John Calvin, Murderer

[Dale]

Is bearing false witness still a sin?

How is that relevant?

 

[bcbsr]

Bcbsr,
Thanks for your article on Michael Servetus. I notice that you also have no hesitation in calling the execution a murder.

What do you mean "with no hesitation"? Did you actually read what I wrote or simply made this comment with no hesitation as a knee jerk reaction? I thoroughly studied the matter, even wrote an article on the subject, examined the evidence, provided many quotes on this thread of Calvin's admission to his guilt in the matter and drew a conclusion. So please share with me how you conclude I did so "with no hesitation".

Prov 18:13 "He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame."

 

[Rick Otto]

Interesting.
I get called "Calvinist" because I agree with his soteriology, even though I part ways with him on sacramentology and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
Dale, tell me what you like about Calvin, if anything.
I simply dislike oversimplification, and I can't imagine you being guilty of that.
Thanks.

 

[Dale]

What do you mean "with no hesitation"? Did you actually read what I wrote or simply made this comment with no hesitation as a knee jerk reaction? I thoroughly studied the matter, even wrote an article on the subject, examined the evidence, provided many quotes on this thread of Calvin's admission to his guilt in the matter and drew a conclusion. So please share with me how you conclude I did so "with no hesitation".

Prov 18:13 "He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame."

Yes, I did look at your article. I simply meant that after digging into the facts you had no hesitation at calling John Calvin a murderer.

 

[bcbsr]

Yes, I did look at your article. I simply meant that after digging into the facts you had no hesitation at calling John Calvin a murderer.

I don't judge a book by its cover. I "hesitate", contrary to your allegation, and judge it by its content. And thus my conclusion about John Calvin based on a thorough study of the matter. Perhaps you should have hesitated making such an allegation against me. Just saying.

 

[Dale]

Interesting.
I get called "Calvinist" because I agree with his soteriology, even though I part ways with him on sacramentology and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
Dale, tell me what you like about Calvin, if anything.
I simply dislike oversimplification, and I can't imagine you being guilty of that.
Thanks.

Rick Otto,

I'm not aware of anything that I like about Calvinism. I do believe in free will and I don't believe in predestination. One thing I've noticed about Calvinists is that they claim to know things that may not be knowable. Calvinists claim to have figured out how God runs the universe. The Bible doesn't tell us that we have to figure out how God runs the universe. Instead, the Gospel tells us to take stock of our own lives and correct what is wrong.


I've noticed that the Eastern Orthodox are prone to say, “Salvation is a mystery.” They may have a point. It could be that we cannot know everything about salvation.


I see logical problems with Calvinism. I have pointed them out in the past and Calvinists refuse to discuss them. One problem is that Calvin emphasized the depraved, fallen state of man--, actually, the depraved, fallen state of the individual man or woman. Calvin assumed that the institutions of society are more or less perfectible. To me, this is contradictory. To Calvin, the individual is rotten but society is potentially good, so the answer is to bludgeon the individual into submission to the institutions of society. This doesn't make sense. The institutions of society are not God-given absolutes, they were set up by fallible mortals. Society is also fallible.


In the Twentieth Century, Niebuhr thought that governments were less moral than individuals. I'm not sure that Niebuhr is right but his view is plausible in a lot of situations. It is a remarkable contrast to Calvin's assumption that society is perfectible while the individual is hopelessly depraved.

 

[Dale]

I don't judge a book by its cover. I "hesitate", contrary to your allegation, and judge it by its content. And thus my conclusion about John Calvin based on a thorough study of the matter. Perhaps you should have hesitated making such an allegation against me. Just saying.

I didn't make an accusation. I noticed that we are in agreement.

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick Otto,

I'm not aware of anything that I like about Calvinism. I do believe in free will and I don't believe in predestination. One thing I've noticed about Calvinists is that they claim to know things that may not be knowable. Calvinists claim to have figured out how God runs the universe. The Bible doesn't tell us that we have to figure out how God runs the universe. Instead, the Gospel tells us to take stock of our own lives and correct what is wrong.


I've noticed that the Eastern Orthodox are prone to say, “Salvation is a mystery.” They may have a point. It could be that we cannot know everything about salvation.


I see logical problems with Calvinism. I have pointed them out in the past and Calvinists refuse to discuss them. One problem is that Calvin emphasized the depraved, fallen state of man--, actually, the depraved, fallen state of the individual man or woman. Calvin assumed that the institutions of society are more or less perfectible. To me, this is contradictory. To Calvin, the individual is rotten but society is potentially good, so the answer is to bludgeon the individual into submission to the institutions of society. This doesn't make sense. The institutions of society are not God-given absolutes, they were set up by fallible mortals. Society is also fallible.


In the Twentieth Century, Niebuhr thought that governments were less moral than individuals. I'm not sure that Niebuhr is right but his view is plausible in a lot of situations. It is a remarkable contrast to Calvin's assumption that society is perfectible while the individual is hopelessly depraved.

Yeah, know-it-alls populate every position it seems.
I tend to think that the freedom involved in will is minimal, and that predestination is the greater context within which that freedom resides. God's will is determined, where we show up within that will has a little plasticity, but the general direction of reality has been determined. Good will win, for instance.
I'm an artist and musician, and I depend on improvisation, so free will is an attractive concept to me, and partially valid as a concept, but the laws of aesthetics appear to be "predetermined". I like the challenge of mystery, but I don't accept mystery as an answer..
I can embrace these contradictions, and I agree with you about the major one you pointed out - perfecting human institutions.
So thank you for that, but I can't endorse your generalizations about Calvinists as more than complaints about religious people in general.

 

[Dale]

Yeah, know-it-alls populate every position it seems.
I tend to think that the freedom involved in will is minimal, and that predestination is the greater context within which that freedom resides. God's will is determined, where we show up within that will has a little plasticity, but the general direction of reality has been determined. Good will win, for instance.
I'm an artist and musician, and I depend on improvisation, so free will is an attractive concept to me, and partially valid as a concept, but the laws of aesthetics appear to be "predetermined". I like the challenge of mystery, but I don't accept mystery as an answer..
I can embrace these contradictions, and I agree with you about the major one you pointed out - perfecting human institutions.
So thank you for that, but I can't endorse your generalizations about Calvinists as more than complaints about religious people in general.

Scientifically minded people usually reject free will out of hand. As I understand their view, they can't explain free will in terms of anything else, so they reject it. The way I see it, free will is fundamental. It can't be explained in terms of anything else because it is one of the basic isolates.

 

[Rick Otto]

Scientifically minded people usually reject free will out of hand. As I understand their view, they can't explain free will in terms of anything else, so they reject it. The way I see it, free will is fundamental. It can't be explained in terms of anything else because it is one of the basic isolates.

I believe the problem is in the definition of "free". It seems nothing can exist in absolute freedom, excepting maybe God, because everything that exists is in relationship to everything else that exists. So the first restriction from absolute freedom from consequence is definitional.
Beyond that fact of absoluteness, the term "free" has practical validity in the restrictions of context.
My opinion.

 

[Dale]

For another logical problem with Calvinist predestination, I will quote the OP to a thread I did in 2013.



There is a logical problem with the Calvinist version of predestination. According to Calvinists, an unsaved person is dead in sin until God zaps them and makes them a Christian. To Calvinists, the unsaved can't know anything about Christianity.

Here is the question: If the unsaved have no desire for religion, why is there false religion? It seems to me that if the Calvinists are right, there would be those who have no religion and those who have the correct religion. I am not seeing any reason why false religion would arise.

Yet, when we look around, the world is full of false religion. Whatever your religion is, most of the religion in the world is false.

For believers in free will, false religion isn't difficult to explain. God planted a religious impulse in every soul but He did not tell us in detail what to do with that religious impulse.




Link to 2013 thread
Logical Problem with Predestination

 

[Rick Otto]

Scientifically minded people usually reject free will out of hand. As I understand their view, they can't explain free will in terms of anything else, so they reject it. The way I see it, free will is fundamental. It can't be explained in terms of anything else because it is one of the basic isolates.

Hmmm.... sounds self limiting, a little.
As I say, it's a perfectly legitimate term within the limitations of a legitimate context.
That context bein, that God has already created past, present, and future.
Therefore, it holds no surprises for Him.
Have you seen this?

Eph.1

1. [5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
2. [11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

How do you dismiss predestination in the face of these verses?
Can predestination and freedom coexist if neither is absolute?

 

[Rick Otto]

For another logical problem with Calvinist predestination, I will quote the OP to a thread I did in 2013.



There is a logical problem with the Calvinist version of predestination. According to Calvinists, an unsaved person is dead in sin until God zaps them and makes them a Christian. To Calvinists, the unsaved can't know anything about Christianity.

Here is the question: If the unsaved have no desire for religion, why is there false religion? It seems to me that if the Calvinists are right, there would be those who have no religion and those who have the correct religion. I am not seeing any reason why false religion would arise.

Yet, when we look around, the world is full of false religion. Whatever your religion is, most of the religion in the world is false.

For believers in free will, false religion isn't difficult to explain. God planted a religious impulse in every soul but He did not tell us in detail what to do with that religious impulse.




Link to 2013 thread
Logical Problem with Predestination

Please be more careful with terminology.
Not being able to understand spiritual things is because you're spirit has not been born into eternal life. It doesn't prevent anyone from thinking they know something or everything about spiritual things. Besides, Christianity is a religious thing, not a spiritual thing. I know religion is thought to be about spirituality, but it is not. It is man's response to spiritual things. That's why the religions contain many who are simply responding to social norms of pressure.
I differentiate between spiritual things and religious things.
God didn't plant a religious impulse. He planted an awareness of the His existence - not a fully informed and articulated body of intellectually discerned facts. (I believe that's like about Romans 1:20-21
That natural (spiritualy unborn/dead) men can't understand spiritual things is in Corinthians, I think...
yeah, here it is
1Cor.2

1. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Dale]

Hmmm.... sounds self limiting, a little.
As I say, it's a perfectly legitimate term within the limitations of a legitimate context.
That context bein, that God has already created past, present, and future.
Therefore, it holds no surprises for Him.
Have you seen this?

Eph.1

1. [5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
2. [11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

How do you dismiss predestination in the face of these verses?
Can predestination and freedom coexist if neither is absolute?

Rick Otto,



On your use of Ephesians, it has been clear for a long time that Calvinists are obsessed with the Epistles. Protestants have for too long looked at the Gospels through the lens of the Epistles. They should try looking at the Epistles through the lens of the Gospels.


It has always been my understanding that Paul's use of “predestination” generally refers to collective rather than individual predestination. Israel was chosen, or predestined, to serve God. This doesn't mean that every Israelite is saved or that every non-Israelite is lost, even in OT times.


I'll fill out what I am saying by quoting a couple of articles in Harper's Bible Dictionary.

Under Predestination

On focusing on terms like predestination, election:

“Such an interpretation is a consequence of isolating the term from what the Bible as a whole plainly means.”


Looking at Biblical history:

“He 'called' Abraham in order that through Abraham He might secure a people, and through that particular people another people of still wider significance. Abraham's 'election' was for the sake of Israel; Israel's 'election' was for the sake of mankind. The 'choice' of the one is for the good of the many, and 'the many' will be seen at last to be 'from every tribe'...”


Is there predestination in the new covenant?

“Such a concept [of salvation] simply has no room for a rigid 'predestination' either to salvation or to 'reprobation.' the universal redemption made possible through 'the suffering Servant' sprang from and expressed 'the pleasure of Yahweh.”


Again, some are chosen or predestined, but for the benefit of the many.

“Christ the Redeemer was 'predestined' (Acts 2:23) because the Church, as the body of the redeemed, was 'predestined.'”


“It is commonly said that Paul teaches that some are predestined to be saved and that all others are therefore 'lost,' because to be 'lost' is the proper and deserved doom of all who are born of Adam. … but the inference often drawn, that God deliberately withheld His grace from the lost, or the 'nonelect,' goes in the face of all the N.T. teaching about God's purpose in Jesus Christ.”


I have long thought that the only way Calvinism notion of “calling” could make any sense is if everyone is called. That doesn't mean that everyone responds.


“If one is 'called,' nothing else matters. But is the 'calling' limited? Are there any whom God has no intention of calling?”

“... we do not do justice to Paul's complete thought if we suppose he means that there are some whom God has determined beforehand not to 'call.'”


Under Providence

“It is certainly Bible teaching that God 'calls' and 'chooses' some as He does not others, and that He does this in keeping with His eternal purpose. But the choice is never exclusively for the sake of the chosen; it is seen at last to be a point on which turns God's purpose for the many.”


“To trace every situation and every event directly to God's will is to go beyond Scripture.”


Source:=
Harper's Bible Dictionary, Madeleine S. & L. Jane Miller
NY: Harper & Row, 1973 edition

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick Otto,



On your use of Ephesians, it has been clear for a long time that Calvinists are obsessed with the Epistles. Protestants have for too long looked at the Gospels through the lens of the Epistles. They should try looking at the Epistles through the lens of the Gospels.


It has always been my understanding that Paul's use of “predestination” generally refers to collective rather than individual predestination. Israel was chosen, or predestined, to serve God. This doesn't mean that every Israelite is saved or that every non-Israelite is lost, even in OT times.


I'll fill out what I am saying by quoting a couple of articles in Harper's Bible Dictionary.

Under Predestination

On focusing on terms like predestination, election:

“Such an interpretation is a consequence of isolating the term from what the Bible as a whole plainly means.”


Looking at Biblical history:

“He 'called' Abraham in order that through Abraham He might secure a people, and through that particular people another people of still wider significance. Abraham's 'election' was for the sake of Israel; Israel's 'election' was for the sake of mankind. The 'choice' of the one is for the good of the many, and 'the many' will be seen at last to be 'from every tribe'...”


Is there predestination in the new covenant?

“Such a concept [of salvation] simply has no room for a rigid 'predestination' either to salvation or to 'reprobation.' the universal redemption made possible through 'the suffering Servant' sprang from and expressed 'the pleasure of Yahweh.”


Again, some are chosen or predestined, but for the benefit of the many.

“Christ the Redeemer was 'predestined' (Acts 2:23) because the Church, as the body of the redeemed, was 'predestined.'”


“It is commonly said that Paul teaches that some are predestined to be saved and that all others are therefore 'lost,' because to be 'lost' is the proper and deserved doom of all who are born of Adam. … but the inference often drawn, that God deliberately withheld His grace from the lost, or the 'nonelect,' goes in the face of all the N.T. teaching about God's purpose in Jesus Christ.”


I have long thought that the only way Calvinism notion of “calling” could make any sense is if everyone is called. That doesn't mean that everyone responds.


“If one is 'called,' nothing else matters. But is the 'calling' limited? Are there any whom God has no intention of calling?”

“... we do not do justice to Paul's complete thought if we suppose he means that there are some whom God has determined beforehand not to 'call.'”


Under Providence

“It is certainly Bible teaching that God 'calls' and 'chooses' some as He does not others, and that He does this in keeping with His eternal purpose. But the choice is never exclusively for the sake of the chosen; it is seen at last to be a point on which turns God's purpose for the many.”


“To trace every situation and every event directly to God's will is to go beyond Scripture.”


Source:=
Harper's Bible Dictionary, Madeleine S. & L. Jane Miller
NY: Harper & Row, 1973 edition

Thanks.
Yeah, I don't prefer to over-emphasize to the pinot of rigidity. The free willers are equally guilty of a rigid insistence that seems to ignore any distinction between responsibility and guilt (as in a parent being responsible for but not guilty of, their children's behaviour). That's how they come up with the false analogy of robots.
Trying to limit it to groups feels like a partial admission trying to pose as a dismissal.
I still believe context is key.
Ephesians, like other epistles, is written to believers. The vague notion of lensing the gospels Thu the epistles just sounds like an attempt to excuse violations of context to facilitate a universalism that wants to rate created beings on par with their creator.

 

[hedrick]

There's a tendency to oversimplify Paul, I think. Much of the time election for him involve groups. But Rom 8:33 seems to be referring to all those who are in Christ as elect, and at the beginning of Romans, Paul himself and various others are spoken of as called. I think it's going to a lot harder to find anywhere that he says individuals are chosen by God to be reprobate.

 

[Rick Otto]

There's a tendency to oversimplify Paul, I think. Much of the time election for him involve groups. But Rom 8:33 seems to be referring to all those who are in Christ as elect, and at the beginning of Romans, Paul himself and various others are spoken of as called. I think it's going to a lot harder to find anywhere that he says individuals are chosen by God to be reprobate.

Hedrick, are you completely sure that there is some free will preserving aspect to limiting predestination to groups? Is the exclusion of predestination in individuals necessary to preserve freedom of will? I will to be I can't be... is my will free? Certainly not in any absolute sense, right?
So what is a free will free from?
Can a will be only partly free and at the same time be partly bound?

I just think this whole question as an issue gets inflated with a lot of hot air, and it's like an irresistible magnet for people who need to dish condemnation.
And that's too bad, because I do believe it provides an opportunity to share coping skills for control issues when people are humble enough not need to sling their mud.
At any rate sir, the step from group to individual is no leap from my perspective since groups are composed of individuals. There is a difference, but I can't see how or why it would make a difference.
Our wills can't be free if we're deluded. A will is never free of its owner's ignorance.
I think it's a mistake to be absolutist in defining it.

 

[Dale]

Please be more careful with terminology.
Not being able to understand spiritual things is because you're spirit has not been born into eternal life. It doesn't prevent anyone from thinking they know something or everything about spiritual things. Besides, Christianity is a religious thing, not a spiritual thing. I know religion is thought to be about spirituality, but it is not. It is man's response to spiritual things. That's why the religions contain many who are simply responding to social norms of pressure.
I differentiate between spiritual things and religious things.
God didn't plant a religious impulse. He planted an awareness of the His existence - not a fully informed and articulated body of intellectually discerned facts. (I believe that's like about Romans 1:20-21
That natural (spiritualy unborn/dead) men can't understand spiritual things is in Corinthians, I think...
yeah, here it is
1Cor.2

1. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I don't understand your distinction between spiritual and religious.

You say that God implanted an awareness of His existence. I don't see how that is true since, for most of human history, most people have believed in multiple gods. Many still do today.

People do seem to have an awareness that there is something greater than themselves but they are quite confused about what it is. All this is why we need revelation, God revealing Himself.

 

[Dale]

Thanks.
Yeah, I don't prefer to over-emphasize to the pinot of rigidity. The free willers are equally guilty of a rigid insistence that seems to ignore any distinction between responsibility and guilt (as in a parent being responsible for but not guilty of, their children's behaviour). That's how they come up with the false analogy of robots.
Trying to limit it to groups feels like a partial admission trying to pose as a dismissal.
I still believe context is key.
Ephesians, like other epistles, is written to believers. The vague notion of lensing the gospels Thu the epistles just sounds like an attempt to excuse violations of context to facilitate a universalism that wants to rate created beings on par with their creator.

I don't see how "lensing through the Gospels" is a vague notion. The core of Christian teaching is in the life of Christ, in the Gospels. In my talks with Calvinists, I have been amazed at how often they quote the epistles, the epistles, and the epistles. I have even come up with a somewhat limited theory to explain this. If you are a minister trying to run a church, the epistles are the the part of the Bible that talks about the church. Nevertheless, a Christian must first be grounded in the Gospels.

I have had a Calvinist say to me, "Christianity is founded on the Book of Romans."
What happened to the rest of the Bible?

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't understand your distinction between spiritual and religious.

You say that God implanted an awareness of His existence. I don't see how that is true since, for most of human history, most people have believed in multiple gods. Many still do today.

People do seem to have an awareness that there is something greater than themselves but they are quite confused about what it is. All this is why we need revelation, God revealing Himself.

Here's the distinction:
religion is ABOUT spirituality. It is not spirituality in the same way ontology is the study of being, not being itself. Thank you for asking. It is fundamental to appropriate orientation across a broad category of subjects.
Here's the dope on 'the implanted awareness' I spoke of:
Romans 1
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[17] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I included surrounding verses as the explain what usually happens to people who after experiencing the truth of God, the invisible things getting clearly seen, they choose to love the creation instead of the Creator.

That experience is also iterated for those who DO understand the experience and correctly direct their worship, in Psalm 19:
1] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
[2] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
[3] There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
[4] Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
[5] Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
[6] His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Pretty cool, huh?