John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

Christian Telegraph ^

[PieterCasparzen]

The point of this article is the foundations of out Republic were first put forth in Geneva.

Largely. Of course, influences on their thoughts goes back in time from there. William of Ockham questioned Papal infallibility in the 1300's. Though William's influence on science is quite astounding, of course, secular school texts make no mention of the fact that he was a theologian, robbing students of a true picture of his works. All theologians stand on intellectual shoulders who have gone before them. This is what is fascinating about the Reformation, IMHO, it arguably spanned from at least as early as around the 1200's to the 1600-1700's. Also - there were numerous influential contemporaries from around the time of Calvin, of course, and the "Calvinism" label . Certainly, however, Calvin's elucidation of Biblical doctrine was a definitive stepping stone on the progression towards America. The Reformed doctrinal view of Scripture and the Geneva Bible were what was brought to America by the Pilgrims and, for several decades, ships of more Reformed settlers from Holland, France, Scotland, etc. Documentation of these passages is available online if one searches a bit; they did happen and they were mostly filled with Reformed Christians. The unscriptural Christmas and Easter holidays were largely unobserved in those early years in America, since the only holy days observed were the 52 Lord's days every year. Of course, some people today are of the belief that about all the Pilgrims and Puritans did every day was burn witches, but actually most of this "history" comes from the influence of the 1952 Arthur Miller play, "The Crucible", which has done a lot to spread false ideas throughout our secular humanist educational system and culture; it's been made into several films and shows (obviously not the place to go when seeking correct Biblical doctrine). In truth, it has grossly distorted many people's view of that time in history as well as Biblical doctrine.

The fact is that any nastiness conducted by the leaders of Geneva were learned from Rome

Ideas of criminal justice - in general - were much more strict than they are today. This is why, IMHO, we need to put on our 1500's glasses on if we are to think about burning at the stake, torture, etc. Some points in that regard:

• The Church would try cases of heresy - which, of course, such cases should be tried. However, the Christian New Testament Church is not given the "power of the sword" to execute heretics. In Galatians 1:8, however, the Christian Church is directed as follows, as the final step in the process of disciplining an unrepentent heretic, to excommunicate them:
  
  8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
  
  Therefore, any instance of a Church executing a death sentence a sinful overstepping of Church authority by those persons who did so, which resulted in the unlawful killing of the person convicted. Viewed in light of the death penalty as a regular course of civil government justice in that day, however, there simply was no general "anti-death-penalty" "movement" such as we have today. Scripture calls for the death penalty is called for in certain situations, and there was public support of such civil laws conforming to Biblical law in those days. There undoubtedly were individuals, however, who would disagree with individual verdicts, even as many verdicts of well-known murderers were undoubtedly widely seen as justice well served.
• The Biblical moral law does provide for civil penalties for certain sins, i.e., in an explicitly Christian nation outright idolatry is a capital offense:
  Leviticus 24
  "16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
• We know that the highest reward is to die in the name of Christ. The death of one who dies for Christ's sake, e.g., for not recanting their truthful testimony or truthful doctrine, is something that glorifies God. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up the specific verses which support these statements. When one bears in mind that all things happen according to God's purpose, looking back on the difficult parts of the Reformation, one is comforted by that fact.
• We must remember that self-defense is Biblical. If true believers are living in a land that persecutes them, they are called upon to defend themselves, which includes overcoming their enemies. Numerous Psalms ask God for help in overcoming one's enemies (very often today people confuse the Sermon on the Mount teachings and wrongly conclude that self-defense is unscriptural). So I take all history of what turned into wars and mob violence with a grain of salt, knowing that most anyone back in those days, being typically at least professing Christians in their own mind, would know that they could fight a battle if necessary to defend themselves. The initial wrong would be belief in wrong doctrine, not trying to defend oneself (I think some might find this confusing); the side which is theologically wrong is then also wrongly physically attacking the other side. If every congregation's elders had simply excommunicated heretics and let it go at that, they would have been doing the "right thing". But I'm "Monday morning quarterbacking" hundreds of years later when I say this. One could also argue that American Churches today are making a similar mistake, but in the opposite direction of being too lenient - and basically not excommunicating heretics. Before I start making a "show" of pointing out the shortcomings of clergy hundreds of years ago, perhaps I should start pointing fingers at what the current generation right here in America is doing to fall woefully short of God's glory. Instead of "railing" against past wrongs, massacres, etc., hopefully our study of history will ultimately yield spiritual fruit.

[Cronos]

Fairy tales, Cronos?

yes, BD, as I said these are a Fairly common occurence in BD's posts. I put it down to lack of reading of history and in other cases, lack of reading of the Bible. ....

[Cronos]

“kill all Lutherans found in Florida.” -— duuuuh.... the Huguenots, the founders of apartheid were Calvinists. For that matter both are quite different from your Baptist ilk....

[Cronos]

You actually made a post that equated Calvinists with jihadis.

Actually I didn't -- I replied to BD saying Now if you want to talk about how Calvinists were like Jihadis -- If BD's post compares Calvinists to Jihadis that up, it's BD's problem, not mine.

[Cronos]

You've made all sorts of accusations on this thread which, to me, distort the history of my own ancestry as well as America's history. -- None are accusations against your or my ancestry. There are facts about the Huguenots that I've posted:

• They were tolerated by the French kings initially
• they attacked Churches a burst of iconoclasm
• they supported the losing side in a civil war
• They attempted to kidnap a French prince

all facts

[Cronos]

On this thread it appears that you desire to live in a country that is totally Roman Catholic, that all non-Roman Catholic Christians represent an evil scourge to be eliminated from America.

"you desire" -- that's against the Forum rules.

and also false btw, it would be boring without a difference in opinion

[Cronos]

On this thread it appears that you desire to live in a country that is totally Roman Catholic, that all non-Roman Catholic Christians represent an evil scourge to be eliminated from America.

"you desire" -- that's against the Forum rules.

and also false btw, it would be boring without a difference in opinio

[Cronos]

Clearly the framers sought to avoid the upheaval that happened in Europe when government and Church were one and the same, so the Constitution was written such that the Church can not usurp the government's role in society and the government can not usurp that of the Church.

And that goes against Calvinism which in the Nederlands and in Geneva also had a close tie-in between Church and State -- especially in Calvin's police state. Hence the basic premise of this article that "john Calvin was a founding father" is laughable...

[Cronos]

I refrain from berating good. also note that quite possibly in your ancestry and mine there were folks on both sides of the theological divide.

The entire concept of Huguenots being poor, persecuted is not correct -- nearly half of the French aristocracy were Huguenots as were much of the industrialists. They also fought on one side of a civil war, which they lost

What happened to losers of a civil war in the middle ages? They were killed. Whether they were Catholics in England or Huguenots in France or various folks in Catholic Spain or various folks in Germany or Russia etc. -- if you are part of a group that tosses it's hat on one side of a political civil war, then, if your side loses the war, it loses it's life

If the Huguenots won inFrance, Catholics would have been persecuted, just as they were in England -- and it would be a mixture of political and religious.

[Cronos]

The point of this article is the foundations of out Republic were first put forth in Geneva. and that premise is wrong. The foundations of the Republic were clearly based on Graeco-Roman republicanism -- hence even the term Senate.

Calvin's police state was not a foundation of the US, neither was Cromwell's dictatorship

[Cronos]

Titanites Through the discussions I have never denied there was a religious component to what happened. However, religion was not the primary factor.

Exactly -- and BD's posts consistently were incorrectly putting religion as the primary factor.

This was also no "massacre" as the opposing froggies were armed and this was an attack on a fort and non-combatants were spared.

[Cronos]

the King wanted the French removed from Florida. And the evidence I’ve posted supports that. To spin this as a Catholic massacre against humble Huguenots simply building a church in Florida is misleading, at best. All I’ve been doing is refuting this deception. I can’t help it if that messes with your preconceived ideas.

Exactly correct again. This idea of Huguenots as poor defenseless folks is wrong. They fought and would have been as merciless to Catholics (evidence: Cromwell's genocides) as was done to them. They were harsh times and politics tied in heavily

[Cronos]

In America, people are free to form their own Churches and congregations according to their conscience. Clearly the framers sought to avoid the upheaval that happened in Europe when government and Church were one and the same

And at the same time that America was doing this, another country, which 300 years previously had already guaranteed this freedom was being snuffed out --> don't think the US was the first to guarantee this. The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth from the time of it's union in 1389 had a mix of religions -- Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Moslem Tartars and later on Lutherans and Calvinists and Polish Brethern (Unitarians) were free to choose their own religion and even proselytize.

Just because Western Europe was tying in religion to state doesn't mean one should brush all of Europe with the same broad brush.

For that matter, the Swiss confederation was tolerant, but later, in the 1800s the non-Catholic counties went to war against the Catholics ones in the Sonderbund war "The Radical Party and liberals made up of urban bourgeoisie and burghers, which were strong in the largely Protestant cantons, obtained the majority in the Federal Diet in the early 1840s.....they had taken measures against the Catholic Church such as the closure of monasteries and convents in Aargau in 1841,[

The "reformed" cantons wanted a strong centralized government while the Catholic ones wanted the old dec-centralized structure. To see it as just religious would be simple, but one must also note that the Catholic cantons were also the predominantly agricultural cantons (just as our mid-western states now oppose centralization)

The non-catholic counties won and this being 1848, there were no medieval massacres but punitive measures put on the catholic counties...

[BlueDragon]

Actually, you did introduce comparison of the Huguenots in France to Moslems, in your own post #97, here in your own words;

They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.

to which I replied that if you wished to open the discussion to that sort of thing, (as that was only one of seemingly dozens of charges hurled at trying to blame Menedez's summary executions on the victims of those murders) I invited you to start another thread.

It was not I who made the initial comparison, nor later endorsed such wordage. I merely addressed the comparison briefly.

To now here use my own reply to that sort of idea, which included in my own words; "If you wish to speak of possible parallels" grotesquely twisted into meaning I said "Calvinists are like Jihadis" or even agreed with such a proposition, reveals nothing of a statement of mine own, but one entirely of your own making, highlighting if not further clarifying your very own previously expressed sentiments.

[Cronos]

Yes, I compared them to the Moslems increasing in present-day France, however, YOU, in YOUR post said 16th century French Protestants and today's Islamists -- not the same thing. I compared the growth of Huguenots then to similar growing groups in France today.

If you want to compare Protestants to Islamist jihadis, that's your choice.

[Cronos]

oh and do read some history. As pointed out before, not reading the Bible or history can lead to such errors as in your posts. Titanites was kind enough to point these out — France and Spain at war and a spanish commander attacked a french fort and defeated them. Not nice, but definitely not simply due to religion

[Religion Moderator]

The "you desire" would be "making it personal" because it is mind reading. However, because he preceded it with "it appears" - i.e. "it appears you desire" - it was an expression of his own mind and not a reading of yours.

Another example, "you are ignorant" would be "making it personal" but "evidently, you are ignorant" would not. Another, "you are a heretic" would be "making it personal" but "it appears you are a heretic" would not.

However, if the thread is redirected from the issues to individual Freepers then that would be "making it personal."

PieterCasparzen, click here for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.

[Cronos]

However, because he preceded it with "it appears" - i.e. "it appears you desire" - it was an expression of his own mind and not a reading of yours.

Good to note...

[BlueDragon]

France and Spain were not at war at the time, which was acknowledged and agreed upon by Menendez [aka Meledez] and Rebault in the historical account provided by the chaplain of the expedition in his own telling of the conversation which ensued just prior to the slaughters at Matanzas. Here again;

"...The Frenchmen then begged the Adelantado to let his people remain with him until he could furnish them with ships and provisions to take them back to France, as there was then no war between the two nations, and the Kings of France and Spain were friends and brothers. The Adelantado replied that this was true, but that, as they were Lutherans, he looked upon them as enemies, and would wage war against them with fire and sword, whether on sea or land, for the King; "as I have come here to establish the Holy Roman Catholic faith in Florida. But if you will surrender yourselves and arms, and trust to my mercy, you may do so, and I will act towards you as God may prompt me; otherwise, do as you please, for I will not make any truces or treaties with you."

The words coming from the mouths of who did the deeds, [spoken of by witnesses, which narratives include also much finer detail of the events] tell us the real order of things.

That Philip II some span of years later sent the Spanish Armada to both England & France, for stated reasons of "restoring Catholicism", doesn't help those advocating that interests of commerce and state were primary, and the intertwined religious differences issues minor.

One indisputable FACT of the matter is that, separate from Menendez's successful attack on Ft. Caroline, with it's gruesome signage declaring Not as Frenchmen but as heretics the rest of those executed later at Matanzas had been taken under a negotiated surrender! THAT is why it was called a "slaughter", and why it was so shocking.

Let's try to agree on one point at a time, shall we?

[Gamecock]

**”John Adams, America’s second president, agreed with this sentiment and issued this pointed charge: ‘Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much respect.”**