Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have attended a Baptist church all of my nearly twenty-six years and I am about as far from Calvinist as the sky is from green.All true Baptists are Calvinists.
I'm wondering, since this always gets brought up at least once a year...
Has anybody besides myself and at least one other poster here read the history on Servetus and Calvin's actual role in this?
God Bless
Till all are one.
The judgment of historians on these remarkable men has undergone a great change. Calvin’s course in the tragedy of Servetus was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.989 It is as fully condemned in the nineteenth century. Bishop Bossuet was able to affirm that all Christians were happily agreed in maintaining the rightfulness of the death penalty for obstinate heretics, as murderers of souls. A hundred years later the great historian Gibbon echoed the opposite public sentiment when he said: "I am more deeply scandalized at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed at auto-da-fés of Spain and Portugal."990
It would be preposterous to compare Calvin with Torquemada.991 But it must be admitted that the burning of Servetus is a typical case of Protestant persecution, and makes Calvin responsible for a principle which may be made to justify an indefinite number of applications. Persecution deserves much severer condemnation in a Protestant than in a Roman Catholic, because it is inconsistent. Protestantism must stand or fall with freedom of conscience and freedom of worship.
From the standpoint of modern Christianity and civilization, the burning of Servetus admits of no justification. Even the most admiring biographers of Calvin lament and disapprove his conduct in this tragedy, which has spotted his fame and given to Servetus the glory of martyrdom.
But if we consider Calvin’s course in the light of the sixteenth century, we must come to the conclusion that he acted his part from a strict sense of duty and in harmony with the public law and dominant sentiment of his age, which justified the death penalty for heresy and blasphemy, and abhorred toleration as involving indifference to truth Even Servetus admitted the principle under which he suffered; for he said, that incorrigible obstinacy and malice deserved death before God and men.992
Calvin’s prominence for intolerance was his misfortune. It was an error of judgment, but not of the heart, and must be excused, though it cannot be justified, by the spirit of his age.993
Calvin never changed his views or regretted his conduct towards Servetus. Nine years after his execution he justified it in self-defence against the reproaches of Baudouin (1562), saying: "Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster."994
In one respect he was in advance of his times, by recommending to the Council of Geneva, though in vain, a mitigation of punishment and the substitution of the sword for the stake.
Let us give him credit for this comparative moderation in a semi-barbarous age when not only hosts of heretics, but even innocent women, as witches, were cruelly tortured and roasted to death. Let us remember also that it was not simply a case of fundamental heresy, but of horrid blasphemy, with which he had to deal. If he was mistaken, if he misunderstood the real opinions of Servetus, that was an error of judgment, and an error which all the Catholics and Protestants of that age shared. Nor should it be overlooked that Servetus was convicted of falsehood, that he overwhelmed Calvin with abuse,995 and that he made common cause with the Libertines, the bitter enemies of Calvin, who had a controlling influence in the Council of Geneva at that time, and hoped to overthrow him.
It is objected that there was no law in Geneva to justify the punishment of Servetus, since the canon law had been abolished by the Reformation in 1535; but the Mosaic law was not abolished, it was even more strictly enforced; and it is from the Mosaic law against blasphemy that Calvin drew his chief argument.
On the other hand, however, we must frankly admit that there were some aggravating circumstances which make it difficult to reconcile Calvin’s conduct with the principles of justice and humanity. Seven years before the death of Servetus he had expressed his determination not to spare his life if he should come to Geneva. He wrote to Farel (Feb. 13, 1546): "Servetus lately wrote to me, and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies, with the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety; for if he does come, and my authority be of any avail, I shall never suffer him to depart alive."996 It was not inconsistent with this design, if he aided, as it would seem, in bringing the book of Servetus to the notice of the Roman inquisition in Lyons. He procured his arrest on his arrival in Geneva. He showed personal bitterness towards him during the trial. Servetus was a stranger in Geneva, and had committed no offence in that city. Calvin should have permitted him quietly to depart, or simply caused his expulsion from the territory of Geneva, as in the case of Bolsec. This would have been sufficient punishment. If he had recommended expulsion instead of decapitation, he would have saved himself the reproaches of posterity, which will never forget and never forgive the burning of Servetus.
In the interest of impartial history we must condemn the intolerance of the victor as well as the error of the victim, and admire in both the loyalty to conscientious conviction. Heresy is an error; intolerance, a sin; persecution, a crime.
Anyone who would be quoting Finney does not grasp the doctrines of grace....this is not a surprise.
So do many of us Arminianists. We are NOT calvinists.
"Believers baptism" is not a part of T*U*L*I*P.
What you say is correct, but Calvinism is not about Calvin, it is about scriptural truth.
Dean,
I most certainly have. I've been a teacher of church history and the truth of what happened in this event is important.
In his History of the Christian Church, Phillip Schaff wrote this in '§ 137 Calvin and Servetus':
I find Schaff's final statement to be an excellent summary of an approach that is responsible as an observer and assessor of events in church history.
Oz
As far as history is concerned, Calvin acted from the standpoint of the law. Servetus was condemned by the Geneva law, and all Calvin was guilty of was being the "prosecuting attorney".
Even funnier is the fact that Servetus was warned not to come to Geneva, but went anyway.
God Bless
Till all are one.
And now all Calvinism is false.Nevertheless, Calvin still agreed with the governing authorities and capital punishment (burnt at the stake) for heresy.
Note the smiley.That might be what you think I conclude, but it is not what I said or what I believe.
So you are saying that Calvin taught post-repentance baptism? Where?Dave,
Arminius supported infant baptism. See his DISPUTATION LXIII ON BAPTISM AND PAEDO-BAPTISM.
Therefore, Baptists who say they are Arminian and support believers' baptism also are not following all that Arminius taught.
Oz
Thankfully, Calvinism has nothing to do with whether such-and-such individual did this-or-that, but everything to do with exegesis of the Bible.
Whether Calvin was ever born or not, Calvinism would still be true because it's exactly what the Bible teaches.
We moved to Scotland when I was young ,and it had to be the most awful place in Christendom .
A cold , carnal ,violent place, without the least spark of the Spirit of God , of kindness creatvity , warmth etc . It was run by by Calvinists , quite a few of whom were masonic etc .
The perfect example of the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught .
Why do you listen to your local pastor? He's a murderer too, who disobeys the teaching of Christ. In fact, you're a murderer too, who disobeys Christ. So why do you listen to your own interpretation of scripture? In fact, Paul the Apostle was a murderer too, yet you listen to him.
Did you forget that all men are guilty of breaking all of God's law? I guess so, in your emotional rant. You threw doctrine out the window.
That being said, you need to get your facts straight. The events you so scholarly presented here have a certain historical context. You might want to make sure you know what the heck you are talking about, do your homework, before you simply start regurgitating what you heard other people say.
Thankfully, Calvinism has nothing to do with whether such-and-such individual did this-or-that, but everything to do with exegesis of the Bible.
Whether Calvin was ever born or not, Calvinism would still be true because it's exactly what the Bible teaches.
That is funny. Where's your smiley?Skala,
With that statement, you have committed a begging the question (circular reasoning) fallacy.
Your premise is that Calvinism is true. Of course you will conclude that exegesis of the Bible supports Calvinism. That is fallacious reasoning.
How did Paul and Silas answer the question of the Philippian jailer: 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' (Acts 16:30 ESV)? They did not say, 'There is nothing for you to do as you are unconditionally elected to salvation and because of irresistible grace, you cannot refuse the offer'.
This is what they said: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31 ESV).
That torpedoes the U and I of TULIP.
Oz
That's the pot calling the kettle black. What you just committed is a begging the question fallacy. You assume your conclusion then seek to make it true with a passage that in no way makes your conclusion fact unless you assume it. Telling a sinner to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't preclude either unconditional election or particular redemption. The fact that you know this to be true speaks volumes concerning the lengths that you will go to in order to prove your argument against "Calvinism".Skala,
With that statement, you have committed a begging the question (circular reasoning) fallacy.
Your premise is that Calvinism is true. Of course you will conclude that exegesis of the Bible supports Calvinism. That is fallacious reasoning.
How did Paul and Silas answer the question of the Philippian jailer: 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' (Acts 16:30 ESV)? They did not say, 'There is nothing for you to do as you are unconditionally elected to salvation and because of irresistible grace, you cannot refuse the offer'.
This is what they said: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31 ESV).
That torpedoes the U and I of TULIP.
Oz
Hi. I'm not technically a Baptist at the moment, but I have considered going to a Baptist church again. I would like to know, are all Baptists Calvinists? Most seem as if they are, so I'm wondering about that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?