarding the rapture, which we covered a couple of broadcasts ago, should by now be apparent, as well as the charge that dispensationalists cannot agree among themselves.

We conclude with two further interesting ironies.

Number one, some pre-tribulationalists have been held up to ridicule because they guessed at erroneous dates for the rapture, which of course is a dumb thing to do.

Date setting is bad policy, but have Amillennial Calvinists forgotten that Reformed worthies such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Jonathan Edwards all guessed at dates for the Lord's return only to be proved wrong one by one?

Dr.

C.

I Schofield is often criticized by A Millennial Calvinists because he daringly presumed to insert his dispensational headings and notes into his Schofield study Bible, as if they were as inspired as the scriptures themselves.

But have these reform critics forgotten that the Geneva Bible was full of prophetic notes back in the 16th century and that the Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Reformation?

Again, only as recently as 1995, Thomas Nelson publishers put out the new Geneva Study Bible in the New King James Version.

Its general editor is the influential Calvinist R.

C.

Sproul.

This Bible has headings inserted in the text and is full of prophetic interpretations and footnotes.

How about that?

Well, how do we wrap up this study?

Before you call yourself a Calvinist, which uh in the circles I run in, Calvinists don't call themselves Calvinists because they don't want anybody to know they're Calvinists.

But in some circles it's uh a mark of honor, a badge of distinction to call yourself a Calvinist.

Alright, here's what you need to remember.

Number one John Calvin believed and taught that Christ is present in the element.

Of the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper, and that spiritual life is communicated through partaking of these.

That is, John Calvin agreed with the Roman Catholic Church in the doctrine of the Mass.

That's Christ's literal blood, that's Christ's literal body, and that you get spiritual life by eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ in the Mass.

That is the grossest, most pagan, blasphemous, false teaching in the history of the New Testament Church.

And John Calvin believed it all his life.

Calvin was confused about the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, despite writing pages about it in his institutes, and even the reformed expert Louis Burkhoff confessed that he was unable to fathom him out.

He said, Quote, Calvin's representation is not entirely clear, but he seems to mean that influence, though real, is not physical but spiritual and mystical.

He tried to get him out of it, but he couldn't do it.

Number two John Calvin believed and taught that all children of believers are regenerate in the womb and are to be sprinkled as a sign of the regeneration that has already taken place.

What utter nonsense.

Calvin taught with the greatest vehemence that infant baptism was a holy ordinance of God, which of course it was not.

His extreme view is explained by Omillennial Calvinist Peter Masters.

He believed that all the children of believers were spiritually regenerate in the womb and did not need baptism to bring this about.

Isn't that amazing?

Have you ever read John chapter 1, verse number 12?

John 1 · chapter mention

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even them that believe on his name.

Have you read verse 13?

Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Why Nicodemus had to be born again.

You say, Oh, that's because his parents weren't believers.

No, it's because it's because in Adam all die.

Even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Imagine, imagine a man teaching, you are regenerated in the womb because your parents were sprinkled when they were babies, and millions of people following that man as a great Bible teacher.

In fact, so doggedly did Calvin hold to the era of infant baptism, it would have possibly been fatal to oppose him.

If you had taught that a person who had been born again should be baptized by immersion because their infant baptism was not valid, it could have cost you your life had you lived in Geneva during Calvin's reign there, and we we dealt with that in our series of tapes on Calvinism.

The Reformers were all baby sprinklers.

They often persecuted the Baptists over that issue.

Do you believe babies of believers are born again in the womb?

Calvin did.

So there's a double irony about twentieth century Calvinism.

Firstly, most people that call themselves Calvinists are not, because they reject Calvin's views on the Lord's Supper and baptism.

Secondly, most modern Calvinists do not know that Calvin, although he taught that the atonement of Christ was limited, in at least one place finally got it right and correctly taught that Christ suffered for the whole world.

In his commentary on first John two, John Calvin himself wrote Here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated.

I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting.

Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect.

This solution is commonly prevailed in the schools, though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny it is suitable to this passage.

Calvin was ins inconsistent.

He had to deny what he knew the Bible taught in order to defend what he had taught and was teaching, but he knew and had to admit in at least one place he knew that is what the Bible says.

I just don't know what to do with it.

Well, don't be a Calvinist when you could believe the Bible.

And if you are a Calvinist, don't say it too loud.

Somebody who knows the Word of God might hear you.

This is the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast.

Our mailing address is 872 Glenwood Road, Deland, Florida 32720, United States of America.

I'm Brother James.

Till next time.

May the Lord richly bless you, and good day.

Thanks for tuning in today.

Join us every weekday for another episode of the Preaching of the Cross Radio Podcast.

For hundreds of hours of in-depth expository Bible teaching, please visit our YouTube channel, James W.

Knox Sermons, our sermon audio page, Bible Baptist the Land, or our website, Bible Baptistteland.com.

Until next time and throughout eternity, may Jesus Christ be praised.