Thank Calvin for your freedom

[quantumfaith]

Fine. But shares are to be divided appropriately.

Calvin still gets to be rightly considered the "father of America" if we are to divide those shares you mention based upon the accurate numbers and contributions.

All I am saying Quantum is that to say that Calvinism is a scourge is pure outright idiocy- especially when Calvinism was the primary driving force behind the construction of this great nation we all enjoy.

Let's be honest, Calvin himself had no knowledge of the country (US) which was to come. It was those who followed his teaching and the fact that they were persecuted where they were. They simply looked for a place to "live peaceably". I commend them, not for their theology, but for their courage to set out toward the "unknown"

"Calvinism is a scourge" may be a bit harsh, but remember, there are those whose passion "against" Calvinism, is equally as strong as your passion "for" Calvinism, so you seeking to be mature, spiritually and intellectually should recognize it for what it is.

"Calvinism the driving force behind this great nation" That is a statement of personal position and a great deal anecdotal. Many people contributed to the development of this great nation, even "heathens" and non-believers.

You seem to make a bone of contention, where there is no need to have one.

 

[preachinjesus]

From an academic standpoint Jean Calvin has little influene on the founding of America. This isnt to say he doesnt have any, but its not as much as suggested by the OP.

 

[Havensdad]

Wow! People need to pick up a history book; one, that is, that has not been "secularized."

Yes, Calvin and his followers had a huge impact on the formation of the U.S. But no, Calvin is not "the" founder. Yet were God to have not chosen to use Calvin in such a way, there is no doubt that the U.S., if it existed at all, would look vastly different. The Christianity that founded the U.S. was Calvinist.

The bigger issue: I am amazed about how little people on here who bash Calvin know about him, and about Geneva. Someone said something about the harshness of Geneva, and that is absolutely laughable. Geneva might appear harsh by today's standards, but in the 16th century it was considered extremely tolerant. Even the Anabaptists and libertines were tolerated in Geneva in a way they were not elsewhere.

This tolerance is exactly why Servetus came to Geneva. He knew their were factions there that he thought would be sympathetic to his revolutionary ideas; people that would not be tolerated elsewhere. Servetus believed that when he went to Geneva, he could rally these people, and overthrow Geneva and Calvin.

Servetus was a mad man, and a revolutionary. He was put to death for promulgating heretical ideas, in a day that such was a method of revolution. The church was tied to the state (everywhere, not just Geneva) in a way that it was not today. I wonder if those who object to Servetus' execution, and are angry at Calvin's approval of it, realize how many lives that the council of Geneva probably saved by preventing rebellion? I wonder if they would likewise be angry at the hanging of Osama Ben Laden?

It is hilarious how, when someone says something people don't like, certain people demonize anything they do.

 

[preacher4truth]

Be careful all. Nothing comes between Luke and his Calvinism!!!


:saint:

Hey Luke, if the plane you're on lands safely, what do you say?

1) Thank Calvin

2) Thank God

:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wow! People need to pick up a history book; one, that is, that has not been "secularized."

Yes, Calvin and his followers had a huge impact on the formation of the U.S. But no, Calvin is not "the" founder. Yet were God to have not chosen to use Calvin in such a way, there is no doubt that the U.S., if it existed at all, would look vastly different. The Christianity that founded the U.S. was Calvinist.

The bigger issue: I am amazed about how little people on here who bash Calvin know about him, and about Geneva. Someone said something about the harshness of Geneva, and that is absolutely laughable. Geneva might appear harsh by today's standards, but in the 16th century it was considered extremely tolerant. Even the Anabaptists and libertines were tolerated in Geneva in a way they were not elsewhere.

This tolerance is exactly why Servetus came to Geneva. He knew their were factions there that he thought would be sympathetic to his revolutionary ideas; people that would not be tolerated elsewhere. Servetus believed that when he went to Geneva, he could rally these people, and overthrow Geneva and Calvin.

Servetus was a mad man, and a revolutionary. He was put to death for promulgating heretical ideas, in a day that such was a method of revolution. The church was tied to the state (everywhere, not just Geneva) in a way that it was not today. I wonder if those who object to Servetus' execution, and are angry at Calvin's approval of it, realize how many lives that the council of Geneva probably saved by preventing rebellion? I wonder if they would likewise be angry at the hanging of Osama Ben Laden?

It is hilarious how, when someone says something people don't like, certain people demonize anything they do.

Brother, its all connected with the word Calvin.....didnt you notice how that works? Several months ago the bad word was Catholic. Youd get ripped apart if you were one or simply had sympathy for one. Youd get labeled as a heretic & bang, out the bloody door like the trash you are.....rotten Papist. I also saw them rip apart a guy for being a Charismatic.....God help him for saying so. Yes we are all God's children....only some are better than the others so we have license to rip them apart & be snotty to them. Oh yea, real Christian virtue at work on this board I'm thinking. Rather shameful behavior if truth be told.

 

[Luke2427]

Let's be honest, Calvin himself had no knowledge of the country (US) which was to come.

That has nothing to do with it. Nobody had any knowledge of it until it came because it did not exist. There was not a single colonial soldier who died for Independence who knew anything about the country that was to come. The fact that it came AFTER their contribution to it certainly does not negate their contribution to it.

And if you would argue that Calvin was dead long before America gained her independence that argument is moot too.

Wycliff was dead long before the Reformation but he is rightly callled the Morning Star of the Reformation.

The Apostle Paul have been dead for 1,900 years but Unity Baptist Church where I pastor owes a great deal to his contributions to our church.


Why does it matter if Paul knew anything about Unity Baptist Church? Deos that negate his contributions to it. Why of course not. The idea is preposterous.

But no more preposterous than the idea that John Calvin had to know about America to have made any contribution to it.

It was those who followed his teaching and the fact that they were persecuted where they were. They simply looked for a place to "live peaceably". I commend them, not for their theology, but for their courage to set out toward the "unknown"

It was their theology that started them on this journey.

Their theology gave them the "protestant work ethic" which enabled them to carve out this great nation.

It is less than honorable to refuse to honor the system that brought you your freedom and delivered to you your nation.

"Calvinism is a scourge" may be a bit harsh, but remember, there are those whose passion "against" Calvinism, is equally as strong as your passion "for" Calvinism, so you seeking to be mature, spiritually and intellectually should recognize it for what it is.

Point to Arminianisms contributions to the founding of this nation and I will honor it.

"Calvinism the driving force behind this great nation" That is a statement of personal position and a great deal anecdotal. Many people contributed to the development of this great nation, even "heathens" and non-believers.

This is willful, stubborn blindness, Quantum.

Heathne had extraordinarily little to do with the founding of this nation. On the other hand Calvinism was the theology of MOST of the founders, ALL of the Pilgrims and ALL of the Puritans (save an infinitesimal percentage).

You seem to make a bone of contention, where there is no need to have one.

It is no less honorable to refuse to honor George Washington for his contributions than it is to refuse to honor John Calvin.

 

[webdog]

If everything Calvin did was predestined...how can he get any of the credit?

 

[Robert Snow]

If everything Calvin did was predestined...how can he get any of the credit?

I can't help myself. I was predestined to point out the errors of Calvinism. :tongue3:

 

[RAdam]

Give me a break. If John Calvin never existed there would still have been believers who advocated the doctrines of grace. I know that because they existed before, during, and after Calvin. In fact, things might be easier for us believers in the doctrines of grace since we wouldn't have to fight off the junk that goes along with the label "Calvinism."

The Reformation is probably the worst name for a movement in history. They didn't reform anything. The Catholic church remained just as corrupt after they were done as it was beforehand. All they did was form new demoninations. Wrong move. There were already believers holding to the truth.

 

[Winman]

But no more preposterous than the idea that John Calvin had to know about America to have made any contribution to it.

Calvinism did play a role in the attitudes of many of the earliest settlers in this country. It is true that Calvinists were known for their work ethic.

Here is an interesting article concerning Protestantism and especially Calvinism's role in developing capitalism.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Max_Weber#The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Capitalism, Calvinism and Chauvinism
It’s no coincidence that capitalism and Protestantism ascended simultaneously. Jean Calvin theologically discredited the feudal system in 1541, paving the way for an upwardly mobile merchant class to replace the landed aristocracy. The genius of Calvin, observed sociologist Max Weber in 1904, was the creation of a new concept of God.[7] Prior to this crucial paradigm shift, surplus wealth--i.e., capital--was expected to be donated to the Church.
Essentially, Calvinism was a variation of the chosen-race myth. Its key element was a spiritual "elect" whose elevated position is preordained. The only way one can know if he or she is among the Elect is by his or her level of worldly success[8]-- in other words, if you’re rich, it’s because God loves you.

The Puritans of Plymouth Bay were staunch Calvinists and their legacy remains powerful. "American culture, in particular, is thoroughly Calvinist… [A]t the heart of the way Americans think and act, you’ll find this fierce and imposing reformer [Calvin]."[9]

However, there was also many negative and harmful attitudes they brought with them. They considered the native American Indians heathens, the unelect. This led to taking of their lands and slaughter in many cases.

Manifest Destiny and Teutonic Supremacy
Instrumentalism, racism and greed became inextricably bound. "A search for personal and national wealth was put in terms of world progress, under the leadership of a supreme race," writes historian Reginald Horsman[20]
"Indian removal"--what today would be called ethnic cleansing--was unofficial federal policy during the Monroe presidency. Upon his election, General Andrew Jackson, having earned fame as an Indian fighter, made it official. Jackson’s policies became the model for Hitler’s "final solution."[21]

As a slogan, "Indian removal" was a bit blunt. "Manifest destiny" had a more Orwellian snap. The term was coined in 1845 by Democratic Review editor John L. O’Sullivan, an Irish-Catholic.[22] O’Sullivan intended the phrase to mean the flowering of democracy, not Anglo-Saxonism. Ironically, Manifest Destiny became a metonym--and a justification--for Anglo-Saxon domination. O’Sullivan, perhaps unwittingly, spoke to the Calvinist mindset: The word "destiny" alluded to predestination. "Manifest" hinted at the materialization of wealth reserved for the Elect. Manifest Destiny was nothing more than "a cluster of flimsy rationalizations for naked greed," writes historian George Tindall.[23]

Calvinism had a profound affect on America, good and bad.

 

[SimpleMan]

Almost sounds to me that people are worshipping "a man" and not the one that we truly need to worship and thank for everything, which is Christ, not Calvin or any other man. This is very dangerous to our spirituality and to the church. There have been a lot of great men throughout time and none of them are worthy of our worship, not even the greatest men in the Bible, except Christ. Paul warned people about this in several of his epistles and he wanted to make sure that people didn't exhalt him above Christ. When we take focus off Christ and put it on man, we've sinned. In the end, Calvin was only a man, who had flaws, temptations, and shortcomings like any other man. He had some good points and some not so good, in my opinion. That's what made him human. I study several different men of God throughout history and the impact that they have but ultimately I let the "Spirit of Truth" guide me, not man. Let's don't lose our perspective.

 

[John Toppass]

That then is your problem. You need smarter friends.

If they don't have education enough to recognize the contributions of Calvin to the founding of this nation- well...

Ahhhhhh, but education is wasted on a man that is too ignorant to use it. Smart is also knowing when to SHUT UP!!!!

 

[Robert Snow]

Ahhhhhh, but education is wasted on a man that is too ignorant to use it. Smart is also knowing when to SHUT UP!!!!

True words indeed!

 

[TCassidy]

Roger Williams . . . founded Rhode Island Colony . . .

Uh, well, actually, no. Providence Plantations was the name of the colony founded by Roger Williams in the area now known as the City of Providence.

Rhode Island, the other colonial settlement, was founded in the area of present-day city of Newport, on Aquidneck Island, the largest of several islands in Narragansett Bay.

The name Rhode Island probably originated with Adriaen Block, a Dutch explorer who, during his 1627 expedition, passed by Aquidneck Island, and described it in a written account of his travels as "an island of reddish appearance" (in 17th-century Dutch, "een rodlich Eylande"). Dutch maps from as early as 1659 call the island "Roode Eylant", or Red Island.

By the way, the official name of the state is still "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." A ballot referendum was on the 2010 ballot to change the name to "Rhode Island" but the people voted it down and the official name of the state is still "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

 

[Steven2006]

John Calvin was long dead when this country was formed. He had nothing to do with the founding of it anymore than I did.

So sorry I forgot to thank you last fourth of July.

 

[TCassidy]

There is no doubt that John Calvin was long dead when our great country was founded, but there can also be no doubt that Geneva was an early example of self-governance in Europe and helped set the example that was followed by the founding fathers of this great nation. Founder? No. Influential regarding the thought processes of self-governance? Absolutely.

 

[Luke2427]

Ahhhhhh, but education is wasted on a man that is too ignorant to use it. Smart is also knowing when to SHUT UP!!!!

You have a problem.

 

[Luke2427]

There is no doubt that John Calvin was long dead when our great country was founded, but there can also be no doubt that Geneva was an early example of self-governance in Europe and helped set the example that was followed by the founding fathers of this great nation. Founder? No. Influential regarding the thought processes of self-governance? Absolutely.

Good thoughts. However, historians do consider Calvin to be the founder of America as I have shown for reasons you enunciate and since the Pilgrims were Calvinists and the Puritans were Calvinists and most of the founding fathers were Calvinists.

The fact may not be palatable to some, but who cares? It is a fact nonetheless.

Facts are not contingent upon how they make people feel.

 

[Luke2427]

Give me a break. If John Calvin never existed there would still have been believers who advocated the doctrines of grace. I know that because they existed before, during, and after Calvin. In fact, things might be easier for us believers in the doctrines of grace since we wouldn't have to fight off the junk that goes along with the label "Calvinism."

The Reformation is probably the worst name for a movement in history. They didn't reform anything. The Catholic church remained just as corrupt after they were done as it was beforehand. All they did was form new demoninations. Wrong move. There were already believers holding to the truth.

This may be the worst thing I have ever read on Baptistboard.

When you spit in the eyes of Calvin as you do here you might as well spit in the eye of the Pilgrims and the founding fathers. You might as wel spit in the eye of Spurgeon and Whitfield and Edwards.

You don't have to like everything they did. You don't have to agree with everything they believed. You can be against slavery and still honor George Washington. You can be an Arminian and still appreciate Calvin.

But I find your lack of respect for those who handed you what you have today to be disdainful.

Reformation is a fine term for what took place for two good reasons.

#1 It indicates the motive of the movement. It was not to separate from the Church but to reform it.

#2 It did reform THE Church. Not the Catholic church but the Church of Jesus Christ.

In one post you have dumped on one of the greatest Christians in history and the greatest Christian movement in history since the closing of the Canon.

I cannot believe it.

 

[Luke2427]

Almost sounds to me that people are worshipping "a man" and not the one that we truly need to worship and thank for everything, which is Christ, not Calvin or any other man. This is very dangerous to our spirituality and to the church. There have been a lot of great men throughout time and none of them are worthy of our worship, not even the greatest men in the Bible, except Christ. Paul warned people about this in several of his epistles and he wanted to make sure that people didn't exhalt him above Christ. When we take focus off Christ and put it on man, we've sinned. In the end, Calvin was only a man, who had flaws, temptations, and shortcomings like any other man. He had some good points and some not so good, in my opinion. That's what made him human. I study several different men of God throughout history and the impact that they have but ultimately I let the "Spirit of Truth" guide me, not man. Let's don't lose our perspective.

This post sounds to me like the ones in Corinthians who said THEY were not of Paul or Apollos but of JESUS! They were just as wicked as the others except they were pompous and holier than thou too.

No one is exalting Calvin above God. There's not a word in any one of these posts that even slightly indicate such a thing.

Do you thank the troops for your freedom?

Do you celebrate Memorial Day?

If so, then you are as guilty of what you accuse as those you accuse.

The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable to thank people for what you have. Troops, George Washington and John Calvin are among those that you OUGHT to thank.

God does not look kindly on holier than thou attitudes which turn men into ingrates.

God gets all the glory for everything but his Word teaches us to be grateful for others he uses to contribute to what we have as well.