Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

American Vision ^ | March 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

“Calvinism is back,” so says David Van Biema in the March 22, 2009 issue of Time magazine. Calvinism is listed as one of “10 ideas changing the world Right now.” It’s third on the list. When most people hear the word “Calvinism,” they bite down only on the gristle of predestination and then spit out the whole piece of meat. There is much more to Calvinism that is obscured by the misapplied aversion to particular redemption. As a student at Reformed Theological Seminary in the 1970s, I was taught that certain cultural applications flowed from a consistent application of Calvinism. Calvinism is synonymous with a comprehensive biblical world-and-life view. Simply put, I was told that the Bible applies to every area of life. To be a Calvinist is to make biblical application to issues beyond personal salvation (Heb. 5:11–14).

[raynearhood]

Actually, the Creeds were used as yardsticks to help determine which books were included in the NT.

Well, that doesn't seem quite right.

Maybe the Apostle's Creed, which was around in some form since the first century and in the present form since the second. But, not the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. Though I suspect it was a bit more in depth with that.

Among the earliest church fathers in the first and second centuries there was dispute over only a few books (2 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation), though it is likely that some accepted them all, including Origen.

The Nicene Creed as we know it is from 381 and a rewrite of its original. The original is the result of the First Council of Nicea in 325. The council wrote the Creed in response to the Arian heresy, against which Alexander of Alexandria was the leader. The secretary and assistant to Alexander was Athanasius, who, in 367, listed in his Easter Letter the books of the NT as we know them today. In that letter he referred to the books as canonized. It would seem odd that a member of the council that wrote the Nicene Creed (which expresses Scriptural truth) would use the creed to determine which Scriptures fit that truth. And that fourteen years before the Creed is as we know it today.

The councils of Carthage and Hippo reiterated the NT canon that Athanasius listed just twenty years before they occurred.

The Athanasian Creed (the one we're discussing), which was falsley attested to Athanasius, but continues to bear the name of champion against the Arian Heresy (which the creed opposes in its affirmation of the Trinity) didn't show up until sometime in the sixth century.

The councils and synods of the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, as well as their resultant confessions and decrees, were a bit more complicated than to look to creeds alone to affirm canonicity.

[af_vet_1981]

My words: Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural? Everything in both of those creeds is completely Scriptural and describes Scriptural truth. There is nothing in there that the Christian conscience shouldn't be bound to. They both describes true aspects of a true Christian faith.

Yep, and you only asked one question, Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?, to which I answered in the affirmative. I find it ironic discussing a catholic creed in a thread about John Calvin ...

At any rate, back to the topic, Calvin(ism), I'll ask two :

• How can a man responsible and unrepentant for the torture and murder of another Christian be someone to honor or include in heaven ?
• Who is more righteous (or less evil), John Calvin, or a famously talented, creative, and admired musician such as Jerome Garcia who AFAIK never practiced violence against anyone ?

[raynearhood]

to which I answered in the affirmative

and yet failed to explain what isn't Scriptural, what fails to describe Scriptural truth, what fails to describe true aspects of the Christian faith, or to what in it a Christians conscience shouldn't be bound. After all, that is how I described the creed concurrent to the question.

I find it ironic discussing a catholic creed in a thread about John Calvin

The creed predates the Reformation. The thread isn't about John Calvin. Did you read it?

But, why don't we just skirt the question of the Athanasian creed and change the subject?

At any rate, back to the topic, Calvin(ism), I'll ask two

Oh, you did already. Heh.

How can a man responsible and unrepentant for the torture and murder of another Christian be someone to honor or include in heaven ?

You need to study history better. Servetus wasn't murdered any more than a death row inmate gets murdered in a gas chamber. Agree or disagree with the law of the time, it was the law. The penalty for heresy, of which he was found guilty (in more places than in just Geneva btw), was death. Servetus knew what he was getting into. Calvin had warned him not to come to Geneva because he would not be allowed to leave alive.

BTW, did you know that Calvin didn't attend his hearings (a guy named de la Fontaine was the accuser) and wanted Servetus beheaded instead of burned at the stake? Odd thing to be accused hundreds of years after the fact of being the guy that condemned, tortured, and murdered a guy when in fact you took little to no part in what you were accused.

Calvin agreed that Servetus should be killed but lacked the authority, as Sevetus wasn't a citizen of Geneva. It took many canonical councils of other districts to agree with Servestus condemnation before the Geneva Council (the law body over Calvin) accepted the role as executioner. Calvin was chided and denied his request for a "lenient" execution of Servetus by beheading.

As for this: "...murder of another Christian..." Servetus was an antitrinitarian heretic and, by definition, no more a Christian than T.D. Jakes.

Who is more righteous (or less evil), John Calvin, or...Jerome Garcia...?

Well, as far as I know Jerry Garcia never was a Christian, thus never justified, thus never declared righteous by God... soooo... Calvin.

Your retorts and questions are getting silly.

[raynearhood]

Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?....At any rate, back to the topic, Calvin(ism), I'll ask two...


FOOOOCUUUS, FOOOCUUUS, FOCUS.

[topcat54]

I find it ironic discussing a catholic creed in a thread about John Calvin ...

The Church of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, raynearhood, and myself is catholic.

The word "catholic" simply means universal. The early creeds were just that, universal. They were acknowledged as true by the early Church.

[MarkBsnr]

***Well, that doesn’t seem quite right.

Maybe the Apostle’s Creed, which was around in some form since the first century and in the present form since the second. But, not the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. Though I suspect it was a bit more in depth with that.

Among the earliest church fathers in the first and second centuries there was dispute over only a few books (2 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation), though it is likely that some accepted them all, including Origen.***

There was indeed general consensus on most of the NT, but on books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch and Revelation, there was not. After reading some more, I will go as far as to say that the NT and the Nicene Creed developed in concert with each other; the Creed came from the general concensus of the NT and the Creed validates the selection of the NT. The Apostles’ Creed, on the other hand certainly predates the general selection of Scripture.

The Athenasian Creed is a little more murky in its origins. We do find references to it in the early/mid 4th century, so it does come after Nicea, true.

***The Nicene Creed as we know it is from 381 and a rewrite of its original. The original is the result of the First Council of Nicea in 325. The council wrote the Creed in response to the Arian heresy, against which Alexander of Alexandria was the leader. The secretary and assistant to Alexander was Athanasius, who, in 367, listed in his Easter Letter the books of the NT as we know them today. In that letter he referred to the books as canonized. It would seem odd that a member of the council that wrote the Nicene Creed (which expresses Scriptural truth) would use the creed to determine which Scriptures fit that truth. And that fourteen years before the Creed is as we know it today.***

It is not probable that Athenasius wrote the Creed. However, its completeness and its thoroughness makes it certain that it was developed over many years, with considerable input. So its relationship with the first declaration of Canon is certainly tenuous as best, I will admit.

[MarkBsnr]

***The word “catholic” simply means universal. The early creeds were just that, universal. They were acknowledged as true by the early Church.***

The first references to ‘Catholic’ show up in St. Ignatius’ writings ca. 110 AD.

[af_vet_1981]

The Church of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, raynearhood, and myself is catholic.

Just as the churches of Mormons, JWs, Scientologists, and other myriad sects are Christian; after all they claim they are so they must be ...

[af_vet_1981]

and yet failed to explain what isn't Scriptural,

I listed some comments in post 437. In general, when I find something obvious on the surface, I have found explanation doesn't go very far with cults and sects that are already pointed in another direction. Try explaining to Mormons why the BoM isn't Scriptural; it is obvious the BOM is not in the same league as the NT but the exercise is unfruitful unless they are sincere.

The thread isn't about John Calvin. Did you read it?

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses ... Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic ...

No, nothing to do with Calvin in the slightest

You need to study history better. Servetus wasn't murdered any more than a death row inmate gets murdered in a gas chamber. Agree or disagree with the law of the time, it was the law. The penalty for heresy, of which he was found guilty (in more places than in just Geneva btw), was death. Servetus knew what he was getting into. Calvin had warned him not to come to Geneva because he would not be allowed to leave alive.

Calvin promised that he himself would see that he would not leave alive. Therefore Calvin is responsible for the torture and murder. The argument in your comments is the same argument used to justify Jesus' execution. It is ironic to see it pop up again.

Calvin stated of Servetus, when writing to his friend William Farel on 13 February 1546: “ 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 ("Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar").[16]

Calvin was personally responsible for the torture and murder of another Christian. I am sad that yet some other sect/cult shares Calvin's legacy.

Calvin wrote “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.[28]

Obviously there are some sects that share his theological persuasion and it is one reason that a strong separation between religion and the government is necessary to safeguard liberty and promote the general welfare.

[raynearhood]

Calvin promised that he himself would see that he would not leave alive. Therefore Calvin is responsible for the torture and murder.

I didn't say that Calvin wasn't responsible for Servetus' execution. In fact, not only was he responsible for the arrest, but he also wrote many people that he thought it a good thing should Servetus be executed. No, I said Servetus wasn't murdered, he was executed... legally. Like it or not, he broke a law to which the punishment was death.

it is one reason that a strong separation between religion and the government is necessary

Yes, but is that commanded by God? Does the state (say Geneva 17 century) commit murder if there is not the seperation? You call it murder because you don't agree with the law, the ruling, whatever. The execution may have been just, unjust, right, wrong, whatever... but it wasn't murder. Unless Calvin bore false witness against Servetus which led to an unjust execution, then Calvin shared no part in murder.

Personally, I don't agree with the law as it was. But it was what it was and Servetus was subject to it.

The argument in your comments is the same argument used to justify Jesus' execution.

No, Jesus was without guilt. Servetus was not. Interesting, though, that you use the word execution instead of murder.

Calvin was personally responsible for the torture and murder of another Christian.

Servetus gets alot of attention, but he wasn't a Christian, regardless his or his defender's claims.

No, nothing to do with Calvin in the slightest

Sarcasm noted. However, the article was about "old Calvinism" v. "New Calvinism" and things that the modern Reformed believer should pay attention to. Cursory references to John Calvin doesn't make the article about him.

I listed some comments in post 437.

Comments are fine. I read your comments. You attached your impression and opinion to the end of a couple pieces of the creed w/o making a Biblical argument.

when I find something obvious on the surface, I have found explanation doesn't go very far with cults and sects that are already pointed in another direction.

Uh-huh. Riiight. I'm a Reformed Baptist. Continue beyond the surface, please.

[topcat54]

Just as the churches of ...

Obviously you fail to grasp the difference. Without the creeds and testimony of the early Church regarding the truth of Scripture, no church would be safe from heretics and apostates on fundamental matter like the nature of the Godhead or the person and work of Christ.

“No creed but Christ” churches are sitting ducks. Modalists, Arians, tritheists, etc just love those folks.

[MarkBsnr]

***Without the creeds and testimony of the early Church regarding the truth of Scripture, no church would be safe from heretics and apostates on fundamental matter like the nature of the Godhead or the person and work of Christ.

“No creed but Christ” churches are sitting ducks. Modalists, Arians, tritheists, etc just love those folks.***

Applause. You have it exactly correct.

Every major and most minor heresies have come from snippets of Scripture; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are thorough and exact in their Scriptural proofs. They do, as you have indicated, ignored the Creeds and the Church in their formulation of their own theology and have come up with a non Christian faith based on the Bible.

Many of the ‘Christian’ faiths (especially some of the newer nondenominationals) also do this to a lesser extent, but still they vary from the Creeds and the Church to such a severe extent that their faith is only a twisted shadow of the faith of the Church.

Every day we have another tent preacher with a slightly different warp of Scripture hanging up a shingle on a mallfront and pulling in the rubes.

[HarleyD]

The world would be a lot closer to heaven if the world read and understood Scripture as Calvin did.

Hey!!! I just told that to a Mormon who mistakenly knocked on my door a couple of days ago. He inadvertently made the mistake of starting to talk about our "free will". Ohhhhhhh...for the next two hours we went round and round. He gave me a small tract and I encouraged him to read John Calvin's Institutes.

[af_vet_1981]

no church would be safe from heretics and apostates

Hmmm, So, after they abandoned the Catholic Church, they tortured and murdered those that they considered heretics and apostates; reminds me of fanatical Islam; subsequent to the Reformation and its bloody history, there are almost 38,000 sects in the religion called Christianity now ...

[af_vet_1981]

No, I said Servetus wasn't murdered, he was executed... legally. Like it or not, he broke a law to which the punishment was death.

The same was claimed about Jesus.

You call it murder because you don't agree with the law, the ruling, whatever. The execution may have been just, unjust, right, wrong, whatever... but it wasn't murder.

So you hold that abortion is not morally murder because it is legal. Do you also consider the mass executions of Jews by the German nation (largely comprised of Christian sects) was also legal ?

No, Jesus was without guilt. Servetus was not. Interesting, though, that you use the word execution instead of murder.

You introduced the word execution. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument. The Roman governor, Pilate, had Jesus tortured and crucified for much the same reason, and you agree that those who helped condemn and convict him were guilty as well. He was tortured. He was murdered. He was executed, legally according to the Roman law that tortured and crucified myriads of other Jews and Gentiles.

Uh-huh. Riiight. I'm a Reformed Baptist. Continue beyond the surface, please.

Perhaps that makes 38,001 sects.

[af_vet_1981]

Well, as far as I know Jerry Garcia never was a Christian, thus never justified, thus never declared righteous by God... soooo... Calvin.

Jerome Garcia was baptized a Roman Catholic. He has no blood on his hands like John Calvin who manipulated the torture and murder of Michael Servetus, whose dying words were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.".

[raynearhood]

The same was claimed about Jesus.

First of all, no, it wasn't.

Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him. Therefore I will punish Him and release Him." [Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.]

But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!" And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him." But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will. - Luke 23:13-25

Jesus was guilty of nothing. Pilate allowed His crucifixion to assuage the insistence of the Jews and delivered Jesus to their will. Servetus was guilty of heresy and received the punishment of his guilt under the law of the time.

It may interest you to know that Servetus was imprisoned and condemned to death by slow burning at the stake by the Catholic Church in Vienne for the same heresy he recieved the penalty of death in Geneva. But, he escaped and hid under an assumed name.

So you hold that abortion is not morally murder because it is legal.

Geez, man! Apples and oranges. Servetus committed a crime that was punishable by death. Killing innocent children is murder!

Do you also consider the mass executions of Jews by the German nation (largely comprised of Christian sects) was also legal?

Are you asking if I considered it morally right, or if I consider it legal? The answer is neither.

Your questions are ridiculous and your attempts at attacking my argument are abhorrent! You have officially slipped into an absurd argument based upon fallacy.

The Roman governor, Pilate, had Jesus tortured and crucified for much the same reason

So, your saying that the Jewish rulers brought Jesus before the Roman courts because Jesus was spreading the anti-trinitarian heresy? Or are you saying that Servetus was charged with rightly claiming to be God?

, and you agree that those who helped condemn and convict him

Jesus was never convicted of anything. He commited no crime of which to be convicted.

were guilty as well. He was tortured. He was murdered. He was executed, legally according to the Roman law that tortured and crucified myriads of other Jews and Gentiles.

Again, wrong! See above.

Perhaps that makes 38,001 sects.

You must of missed reply 445 addressed to you.

Jerome Garcia was baptized a Roman Catholic.

So? So was I, but I'm no Roman Catholic. Wouldn't you agree?

He has no blood on his hands like John Calvin who manipulated the torture and murder of Michael Servetus

Read the actual history besides the New Advent treatment of it!!! I covered it a bit here. Calvin didn't take part in the trial. Calvin had no authority to execute, only the Geneva Council held that authority. Calvin wanted Servetus' sentence to be carried out by beheading, not burning. Calvin wrote of Servetus, a week after his capture:

I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.

whose dying words were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."

Servetus cried out to a false Jesus, son of a false god. He was a heretic. He was not a Christian.

[af_vet_1981]

So you hold that abortion is not morally murder because it is legal. Geez, man! Apples and oranges. Servetus committed a crime that was punishable by death. Killing innocent children is murder!

Not intellectually honest; you already established your argument with Michael Servetus that if killing him is according to the law, it is not murder. Abortion is legal; therefore by your definition it cannot be murder.

[af_vet_1981]

whose dying words were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me." Servetus cried out to a false Jesus, son of a false god. He was a heretic. He was not a Christian.

Your argument is absurd on its face. No wonder the wars among the thousands of sects that call themselves Christian are responsible for so much bloodshed in history. There is no reforming it.

[af_vet_1981]

Pilate allowed His crucifixion

Pilated ordered his torture and crucifixion. Who do you think had the authority ? Denial, denial, denial ...