A response... from a thread not yet shut down

[HeirofSalvation]

Oh, I do not think I am in error at all. Yes, there are people who use religion as an excuse to persecute the Jews (and others), but there is very much the PUBLIC who believes and supports these evil politicians because religion justified these actions.

I just posted this:
If I have been deceived, then so have most historians. Perhaps you are not allowing for the real effect of religious teachings on people's actions such as the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Win...Those Historians are NOT deceived....they are correct:thumbsup: But, it doesn't demonstrate what you are thinking it demonstrates...
Luther was "Theologically" very anti-semitic.
Luther was problematically very anti-semitic....and there is no doubt that Luther's views may have carried some weight with the Germans as far as anti-semitism is concerned (I taught a course in the history of "anti-semitism" in Germany pre-WW2)....but Luther's more anti-semitic rantings weren't directly related to his view of soteriology...Luther was somewhat anti-semitic, but it wasn't the unique soteriological views commonly called "Calvinism" today which was the source of his anti-semitism. It was based on entirely different issues.

Pre-WW2 Germany (under the Weimar Republic) was reeling from WW1...Jews were not allowed in the German army in WWI...thus numerous one-legged men returned home to find their moms foreclosed on by property owners (often Jewish) who were not allowed to go to war.

You are neglecting the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very much a Lutheran too.
Luther's rantings did have some influence on the anti-semitism of that era, but it wasn't because of the uniquely "Calvinistic" claims of soteriology (vs. Arminianism) that was the source of it. It was merely Luther's writings which were not distinctly either "Calvinistic" nor "Arminianistic"...which effected the thinking. Even if Luther were a 5-point Molinist...he would have written the same way about Jews.

The anti-semitism in Germany was largely period-distinctive, experiential and the only Philosophico-Theological influence which gave it merit (at least logically) was a commitment to DARWINISM...not Calvinism.
Hitler had a bust of Friedrich Nietzche on his desk...not a bust of Calvin.

 

[saturneptune]

IMO, any comparison between the Geneva government between 1552-1564 and Germany between 1932-1945 has no validity. While both to a degree were brutal, the government of Germany was pure evil. The Hitler regime murdered people in the millions based on race and ethnicity. There was total state control, and nothing based on any type of religion. This probably comes as close if not the closest to being the most evil government to ever exist.

I am not going to defend Calvin, because in my mind, he lead a life certainly unworthy of having a doctrine named after him. However, his regime was not totally evil. Yes, it was brutal, but is was based on his perception of morality in Scripture. No one would tolerate his antics today. In fact, he deserved to be in prison. There is no need to recount what he did with his theocracy, as this has been repeated many times. Our nation is a nation of freedom and liberty, and his, basically, devoid of any human rights.

This is the difference. Hitler has no regard for the Lord. He wholesale murders millions. Calvin on the other hand did have the Lord as his guiding motivation, misguided as it was. Those he murdered were for just reasons in his mind, and only a few. That does not excuse his actions.

To compare Hitler and Calvin is way over the edge. Neither deserve any praise.

 

[Winman]

Win...Those Historians are NOT deceived....they are correct:thumbsup: But, it doesn't demonstrate what you are thinking it demonstrates...
Luther was "Theologically" very anti-semitic.
Luther was problematically very anti-semitic....and there is no doubt that Luther's views may have carried some weight with the Germans as far as anti-semitism is concerned (I taught a course in the history of "anti-semitism" in Germany pre-WW2)....but Luthers more anti-semitic rantings weren't directly related to his view of soteriology...Luther was somewhat anti-semitic, but it wasn't the unique soteriological views commonly called "Calvinism" today which was the source of his anti-semitism. It was based on entirely different issues.

Pre-WW2 Germany (under the Weimar Republic) was reeling from WW1...Jews were not allowed in the German army in WWI...thus numerous one-legged men returned home to find their moms foreclosed on by property owners (often Jewish) who were not allowed to go to war.

You are neglecting the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very much a Lutheran too.
Luther's rantings did have some influence on the anti-semitism of that era, but it wasn't because of the uniquely "Calvinistic" claims of soteriology (vs. Arminianism) that was the source of it. It was merely Luther's writings which were not distinctly either "Calvinistic" nor "Arminianistic"...which effected the thinking. Even if Luther were a 5-point Molinist...he would have written the same way about Jews.

The anti-semitism in Germany was largely period-distinctive, experiential and the only Philosophico-Theological influence which gave it merit (at least logically) was a commitment to DARWINISM...not Calvinism.
Hitler had a bust of Friedrich Nietzche on his desk...not a bust of Calvin.

I know Hitler was a devotee of Nietzche and that evolution influenced his anti-Semitism, but I am talking about the German PEOPLE, not Hitler. The German people were largely Lutheran and Roman Catholic, both very anti-Semite.

When you believe that the Jews are Christ killers, utterly depraved, the non-elect, it is easy to convince the people that it is good to eradicate the Jews.

From one link provided;

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Kristallnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly * and I myself was unaware of it * will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Now, are you trying to convince me that writings such as these did not effect the German people over hundreds of years?

I work with several Poles, and they hate the Jews as much as the Germans did. It has nothing to do with evolution, but religion.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

IMO, any comparison between the Geneva government between 1552-1564 and Germany between 1932-1945 has no validity. While both to a degree were to a degree brutal, the government of Germany was pure evil. The Hitler regime murdered people in the millions based on race and ethnicity. There was total state control, and nothing based on any type of religion. This probably comes as close if not the closest to being the most evil government to ever exist.

I am not going to defend Calvin, because in my mind, he lead a life certainly unworthy of having a doctrine named after him. However, his regime was not totally evil. Yes, it was brutal, but is was based on his perception of morality in Scripture. No one would tolerate his antics today. In fact, he deserved to be in prison. There is no need to recount what he did with his theocracy, as this has been repeated many times. Our nation is a nation of freedom and liberty, and his, basically, devoid of any human rights.

This is the difference. Hitler has no regard for the Lord. He wholesale murders millions. Calvin on the other hand did have the Lord as his guiding motivation, misguided as it was. Those he murdered were for just reasons in his mind, and only a few. That does not excuse his actions.

To compare Hitler and Calvin is way over the edge. Neither deserve any praise.

Much to learn here.........Calvin was LOADED with problems....but, as you said, at least he THOUGHT that God was his guiding motivation...

He was wrong on MANY points. But in a strange sort of way....he believed the Scriptures were his guide.
NOTHING DOING with the NAZIS. There is simply no comparison.

Calvin shared the same basic "world-view" those of us on Baptist Board share...the very "Word-view" of the Nazis was ENTIRELY different...

Neither Calvin himself, nor so-called "Calvinism" is appropriately blamed for the Nazi atrocities.
That was PURE Darwinism...Plain and simple.

 

[Winman]

Double post

 

[Winman]

Much to learn here.........Calvin was LOADED with problems....but, as you said, at least he THOUGHT that God was his guiding motivation...

He was wrong on MANY points. But in a strange sort of way....he believed the Scriptures were his guide.
NOTHING DOING with the NAZIS. There is simply no comparison.

Calvin shared the same basic "world-view" those of us on Baptist Board share...the very "Word-view" of the Nazis was ENTIRELY different...

Neither Calvin himself, nor so-called "Calvinism" is appropriately blamed for the Nazi atrocities.
That was PURE Darwinism...Plain and simple.

I disagree, Hitler's hatred of Jews was not based on evolution, but religion.

Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

Hitler considered himself a Christian and said so often. It was the belief that Christians were "elect" while the Jews were depraved children of the devil that convinced Hitler Jews should be killed. Evolution simply supported this view.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I disagree, Hitler's hatred of Jews was not based on evolution, but religion.

Nosir...it simply wasn't...Hitler is tricking you as quickly as he tricked everyone else...
It is always politically expedient to have a "boogey-man" (so to speak)..Hitler knows this and the Jews made for a VERY easy target. But so also Gypsies, Russians, Homo-sexuals and others...
Your mistake is to actually BELIEVE everything they "claimed" to believe...listening to men like Hitler takes understanding...you have to learn how to differentiate between what they TRULY believe from what they might CLAIM to believe...It's very similar to listening to people like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama...You MUST understand the difference between what was truly formative in their belief system and what they claim publically...that takes knowledge and discernment.

Hitler considered himself a Christian and said so often.

Yes....he did, that is, until about 1938...post 1938 you will find a marked difference between his speaches as merely the hopeful future Chancellor of Germany and his views after coming to power.

Will you answer two questions for me?
1.) Do you BELIEVE that Barrack Obama is a Christian, or that his world-view is shaped by Christian ideology???
2.) Does Barrack Obama claim to be a "Christian"?

If you answer these questions, it may provide you some insight into how to interpret dictators of all cloths....

PLEASE take educated correction as it is offered to you.

It was the belief that Christians were "elect" while the Jews were depraved children of the devil that convinced Hitler Jews should be killed.

UMM.... Hitler lied a lot. Moreover...this could as easily be framed from an Arminian or even an Open Theist perspective if one felt like it...Take it from a professional liar and mincer of words....I can take every statement by ANY of these people from ANY Theological perspective and mis-construe it to say anything I want..

Even your lengthy Anti-Semitic quote is simply NOT uniquely "Calvinist" in it's Theology...That statement would be equally as possible if stated from an Arminian. That was NOT a uniquely "Calvinist" set of statements... In fact...I will bold some Arminian sentiments not conducive to "Calvinism" if that is your claim:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly * and I myself was unaware of it * will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God

.

1.)The first statement I bolded is not remotely conducive to "Calvinism" as you are describing it...it is "Arminian" in it's pre-supposition that there are possible redeemable Jews if they only seek repentance.....A grossly calvinistic view would suggest that there were probablistically no Jews who were redeemable.
2.) The second quote demonstrates that there was demonization of "gypsies" or anyone else who was considered a threat POLITICALLY at the time
3.) Demonstrates that this was a Political, not a Theological issue at all.

You sir...I am afraid don't know the difference between a Will Durant and a Howard Zinn...
Two "historians":
One a stupid liar.
One a legitimate worthy and knowledgeable historian

You figure out which.

You don't know what you are talking about....Hitler was enamored with Darwinism and the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietsche...

Nietzche was a committed Darwinist who spoke of the "Uber-man" or "Super-man" as the appropriate heir of perfect evolution of humanity in the age...

Hitler classified the races in accordance with this ideal...he classified Black Africans as animals along with Jews...He then took Slavs and Mongoloids, then Scandinavians, then Germans......He was a DARWINIST.... NOT a CALVINIST.

Calvinism simply does not assert what Hitler believed.
Your understanding of history is wrong.

1.)I am no Calvinist
2.)I believe that Calvinism is not true, and does not reflect reality.
3.)Hitler was a Materialist and a Darwinist, not a Calvinist
4.)Calvinism in NO WAY logically necessitates any form of racism or anti-Semitism etc..
5.) EVEN IF Hitler were a dedicated "Calvinist" (in his warped mind) Calvinism's tenants simply do not yield themselves to preaching the hateful "Final Solution" that Hitler implemented... It isn't there.

In order to demonstrate your view, you should explain to us how the Calvinist view logically necessitates a policy of slaughtering all Jews...

Much as I hate to speak up in defense of Calvinism.....It simply preaches no such thing.
Calvinism is NOT inherently racist.
Darwinism...by definition....absolutely is, and that's why Hitler had a bust of Nietzche and not Calvin (and I hate the guy) on his desk.

 

[Monster]

Nosir...it simply wasn't...Hitler is tricking you as quickly as he tricked everyone else...
It is always politically expedient to have a "boogey-man" (so to speak)..Hitler knows this and the Jews made for a VERY easy target. But so also Gypsies, Russians, Homo-sexuals and others...
Your mistake is to actually BELIEVE everything they "claimed" to believe...listening to men like Hitler takes understanding...you have to learn how to differentiate between what they TRULY believe from what they might CLAIM to believe...It's very similar to listening to people like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama...You MUST understand the difference between what was truly formative in their belief system and what they claim publically...that takes knowledge and discernment.


Yes....he did, that is, until about 1938...post 1938 you will find a marked difference between his speaches as merely the hopeful future Chancellor of Germany and his views after coming to power.

Will you answer two questions for me?
1.) Do you BELIEVE that Barrack Obama is a Christian, or that his world-view is shaped by Christian ideology???
2.) Does Barrack Obama claim to be a "Christian"?

If you answer these questions, it may provide you some insight into how to interpret dictators of all cloths....

PLEASE take educated correction as it is offered to you.

UMM.... Hitler lied a lot. Moreover...this could as easily be framed from an Arminian or even an Open Theist perspective if one felt like it...Take it from a professional liar and mincer of words....I can take every statement by ANY of these people from ANY Theological perspective and mis-construe it to say anything I want..

Even your lengthy Anti-Semitic quote is simply NOT uniquely "Calvinist" in it's Theology...That statement would be equally as possible if stated from an Arminian. That was NOT a uniquely "Calvinist" set of statements... In fact...I will bold some Arminian sentiments not conducive to "Calvinism" if that is your claim:
.

1.)The first statement I bolded is not remotely conducive to "Calvinism" as you are describing it...it is "Arminian" in it's pre-supposition that there are possible redeemable Jews if they only seek repentance.....A grossly calvinistic view would suggest that there were probablistically no Jews who were redeemable.
2.) The second quote demonstrates that there was demonization of "gypsies" or anyone else who was considered a threat POLITICALLY at the time
3.) Demonstrates that this was a Political, not a Theological issue at all.

You sir...I am afraid don't know the difference between a Will Durant and a Howard Zinn...
Two "historians":
One a stupid liar.
One a legitimate worthy and knowledgeable historian

You figure out which.

You don't know what you are talking about....Hitler was enamored with Darwinism and the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietsche...

Nietzche was a committed Darwinist who spoke of the "Uber-man" or "Super-man" as the appropriate heir of perfect evolution of humanity in the age...

Hitler classified the races in accordance with this ideal...he classified Black Africans as animals along with Jews...He then took Slavs and Mongoloids, then Scandinavians, then Germans......He was a DARWINIST.... NOT a CALVINIST.

Calvinism simply does not assert what Hitler believed.
Your understanding of history is wrong.

1.)I am no Calvinist
2.)I believe that Calvinism is not true, and does not reflect reality.
3.)Hitler was a Materialist and a Darwinist, not a Calvinist
4.)Calvinism in NO WAY logically necessitates any form of racism or anti-Semitism etc..
5.) EVEN IF Hitler were a dedicated "Calvinist" (in his warped mind) Calvinism's tenants simply do not yield themselves to preaching the hateful "Final Solution" that Hitler implemented... It isn't there.

In order to demonstrate your view, you should explain to us how the Calvinist view logically necessitates a policy of slaughtering all Jews...

Much as I hate to speak up in defense of Calvinism.....It simply preaches no such thing.
Calvinism is NOT inherently racist.
Darwinism...by definition....absolutely is, and that's why Hitler had a bust of Nietzche and not Calvin (and I hate the guy) on his desk.

I'm not referencing any of the comments directed specifically to Winman. I'm skirting that whole minefield in fact BUT;

The rest of what you've posted here in this thread and before, along the same vein...wait for it...wait a little more...gotsta' build false tension...sorry for being ornery...

Your posts on this "topic" have been excellent, educational and informative. I can't quite wrap my brain around the amount of effort and work you've put into it (or all the information for that matter), but thank you.

And you have a way of correcting, teaching and admonishing with gentility and love. That's difficult to convey in this format. God bless you for the service you've provided. I just thought you might want to know that your efforts are greatly appreciated, by me, if by no one else (I'm sure there are many). :love2:

 

[Winman]

Nosir...it simply wasn't...Hitler is tricking you as quickly as he tricked everyone else...
It is always politically expedient to have a "boogey-man" (so to speak)..Hitler knows this and the Jews made for a VERY easy target. But so also Gypsies, Russians, Homo-sexuals and others...
Your mistake is to actually BELIEVE everything they "claimed" to believe...listening to men like Hitler takes understanding...you have to learn how to differentiate between what they TRULY believe from what they might CLAIM to believe...It's very similar to listening to people like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama...You MUST understand the difference between what was truly formative in their belief system and what they claim publically...that takes knowledge and discernment.


Yes....he did, that is, until about 1938...post 1938 you will find a marked difference between his speaches as merely the hopeful future Chancellor of Germany and his views after coming to power.

Will you answer two questions for me?
1.) Do you BELIEVE that Barrack Obama is a Christian, or that his world-view is shaped by Christian ideology???
2.) Does Barrack Obama claim to be a "Christian"?

If you answer these questions, it may provide you some insight into how to interpret dictators of all cloths....

PLEASE take educated correction as it is offered to you.

UMM.... Hitler lied a lot. Moreover...this could as easily be framed from an Arminian or even an Open Theist perspective if one felt like it...Take it from a professional liar and mincer of words....I can take every statement by ANY of these people from ANY Theological perspective and mis-construe it to say anything I want..

Even your lengthy Anti-Semitic quote is simply NOT uniquely "Calvinist" in it's Theology...That statement would be equally as possible if stated from an Arminian. That was NOT a uniquely "Calvinist" set of statements... In fact...I will bold some Arminian sentiments not conducive to "Calvinism" if that is your claim:
.

1.)The first statement I bolded is not remotely conducive to "Calvinism" as you are describing it...it is "Arminian" in it's pre-supposition that there are possible redeemable Jews if they only seek repentance.....A grossly calvinistic view would suggest that there were probablistically no Jews who were redeemable.
2.) The second quote demonstrates that there was demonization of "gypsies" or anyone else who was considered a threat POLITICALLY at the time
3.) Demonstrates that this was a Political, not a Theological issue at all.

You sir...I am afraid don't know the difference between a Will Durant and a Howard Zinn...
Two "historians":
One a stupid liar.
One a legitimate worthy and knowledgeable historian

You figure out which.

You don't know what you are talking about....Hitler was enamored with Darwinism and the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietsche...

Nietzche was a committed Darwinist who spoke of the "Uber-man" or "Super-man" as the appropriate heir of perfect evolution of humanity in the age...

Hitler classified the races in accordance with this ideal...he classified Black Africans as animals along with Jews...He then took Slavs and Mongoloids, then Scandinavians, then Germans......He was a DARWINIST.... NOT a CALVINIST.

Calvinism simply does not assert what Hitler believed.
Your understanding of history is wrong.

1.)I am no Calvinist
2.)I believe that Calvinism is not true, and does not reflect reality.
3.)Hitler was a Materialist and a Darwinist, not a Calvinist
4.)Calvinism in NO WAY logically necessitates any form of racism or anti-Semitism etc..
5.) EVEN IF Hitler were a dedicated "Calvinist" (in his warped mind) Calvinism's tenants simply do not yield themselves to preaching the hateful "Final Solution" that Hitler implemented... It isn't there.

In order to demonstrate your view, you should explain to us how the Calvinist view logically necessitates a policy of slaughtering all Jews...

Much as I hate to speak up in defense of Calvinism.....It simply preaches no such thing.
Calvinism is NOT inherently racist.
Darwinism...by definition....absolutely is, and that's why Hitler had a bust of Nietzche and not Calvin (and I hate the guy) on his desk.

A very good post, and I would agree with most of it. Asking me what I think of Barack Obama gave me a chuckle, he has always been a mystery to me, and I have spent a great deal of time studying him, even before his first election.

You seem to misunderstand me though, I am not talking about Hitler so much as the German people. The German people were prepared for exterminating the Jews over hundreds of years. The writings of Luther and Calvin contributed to this, but so did the writings of many, many others. I absolutely agree that evolutionary theory had a huge effect on the German people, as it did all Western nations, including the U.S.. Evolution was used to support racism here. But so was religion (the curse on Ham). And this is what I was saying, the German people were easily convinced to hate the Jews from hundreds of years of religious teaching. They also believed Christians were the "elect" which played in nicely to Hitler's belief of Aryan superiority. Of course, evolution agreed with this as well.

I don't disagree with you that evolution played a huge role in racism in Nazi Germany, but so did the writings of Luther especially, and Calvin.

 

[Winman]

HoS, give a listen to this audio starting about 4:10 minutes. Now, I do not know this fellow and his beliefs, but I agree with what he is saying here, and so do many historians. Of course, some disagree.

http://www.tonycampolo.org/podcast/tonycampolo_podcast_500th_Anniversary_of_John_Calvin_Part_I.mp3

 

[kiwimac]

Win...Those Historians are NOT deceived....they are correct:thumbsup: But, it doesn't demonstrate what you are thinking it demonstrates...
Luther was "Theologically" very anti-semitic.
Luther was problematically very anti-semitic....and there is no doubt that Luther's views may have carried some weight with the Germans as far as anti-semitism is concerned (I taught a course in the history of "anti-semitism" in Germany pre-WW2)....but Luther's more anti-semitic rantings weren't directly related to his view of soteriology...Luther was somewhat anti-semitic, but it wasn't the unique soteriological views commonly called "Calvinism" today which was the source of his anti-semitism. It was based on entirely different issues.

Pre-WW2 Germany (under the Weimar Republic) was reeling from WW1...Jews were not allowed in the German army in WWI...thus numerous one-legged men returned home to find their moms foreclosed on by property owners (often Jewish) who were not allowed to go to war.

You are neglecting the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very much a Lutheran too.
Luther's rantings did have some influence on the anti-semitism of that era, but it wasn't because of the uniquely "Calvinistic" claims of soteriology (vs. Arminianism) that was the source of it. It was merely Luther's writings which were not distinctly either "Calvinistic" nor "Arminianistic"...which effected the thinking. Even if Luther were a 5-point Molinist...he would have written the same way about Jews.

The anti-semitism in Germany was largely period-distinctive, experiential and the only Philosophico-Theological influence which gave it merit (at least logically) was a commitment to DARWINISM...not Calvinism.
Hitler had a bust of Friedrich Nietzche on his desk...not a bust of Calvin.

Sorry, Darwin's evolutionary law had nothing to do with the Nazis. They, quite candidly, burnt his books because they saw them as being 'un-Aryan.' The source of Nazi anti-semitism should be placed firmly at Luther's feet.

 

[quantumfaith]

Win...Those Historians are NOT deceived....they are correct:thumbsup: But, it doesn't demonstrate what you are thinking it demonstrates...
Luther was "Theologically" very anti-semitic.
Luther was problematically very anti-semitic....and there is no doubt that Luther's views may have carried some weight with the Germans as far as anti-semitism is concerned (I taught a course in the history of "anti-semitism" in Germany pre-WW2)....but Luther's more anti-semitic rantings weren't directly related to his view of soteriology...Luther was somewhat anti-semitic, but it wasn't the unique soteriological views commonly called "Calvinism" today which was the source of his anti-semitism. It was based on entirely different issues.

Pre-WW2 Germany (under the Weimar Republic) was reeling from WW1...Jews were not allowed in the German army in WWI...thus numerous one-legged men returned home to find their moms foreclosed on by property owners (often Jewish) who were not allowed to go to war.

You are neglecting the fact that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very much a Lutheran too.
Luther's rantings did have some influence on the anti-semitism of that era, but it wasn't because of the uniquely "Calvinistic" claims of soteriology (vs. Arminianism) that was the source of it. It was merely Luther's writings which were not distinctly either "Calvinistic" nor "Arminianistic"...which effected the thinking. Even if Luther were a 5-point Molinist...he would have written the same way about Jews.

The anti-semitism in Germany was largely period-distinctive, experiential and the only Philosophico-Theological influence which gave it merit (at least logically) was a commitment to DARWINISM...not Calvinism.
Hitler had a bust of Friedrich Nietzche on his desk...not a bust of Calvin.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

The economics and humiliation of Versailles did SO much to provide the garden which would spring forth a charismatic leader in the person of Hitler.

 

[quantumfaith]

Sorry, Darwin's evolutionary law had nothing to do with the Nazis. They, quite candidly, burnt his books because they saw them as being 'un-Aryan.' The source of Nazi anti-semitism should be placed firmly at Luther's feet.

As HOS, was intending to communicate, laying AS solely at the feet of Luther (and his theology) is incorrect. It can certainly be argued that they played a part, but that is for historians and theologians to argue and debate. It is abundantly clear that serious and scandalous periods of AS existed even prior to Luther and the reformation. "Christianized" europe often expelled and even massacred jews. Often such periods were also associated with economic and other forms of unrest.

922 B.C. The Jewish kingdom is established

70 A.D. The Romans conquer the Jewish kingdom – the Temple of Solomon is destroyed.

11-12th Cent. Massacres on Jews in the Rhineland and by the Crusaders.

1215 Jews in Europe are forced to dress in a certain way or carry the Jewish mark.

1290 The Jews are expelled from England.

14th Cent. The Jews are expelled from France.

1492 The Jews are expelled from Spain, unless they are willing to be baptised.

1648 Massacres on Jews in Poland and the Ukraine.

19th Cent. The Jews are gradually emancipated in Germany and in other Westernm European countries.

1819 Pogrom against the Jews of Copenhagen.

1881 Pogroms in Russia following the murder of the Tsar.

1919 Pogroms in Eastern Europe – 60,000 Jews are killed in the Ukraine by Ukrainian nationalists.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Sadly the Nazis did use quotes from Luther to promote their hatred of the Jews.

In the Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy the author, Eric Metaxas, speaks about this. Unfortunately I do not have the book in hand so I cannot give direct quotes. If my memory serves me correctly the writings that are anti-Semitic are in his later writings.

The book is a good read giving good insight into the life of Bonhoeffer.

 

[quantumfaith]

Sadly the Nazis did use quotes from Luther to promote their hatred of the Jews.

In the Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy the author, Eric Metaxas, speaks about this. Unfortunately I do not have the book in hand so I cannot give direct quotes. If my memory serves me correctly the writings that are anti-Semitic are in his later writings.

The book is a good read giving good insight into the life of Bonhoeffer.

Of this, I have no doubt. Although the "kernel" of AS was present even before the impact of Luther himself. It was already present and embedded in european culture.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Of this, I have no doubt. Although the "kernel" of AS was present even before the impact of Luther himself. It was already present and embedded in european culture.

When has there been a time when there has not been AS? AS is alive and well in the US, I am ashamed to admit, even in the present admin.

 

[quantumfaith]

When has there been a time when there has not been AS? AS is alive and well in the US, I am ashamed to admit, even in the present admin.

Maybe prior to the Caananite conquest?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Of this, I have no doubt. Although the "kernel" of AS was present even before the impact of Luther himself. It was already present and embedded in european culture.

Yes, that is true. Many politicians used the Jews to deflect attention away from other real problems. The Russian Czars for instance.

 

[Luke2427]

Sorry, Darwin's evolutionary law had nothing to do with the Nazis. They, quite candidly, burnt his books because they saw them as being 'un-Aryan.' The source of Nazi anti-semitism should be placed firmly at Luther's feet.

You are missing the point.

Who CARES if every Nazi who ever LIVED WORSHIPED Martin Luther?

It is non-sequitur to claim that Luther's SOTERIOLOGY led to the holocaust.

That is one HECK of a leap.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You are missing the point.

Who CARES if every Nazi who ever LIVED WORSHIPED Martin Luther?

It is non-sequitur to claim that Luther's SOTERIOLOGY led to the holocaust.

That is one HECK of a leap.

Exactly.....In fact (though they didn't) even if EVERY Nazi leader who claimed to support the "Final Solution" claimed that they based it upon "Calvinistic" or "Lutheran" or even "Arminian" sensibilities...it simply would NEVER follow that those particular points of view were responsible or led to those conclusions.

In order to "blame" a viewpoint for a set of atrocities one must demonstrate
1.)Historically...that that was the view-point responsible for it...in TWO WAYS:
a.] Those who conducted those atrocities claimed that that was the view which necessitated their actions
b.] They were honest about whether or not those were, in fact, the views or reasons which led them to engage in them.....(In other words...they weren't merely lying to the populace)
2.) That that particular view-point also logically necessitates the atrocious crimes committed.

It is my contention that:
Item 1-a..... is non-provable.
Item 1-b..... is also non-provable

Item 2 is demonstrably DIS-PROVABLE.

As much as I am NO Calvinist. It is simply the case that there is NOTHING whatsoever in the set of Soteriological truth-claims of Calvinism which necessitates anything along the order of Nazi atrocities.

EVEN IF... it were true that those responsible for those atrocities
Claimed that it was their "Calvinism" or "Lutheranism" (solely)... which was the force behind their commission of such atrocities...and they were being honest about it
They would still be simply mis-applying those premises as they believed them in order to commit them.

If it were the case that Calvinism (rightly understood) logically necessitated the attrocities of the Nazis......BELIEVE ME.....I'd have figured it out by now, and used it as a "defeater" of Calvinist Theology.

Wish I could......I can't.
1.)Calvinism is IMO false.
2.)I believe Calvinism is essentially "falsifiable"
3.)This is not a set of valid arguments to falsify it...sorry.

I almost wish it were. :smilewinkgrin: