Heretics should be murdered!

[preacher4truth]

You'll get over it.

Whether Calvin was saved or not is not for me to judge. But he certainly did not act like Christians who are known for love and mercy like their Saviour.

Too late you've already made judgment. On him and others who agree with him.

 

[plain_n_simple]

1. John Calvin is not the Calvinist's "leader." He was a great expositor of the Scripture, but not a perfect person. What? What kind of silliness is this? Of couse he is the leader. Stop that.

2. I'm not going to go into much detail, but we are speaking of a totally different culture. Do you or the others here believe in the death penalty? I don't agree with it at all, but we just have to understand it wasn't 2011A totaly different culture? Who cares about culture? Jesus said love your enemies and bless them no matter the culture.

 

[Herald]

I do not understand why people who claim to be so bible smart would miss this about their leader. And if they know, why would they continue? This is not love.

I believe in the DoG (or better yet, I believe it is what the bible teaches). John Calvin is not my leader. R.C. Sproul is not my leader. John MacArthur is not my leader. Augustine of Hippo is not my leader. Any believer in the DoG who follows a man is misguided. The term "Calvinism" was placed on those who hold to the DoG because Calvin, like it or not, wrote and taught eloquently on the subject. That's about as far as it goes. As a Baptist I disagree with Calvin on ecclesiology, baptism, church polity, theonomy and the role of the magistrate etc.

Those who want to drag Calvin through the mud, have at it. The man is dead, so I don't think he cares very much; and since I don't follow him I don't care either.

 

[ashleysdad]

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church." John Calvin

Luke2427 has told us that "I don't think in our culture that burning them at the stake or beheading them is the answer." So obviously Luke2427 agrees with John Calvin and believes that in cultures other than our own that burning them at the stake is perfectly acceptable.

Is this what we glean from Calvinism and the "Historic Christian Church", that murdering people is OK and that if you don't think it is OK that you should also be murdered?

Actually this is NOT at all what Luke said or implied. You have a propensity for misquoting posters and trying to twist their words. Isn't that kind of like bearing false witness?

 

[Winman]

First off, as JBH has stated, Calvinists do not identify (or, at least, should not) identify themselves as Calvinists first and Christians second. After all, "JC" stands for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin

Secondly, Calvin was not and is not infallible. I greatly disagree with him on baptism, for example. As a Calvinist, I do not follow his teachings blindly. In fact, I do not follow him at all. As I've said many times: Calvin was essentially Augustinian and Augustine was essentially Pauline.

I will gladly disagree with Calvin when and where he is out of step with Scripture. Calvinism is not a cult, after all.

Third, the world in which Calvin lived saw no separation between church and state. In Calvin's day, to be a heretic was to be an enemy of the state. And it wasn't only in Geneva that this happened. When Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, his life was in danger precisely because he was counted as a heretic by the church and, as such, he was also considered an enemy of the state--and all of Europe was that State.

We must be careful not to read 16th Century history with the eyes of a 21st Century person.

Do I understand why Servetus was put to death? Sure. Do I agree with Calvin's agreeing to put Servetus to death? No. Was Calvin the one who signed the death order? No. The major, overriding factor in Servetus being put to death was (obviously not including his heresy) the time period and state in which he lived.

The Archangel

The "times" is no excuse, the scriptures tell how heretics should be dealt with.

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

No where does the scriptures command us to execute heretics, and Calvin knew this. He had no excuse for his actions.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Why can't we just stick to the bible and throw out this Calvin guy and his teachings since it has obviously split people?

 

[Tom Bryant]

First off, as JBH has stated, Calvinists do not identify (or, at least, should not) identify themselves as Calvinists first and Christians second. After all, "JC" stands for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin

Secondly, Calvin was not and is not infallible. I greatly disagree with him on baptism, for example. As a Calvinist, I do not follow his teachings blindly. In fact, I do not follow him at all. As I've said many times: Calvin was essentially Augustinian and Augustine was essentially Pauline.

I will gladly disagree with Calvin when and where he is out of step with Scripture. Calvinism is not a cult, after all.

Third, the world in which Calvin lived saw no separation between church and state. In Calvin's day, to be a heretic was to be an enemy of the state. And it wasn't only in Geneva that this happened. When Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, his life was in danger precisely because he was counted as a heretic by the church and, as such, he was also considered an enemy of the state--and all of Europe was that State.

We must be careful not to read 16th Century history with the eyes of a 21st Century person.

Do I understand why Servetus was put to death? Sure. Do I agree with Calvin's agreeing to put Servetus to death? No. Was Calvin the one who signed the death order? No. The major, overriding factor in Servetus being put to death was (obviously not including his heresy) the time period and state in which he lived.

The Archangel

You're right. All great Christian leaders are a product of the times they live. It doesn't excuse their actions, but it does explain. The reformers were fighting a huge battle about salvation and Scripture. In any battle, you cannot correct everything that is wrong about the system you are trying to change. You work on the major issues.

Should it have happened? Absolutely not. But Calvinists don't blindly follow Calvin. Anymore than you or I follow any theologian we study and basically agree with.

 

[bacustic]

Why can't we just stick to the bible and throw out this Calvin guy and his teachings since it has obviously split people?

why can't we just stick to the Bible and throw out baptists? that should help.

 

[Thousand Hills]

I believe in the DoG (or better yet, I believe it is what the bible teaches). John Calvin is not my leader. R.C. Sproul is not my leader. John MacArthur is not my leader. Augustine of Hippo is not my leader. Any believer in the DoG who follows a man is misguided. The term "Calvinism" was placed on those who hold to the DoG because Calvin, like it or not, wrote and taught eloquently on the subject. That's about as far as it goes. As a Baptist I disagree with Calvin on ecclesiology, baptism, church polity, theonomy and the role of the magistrate etc.

Those who want to drag Calvin through the mud, have at it. The man is dead, so I don't think he cares very much; and since I don't follow him I don't care either.

plain_n_simple I apologize for laughing at your post. (When I read it had the mental image of the little green men landing and saying "Take me to your leader") But as Herald explained quite well here, those who embrace the DOG don't necessary follow Calvin or worship him as some people think. I've been on this board for a little over a year, and within the past year have embraced "Calvinism/DOG/Reformed Theology", but honestly other than a few quotes here or there I've never read any of his works.

 

[plain_n_simple]

why can't we just stick to the Bible and throw out baptists? that should help.

Okay! Why have any labels?

 

[Winman]

Why can't we just stick to the bible and throw out this Calvin guy and his teachings since it has obviously split people?

Calvin was a product of Augustine and the RCC, but primarily Augustine.

Augustine was hardly Pauline, he was a product of his Gnostic and Manichean roots, as many scholars have written.

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbs:

I believe in the DoG (or better yet, I believe it is what the bible teaches). John Calvin is not my leader. R.C. Sproul is not my leader. John MacArthur is not my leader. Augustine of Hippo is not my leader. Any believer in the DoG who follows a man is misguided. The term "Calvinism" was placed on those who hold to the DoG because Calvin, like it or not, wrote and taught eloquently on the subject. That's about as far as it goes. As a Baptist I disagree with Calvin on ecclesiology, baptism, church polity, theonomy and the role of the magistrate etc.

Those who want to drag Calvin through the mud, have at it. The man is dead, so I don't think he cares very much; and since I don't follow him I don't care either.

Exactly....this whole line of reasoning is an attempt to dismiss the biblical teaching.

 

[plain_n_simple]

All I know is this Calvin guy sounds pretty scary no matter how slick he sounds. The devil is bible smart and sounds slick too. A man can be seen as how much Jesus comes through. Jesus did not murder unbelievers, He even said He would not judge them while on earth. Calvin is dismissed. Next.

 

[Tom Butler]

why can't we just stick to the Bible and throw out baptists? that should help.

Well, brother, we caught ya.

Welcome to the Baptist Board, by the way. We're glad to have you, but the rules say Presbyterians can't post in the Baptist-only sections.

Baptist, by the way, is spelled with a capital-B.

We Baptists love to fight among ourselves. It throws us off when a Presby sneaks in and starts firing at both sides. Messes with our minds.

 

[The Archangel]

The "times" is no excuse, the scriptures tell how heretics should be dealt with.

As you apparently missed, I did not give an excuse for his actions. I gave a reason--a reason which doesn't excuse his actions.

Regardless of Calvin's agreement or disagreement with the penalty for Servetus, it was not, ultimately, Calvin that put him to death, it was the state. The entire episode clearly illustrates the need for a separation between church and state.

No where does the scriptures command us to execute heretics, and Calvin knew this. He had no excuse for his actions.

Obviously, you have never read the Old Testament.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

As you apparently missed, I did not give an excuse for his actions. I gave a reason--a reason which doesn't excuse his actions.

Regardless of Calvin's agreement or disagreement with the penalty for Servetus, it was not, ultimately, Calvin that put him to death, it was the state. The entire episode clearly illustrates the need for a separation between church and state.



Obviously, you have never read the Old Testament.

The Archangel

Oh, so you think we are under Moses' laws? You believe we should stone heretics?

Titus 3:10 tells us to reject or have nothing to do with heretics, not execute them. Where did Paul or any of the apostles execute a heretic?

 

[plain_n_simple]

God spoke through the law and the prophets until John the Baptist, Since then the Kingdom is preached.

 

[matt wade]

Believe it or not Calvin taught more than just "Calvinism" and in ALL of his teaching he was completely orthodox.

So was Calvin orthodox in his teaching to murder heretics?

 

[The Archangel]

Oh, so you think we are under Moses' laws? You believe we should stone heretics?

Titus 3:10 tells us to reject or have nothing to do with heretics, not execute them. Where did Paul or any of the apostles execute a heretic?

I never said I think we're under the Law of Moses. As a Calvinist and Reformed Theologian, I do not subscribe to Covenant Theology. I am more connected with New Covenant Theology.

No, I was responding to your ill-though-out statement:

No where does the scriptures command us to execute heretics, and Calvin knew this. He had no excuse for his actions.

Now, either this is a misguided, ill-though-out statement or you think the Old Testament isn't scripture. Being the fair guy that I am, I think you just goofed and didn't think your statement through. And since you didn't think your statement through, you should be willing to admit as much (and you could do so without losing face).

As I've already stated, I think Calvin was wrong to support the execution.

The Archangel

 

[matt wade]

Actually this is NOT at all what Luke said or implied. You have a propensity for misquoting posters and trying to twist their words. Isn't that kind of like bearing false witness?

I quoted exactly what Luke2427 (Rick) said. I'll quote it again:

"I don't think in our culture that burning them at the stake or beheading them is the answer."

He specifically said in our culture. If he were completely against murdering heretics we wouldn't see the qualifier of in our culture. As I pointed out when he originally posted the quote, he had to hedge his answer to make sure he didn't inadvertadely condemn his idol John Calvin.