Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calvin did not murder Servetus. He wasn't even a citizen of Geneva (he was French, he had to leave because of the catholics-they wanted to burn him, Luther was only saved because of a prince who wanted out from under the pope) so he only had influence, not say so. Geneva was not a rubber stamp either for Calvin and went against him as well on issues. Calvin actually lent Servetus books while he was in prison so he could prepare for his trial.
Calvin is not the father of TULIP. That was set up in a later synod (Dort). If one reads Calvin, and obviously no one does, one will find that Dort, as a short version of Calvinist doctrine is not strictly in line with Calvin's theology. Both Calvin and Luther knew of man's "precious modern" free will. The complexity for non sheep is to function with this theology in the paradox. Because few read then, the churches constructed these statements so that pew sitters could memorize doctrine and such in easy formats.
Calvin was not a cold blooded whatever. He was helping to institute some of the first social aid programs and such in Geneva, as opposed to catholic wealth consolidation at Rome.
If god gave the sword to governments to rule in this age (I guess this lets the Jews off in their age), then the governing group at Geneva had the right to execute Servetus as he violated the law there in his pushing or advocating the disbelief in the trinity-punishable with death there-he may have wanted to hawk his wares in some other local.
Most modern morons think they are at the pinnacle of ethics and morality, well, and knowledge too. As such they attempt to run their ethics back into the past to judge that place and time. This is moronic because the past did not view reality as we do, nor even have the social structures that we have, nor were these past cultures able to avail themselves to thought that hadn't even arrived yet.
I like Calvin and Luther-one finally gets some serious thought (who of you out in data land has read their works?) and is set free from priests and such (if they avail themselves to it) and one is not trapped in that goofy catholicism, legalistic Jew thought, liberal protestant mumbo jumbo.
As far as the fall out from their theological work-I don't care, I don't care about Servetus (he is just an occasion for those that oppose calvinist protestant thought-I am sure not too many shed actual tears over him-this kind of dirt can be dug up on everyone), or any of it-its the thought that counts. All these ideas including our own will all have consequences and several will die, get depressed, angry, etc from them, so what? In the future, the consequences of all are noble and self righteousness work will be added up and it will be found to be just as bad as theirs.
What your saying doesn't seem to be the record. So to what sources should we believe that Calvin was to be regarded in such esteem? I believe your statements are definately possible. But to what record are we to hold and to what witness can you provide?
Did Calvin ever speak against such condemnation whether or not he was involved of the killing of SERVETUS?
Did his writings speak louder than what is the record or alleged concerning him in this regard?
I long ago read the history of Calvin, and the indictments of Calvin taken from the writings of the times, themselves, and Calvin's own words from his own letters; and some of what I long ago read was taken from the public records of Geneva. There is enough evidence to prove that Calvin knew not the LORD Jesus Christ, and was a tyrant who used the sword to subject men to his own twisted sick mind's ideas of what utopia was supposed to be.
In America, the Congregationalists of Salem were Calvin's fruit, when they behaved in the same manner, by the same spirit, and put innocent people to death for crimes against "god".
Why seek to discredit the man and tell us what was in his heart, what the man knew, what the man didn't know and then tell us that his heart never repented?
Jesus alone searches the hearts and minds of men:
2Ch 6:30 then Thou dost hear from the heavens, the settled place of Thy dwelling, and hast forgiven, and hast given to each according to all his ways (because Thou knowest his heart, for Thou--Thou only--hast known the heart of the sons of men),
Psa 44:21 Doth not God search out this? For He knoweth the secrets of the heart.
How is it that you know all these things concerning Calvin (the defendant here), whom I presume you've never met (at least I hope not..LOL), and whom you've also never spoken to? And how is it that you're able to form all these judgments and opinions without those judgments being cross examined by the defendant?
Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 01-18-2011 at 07:24 PM..
Reason: sp
Calvin never repented? Well who knows, Moderator cut: attacking
We alway excuse David, but because of blood that he spilled, despite repentance, he could not build the temple. The prophets; some of them killed heretics, what would we do with Moses? Fire from heaven, and the Assyrian that slaughtered Jews because of heresy and was god's right hand? And all those priests of idols that were exterminated, etc?
If what a man does, and especially according to modern ideas, makes doctrine error, well then, the Jews doctrine is error, Catholicism is error (anyone read book of martyrs?), free will doctrine is error,
the whole US is error, and, well, it all actually is.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-18-2011 at 07:01 PM..
There is new data. When I was at seminary some new work was done. Possibly Eerdmans has some. This issue never interested me as I was concerned with doctrine, how these guys and women lived their lives does not concern me-every idea kills lots, that is the way of it-it all gets sorted out in the eschaton. I believe the material, or a lot of it, was developed from the Calvin Center-there is a lot of documentation there (I believe that is what it is called) at Calvin College, the researcher has a dutch name I believe, and I am sorry I can't give more, but I see no need at the data forum to have citations, no one else does (there was an ol' military saying my dad had, it went, "don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up"). If one is interested I would start there. A professor did the research and wrote it up, the points I made were gleaned from either Calvin Seminary journal or the college magazine (the Banner, maybe it is called) when reviewing the work-it was a few decades ago as I am an old man now.
Moderator cut: off topic
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-18-2011 at 06:58 PM..
Oh, now to my know it all-ness, I have been summoned to court. I have read most all of Calvin, went to Calvin seminary, didn't graduate (I went to a liberal free willer school as well-ignorant it was). There was a saying there, if your not dutch your not much. Calvin theology is not the best in my opinion, better than I could write, but the best at the time (there are writings where even catholics acknowledge he was right, but then they knew the rabble could not be trusted with the "truth"), theology is always improvable. No I did not know the man, but evidently most on data forum did. Throw your questions at yourself and the rest of the minions.
The choices in christianity today are pretty bleak, sappy, womanish, and basically moronic. If I didn't believe in election (thank you Calvin and Luther), I would be of that other great movement atheism.
The evidence that Calvin did not know the lord Jesus is nonsense. If one gets this from his writings, especially the institutes, well, then knowing the lord Jesus must have some really special, well, what?
What is the angle you are coming from? To know Jesus do I need Hebrewisms, talk in tongues, walk around naked like those did when the reformation broke apart, the free willers? No one knows the lord Jesus, that is the rub-Jesus knows you and he points at those he wishes and says holy-he determines that not you. One doesn't even know oneself, how can one know Jesus?
Yes he did. He said he would put him to death, and he did, and for nothing that God said that governments could put to death for, either.
Calvin had no authority from God for murder of a man for theological disagreements.
If god gave the sword to governments to rule in this age .
God gave the governments the sword to rule with as soon as Noah came off the ark, and the death penalty was given to our ancestor Noah, to pass on, in patriarchal king tribes, for murder of another human being: therefore Calvin should have been put to death, himself, as he violated the law of the sword given to governments by God.
Calvin made a point of not repenting, he was not sorry, and would have done it again, as he said, somewhere, and wanted it done to all who did not follow his idea of religious belief and practice.
We alway excuse David, but because of blood that he spilled, despite repentance, he could not build the temple.
The prophets; some of them killed heretics, what would we do with Moses? Fire from heaven, and the Assyrian that slaughtered Jews because of heresy and was god's right hand? And all those priests of idols that were exterminated, etc?...
God did not excuse David. David repented, as Psalm 51 shows, and God cursed David's sons in that the sword never departed from his house.
The baby died in place of David, as Nathan said. But David is in heaven and did repent and no one excuses him, but he was restored and the LORD did not take His Holy Spirit from Him.
Now as to the other, you are missing something that is most important about Israel:
the entire nation of Israel put themselves under Covenant with God to obey His law as He gave it only to them, His own namesake people of the New Man name, and they agreed to accept the blessings for them and their children and the curses for them and their children, for obeying or disobeying, forever.
Two men stood on two mountain peaks and one read the blessings and one read the curses, as Israel was set to enter in, and they all were under that, and their children were under that, forever.
No other nation in the history of the world has been under that Covenant; and no Gentile nation has been under it, and no way has Jesus ever given that power to the Church, to place the world under it. Not even the Church is under it.
Calvin was a tyrannical monster, and his god was a tyrannical monster, not found in the Gospel anywhere.
The gentiles also had the law, it just wasn't in tablet form. The goal was to make one nation from both jews and gentiles.
The whole point of the atonement is restoration, and the jews don't have the corner on that-it was called the everlasting covenant in old covenant theology. The Jew covenants were considered to be only moments in an absolute covenant made within the godhead and that covenant was extended to all people-say the announcement of christ's birth would figure in it. God created existence with time so all had to be worked out in time.
The Jewish religion exhausted itself as a moralistic or ethical religion and changed at the birth-god wanted love not sacrifice and that was always the intent.
.
Calvin did not figure into the "sacred books" as a character, so the comparisons are inane, we would need books that had him written in and psalms and such, along with details of god's interaction with him. That was ended long before Calvin came around just as you ain't in any of it-so what? What you are doing is attempting to write this in about a man you are over 500 years removed from without "sacred" scripture.
If Calvin's god (notice how today everyone says my god is, does, etc, god is his own thing, a thing in itself, unknown to all as all things, and only known if it presents itself, all else is your interpretation, and believe me, I see no reason to believe anyone at the data forum, have any of you been on Ophra?) is a tyrannical monster, if you can read his theology and say this, then the god of the bible is one or your god is an illusion. The word idea is very close to idol, idol is a simulation, the better the simulation the more it resembles the true, and that is why the christian church in all its manifestations is the most dangerous place to seek god because it is closest-but then the interest for a thinking mind is always at this border territory.
The gentiles also had the law, it just wasn't in tablet form. The goal was to make one nation from both jews and gentiles.
The whole point of the atonement is restoration, and the jews don't have the corner on that-it was called the everlasting covenant in old covenant theology. The Jew covenants were considered to be only moments in an absolute covenant made within the godhead and that covenant was extended to all people-say the announcement of christ's birth would figure in it. God created existence with time so all had to be worked out in time.
The Jewish religion exhausted itself as a moralistic or ethical religion and changed at the birth-god wanted love not sacrifice and that was always the intent.
.
Calvin did not figure into the "sacred books" as a character, so the comparisons are inane, we would need books that had him written in and psalms and such, along with details of god's interaction with him. That was ended long before Calvin came around just as you ain't in any of it-so what? What you are doing is attempting to write this in about a man you are over 500 years removed from without "sacred" scripture.
If Calvin's god (notice how today everyone says my god is, does, etc, god is his own thing, a thing in itself, unknown to all as all things, and only known if it presents itself, all else is your interpretation, and believe me, I see no reason to believe anyone at the data forum, have any of you been on Ophra?) is a tyrannical monster, if you can read his theology and say this, then the god of the bible is one or your god is an illusion. The word idea is very close to idol, idol is a simulation, the better the simulation the more it resembles the true, and that is why the christian church in all its manifestations is the most dangerous place to seek god because it is closest-but then the interest for a thinking mind is always at this border territory.
Allen, I detect some generiousity in your comments. I'm intrigued by you. But you said you see no reason to believe anyone on this forum. What are you looking for to believe from this forum?
If you reason and logic is as straightforward as you make it to be then can I boldly reason at least as boldly that you have that in Calvin's day that he was indeed reasoned to be an exhalted figure that is not esteemed on him today? And if he was so esteemed to be such an exhalted figure at his time that we should find out an even louder condemnation of the atrocity that came upon those he fended for. But where is that noise? Where is that tone? What did Calvin do in the wake of what happened to SERVETUS to condemn such an act? Give us something to re-write the record correctly if your so passionate about his teaching.
I also want to ask you straight forward - do you adhere or at leave believe in all of Calvin's views? (actually I believe that belief is to adhere but to use the modern interpretation I separated it - call it etymology, if you will, of the word belief).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
