John Calvin said this....
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Israel and the Palestinians, more or less are at war with
one another. So, in essence, they're "killing" one another.
There's a difference between, "killing during war" and out
and out "murder." Calvin was complicit in the, individual
"execution murders" of certain individuals that disagreed
with his particular belief system.
HisServant
New member
Blessed are the peace makers.... you guys are sending money over to Jews who are not of Christ.. who are war mongers.. who kill Palestinians without remorse or repercussion...
All in the name of your new age eschatology that is devoid of the love of Christ.... you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Calvin and the town elders set up laws in their city with some real stiff penalties.... people were executed for breaking the law.
Calvin did not execute anyone by decree or fiat... I don't believe he even had a vote in the town council at the time they occurred.
So did the Salem witch hunters and the Spanish Inquisition.
Palestinians do their share of "killing" as well. That area of the
world has been at war for ions. You and I won't be able to do
anything about that. War is war and murder is murder. Calvin
was complicit in "execution murders." He was not at war.
During war times, there is "killing" going on. When you "murder"
individual people who disagree with your beliefs, it's called murder.
HisServant
New member
Being penalized for breaking the law is not murder... its capital punishment.
Calvin did not murder anyone.
Why would I want to do that?
The reformed tradition has wrong hermeneutics and trying to argue with someone who appears not to believe in the same Bible as you is utterly futile. There is simply no common ground.
You can find out a little of what I believe on my thread 'The Big Picture' in theology club and you can learn why reformed hermeneutics is futile in the 1-1 thread I had a while back with Lon.
I was hoping you would be able to answer the question I asked you in my earlier post. Have you thought about it?
Peace.
Dialogos
Well-known member
I don't think that it is that unfortunate. What I think is unfortunate is that it bears his name. The scriptures warn us about following Paul or Apollos or Cephas. I wasn't baptized in Calvin's name nor would I accept such a baptism. Christ alone saves and His Spirit is our Comforter, Reminder, Teacher...etc. Calvin was a man, used by God, to get the ball rolling in the right direction, IMHO.
One of the characteristics of the reformation is Semper Reformanda, always reforming. Calvin was a sinner. A key person in the reformation of the church no doubt but the best of men are men at best and so Calvin surely erred not only in heart but in mind like all men and women have and do.
We should take what Calvin (and those who came before him and after him) and subject those thoughts to the light of truth in God's Word. That's what we should be doing to everyone we read, Calvin, Arminius, Boyd and Sanders alike.
No, I am saying that modern Calvinists owes their theological distinctions to a historical process of theological refinement which included councils like Dort and confessions like the Westminster Confession, the Heidelburg Catechism and the London Baptist Confession. Reformed thought did not begin or end with Calvin so it shouldn't surprise anyone than some of what Calvin wrote got left by the wayside while the rest is retained because it more accurately reflects scriptural truth.DR said:
The essence of my own belief is necessarily and sufficiently shaped by the Word of God. I don't consider any of those documents as authoritative. They can be helpful in synthesizing what the bible teaches on a particular topic, especially in areas where the bible does not address them topically, but my conscience is not beholden to Dort, or Heidelberg or Westminster, my allegiance is to God's word. I'm a sola scriptura kinda guy.
I am probably less confessional than many Calvinists though, and in that sense I am not the typical Calvinist so I don't mean to hold out my own views as wholly characteristic of all Calvinists.
Therefore, in answer to your question:
:nono:DR said:
...is the answer to both questions.
I would be happy to debate the pros of and cons of reformed soteriology based on the bible, any discussion that does not keep the bible as the center of the discussion is a waste of time in my opinion.
Sure:DR said:
1. Calvin was dead wrong on infant baptism in my opinion. Inst. 4 (I think) Calvin says something akin to "depriving infants of of baptism is a violation of God's will (a loose quote I am sure)."
2. Calvin was dead wrong on the relationship between the church and the state. Calvin continued to support the notion that the church and state should be entwined and that led to his participation of unjust laws that denied people freedom of worship.
3. Calvin probably supported a view of God's ordination of evil that is too direct and active for the way I read scripture. While I support the notion of God's sovereignty over evil, I tend to think that God passively ordains evil and I think Calvin, at times, argues for a more active ordination of evil.
4. Along the same lines, I think that Calvin can, at times, argue for a more active ordination of reprobation than I see in scripture (though I would argue that Calvin's view shifts in his writings on this issue). While I support strongly Calvin's emphasis that God is sovereign even over reprobation, I would argue that God ordains reprobation passively (passing over the reprobate) while actively ordaining salvation.
5. Calvin probably wasn't a compatibilist (though I could be wrong), I am.
6. Calvin's view of immutability is probably much stronger than my own.
What I do share with Calvin (and Calvinists) are the 5 points, the notion of monergistic salvation, the sovereignty of God over all things, the fact that Jesus actually saves rather than making men and women savable, and the supremely biblical understanding that salvation is by faith, through grace and this is not of ourselves (in any way, shape or form).
Now, I realize that my own views do not authoritatively define calvinism the world over. My views are my own views, nothing more, nothing less.
"I am what I am and that's all that I am," said Popeye. So I suppose I am a Popeye kinda Calvinist.
The problem with many discussions, here and elsewhere, on the topic are twofold.
First, there are times when people do, either intentionally, or unintentionally, misrepresent reformed thought and theology and create straw men arguments. In these instances its not the case that they disagree with my own theology per se, but that they put words into the mouth of calvinists that most calvinists wouldn't say.
Then there are times in which people make hasty generalizations and assume that because I, or someone else, is a calvinist, that I am somehow beholden and accountable to all things that Calvin or some other calvinists wrote.
I think you can probably empathize. There are times, I am sure, in which open theism, in general is characatured and it is clear that what is claimed about open theism is just not characteristic of open theism as a whole. Then there are time when you may disagree slightly with other open thiests and people presume that you don't have the right to disagree with some of the finer points because you consider yourself under the broader umbrella of open theism.
This thread does both. It seems to me that Clete intends to "poison the well" so to speak. If he can show that Calvin was both wrong in some place and a big mean bully to boot then he has somehow successfully defeated reformed theology, or at least made a chink in the armor.
In my mind this is just the wrong battle ground. Even if Clete was successful in proving that Calvin was a theological nincompoop and a poor excuse for a human being, that does not, in and of itself, prove that God saves us synergistically, does it?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, maybe what eventually became the 5 points are Calvin's noon and midnight...? Calvin wasn't the first to consider these truths, and certainly wasn't the last.
That's why I don't think that taking pot shots at out-of-context quotes from Calvin proves anything one way or the other. If we are going to get to the bottom of how God saves, monergistically or synergistically, we are going to have to turn our gaze to the pages of scripture and that will likely give us enough fodder for a lifetime of fruitful discussion.
There are those whose interest are studying Calvin in depth, I'm not a member of that tribe. Give me a bible and a quite place to read and I'm happy.
No, where I think Calvin errs is due to my understanding of the Word of God and where there are inconsistencies with God's word and Calvin's work, though I think you can see in the Canons Dort and the resulting confessions, like the Westminster confession, evidence of the reformed movement having refined Calvin's own thoughts and work which is evidence that the reformation of the church wasn't over when the ink was dry on the Institutes.DR said:
I hope my answers were helpful.
Thank you for your irenic tone, by the way, I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you so far. Here's to continued fruitful dialog.
Mocking You
New member
“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)
Mocking You
New member
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
Mocking You
New member
“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
Shasta
Well-known member
How can something that has been predestined by God to happen be considered bad? To be fair though we must admit Martin Luther to the company of those who promoted persecution. In Luther's case it was his native anti-Semitism that motivated his call to actively persecute the Jews and drive them out of Germany.
Calvin and Luther were both influenced by their teacher Augustine of Hippo (so named for his obesity?) Augustine was among the first Christians (I am aware of) who persecuted other Christians. What a tradition to start! He stripped people of their property and expelled from the ministry all who did not agree with his teaching on "inability" and predestination. This meant just about everyone had to change since freewill had been taught by all orthodox teachers since the First Century.
The connection between these men, their doctrines and the persecution they incited is not coincidence. It arose from their teachings. At least that is how Augustine and Calvin justified their actions. When justifying his treatment of Donatus, Augustine told him in a letter that it was okay to use violence to make him renounce his views because that is what God does (Luke 14:23) God compels people to be saved by force so it must be an acceptable method.
See? It has a certain logic to it.
Shasta
Well-known member
At this point I can only quote Sebastian Castellio "if these be the works of God what else is there for the Devil to do?"
HisServant
New member
There is nothing that is going on in Palestine right now that has been predestined.
Shasta
Well-known member
That is exactly what Jesus meant. There is no need to make it more complicated.
Shasta
Well-known member
I thought you believed God predestined all human affairs.
Shasta
Well-known member
He would have executed me if I had lived in Geneva at that time - solely because I reject his theology. For that matter the Early Church Fathers would have been burned at the stake, or stripped of their property and exiled for the same reason.
Justice cannot change, it is not arbitrary. Justice is synonymous with righteousness. It can no m ore change than can the character of God from which it derives its meaning.
You should do yourself a favor and fire whoever is teaching you this stupidity.
Christians are to forgive people who repent 70*7 and Christians do not have the authority to forgive crimes. Only God can do that and He can only do it justly because of His Son's propitiatory sacrifice.
Only if your theology gets in the way.
But even this is not arbitrary. Your god is unjust by definition!! Its the giant plank in the eye of every Calvinist that they refuse to acknowledge. The ONLY argument necessary to prove Calvinism as a false doctrine.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Romans 9 (and Jeremiah 18 - the origin of the Potter and clay parable) is talking about Israel - a nation, not individual people. God is NOT unjust!
How can anyone accept a teaching that so clearly paints God as arbitrary? I swear it IS a mental disorder!
Resting in Him,
Clete
ASKS????
Are you suggesting you have a choice?
Well it is if God predestined it to be, right?
SHOULD?
Are you suggesting that you could do otherwise? Don't you believe that you either will honor God or you won't and it was God who decided it one way or the other before you ever existed?
NO LONGER?????
You mean you have free will before you got saved and now God leads you around like cattle with rings in their snouts? Is that really what you meant to imply?
Well unless God predestined you to be in a drunken stupor your whole life, believing in things you cannot keep from contradicting with nearly every sentence you utter.
I mean you do believe that your endlessly self contradictory post was predestined by God, don't you?
Resting in Him,
Clete
This is a common claim but it isn't actually true.
Reformed doctrine (Calvinism) is a formalization of post Luther, Augustinian doctrine. Augustine all but worship Aristotle and Plato (i.e. the Classics) when he was young and he refused to become a Christian because the bible depicted a God that could change His mind. It wasn't until his mother's bishop, Bishop Ambrose of Milan, told Augustine the the bible should be interpreted in light of Aristotelian philosophy that he relented and became a Christian saying, “I found that whatever truth I had read in the Platonists was said here with praise of Your grace… [especially] You who are always the same” (7, xxi). And “in the Platonists, God and his Word are everywhere implied” (Confessions of Augustine, 8, ii).
This is the origin of all Calvinistic distinctives. Total depravity is as much derived from the ABSOLUTE immutability of God as is the doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge or limited atonement or any other distinctively Calvinist doctrine you can think of.
Resting in Him,
Clete