Let's try an analog:
The year is 313 AD. Christianity would be legalized that same year. 50 years ago, Diocletian gave the fledgling church the worst persecution she had endured to date, and one yet to be paralleled. Bibles were outlawed on pain of death. Under the pressure, some cracked and handed over their contraband Bibles in hopes of alleviating the persecution. These quslings were known as "traditors," and many rejected them as Christians. Unfortunately, many were bishops.
In 311 AD, Caecilian is ordained the Bishop of Carthage. He himself was not a traditor, but the bishop that had appointed him was, and thus, he was considered tainted by a segment of the Carthaginian church. Accordingly, these dissidents ordained Donatus as their bishop, arguing that the purity of the church and church offices was at stake, and (since sacramentalism had already prevailed early on) thus, the efficacy of the sacraments was in question.
Augustine, following the line of argument proposed by Stephen, the bishop of Rome, argued that the sacraments were efficacious ex opere operato, that is, they were efficacious in and of themselves, and not dependant upon the moral status of the bishop.
Augustine, however, could not win this argument -- the Donatists would not submit to what he saw as clear and incontravertible logic and reason, so he convinced the Emperor to have the Roman army burn down the Donatist churches, and in 412, the emperor outlawed the Donatist beliefs and exiled them. Augustine's justification of this was from Lu. 14:23, the parable where the master tells his servants to, "Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled." Augustine saw here his mandate to use force to convert people and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy.
Now, in part due to our heritage of democracy, we understand this to be unscriptural -- that the Christian leadership model is not the sword, but the basin and the towel. But the question we must ask -- if Augustine, Calvin, whoever made a mistake like this-- does it automatically disqualify their theology? Was Augustine wrong when he debunked Pelagius' rejection of original sin? That has been the orthodox Christian doctrine, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or Catholic ever since Augustine. Do we automatically disqualify what he taught because he made a mistake, and believed force was a legitimate means of church discipline? I would think not.
This is known by debaters as a classic fallacy. Ad hominem attacks enflame the passions of an observer, and might pursuade the uncritical thinker, but they do not prove or disprove anything. All recounting the sagas of Augustine and the Dontatists or Calvin and Severtus can prove is that Augustine and Calvin were imperfect men -- something they themselves would have been the first to admit if asked. The execution of Severtus, scandalous though it might be (though Jean Chauvin has done a good job of putting forward a reasonable explanation of why it might not have been quite so egregious as one often hears), is ultimately irrelevant to the central question: is the will of man held inviolate, or does God work all things accordint to the counsel of His will.
FTD: I urge you to reconsider your tactics: you can be a better debater than this. Please try to do so.
Rather, Augustine saw here a mandate to return wayward Catholics to the fold and uphold Canon Law and their lawful oaths.
No, not necessarily, but one would certainly have to question the wisdom of adopting the name of someone who would do such a thing as a description of your theology. To proudly claim that you are a "swarming Calvinist" in light of the fact that this man may have been guilty of the worst kind of blasphemy -- to have a man killed in the name of Christ for -- among other things-- having the gall to suggest that infant baptism is an invention of the devil. (Which, of course IT IS!).
Even if I subscribed to the doctrinal beliefs of Calvin, I certainly would never associate myself with the name of a man of somewhat questionable character, especially if that person went to his grave insisting that he had done nothing wrong.
Seems to me that if one follows the doctrines of Calvinism which teach that no man can possibly understand spiritual things unless he is an "elect", the fact that Calvin or Augustine or any of these theologians had a checkered history and engaged in what could arguably be called murder -- would, in my mind, seem to disqualify their theology. If by their actions and the fruit of their lives there is empirical evidence that they are not godly men, then how can we be assured that their theology is correct? You simply can't.
If you are a Calvinist and you believe that the reprobates cannot understand the first thing about spiritual things, then you would have to reject the teachings of Calvin if you believed him to be a reprobate.
Perhaps that explains the somewhat blind and apologetic (everybody did it back then) way in which Calvinists defend the objectively wicked actions of Calvin and the reformists in Geneva. If these men were reprobates, then the whole house of cards falls. So in essence the doctrines of Calvinism stand or fall on the character of Calvin himself. If he was not elect, then none of the theological conclusions he reached could possibly be considered valid -- unless he plagerized them from someone who actually was elect.
BTW it is not a "mistake" to have a man exterminated for disagreeing with your theology. It is a sin.
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.