Posted on 07/16/2003 4:00:43 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
I am certain he would have threatened her with eternal damnation had she opposed the baptism of his infant children.
If they were actually following the principles laid out in the New Testament, (Sola Scriptura), the Reformers would have advocated tolerance, not persecution.
They are an example of what happens when State and Church are combined, as some still advocate (Dominion Theology)
In this regard, the Anglican church is not without blood on its hands also.
Those who forget the lessons of history are bound to repeat its mistakes.
I see then our tactics are working! :>)
I posted an article by an historical figure, so whats the beef?
Did not most if not all the Reformers condone what was done to Servetus?
Was not that very action defended on these threads?
The spirit of Geneva lives on, no less then the spirit of Rome.
I guess you have not been following the debate.
It was I who stated that what Calvin did (or had done) to Servetus did not effect the issue of his theology.
This was in response to Dr.Steves questioning of R.B.Thiemes personal life.
I asked him what that had to do with his theology, a question which he never answered by the way.
I brought up Calvin/Servetus as an example of just what you are saying, that a mans sins do not effect what he taught.
Dr. Steve then denied that Calvin was responsible for the murder of Servetus calling me a liar and retracting that to a liabler.
OP jumps in and states that Servetus was a radical revolutionary along the lines of the Rosenbergs and thus Servetus deserved what he got.
This post by Knox only was to show that Servetus was convicted for one thing, heresy, pure and simple.
Funny how it is not 'beneath' a Calvinist to deny that Calvin was responsible for the death of not only Servetus, but others in Geneva.
Funny, how it is not 'beneath' a Calvinist to defend the burning at the stake of a man who pleaded for mercy.
Where were the cries of outrage from the Calvinist 'brethren' when Dr. Steve called me a liar and a liabler for stating an historical fact.
Where the honest Calvinists when OP was stating that Servetus deserved what he got!
Where were the objective Calvinists when I was asking why Dr. Steve was asking about a believers personal life and what that had to do with his theology.
Where are the Calvinist brethren when a brother in Christ is being attacked as a tare, an unbeliever etc.
When your Reformed history is put out for the world to see, the beatings, the hangings and the burnings then comes the outrage!
Knox's tirade shows that if the Reformed churches had had as much power as Rome, they would have behaved no differently.
The silence of the Calvinists on these threads when fellow believers are vilified is proof that they would sit quietly by while it happened.
I guess you would have to throw us in piece by piece, but hey, it is for the glory of God-right?
Amen!
This post is also for you also, 'mom'!
The true comfort of Calvinism, the whip, the sword and the stake. This is beneath you, ftD,
Funny how it is not 'beneath' a Calvinist to deny that Calvin was responsible for the death of not only Servetus, but others in Geneva.
Funny, how it is not 'beneath' a Calvinist to defend the burning at the stake of a man who pleaded for mercy.
Where were the cries of outrage from the Calvinist 'brethren' when Dr. Steve called me a liar and a liabler for stating an historical fact.
Where the honest Calvinists when OP was stating that Servetus deserved what he got!
Where were the objective Calvinists when I was asking why Dr. Steve was asking about a believers personal life and what that had to do with his theology.
Where are the Calvinist brethren when a brother in Christ is being attacked as a tare, an unbeliever etc.
When your Reformed history is put out for the world to see, the beatings, the hangings and the burnings then comes the outrage!
Knox's tirade shows that if the Reformed churches had had as much power as Rome, they would have behaved no differently.
The silence of the Calvinists on these threads when fellow believers are vilified is proof that they would sit quietly by while it happened.
Hey, if Dr. Steve and OP had stopped right there, we would not have any problem.
They did not, they either denied Calvins role or that it was wrong.
Note the appeal to the 'times', as if the New Testament was not in existence.
Also, Calvins plea for the sword was so the execution would be seen as a civil one not a religious one.
Some have tried to make something of the fact that, late inthe trial of Servetus, Calvin put forth an effort to have the man destroyed in some other way than by fire. However the fact is that Calvin was not opposed to exterminatio in the case of Servetus, merely against its proposed mode. Death by fire had been the punishment for heretics for more then a millennium, and Calvin realizing that death for heresy was becoming questionable in the public mind, would have preferred execution by a means in which the sedition aspect rather then the heresy aspect of the man's deliction would stand out. In Calvins mind, the one still implied the other-heresy implied sedition(The Anatomy of a Hybrid, Leonard Verduin, p.207,cited in Vance, The Other Side, p.99)
So, it was not from any act of mercy that he pleaded for the sword.
It was Calvins actions that resulted in Servetus getting picked up by the Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne and being sentenced to death there in the first place.
But this post is not on Calvin but on another great Reformer, Knox, who supported the action, as did other posters on these threads.
There are some honest Calvinists historians who have condemned the action.
When all is understood, admirers of Calvin must still look upon it with shame McNeil,The History and Character of Calvinism p.347
In our judgement Calvin was guilty of sin (Bratt,The life and Teachings of Calvin
There can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time,and after the event, explicitly approved and defended the putting him to death, and assumed the responsiblity of the transaction (Cummingham,The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation pp.316-317) cited in Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p.99)
Such honesty you will not find among the Calvinists on these threads (with one or two exceptions)
For nearly a millenium, force had been the guarrantor of orthodoxy in the Western church. (That was the other reason why I cited the Donatist affair; it set the precedent.) It was the accepted modus vivendi in the medieval mind -- heretics deserved to die because they threatened the integrity of the church and of the state. It was nearly universally held.
We now realize that that belief was wrong. They should have known it, but most, including many serious Christians, unfortunately did not. It may be, however, that the only reason why we are able to see that in Scripture is because we grew up in a relatively libertarian society. The idea of freedom of religion is not a foreign concept to us, so the idea of "compelling" people to come into the Church is repugnant to us. We understand this, not because we are any better or they any worse than we, but rather because of the peculiarities of the time in which we live.
Accordingly, when judging Calvin in the affair of Severtus, we must ask certain questions. Did Severtus have clean hands in the matter? (I believe that to be a resounding "no.") Did Calvin act legally? (Undoubtedly yes). Did Calvin act according to the standards of the day? (Once again, yes). Had Severtus gone to, say, the Vatican or Hamburg rather than Geneva, would the Catholics or Lutherans done the same? (Probably.)
Given all that, while we must judge Calvin's actions as certainly wrong, we shouldn't be too hard on him, and single him out.
If "the Calvinists take over the Baptists", they plan to do nothing whatsoever against the Baptists -- except cordially invite the Anti-Calvinist Baptists (see examples, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) to leave the Baptist Confession.
Seeing as these heretical semi-pelagian "Baptists" so falsely-called were NEVER Old-School, Primitive, Calvinistic, London-Confession Baptists in the First Place.
Which is exactly what is happening now, except that the Anti-Calvinists are not even being asked to leave, they are leaving of their own accord (Jimmy Carter unto his fellow Liberals, and Bill Clinton unto... who knows. Whatever Intern is waiting, I guess).
And why is this so? Because the Calvinists currently "taking over" the Baptist Confession, the Founder's Movement Calvinists who have won the Southern Baptist Presidency, returned to dominance over the Southern Baptist Confession, and who are currently presiding over the exodus of Arminians, Liberals, and other such Theological Satanists from the Southern Baptist Confession... are themselves Baptists.
In fact, they are TRUE Baptists. Old-School Baptists. Primitive Baptists. London-Confession Baptists. Augustinian Style, the Genuine Article, the Original Gangstas.
Not a bunch of "New School", "Free-Will", so-called "baptists", Arminian Dunkin' Donuts who came along in the 17th Century, John Wesley at the Deep-End of the Pool.
And, as God would have it, the Old-School, Primitive, London-Confession Calvinist Baptists ARE WINNING.
Calvinists don't need to "do anything" to Baptists. Baptists are Calvinists. And both Old-School Baptist History, and the steady and uninterrupted conquest of the Founder's Movement Baptists over all anti-calvinist obstacles, proves the case.
You'll never be anything more than an "Immersionist-Arminian", a Dunkin'-Donut Wesleyan.
The BAPTISTS upheld the doctrine of Absolute Predestination against Roman fire and sword for centuries on end.
You, my rather-unimpressive friend, are no Baptist.
Well, while I agree with your above statement, it is my understanding that Thieme is accused of abusing his wife, or something like that. That would disqualify him from the ministry, according to I Tim. 3.
(IT is debatable whether Calvin's pursuit of the execution of Calvin would....)
El wrongo, PM.
We are commanded to judge them (or any prophetic wannabe) on their doctrine (Deut 13) and prophetic success rate (Deut 18).
Where precisely in Scripture do you find this test of "character" you're applying? Chapter and verse, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.