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).

[af_vet_1981]

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.

Oh, can't we all just feel the love of Calvinism and the Reformation ... how very kind of him ...

[raynearhood]

I'll answer your series of arguments, but this is my last stab at this subject with you. It's flat out absurd.

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.

No, I consistently said that Servetus was found guilty of a crime (that he committed) under the law, that crime was punishable by death, thus his killing was an execution, not murder.

No comparison can be honestly drawn to the evil of abortion. You are being intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise. As well as being dishonest in assigning a position to me that I just flat out denied.

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

Fine, Pilate ordered... it doesn't change the fact that Jesus was guilty of nothing - which Pilate admitted - and Servetus was guilty of heresy.

Oh, can't we all just feel the love of Calvinism and the Reformation ... how very kind of him ...

Your argument was, "John Calvin who manipulated the torture and murder of Michael Servetus." I provided proof he didn't. Your retort has nothing to do with anything.

Classic deception technique though. Provide evidence... have that evidence disproved... resort to attacking the character of a group of people (in this case Reformed folk) and hope the accusation sticks. Bravo. Ad hominem attacks can manifest is so many ways, wouldn't you agree?

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

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

af_vet: 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.

I have no clue how to parse out what you are saying here. Are you arguing that Servetus was a Christian despite the fact that he was an anti-trinitarian heretic that blasphemed God and worship a false Christ that he assigned the same name as the true Christ? Or are you saying that fighting between "sects" occured because 16th century Christendom was trying to supress heresies like Servetus' heresy? Or are you saying that the reformers and modern reformed Christians should "reform" and accept heresies? You lost me on this one.

You know what? Don't answer any of those. Your answers won't satisfy me. You are defending a heretic for one of two reasons. Either you hold to the same heresy, and are no Christian; or, you will say anything to prove your point, even if that means taking the side of a heresy.

Either way, your defense of Servetus is moot.