Calvin, the man

John Calvin is a saint -- as are all believers . It is a shame that the RC's hijacked a perfectely good word to their ends and therefore have given it a connotative meaning which is so widespread .

 

True, Rippon.

 

Calvibaptist said:

I disagree with Calvin's uniting of church and state, but it was the method of the day when he was around.

Actually, Calvin is more properly known as an advocate of the separation of church and state.

Not that Calvin, as a magisterial Reformer, believed in the modern idea of a secular state in which the church operates independently. He conceived of the state as a Christian nation, but his theology sowed the seeds of the modern secular democracy.

But it was Calvin that argued that the church and state were both subject to God's law, and each had their own separate spheres of influence and they should not interfere with each other. The church does not, for example, punish civil offenders - though it may call on the government to do so. The state does not impose intrude on the operation of the church, although it protects the church and its ability to function.

Calvin was actually quite a progressive thinker, when you take the time to evaluate him honestly.

 

There is a lot of disinformation going on in another thread. I think some reminders from this thread are needed.

 

A needed corrective.

 

I agree npetreley.

 

How right you are.

 

Rippon,

I actually agree with the conclusions you and Nick came to with regard to the truth being truth regardless of the man whose name happened to be attached to it. I'm sure there are many non-Calvinistic believers who had questionable marks on their morals (i.e. Moses, David, Paul, Peter etc) :tongue3:

However, in the beginning of this thread there were statements made that suggested there was NO scholarly proof to back up the claims against Calvin's questionable character and I'm not sure that is accurate. This source appears, as least from an overview, to quote from reliable sources and base their claims on historical facts.

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

 

Your certainty is suspect. Please reread epistemaniac's post again for a needed corretive of your view.

Besides Kent Rieske's opinions are flawed. He's an arch-Arminian. And to cap things -- He thinks Dave Hunt's book:What Love Is This is wonderful. These are warning signs. Consulting Dave Hunt on Calvinism is like consulting G.A. Riplinger for an accurate assessment of Bible translations.

You must have just scanned the material. Parts are true but a great many errors are pervasive in his essay.

 

You may be correct, but there seems to be many historical facts about Calvin's life that certainly debunk the other extreme view that he was some saintly theological icon.

 

Here are just some very untrue things Kent Reieske said in his piece. Remember, no matter how ardent one's anti-Calvinistic stance is -- lies will not advance one's cause.

Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method.

Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned, but not executed.

Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake.

Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower.

Many theological and state leaders criticised Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus.

The citizens of Geneva hated Calvin.

He placed his own writings above the Bible.

He had no testimony of faith in Christ.

John Calvin's technique of terror.

_________________________________________

Now I will cite a few theological things Mr. Rieski said which are total garbage.

Truly John Calvin is burning in hell.

Calvin's blasphemous doctrines.

According to the false doctrine of Calvin, God can't be limited.

Martin Luther taught that the sovereign God placed free will in mankind.

________________________________________

Here are some utterly false and malacious things Mr. Rieski said about Calvinist preachers.

They preach another gospel.

They are in the ministry for power, control and money.

They are certainly destined to spend an eternity in hell.

 

==Let's slow this train down a moment and put these things in their historical context. It is real easy for us, in the 21st century, to condemn Calvin for his involvement in the execution of Servetus. However we need to avoid that temptation in favor of carefully thinking about the historical context. I don't know if Calvin could have stopped the Servetus execution if he wanted to. The information I have read on this would seem to imply that it was not in his hands. The very fact that he could not get Servatus executed by the sword instead of the fire may further support that.

I think the more important point here is that John Calvin's belief in the death penalty for heretics was not unusual in his day. While I believe he misunderstood the Biblical teaching on capital punishment, I don't think his support of Servetus' execution makes him a monster. He believed that heretics like Servetus deserved execution. Therefore he supported the execution of the heretic Servetus. This was not murder. It was capital punishment. I may not agree with how they used it, and I don't, but I am not going to sit here and accuse them of murder.

==I would love to see how you justify that outrages comment. The Salem Witch Trials were the result of superstition, wide spread hysteria, and maybe even some mischief on the part of several little girls. Whatever the causes of that particular witch scare, Calvin had little to nothing to do with it.

==The idea of freedom of conscience and religion were not widespread in Calvin's day. So why you single him out on this point is a mystery to me. It seems like an ad hominem attack on Calvin.

==Wow, so everyone who lived before the idea of freedom of religion (etc) caught on is in hell? Really? Wow.

If we want to talk about people who have a "special place in hell" reserved for them we should talk about Michael Servetus. People who talk about the Servetus incident are usually so focused on Calvin (pro or con) that they ignore how dangerous Servetus' ideas really were. Servetus was a heretic in the first degree. Several years ago I read some of Servetus' ideas and, to be honest, I felt guilty for just reading such blasphemy. While I don't believe he should have been executed for his heresy, I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, I do believe he was a very dangerous false teacher. Even though I disagree with Calvin's approval of the Servetus execution, I can't bring myself to defend Servetus for any reason.

 

I do actually agree with you Martin. It was a different time and that must be taken into consideration. Many "good" Christian people were slave owners during a time that was "acceptable." And I don't believe it is right to dismiss everything they taught or believed because they followed that culturally acceptable practice. I'm sure there were just as horrific acts done by non-Calvinists throughout history and this should not be the measure of the theological aspects of the debate.

 

Are you ready to admit that your link was full of hot air?

 

Hmmm, let's see. I'm recalling the situation when Moses came down from the mountain, and saw the golden calf, and the dancing and carousing. He got really angry.

So he stood at the camp entrance and called out, "whoever is for the Lord, come to me". The Levites came and stood with him.

Now, let's pick up the narrative in Exodus 32:27:

Anybody here willing to condemn Moses for this? If not, why not?

 

No condemnation because God told Moses to do it.

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

 

......what she said....

 

Amy and kyredneck, I agree. I'm playing the devil's advocate here.

Let's play around with this. We'll not condemn Moses because he was obeying God's command. Wait a minute. Moses SAID God told him to. Really? God told Moses to murder 3,000 people? What about "thou shalt not kill (commit murder)?"

Now, fast forward a few thousand years. Calvin surely believed he was in God's will in the Servetus matter. Yet we condemn him, with some even suggesting he was doing Satan's work.

What about the adulteress whom Jesus saved from stoning? I don't recall Jesus condemning the stoning.

Now, please don't misread me. I'm trying to make a point. These events reflected a culture, mores and ethos of their times. That doesn't make them right, it just makes them understandable.

And it is inconsistent to applaud Moses for obeying God's command and condemn Calvin for believing he was doing the same thing.

 

No, because Moses was told by God himself to put these people to death, Calvin was not.

Show where it says to execute a person for heresy in the New Testament.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

We are to admonish a heretic once or possibly twice, and if they do not repent reject them, that is have no fellowship with them, but we are not told to execute them.

What Calvin did was absolutely unscriptural.

 

I thought I admitted it wasn't unbiased when I posted it. I just pointed to SOME of the historical points that did seem to be valid and based upon actual facts, but as Martin said and I agreed, this really doesn't matter that much with regard to our dispute.