ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Now, I can't find it in the Institutes, probably due to a translation difference. However, it's entirely consistent with his instruction on church discipline in Book 4, Chapter 12, section 9:
But as the whole body of the Church are required to act thus mildly, and not to carry their rigour against those who have lapsed to an extreme, but rather to act charitably towards them, according to the precept of Paul, so every private individual ought proportionately to accommodate himself to this clemency and humanity. Such as have, therefore, been expelled from the Church, it belongs not to us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of, as if they were already lost. We may lawfully judge them aliens from the Church, and so aliens from Christ, but only during the time of their excommunication. If then, also, they give greater evidence of petulance than of humility, still let us commit them to the judgment of the Lord, hoping better of them in future than we see at present, and not ceasing to pray to God for them. And (to sum up in one word) let us not consign to destruction their person, which is in the hand, and subject to the decision, of the Lord alone; but let us merely estimate the character of each man’s acts according to the law of the Lord. In following this rule, we abide by the divine judgment rather than give any judgment of our own.
But Calvin must have changed his mind along the way, since he was so adamant that Michael Servetus should not remain alive. In fact, he planned to murder Servetus:
Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.
-- Calvin to his friend William Farel, 13 February 1546
What? How can it be that the theologian revered by so many could think such things? Yes, well, it's true:
...after he [Servetus] had been recognized, I thought he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge, offering himself as a security according to the lex talionis. On the following day he adduced against him forty written charges. He at first sought to evade them. Accordingly we were summoned. He impudently reviled me, just as if he regarded me as obnoxious to him. I answered him as he deserved... of the man’s effrontery I will say nothing; but such was his madness that he did not hesitate to say that devils possessed divinity; yea, that many gods were in individual devils, inasmuch as a deity had been substantially communicated to those equally with wood and stone. I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.
-- Calvin to William Farel, 20 August 1553
Thus, on October 24 Servetus was sentenced to death by burning. And for what? Only for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. How absolutely ridiculous. Obviously Calvin was full of pride and ambition.
In a complete reversal and contradiction of his Institutes, Calvin had insisted that those whom the ruling religious authorities determined to be heretics should be punished. His fruit was rotten. Calvin turned out to be no differrent than the vicious papal authorities he had been railing against.
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.
-- Calvin’s Opera, vol. 8, Corpus Reformatorum, vol., 36, p. 475
Outrageous! There are many problems with Calvin's theology. But, for me, this alone puts all of his work into question. He directly ignored many of Jesus' teachings in this one act. If this is even partially true, Calvin is unworthy of any respect whatsoever.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. -- Proverbs 1:7
The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
What does calvin actions have to do with the Truth of Gods word ?
Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
What does calvin actions have to do with the Truth of Gods word ?
It may or may not be a factor. Muhammad's character and beliefs were not divorced. Calvin's credibility is an issue. You underestimate how much of your beliefs are related to Calvin's assumptions and overestimate how many of them are biblical.
Few people convert as Calvinists. They start out Arminianish and must be proselytized or swayed towards Calvinistic assumptions that are not based on obvious exegesis. Those who trust Calvin's ideas (or Joseph Smith, etc.) should be aware of his practices, beliefs, influences, changing thinking, etc. This is why it is not wise to put too much trust in any individual (like cults or sects do) lest we become biased vs objective with the Word.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Yet another thread that assumes no one else has ever thought to post hereabouts beforehand. Sigh.
My stock answer, as has been posted elsewhere:
My personal view is that Calvin, as a pastor in Geneva, should have been more public about the verdict, calling for mercy, etc. That said, I doubt that this would have accomplished much, given the political climate at the time.
Anyone who thinks the Reformed faithful consider Calvin to be a perfect man is mistaken. There has been only one perfect man, the God-man Jesus Christ.
He directly ignored many of Jesus' teachings in this one act. If this is even partially true, Calvin is unworthy of any respect whatsoever.
The bar you have set here will also preclude your "respect" of a few of the authors of Scripture. The real issue is why you think your respect is of any importance to matters of Scriptural doctrine. :squint:
Attempting to mount an argument that leverages the genetic fallacy is the mark of a man who is possibly more desperate than reasoned.
There is some relevance to who Calvin is and his influences. Mormonism cannot be divorced from Joseph Smith's lack of credibility and his beliefs can be demonstrated to be extra/contrabiblical.
Virtually anything anyone says could be considered begging the question (or at least we can throw that out as a defuser of argument). I don't think genetic fallacy is always a defense (Jim Jones as a man cannot be divorced from his beliefs/practices).
Regardless of Calvin, the beliefs can be shown to be problematic. Deflecting does not make them true, but I appreciate people have a right to Reformed convictions. I don't appreciate their misrepresentation of Arminian and Open Theism views though.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
It may or may not be a factor. Muhammad's character and beliefs were not divorced. Calvin's credibility is an issue. You underestimate how much of your beliefs are related to Calvin's assumptions and overestimate how many of them are biblical.
Few people convert as Calvinists. They start out Arminianish and must be proselytized or swayed towards Calvinistic assumptions that are not based on obvious exegesis. Those who trust Calvin's ideas (or Joseph Smith, etc.) should be aware of his practices, beliefs, influences, changing thinking, etc. This is why it is not wise to put too much trust in any individual (like cults or sects do) lest we become biased vs objective with the Word.
What does calvins actions have to do with the Truth of Gods word ? Nothing..
Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
What does calvins actions have to do with the Truth of Gods word ? Nothing..
Luther, Calvin, etc. showed in their beliefs and practices that they were not always biblical. To adopt Calvin's assumptions, thinking, commentary, exegesis as infallible is problematic (not that people think that they are doing that). You underestimate how much influence Augustine and Calvin had on your views and overestimate how biblical they are. Even the Calvinists cannot stomach your hyper-Calvinism.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
I saw a man pursuing the horizon; / Round and round they sped. / I was disturbed at this; / I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never -- " / "You lie," he cried, / And ran on. - Ste
Reputation:
June 13th, 2010, 03:33 AM
Regarding the issue of the genetic fallacy: I think it is perfectly legitimate to evaluate a person's life as a part of evaluating their theology. If we conclude that their life was not consistent with faith in Christ, and that they therefore were not a believer, that does tell us that overall their theology is unlikely to be faithful to Christ, and will lack spiritual vibrancy. However, it does not mean that we should dismiss everything they say. Even unbelievers can have valid insights at times. Whether Calvin had any really useful insights into scripture or not I leave for readers to decide.
However, as to the issue of Calvin's behaviour, I have to agree with JL. Calvin could easily have stopped the whole thing. All he had to do was say, "look, I will not stand by and let you kill someone for their beliefs about Christ. You had better immediately let him go, or I will be resigning my post and opposing you by all peaceful means. And if you try to burn him, then I will go and stand next to him and burn to death myself if need be. How dare you use the name of Christ to kill people". If Calvin had said that, there would have been no execution, and we would all be better off for it. The fact that he did not do this, but instead goaded the whole thing on, says a lot about his character.
Of course, had Calvin done that, he might have had to leave his position, and become an outcast like the real Christians, the Anabaptists, were. He just wasn't willing to pay that price.
By the way, after the Synod of Dordt, the Calvinists persecuted the Arminians in Holland, forcing many into exile (including the brilliant jurist Hugo Grotius), and played a key role in the execution of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt on trumped-up charges at what is generally now acknowledged to be a "kangaroo court" stacked by his enemies. He was a supporter of the Remonstrants and an upholder of the principle of religious toleration, and a great Dutch statesman. More Christian love!
Last edited by Eleatic stranger; June 13th, 2010 at 05:53 AM.
Luther, Calvin, etc. showed in their beliefs and practices that they were not always biblical. To adopt Calvin's assumptions, thinking, commentary, exegesis as infallible is problematic (not that people think that they are doing that). You underestimate how much influence Augustine and Calvin had on your views and overestimate how biblical they are. Even the Calvinists cannot stomach your hyper-Calvinism.
What does mens personal lives has to do with what Jesus Taught as truth ? I see no comparison.
Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Slogan/motto:
I saw a man pursuing the horizon; / Round and round they sped. / I was disturbed at this; / I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never -- " / "You lie," he cried, / And ran on. - Ste
Reputation:
June 14th, 2010, 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMR
The bar you have set here will also preclude your "respect" of a few of the authors of Scripture.
This statement is bizarre, and shows the lengths to which Calvinist apologists will go. Either it confuses the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, or it is referring to Paul. But Paul persecuted people before he became a Christian and before he wrote his Christian theology, and he was truly heartbroken with repentance over his involvement in it. Hardly comparable with Calvin now, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMR
The real issue is why you think your respect is of any importance to matters of Scriptural doctrine.
Because according to scripture (you remember scripture, now, don't you), God reveals his truth to those who humbly love and serve him, and hides it from those whose hearts are hardened against him. Hence, if a person is in clear disobedience of the Word, then we can be sure their theology will not be faithful to scripture in its totality, even if it is correct here and there.
This statement is bizarre, and shows the lengths to which Calvinist apologists will go. Either it confuses the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, or it is referring to Paul. But Paul persecuted people before he became a Christian and before he wrote his Christian theology, and he was truly heartbroken with repentance over his involvement in it. Hardly comparable with Calvin now, is it?
Your post claimed your disdain for those that do not follow the teachings of God. Now you presume to know what Calvin felt about the matter as if your omniscience extends to seeing into the man's heart. And before you attempt to mount a claim that there is no evidence of Calvin's feelings about the whole matter, let's observe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless you can sustain a claim to omniscience. So speculate all you want, but please recognize that is all you are doing.
I made no apologies for Calvin on this matter. Instead I presented my opinion that clearly expressed disappointment that there is no evidence he exercised his authority to seek mercy for Servetus, and presented sources that present an honest view of all the facts. I have nothing else to add to the matter for that is all we can know. What I will not do is attempt to import this evidence into a grand view that Calvin was someone who had no personal anguish over the situation, was a Godless man, or who looked back on it in years passed and actually regretted it. These leaps from the evidence in front of us are nothing more than desperate parlor tricks of misdirection to distract attention from the systematics of Calvin. Systematics, by your own admission, you have yet to fully read. :squint:
Thus the "lengths to which" I, a Calvinist, will go are quite clear. You are becoming much too desperate in attempting to appeal to the crowd with this sort of emotionalism and general anti-Calvinist ad homs.
I have no doubt that if Calvin had went to the stake with Servetus you would still be posting the drivel you have posted to date, so your attempts to convince anyone that this topic has any bearing whatsoever on the man's theology are disingenuous. You must know this deep down, unless you are an utter fool.
Quote:
Because according to scripture (you remember scripture, now, don't you), God reveals his truth to those who humbly love and serve him, and hides it from those whose hearts are hardened against him. Hence, if a person is in clear disobedience of the Word, then we can be sure their theology will not be faithful to scripture in its totality, even if it is correct here and there.
Then turn that piecing observation inward and explain to us how you are not in clear disobedience with the Word. Should we be worshiping you, for your implied claim to perfection reveals more about your opinion of yourself than it does anyone else. In other words, from your own words, unless you claim perfect obedience with the Word, why should any claim you make about your philosophical and new age theologies be held above those of Calvin's?
You see, your own words convict you. Perhaps when you have established yourself as one who has generated the corpus of original thinking content that Calvin has done, with the history thereto, including the careful examination of said content by so many for hundreds of years, some will actually consider anything you have to say contrariwise to Calvin to be of merit. Until such time, you are just one of the many odd duck, lone ranger types who thinks they have stumbled upon some new thinking on how Calvin was a pantheist, misunderstood the trinity, etc., and cannot wait to demonstrate their "brilliance" to the crowd. All that you have to offer is but old news that has been asked and soundly answered. Your fifteen minutes are up.
Slogan/motto:
I saw a man pursuing the horizon; / Round and round they sped. / I was disturbed at this; / I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never -- " / "You lie," he cried, / And ran on. - Ste
Reputation:
June 15th, 2010, 04:43 AM
Woah ... you might want to slow down and pull over there, AMR, I think you've blown a head gasket!
I could say something more, I suppose, but I can't think of anything that could refute AMR better than his own words, so I'll leave it alone. Anyone who wants to know the problem with Calvinism, please read the above post. Anyway my fifteen minutes are up apparently. Never mind.
And thank you for the kind words, AMR, obviously you have the gift of encouragement. Can I use you as a reference on my CV?
Last edited by Eleatic stranger; June 15th, 2010 at 05:37 AM.
I made no apologies for Calvin on this matter. Instead I presented my opinion that clearly expressed disappointment that there is no evidence he exercised his authority to seek mercy for Servetus, and presented sources that present an honest view of all the facts. I have nothing else to add to the matter for that is all we can know. What I will not do is attempt to import this evidence into a grand view that Calvin was someone who had no personal anguish over the situation, was a Godless man, or who looked back on it in years passed and actually regretted it. These leaps from the evidence in front of us are nothing more than desperate parlor tricks of misdirection to distract attention from the systematics of Calvin. Systematics, by your own admission, you have yet to fully read.
Unmitigated muck. Calvinists turn all of life around and then say
1) this is scriptural
2) this is truth
You deny man's will. Man's will is what makes a man. Calvin was a sorcerer.
Babies know more than you pequino. I am your conscience. I will remind you once again.
Calvin the Murderer was a living contradiction to all that is holy and good.
Because according to scripture (you remember scripture, now, don't you), God reveals his truth to those who humbly love and serve him, and hides it from those whose hearts are hardened against him. Hence, if a person is in clear disobedience of the Word, then we can be sure their theology will not be faithful to scripture in its totality, even if it is correct here and there.
Rock solid. This is the tendency of modern philosophy which says:
I would rather hear true words from a drunken sailor.
Than false words from a holy man.
Unmitigated mush. A drunken sailor will not say true things. Unless it is 'Woe is me!'
And a holy man will not say false things for the large part.
Philosophy says all truth is separate and apart from the subject.
The Judeo-Christian faith says all Christ/Truth is relational and of relation to Christ. PERSONAL relationship.
Calvin the Hypocritical Murderer of Servetus -
June 12th, 2010, 01:08 AM
Linear Mode
