Featured Does Reformed theology require one to murder heretics

There is probably some from all theological positions that support some sort death penalty for heretics or other particular sins they believe to be really bad.

IMO, It is outrageous to say or promote such thinking.

Jesus changed the conditions for supporting the death of others. You must be without sin.

Peace to you.

 

Although it's nearly passed without a peep, 2019 is the 400th anniversary of the Synod of Dort. Earlier this year, I wondered why the Reformed were not commemorating their dogma's greatest victory.

Then I started reading about the vile acts that accompanied the vaunted doctrinal deliverance:

Executed in the Netherlands 13 May 1619 as the Synod of Dort closed, a champion of the Arminians Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. He had been imprisoned for the duration of the Synod of Dort, and was beheaded for ‘subversion of the country’s religion’ shortly after the Gomarists’ form of Calvinism was adopted by the Synod.

Even Ligonier Ministries admits persecution of him “was a shameful act against a Dutch patriot and one of the low points for Dutch Calvinists”:

Arminius and the Remonstrants

 

They next turned their fury on the already-dead body of another opponent of their theology:

Trial of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius and Hogerbeets

“The next sentence was pronounced on 15 May 1619 over Gilles van Ledenberg, who had been dead since the end of the previous September. Obviously, he could not be executed, but the judges declared in the verdict that he was ‘worthy of death’ and would so have been sentenced if he had been alive. His “exemplary sentence” was that his embalmed body would be hung from a gibbet in its coffin.”

“It was left hanging for 21 days, and after it was taken down, it was buried in the churchyard of the church at Voorburg. However, the same night a mob disinterred the corpse and threw it in a ditch. This caused sufficient revulsion to cause the Hof van Holland (the main Dutch court) to issue an injunction against further depredations. The body was later secretly reburied”

Gilles van Ledenberg

 

His embalmed body was hung from a gibbet for 21 days?

a gibbet ?

I had to look that one up:

“gibbeting refers to the use of a gallows-type structure from which the dead or dying bodies of criminals were hung on public display…to discourage others from committing similar offences”

 

You will find this position held by some big "T" Theonomists of mostly Presbyterian persuasion. This Reformed person does not believe in that.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

I think you found a nutball out of a million.

 

I have never met a Presbyterian who wanted me dead.

 

No TRUE theology requires killing anyone, except in war or self-defense. Religious killings are simply murders. Thus, the executions of "heretics" by the various RC "Inquisitions" were simply murders.

 

Cardinal Cupich would disagree with you as would Archbishop Vigano. McCarrick told Salon earlier in the year that he is not so bad. Got to go now, have an appointment with Dr. Feelgood.

 

This is nonsense. No the reformed theology does not require putting heretics to death. You are speaking to an extremist.

 

The idea of religious freedom is a recent one and very radical. Ever since Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:1-7) rulers have believed that it is important that everyone in their country should have the same religion as they do. This is still the case in most Moslem countries, Mianmar, North Korea and, in more recent times, in India. In medieval times, the countries of Christendom were Roman Catholic and dissent from that was often punished by death. Infant 'baptism' was very important to this, because it ensured that everyone was doing things 'properly.' If someone did not submit a new-born child for 'baptism,' that was a sign that he was a dissenter and could be dealt with accordingly.
At the time of the Reformation, many kingdoms or principalities threw out Romanism, but did not allow their subjects to choose what belief they would follow. So some Sates were Lutheran, some Zwinglian and some Reformed. according to the dictate of the ruler. The ordinary citizen had no say. It was the Anabaptists who were the first to advocate freedom of religion and gathered churches, but that did not go down well with the rulers, especially after the debacle of Munster, and the Anabaptists were persecuted both by Rome and by the Protestant princes.
But persecution was not a purely 'Reformed' thing. When the Arminians gained control of the Church of England under Archbishop laud, they persecuted the Calvinists and the other dissenters as hard as they could go. It was not until the 'Act of Settlement in 1688 that there was a degree of toleration for Dissenters in England.

I hope that's helpful for you.

 

Robycop, I thought you were premil?

Does not the blood run deep prior to the return of Christ?

 

There is not a religious group that has not engaged in some type of over zealousness.

It has and continues to be present in the human efforts to make everyone think alike.

Even in the Millennial reign that will not happen.

 

The Anabaptists were a mixed bunch and some of them had very dicey theology. Also, there was appalling immorality and a bloodbath in the city of Munster in 1534-5 when radical Anabaptists gained control of the place, and this made the surrounding nations even more determined to suppress the movement. But most Anabaptists were peaceful and even pacifist.