Why the double standard?

Calvin was a remarkable man. Jesus Christ is a remarkable Savior to all who are willing to receive him.

 

Does it count as character assassination if he assassinated it himself?

I don't think Calvin's character should be the sole basis of a person's disagreement with Calvinism, but I do think it's important to realize a lot of the people in church history that we consider very influential were not very nice people.

 

I still can't believe the kid Calvin was 22 years old when he wrote some of his best stuff. Some of what he says is as if God himself said it, and so also was the account of Ahithophel in the OT. (Oops, I hope they don't close the thread for that one....LOL!).

 

My friend, you are missing a valuable lesson. In debate, the side that degenerates into name calling and character assasination loses. It is similar to profanity. When you no longer have an argument that will stand up to scrutiny, throw mud. I would encourage you to consider looking at the Calvinist-Free will debate from that standpoint. Personally I find it tempting to lock-n-load and fire a few rounds at those who choose characater assasination or personal attack as their methodoloy in debate. I have to admitt that sometimes I have given in and responded in kind but I never feel right afterwards. When I respond with grace and keep scripture as the main thing, I may not convince them of my postion but I certainly know that I have done the right thing. The rest I leave up to God. I am not preaching at your friend. Just trying to encourage you.

 

There's a difference between saying, "This prominent figure who was responsible for the development of these doctrines was not a very nice guy and doesn't deserve the adulation he gets," and "These random people you've probably never heard of who believed X (which wasn't their idea) did naughty things." I think we can all agree that neither side should have been imprisoning, torturing, and executing people who just happened to disagree with them.

The thing is I don't think most people will contradict you when you tell them of some minor historical figure who executed someone whom he shouldn't have, but when it comes to Calvin and his support of the torture and execution of dissidents suddenly either it's all right to do that or "that never happened" or it is excused in one way or another. Calvinists seem to have this blind adoration of John Calvin which I don't think he deserves.

 

I don't know what anyone did, I don't know anything about Calvin or anyone else. But I do know some bible people who did some pretty bad things. But not once did it mean God could not use them. Paul, David, Solomon, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, on and on and on. Don't let a persons past make you think they are unusable by God.

 

The days John Calvin lived in were not very tolerant times.I think if someone pointed out that John Calvin had people executed it was meant to include him along with the other reformers as well as catholics and not to single him out exclusively.
Good people are going to disagree with each other.When our heroes are attacked with historical accuracy we should just look at the times and remember they were not tolerant people in those times.Even the pilgrims and puritans,and others who came to America to seek religious freedom , were seeking it for themselves not for others.It was pretty easy to be punished or even kicked out of a colony for differing religeous views.

As for the article and site that is criticle of Calvin I bbelieve most of the site is devoted to his thelogical stand and not his personal history.I truly wish Calvin had written or updated the Institutes before passing on,they were written and revised early in his life.

Although I am not a calvinist I would surely rather read and rely on his writing than John Wesley.If I could only have one book on theology(outside of the Bible) it would be Stanley Dericksons ,"Notes on Theology", as he comes closest to my views.I guess that would make me a Calminian,leaing somewhat to the Cal side.

 

Adulation??? I haven't seen adulation of Calvin so much as biblical arguments that happen to agree with the 5 points known as "Calvinism". If anyone is revering the man, then they are wrong. However, the doctrines do have biblical support. You may agree or disagree with them, and maybe the only conclusive proof will come on the last day, but to call it adulation of a man is a serious charge against people who are arguing points using scripture.
The thing is I don't think most people will contradict you when you tell them of some minor historical figure who executed someone whom he shouldn't have, but when it comes to Calvin and his support of the torture and execution of dissidents suddenly either it's all right to do that or "that never happened" or it is excused in one way or another. Calvinists seem to have this blind adoration of John Calvin which I don't think he deserves.

 

I try not to read too many of these debates on this board because they just go around and around in circles and I don't totally think either side is right, so I don't know how most Calvinists here feel. However, I have run across people in the last 6-7 years who seem to almost think of Calvin as the second Incarnation and criticism of him as blasphemy.

 

I agree with you 100%. I have the same weaknesses, too.

All I'm asking for is parity. Don't lock down a thread that points out that free willers have been guilty of murder, but continue to ignore all the dozens of threads where the only response people have to Calvinism is "He murdered whatsisname", or "see this linke to the Pope of Geneva, which assassinates the character of Calvin".

If BB is going to be consistent about its policy of locking down threads that are inflammatory, then lock down all the ones that degenerate into bashing Calvin instead of discussing Calvinism.

Doesn't that seem right to you? </font>[/QUOTE]It seems like fair and equitable thing to do and one would hope that, "what is good for the goose would be good for the gander." Alas, that is seldom the case. But I still hold to my guns. Take the high road. If they lock a thread, move on. You cannot change the administrators of the B.B. Focus on the truth of God's word and allow that to be you central focus. If that means you are going to be locked out of certain parts of the debate, so be it.

 

I'm thankful that thread wasn't deleted. There's some good info in it. Perhaps rippon can elaborate here.

 

I should have put my post in the history section . That was an oversight , and not intentional . However , what I posted was truthful . It is not a matter of opinion . I had quoted JC Ryle some time ago . He said something to the effect that facts get in the way of some of the world's most cherished theories and those stubborn facts are highly inconvenient .

I did not intend to imply that those holding to free-will would , if given the opportunity , torture and kill those who denied free-will . Many who hold to f-w believe in some of the fundamentals of the faith -- many are our brothers and sisters in the Lord . But f-w is highly regarded as something akin to a law of nature among non-believers . Some of the most distinctive beliefs of Calvinists are held up to derision among worldlings . It is a shame that some Christians join hands with the unregenerate on key doctrinal matters .

 

Here is a painting of him at an early age.

PAINTING

Well, that was most likely before his best work.

[ April 06, 2006, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

Calvin updated the Institutes several times , the last being in 1559 I think . That was five years before his death and the same year he became a citizen of Geneva despite living there for so long .