History of Calvin

From Herman Selderhuis

...all of this also suffices to destroy once for all the myth that Calvin approved of a death-sentence passed upon his daughter-in-law when she was caught in adultery. It should go without saying that it is somewhat difficult to agree to such a thing,especially when one does not even have a daughter-in-law.(p.170)

After 1555, when Calvin exercised greater control,Geneva began to punish adultery with death. It should be noted,however, that neither Calvin nor the consistory were responsible for these decisions. Most cases were dealt with by the city lieutenant and the Little Council,often without even informing the consistory. When the consistory was informed,its involvement in such matters was only marginal. (p.176)

 

City lieutenants and small councils did it not us--this is the same rationale the holy see uses to water down their responsibility for having murdered millions who disagreed with them--including many Ana------Baptists.

Beware of wolves dressed like sheep.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Do you doubt historical fact,or do you wish to cling to traditional myths?

The above is utter nonsense Bro James.

Yes, but but how does that relate to the subject-at-hand?

I have observed Christians on the BB behaving like wolves.

 

From Herman J.Selderhuis

Later,in June 1552,...Trolliet registered a complaint against Calvin's sermons. The ensuing discussions revealed that Trolliet also had difficulties with Calvin's doctrine of predestination and that he too thought Calvin turned God into the author of sin. There was much discussion back-and-forth,and the council decided to read the Institutes for itself --a most uncommon event among politicians. This turned to Calvin's favor;the Institutes appear to have been so clear that the members of the council declared his view to be fully biblical. They further officially ratified his doctrine of predestination,which was another uncommon event. Everyone was required to hold to it,and not even one bad word was to be uttered against it. (p.192)

 

As was mentioned above, what you say "could" be one way of seeing it, but it would be historical revisionism. In the case of Calvin, he did not hand down the orders.

You are doing what is called "equivocation" -- making the fact that one was present when something happened equal to the fact that they had influence in making it happen (akin to the more technical sense of equivocation, conflating two different meanings upon one word that is alike).


I see similar tendencies in Landmarkism, where the simple fact of rivals to the Catholic system automatically mean that there was an unbroken historical line of "baptists" all the way back to John the Baptizer, or that modern Baptists stem from the Ana-Baptists simply because both groups happened to be in Holland at much the same time. Unless some direct correlation can be shown, one cannot so simply assume upon history some issue that cannot be proven true.

 

> Is it really the "5 pointers", as you call them, who limit God? Do they say things like: "God has done all that He can to save you. Now it's up to you"

5 pointers are to polite and it doesn't compute. 5 pointers offer the gospel to all knowing that only the elect will respond. 5 point evangelism is (should be) general, not personal. If the person is elect he will respond. No pleading is necessary.

The 5 pointers know that there are elect people out there who have not heard the good news. Why? Because Jesus has not returned. Semi-Pelegians and and Pelagians don't KNOW if anyone will respond to their efforts. 5 pointers can KNOW.

 

From Herman J. Selderhuis

On Courtship :

He also thought that couples should spend some quality time together to guage their compatibility. This was very different from the customary practice under canon law,where two young people could make their vows without knowing each other at all. Calvin was therefore also a fierce opponent of parents who arranged marriages against the wishes of their sons or daughters,and herein he sought the same protection for girls as for boys. (p.181)

Calvin,of course, disapproved of marriages with Catholics,Jews or Muslims. Those who desired such marriages were to be strongly admonished,but of course they could not be kept from making their own decisions. It was sinful but not prohibited.The same was true for marriage to an unbeliever. (p.182)

 

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations...and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Mt. 28: 19,20. Also: Jude 3.

This is Church perpetuity in a nutshell. What is all this reforming the reformed reformation? Nothing times nothing times nothing is still __________.

Is Jesus not able to keep His promises of abiding through another Comforter--leading in all Truth?

Someone is confused.

Sorry, this is the exonerate John Calvin channel. I am having difficulty not seeing him as the religious tyrant of Geneva in the 16th century--intolerant of those who might disagree with his theology. This is not unusul for reformed catholic theologians, retaining the dogmatics of their mother. John C. was not a champion of religious liberty.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

This thread was started in response to a bunch of hateful lies. I am here on this thread to state facts. You,on the other hand,wish to cling to your tradition regardless of historical facts.

 

Thank-you for allowing for another opinion of the interpretation of the facts and evidence.

Have you checked the bias of your sources?

Most folk believe exactly what they want--regardless of the facts.

To whom do I recant.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

And yet, I'd lay odds that you would argue against the church universal... :tonofbricks:

I can understand why you are having problems with Calvin. You have bought into a bunch of lies about the man that almost single-handedly gave us the theology that extracted God's church from Catholicism.

WHOM ELSE wrote a complete theology before or after Calvin that helped guide the church into right thinking about God and the church?

As for Calvin's history, simply reading a few books would greatly help you. There are many out there -- or better still, read Calvin's Institutes and circle all the stuff you disagree with, then bring a thread so we can discuss it.

 

Against universalism--for sure. Universal church is an error which crept in early. It has polluted the doctrine of many. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

That God's churches were ever a part of the holy see is the real bone of contention. Basic axiom: True Baptists were never part of the so-call reformation of the holy see. This is a pivotal issue. If Rome has the authority through Peter given in Mt. 16., they are the only ones with it and have given it to no one--particularly the reformers. Rome did excommunicate them. On the other hand, if Rome had no authority to give, her daughters have none either for the same reason.

True Baptists have never been a part of Rome nor the reformation of Rome. That is part of the Baptist Heritage.

Calvin was not a Baptist.

Now what?

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Not sure where this going. No, I am not an IFB. How about an ASTB, Anti StereoType Baptist. Telling truth cannot be called slander. Usually: the weaker the argument, the stronger the words. You seem to be a bit intolerant of those who would disagree with you.

We seem to have a serious disagreement regarding universalism and the origins of denominations. That John Calvin attempted to reform Roman Catholicism is easy enough to corroborate. That he retained the errors of church government and infant baptism are also easy enough to verify. That True Baptists never had anything to do with this reformation movement is also provable--to anyone with an open mind.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Thanks for that piece of revelation.

 

If it is easy,then do it. Cite your sources that he tried to reform Roman Catholicism.

Do you know what Protestanism is? It's kinda' hard to reform something from the outside. The Reformers were a separate group -- they were not a part of the R.C.Church. Sure,before their respective conversions they were part of it. But that's not what we are talking about. Ever since 1534,until his death in 1564 John Calvin was a Protestant,by very definition against the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Universalism is different from the church universal. Universalism is a doctrine that implies that "all are saved." The "church universal" is the entire church (body of believers) of the Lord Jesus Christ -- the "Bride of Christ." Everyone should be against the first -- the second is biblical, but congregations that are mistakenly separatist to the ultimate degree typically do not see that Christ is the head of ALL His church instead of each pastor and his little slice.

Nice sentiment, but totally ignores the history of God's church. It also ignores the fact that most of the churches that stood apart from the Catholic Church were in fact heretical or at least very liberal in their doctrines -- especially early on before the RC itself drifted so far away from Scripture that it was a larger problem. This historical drift is rarely noted by those who hate the RC for any number of reasons -- none biblical. What is even more ironic is that the radical independent churches have, in a lot of ways, adopted former RC doctrines, but they don't even realize it because they have an less than adequate understanding of history and doctrine than is required to see the issues for what they are. Their "synergistic" theology, for instance...

Catholicism does indeed see itself as "the only Church" based on Peter's confession in Matthew 16. That is an error, which can be substantiated in Scripture (shortly after, Christ made the same statement to ALL the 12), and by default apply to every church in history.

You really don't understand Baptists then. Whom else are you calling "Baptist" before the Protestant Reformation and the first Baptists in Holland? I'd love to hear your explanation -- and a summary of the doctrines held by all those dissenters from Rome down through the ages.

Duh... Of course, by what you reasoned above -- ANYONE who was not Roman Catholic MUST have been a Baptist, so in fact, if your doctrine is correct, Calvin WAS a Baptist... Guess you have some homework to look at...

 

Think that we should let Bro. James in on the secret -- that "Protestant" comes from the word "protest" and that their "protest" was against the Catholic Church?

Think he's ever heard of the 95 Theses?