Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
You wrote: "The best that the adversaries of Calvinism can do is attack John Calvin, the man."
Honestly is anything else necessary? Christ founded our Church. He was perfect. Calvin founded your Church and he was far from perfect. Christ gave us God-given theology. You have Calvin's. Does that not matter?
"Because you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger."
No, I attack the source of the message showing that the flaws of the messanger should make any man think twice about the veracity of the message.
"This is the oldest and most transparent trick of Satan (The Adversary)."
So if Satan founded your sect would I not be allowed to talk about his flaws as well? LOL!
"Let's summarize your accusations:
1) John Calvin had Servetus executed.
2) John Calvin was sodomized."
No. I never said Calvin was sodomized. I posted evidence that suggests he was a sodomite. When can be a sodomite by choice whereas being "sodomized" usually indicated tat someone forced you.
"Therefore: John Calvin is a sinner. Everything he wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner."
Yes.
"But of course you know that Saint Paul had Saint Stephen executed."
No, he did not. He had no authority to do so. Paul's authority was about Damascus' Jews who had converted to the Way. He had no authority in Jerusalem.
"Do you therefore assert that everything Saint Paul wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner?"
The author of Paul's letters was God. Paul was more than an instrument, but less than the true author. You do realize that Paul's letters were actually written by God (who is sinless) through Paul (who was a sinner) correct? Again, you seem very confused about scripture.
"Why do you not contest the doctrines of Calvinism instead of misdirecting our attention to John Calvin, the man?"
Please show me where killing Servetus was a doctrine of Calvinists. I was talking about the actions of Calvin. I was not arguing over his doctrines. I see no reason to talk about Calvin’s doctrines when I am talking about his actions as a man.
“Answer: Because you cannot contest the doctrines of Calvinism.”
Yes, actually I can. I just see no point in doing so in a thread where the point became how Calvin worked to have Servetus killed.
“You believe that by attacking John Calvin, the man, you are being clever.”
No, I believe that telling the truth about Calvin will show the truth about Calvin. That was my intention and I have succeeded.
“You are not being clever.”
I wasn’t trying to be clever so I have apparently succeeded again. Thanks for letting me know that I am not doing what I wasn’t trying to do.
“You are being transparent and foolish.”
I am absolutely being transparent. I am telling the truth about Calvin and Servetus. That is exactly what I wanted to do. I am not being foolish. I have not tried to be either.
“Repent!”
Already did – that’s why I am not a Calvinist.
Oh, please. Your church dates no earlier to that St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, and arguably no earlier than the Catholic/Orthodox Schism of 1054. Your doctrine has certainly evolved over the years. This "only church dating to the Apostles" bit is exhausting. Certainly the Orthodox could give y'all a run for your money for being traceable to the Apostles, and they - unlike the Roman Catholic Church - have had a largely static body of theology since the Early Church Fathers.
I posted evidence that suggests he was a sodomite.
You most certainly did not. You posted an unsubstantiated allegation that someone, once upon a time, ran into rumors that he was homosexual. Show me some documentary evidence. Put up, or shut up.
Furthermore, this homosexuality charge is irrelevant. What he did in his pre-conversion life no more disqualifies him as a Christian theologian than Augustine's playboy days disqualify the most articulate theologian ever to live.
Good answer. Very good, and very respectable.
But don't you think that, in some cases, the Romanists have deliberately chosen not to be precise -- when the Core Text (that is, the Bible) would (according to the Reformers) seem to demand as much?
Yes, yes, and yes. My own understanding of the Infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate is that the question largely hinges on the logical question of in what order God planned the fall and redemption. I know the Canons of Dordt chose infralapsarianism, and it seems to make some sense to me that, in order to plan redemption, there must be something to logically redeem from. But, since this is not an explicitly Biblical doctrine, I see no need to take any firm position. It does no good, really, to major on minor points. At the end of the day, this could very easily become a "foolish contraversy" that serves no purpose but to divide.
You are a good Reformed Christian, jude.
Whatever your own personal doubts or eccentricities, you have agreed to Covenant yourself to the authority of your Elders, and the Church Councils over-arching them. This is to your Credit.
Our Reformed system of Elder-Conciliar Government is based upon the Scriptural way of doing things, and is thus commensurate with the Biblical Order, and that of the Eastern Orthodox (as opposed to the Anabaptistic error of Independency, or the Romanist error of Papacy).
HOWEVER, I would reserve this -- while we have always permitted the Supralapsarians to enjoy Communion within our Confession, it is not We Infralapsarians who are seeking "foolish controversy that serves no purpose but to divide". OURS is the Established Reformed Tradition, confirmed by our Reformed Councils and the magisterial teaching of our great Reformed Pastors. We permit the Supralapsarians to enjoy participation in the great Reformed Communion -- in loving Charity; until, by the Grace of God, their Error is Corrected.
Best, OP
You're absolutely right.
Given that I was an Economics Major, the roughly-equivalent term would be ceteris paribus, "All things being otherwise equal".
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your argument. Economics Majors normally take a year of Latin at most, and then we forget most of it.
Mea Maxima Culpa (grin). ;-)
Well, yeah. We all have gaping blind spots in our own chosen traditions. I've done it myself - and I bet you do too.
You unfortunately took a lot of flak from our brethren Calvinists for a pretty-good Debating Tactic which I often use myself, i.e., "even if you're right, this point gets you nowhere..." You call it arguendo; I call it ceteris paribus (sorry, I never studied Law, except as it pertains to Finance)... same difference.
I can understand our compatriots being pissed-off at even the idea that this Tabloid-Catholic vitriol should be taken seriously; but, I appreciate your argument.
Yes, but I'm quite vain.
So, at best, I try to remain open-minded enough to allow others to point them out to me. At least those whom I either love, respect, or both.
(No, it's not a perfect system, but it's the best that I'm personally able to manage).
Best, OP
You wrote:
“I wonder how you would looked upon King David who would line people up (men, women and children) and execute every third person; how he would put people "under the saw", slowly chopping them in half; murdering unsuspecting villagers and cutting off their foreskins; or what you would have thought about him taking a high ranking official's wife and having him murdered. This was the person who wrote most of the Psalms we enjoy today. Do we discount the Psalms?”
How I would look upon David – no matter what he did – is of course completely irrelevant in a discussion about Calvin. David did not start Calvinism. I cannot discount any part of scripture nor would I ever dream of so doing. David was inspired. Calvin was not – at least not by God.
“I bring this all up not as a poor reflection upon King David for we know that David was a man "after God's own heart". I bring this up simply because we cannot look back on history and judge people for the way they lived their lives. It is a different time and different era with different values.”
We must judge to some extent. If we do not then we fail to delineate right from wrong. In that way are we not working in the image of God no matter how poorly we copy our Lord in His perfect justice? Did David murder Uriah or not? Yes, he did so. Did God not decide that he had sinned? Did God not reveal to Nathan David’s sin? Was he not punished? So am I not to notice that Calvin sinned against justice? The simple fact is that neither Calvin nor any of his followers possessed the authority to executed a man for heresy when they themselves were heretics.
“You are trying to make a case that Calvin set up a kangaroo court to execute Servetus and what he did was wrong. If this is the case then it should be pointed out the Catholic Church had no such court and sought to execute Servetus without a trial or legal proceedings all with decrees from the Chair of Peter.”
Incorrect. Gee, I guess you are not at all familiar with Pierre Cavard’s, Le Procés de Michel Servet a Vienne (1953), right? Big shock there. Servetus had several cases pending against him in Catholic countries – principally Spain and France. Servetus escaped from Vienne. Notice the word ESCAPED? He was under arrest. He was to be tried. The authorities were building a case against him when he escaped. If you knew what you were talking about AND YOU DON’T you would know that the Genevan killers of Servetus wrote to Vienne to ask that they send all of their court records and evidence against Servetus to them so they could use that information in their trial in Geneva! Vienne refused pointing out that the info was for their own case against Servetus. Honestly, how can you be so grossly misinformed to think that a man could be put to death for heresy in the sixteenth century by the proper authorities in a Catholic country without a trial? There were ALWAYS trials in such cases.
The simple fact was that Servetus worked in Vienne for 12 years as a private physician. He worked on his heretical treatises in his spare time. Eventually he was caught. The inquisitor of Lyons, Matthieu Ory became the lead investigator in the case on March 12, 1553. Servetus was questioned on March 16th. He was arrested only on April 4th! That’s right. He hadn’t even been arrested when first questioned. That was the law in a case such as that. He was questioned again on April 5th and 6th. He escaped on April 7th at 4 in the morning. He first decided to go to Spain, his homeland, but then turned back because he knew he would be arrested if caught. The Spanish inquisition had already begun investigating Servetus in 1532! The inquisitors even sent Servetus’ brother, who was an orthodox Catholic priest to him to try and convince him to return to Spain. He knew, however, that this would mean a trial and a conviction and only if he disavowed his beliefs would he survive. He fled instead. He changed his name to Villeneuve. Why is that important? Because in 1538, under the name Villeneuve, Servetus was tried for mixing astrology and medicine after being denounced for doing so by the faculty of medicine in Paris. He was acquitted of the charges. The inquisitors did not know that Villeneuve was really Servetus. He ran off to Vienne after he was cleared by the inquisition. In around 1540 he became the personal physician of Pierre Palmier, Archbishop of Vienne. Read Goldstone.
Thus, he was under investigation by the Spanish inquisition (which always used trials as required by law) since 1532. He was tried in Paris in 1538, but under an assumed name. In 1540 he went to Vienne. In 1553 he fled Vienne when he was arrested by the inquisition which was preparing a trial case against him. He fled – to Geneva. It is ironic, by the way, that a letter to or from Calvin is what got Servetus caught in Vienne. By then Calvin had already vowed to kill Calvin.
“As a historian and a Catholic I'm sure you can appreciate what that means. If you condemn Calvin then you must condemn the Church.”
Not at all. Calvin had no proper authority to engineer the trial of a heretic since he was a heretic himself. Also, it is clear that he wanted Servetus dead because of his personal animus against him.
“Assuming your authors are even remotely correct, if anything Calvin sought to work within the legal system.”
It was Calvin’s legal system. He essentially wrote it.
“ The Church did not. You can't have it both ways.”
The Church most definitely did work within the legal system – both the secular and the ecclesiastical. I am not having it both ways. My way is logical and according to history. Your way is completely out of touch with the facts.
“There was a judge and a jury who tried and convicted Servetus.”
The trial was in the consistory. What exactly makes you think there was a jury?
“I don't know about you but I get a team of five people in a room and it is next to impossible to get them to agree on anything. I doubt if Calvin weighed that much control over 12 jurors regardless of how important you may feel his position was.”
12 jurors? Again, we see you have no idea of what you are talking about.
"If he comes, I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Baker Book House, 1950), p. 371.
"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."
Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328.
Calvin, in 1561, wrote a letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to the king of Navarre in which he wrote: "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard." David Benedict, “A General History of the Baptist Denomination”— Gallatin: Church History Research and Archives, 1985, Vol. 1: 186.
DNC?
I hear that everything at the Domain Name Commission is fine.
LOL!
You wrote:
“Oh, please. Your church dates no earlier to that St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, and arguably no earlier than the Catholic/Orthodox Schism of 1054.”
That is simply an insipid comment. Clearly some church elected Gregory to pope. If the Catholic Church only existed with Gregory accession to the papacy then how do you explain his existence as a Catholic priest beforehand? How is it that Gregory served the previous Catholic popes Benedict I and Pelagius II. Also, how was it that two of his relatives had already served as pope if there was nothing to serve as pope of? A thing cannot exist prior to itself. Students learn that in basic philosophy.
“Your doctrine has certainly evolved over the years.”
My doctrine? I have had no doctrine of my own evolve. Or develop. Or even exist. The Catholic Church has had doctrine develop. I have no doctrine of my own.
“This "only church dating to the Apostles" bit is exhausting. Certainly the Orthodox could give y'all a run for your money for being traceable to the Apostles, and they - unlike the Roman Catholic Church - have had a largely static body of theology since the Early Church Fathers.”
Irrelevant. Static does not translate to proper authority.
“You most certainly did not. You posted an unsubstantiated allegation that someone, once upon a time, ran into rumors that he was homosexual.”
Untrue. I posted information which conveyed the names of a man who saw the document. Care to dispute that fact? Also, I posted the names of Protestants who knew the charges to be true.
“Show me some documentary evidence. Put up, or shut up.”
I posted their names. Post whatever you have to the contrary. Don't like it? Too bad.
“Furthermore, this homosexuality charge is irrelevant. What he did in his pre-conversion life no more disqualifies him as a Christian theologian than Augustine's playboy days disqualify the most articulate theologian ever to live.”
Incorrect. God works through men – even bad men. God, however, does not establish His church through sinful men, but through His sinless Son. Calvin was not Christ. The calvinists sects are not from God.
By way of our own US Example, according to the 1951 Dennis decision, the USSC has held that advocating the Overthrow of the Constitution is Punishable by Law.
Sevetus advocated the Overthrow of the Genevan Constitution.
Geneva punished him.
CASE CLOSED.
Before Gregory's accession, the Church had a collegial episcopacy - much like the Orthodox.
I posted information which conveyed the names of a man who saw the document. Care to dispute that fact? Also, I posted the names of Protestants who knew the charges to be true.
No. You posted rumors that so-and-so encountered such-and-such a rumor - not, for instance, a certificate of conviction for sodomy. I need dispute nothing more; the burden is on you to demonstrate the credibility of your source. Your sources are long-removed ("A Catholic Contraversialist Noyin" in the 1500's - hardly a disinterested source - and the "contemporary German Lutherans.") Those are not credible sources - not without some primary source documentation to back this up.
Otherwise, I could start citing Jack Chick tracts about the great pagan, Jesuit conspiracy seeking to suppress the gospel, and the allegations that the Popes were whoremongerers and homosexuals and satanists. I don't do this because, even if any of this was true, it proves nothing more than the fact that the Church has had some unsavory characters in her past. That's nothing new.
At the end of the day, however, your allegations that Calvin was a homosexual are nothing more than unsubstantiated innuendo that is irrelevant. There is no point in pursuing it because his sexuality is irrelevant to his theological points. Engage on the merits of Calvinism, not the whisperings of polemical pamphleteers.
God works through men – even bad men. God, however, does not establish His church through sinful men, but through His sinless Son.
Bullcrap. Consider the history of the church. St. Paul the Persecutor. St. Peter the coward. St. Augustine the Playboy. Constantine the Arian. Philandering popes. The church has always been a hospital of sinners - sinners who repented and tried their best to serve God. Is it entirely implausible that Calvin did the same thing?
I'm going to ping Campion and dangus to this, honorable Catholics, to straighten you out on this.
Buzz off.
I especially liked this part...
Bullcrap. Consider the history of the church. St. Paul the Persecutor. St. Peter the coward. St. Augustine the Playboy. Constantine the Arian. Philandering popes. The church has always been a hospital of sinners - sinners who repented and tried their best to serve God. Is it entirely implausible that Calvin did the same thing?
Of course (in regard to Calvin), this is even assuming that we CHOOSE to take his tabloid accusations seriously... and as you have already reserved, the evidentiary burden is upon Vladimir for making the fantastic allegations; there is no necessary obligation upon us to take "Vladimir the Catholic Paparazzi" seriously.
Very well done.
OP
Nothing precedes God's awareness of His own creation. "The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand" John Calvin -- (Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxiii.7)
You wrote:
“Before Gregory's accession, the Church had a collegial episcopacy - much like the Orthodox.”
Even if that were true it’s irrelevant. You said the Catholic Church came into existence with Gregory. Now you are claiming that it existed but with a collegial episcopacy. Whether or not it had a collegial episcopacy YOU JUST ADMITTED IT EXISTED. Make up your mind. Did it exist or not? Try to be consistent.
“No. You posted rumors that so-and-so encountered such-and-such a rumor - not, for instance, a certificate of conviction for sodomy. I need dispute nothing more; the burden is on you to demonstrate the credibility of your source. Your sources are long-removed ("A Catholic Contraversialist Noyin" in the 1500's - hardly a disinterested source - and the "contemporary German Lutherans.") Those are not credible sources - not without some primary source documentation to back this up.”
Too bad. It’s going to stand. I believe the document was in fact published. I’ll never see it since it was published in the 16th century and I don’t have the book, but it apparently was published.
“Otherwise, I could start citing Jack Chick tracts about the great pagan, Jesuit conspiracy seeking to suppress the gospel, and the allegations that the Popes were whoremongerers and homosexuals and satanists.”
You could – and you would be wrong. Jack Chick simply makes things up and this can be demonstrated. I have done it in the past. I even did it with a Protestant pastor who admitted (eventually) that Chick may be wrong but it is effective to use it in any case.
“I don't do this because, even if any of this was true, it proves nothing more than the fact that the Church has had some unsavory characters in her past. That's nothing new.”
Right, except that Calvin FOUNDED a sect. Christ founded the Catholic Church. Calvinism was founded by Calvin – and he had serious problems.
“At the end of the day, however, your allegations that Calvin was a homosexual are nothing more than unsubstantiated innuendo that is irrelevant.”
How is a published document, published with the signatures of the appropriate authorities mere innuendo?
“There is no point in pursuing it because his sexuality is irrelevant to his theological points. Engage on the merits of Calvinism, not the whisperings of polemical pamphleteers.”
Calvinism has no merits to for me to engage. I am merely interested in talking about the flaws of Calvin since he was a sect founder. Don’t like it? Too bad.
“Bullcrap. Consider the history of the church. St. Paul the Persecutor.”
St. Paul did not establish the Catholic Church. Christ did. Calvin founded his own sect, however. Also, Paul was a sinner, but a repentent one. I already posted a quote from Calvin showing that he was not repentent about Servetus.
“St. Peter the coward.”
Before the founding of the Church he was indeed cowardly at times. After the founding of the Church by Christ he was not so cowardly. Notice that?
“St. Augustine the Playboy.”
Before he was a Christian, yes. And he never established a sect either.
“Constantine the Arian.”
Yep, and he too never established a sect as Calvin did.
“Philandering popes.”
None of whom ever established the Catholic Church. Christ did.
“The church has always been a hospital of sinners - sinners who repented and tried their best to serve God. Is it entirely implausible that Calvin did the same thing?”
According to his own writings, yes. And besides, the Church is a hospital of sinners. Calvin left that Church and founded his own sect.
“I'm going to ping Campion and dangus to this, honorable Catholics, to straighten you out on this.”
Suit yourself.
Servetus was conspiring with no one in Geneva. He was in Geneva for far too short a time to conspire with anyone before being arrested.
I certainly hope that Servetus did want to overthrow the Genevan constitution since it was corrupt, dictatorial, improperly imposed and the law code supporting it was simply stupid (fines for dancing, for instance).
Did we not overthrow a constitutional government when it no longer served the best interests of the American people? Hint - yes, in the American Revolution.
Your charge of sedition against Servetus is laughable. Then again, as the following transcript from the trial, as published by Longhurst, show, you and the prosecutor of Servetus thought alike:
PROSECUTOR: Have you read the Koran?
SERVETUS: Yes I have.
PROSECUTOR: Do you find any good things in it?
SERVETUS: Certainly.
PROSECUTOR: We can only conclude then that you would help to foster tumult in Christendom by aiding and abetting the followers of Mohammed.*
SERVETUS: I would no more aid Mohammed than I would aid the devil. But even in the worst books one can find some good things. And in the Koran there are some things which testify to the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So, because Servetus had read the Qur'an and noted that there were some good things in it, he was accused of aiding and abetting Muslims and causing tumult in Christendom? This coming from heretics who had seized control of an entire city, put dozens of anabaptists and others who disagreed with Calvinism or calvinists running the canton to death in what can only be described as mock trials?
Yeah, you and Calvin's buddy, the prosecutor, could think up all sorts of crazy conspiracy ideas. Have at it!
Actually, Schaff relates in History of the Church that:
And what is more, Rylie relates in History of Protestantism that:
I certainly hope that Servetus did want to overthrow the Genevan constitution since it was corrupt, dictatorial, improperly imposed and the law code supporting it was simply stupid (fines for dancing, for instance).
Blah, blah, blah -- you object to the Genevan Constitution and support Servetus' desire to Overthrow it for no other reason than that you hate Calvinism. That is the truth of the matter.
The bottom line is, the Genevan Constitution was unanimously affirmed by the People, and you can't really call a People "oppressed" who have unanimously affirmed their own Constitution.
Your objections are like unto those of an Old Testament Sodomite who hates the Constitution of Israel because it Anti-Homosexual. Well, the Israelitish Constitution, like that of Geneva, was Unanimously Confirmed (Deuteronomy 27:14-26); so if you don't like it, don't live there.
Servetus was told to stay out of Geneva; chose to trespass there anyway; and was charged, tried, and executed for Crimes against the Genevan Constitution.
Constitutional States have a Right to defend their Constitutions.
CASE CLOSED.
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.