Non-Debate thread on Reformation History

[Anto9us]

It is obvious that a 'non-debate' or 'non-arguing' thread will get less attention than one where everybody slams 'the other side'. Message board Christians like to argue. There is a place for both types of threads.

I use to frequent Controversial Theology quite a bit (there were two previous names for that sub-forum); which has now in its SOP the following:

"The term "anti-____" as used in this forum has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates a particular faith group as people, CF staff have decided that it is not an appropriate term for use in this forum. Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-_____", "an anti", "hater", "_____ hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will be regarded as flaming and will be dealt with as such."

I wish all forums outlawed the 'anti_______ ' terms.

We now return you to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Radical Reformers, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

It is obvious that a 'non-debate' or 'non-arguing' thread will get less attention than one where everybody slams 'the other side'. Message board Christians like to argue. There is a place for both types of threads.

I use to frequent Controversial Theology quite a bit (there were two previous names for that sub-forum); which has now in its SOP the following:

"The term "anti-____" as used in this forum has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates a particular faith group as people, CF staff have decided that it is not an appropriate term for use in this forum. Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-_____", "an anti", "hater", "_____ hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will be regarded as flaming and will be dealt with as such."

I wish all forums outlawed the 'anti_______ ' terms.

We now return you to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Radical Reformers, etc.

So if the 'anti-Christ' ever posts here we could not call him, or ze the 'anti' Christ?

 

[Anto9us]

I am sure there are many anti-christs at CF , by which we know it is the last time.
I am anti-anti-Christ; but like I said, that SOP statement was only for Controversial Theology.
I am also a devil-hater.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Origins of Calvinism and Arminianism may be discussed -- but no debating about "which is right".

Discuss history concerning Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Melancthon, Beza, Arminius, General vs Particular Baptists and any related stuff.

Of course there are hundreds if not thousands of historical resources available (especially counting biographies) but here are a few:

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff Vol 6 (volume 7 in modern reprints) (CCEL)
History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff Vol 7 (volume 8 in modern reprints) (CCEL)

History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Merle d'Aubigné, J. H. (Ebook)

A History of American Christianity, Leonard Woolsey Bacon, (CCEL) (Kindle) (Audio)

The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, William Cunningham

Historical Theology, William Cunningham

Desiring God Ministries offers a number of free historical resources available for download

A Survey of Church History (Audio), Brian Borgman

History and Theology of the Puritans (Audio), Douglas F. Kelly

The Reformation (Audio), Carl Trueman

Puritan Theology (Video), Joel Beeke

For users of TheWord Bible Software among others, I created a few modules with historical works:

John Calvin Biography Collection
The Life and Times of John Calvin
History of the Reformation by Merle D. Aubigne

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It is obvious that a 'non-debate' or 'non-arguing' thread will get less attention than one where everybody slams 'the other side'. Message board Christians like to argue. There is a place for both types of threads.

I use to frequent Controversial Theology quite a bit (there were two previous names for that sub-forum); which has now in its SOP the following:

"The term "anti-____" as used in this forum has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates a particular faith group as people, CF staff have decided that it is not an appropriate term for use in this forum. Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-_____", "an anti", "hater", "_____ hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will be regarded as flaming and will be dealt with as such."

I wish all forums outlawed the 'anti_______ ' terms.

We now return you to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Radical Reformers, etc.

A couple of months ago, I got involved in a thread titled "Calvin Murder". Just the title alone gave away what I was getting into. It soon became obvious I was surrounded by "anti________", despite efforts to help others view the topic in historical context and with historical accuracy. When the "anti________" glasses are on, it's difficult to think or see clearly. Did you know that the term "Calvinist" (see Etymology) was originally an insult (invented by Lutherans)? Today it's closer to a badge of honor.

 

[Anto9us]

well, hate to break this to you, but to some -- the term Calvinist is still an insult -- but facetiousness aside, it is a badge of honor to those who are Calvinists themselves.

The Servetus incident has been discussed in many threads -- all I know is that Calvin himself pushed for beheading rather than burning of Servetus, but was over-ruled.

We all can celebrate that today -- rather than burnings at the stake, usually the worst that can happen is someone may get banned on a message board, or be given an "involuntary vacation", as happenned to me once here for 'flaming Calvinists'...

Even the atrocities of the past I would not equate totally with 'murder' - Catholics burning Protestants, maybe vice versa, these were horrible, but not done through 'personal gain' in the sense of a modern day 'murder'.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Even the atrocities of the past I would not equate totally with 'murder' - Catholics burning Protestants, maybe vice versa, these were horrible, but not done through 'personal gain' in the sense of a modern day 'murder'.

Many of the Protestant executions were under the rule and order of Mary I of England, and recorded in the famous The Actes and Monuments, popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, by John Foxe.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

well, hate to break this to you, but to some -- the term Calvinist is still an insult -- but facetiousness aside, it is a badge of honor to those who are Calvinists themselves.

I rather take the C.H. Spurgeon route with the term.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Many of the Protestant executions were under the rule and order of Mary I of England, and recorded in the famous The Actes and Monuments, popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, by John Foxe.

There are two sides to this story. I lifted the following paragraphs from this link --

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/07/bad-queen-bess.html

Confronted by these threats, Elizabeth’s men set up a harsh plan of counter-terrorism. If the pope and the Catholic monarchs were her enemies, then so were all Catholics. Legislation against treason was extended to catch not just those who questioned Elizabeth’s legitimacy, but all missionary priests and those who sheltered them. Torture was not supposed to be permitted, but they devised special laws to justify its use to gather information from captured Catholic priests. After torture, the standard penalty for traitors was to be hanged, cut down when still alive, castrated, disembowelled and dismembered. Over 100 Catholic priests suffered this fate. Their fate was horrible and their heroism was historic.

The gruesome example had been started by Elizabeth’s father. The first to die so terribly was the Carthusian abbot John Houghton. From his own cell in the Tower of London Thomas More saw Houghton and two others being dragged to Tyburn on hurdles and exclaimed to his daughter: “Look, Meg! These blessed Fathers be now as cheerfully going to their deaths as bridegrooms to their marriage!” Still alive when the executioner grasped his still beating heart, Houghton cried out, “Dear Lord Jesus, what will you do with my heart?”

If you want death tolls, from Protestant Henry VIII to Mary, they run as follows -

http://www.elizabethfiles.com/the-myth-of-bloody-mary/3964/

• Protestant Henry VIII – 72,000 divided by 37 years (I’m being kind) = 1945.94 per year
• "Protestant" Edward VI – 5,500 divided by 6 years = 916.66 per year
• Catholic Mary I – 284 divided by 5 years = 56.8 per yea

https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/...-catholic-genocide-roman-catholic-guy-fawkes/

Elizabeth I (1558-1605)
Lizzy 1 murdered 48 Catholic Priests (including one Dominican and two Jesuits) and murdered 20 Catholic Laymen, all except two were condemned under the new Elizabethan laws.
The murderous Queen Elizabeth I was responsible for the killing fields of Ireland, which ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated that 1.5 million Irish Catholic peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and their lands seized by English predators, while she reigned.

I get a bit tired of hearing of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as thought it's the last word on this period of calamitous British history. The Protestant regime of Henry and his daughter Elizabeth killed many times the number of Catholics than Mary ever did to the Protestants.

But it's the old story - the winner writes the books. The United States, and for that matter, Australia, are direct descendants of Protestant British colonisation, and far too many citizens faithfully quote the associated historical propaganda without bothering to check the facts.

 

[Albion]

That old myth of 72,000 executions under Henry has been "making the rounds" for a long time, and now we have it here, thanks to a link to an entry on a personal website of a Spanish blogger.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There are two sides to this story. I lifted the following paragraphs from this link --

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/07/bad-queen-bess.html

If you want death tolls, from Protestant Henry VIII to Mary, they run as follows -

http://www.elizabethfiles.com/the-myth-of-bloody-mary/3964/

https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/...-catholic-genocide-roman-catholic-guy-fawkes/

I get a bit tired of hearing of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as thought it's the last word on this period of calamitous British history. The Protestant regime of Henry and his daughter Elizabeth killed many times the number of Catholics than Mary ever did to the Protestants.

But it's the old story - the winner writes the books. The United States, and for that matter, Australia, are direct descendants of Protestant British colonisation, and far too many citizens faithfully quote the associated historical propaganda without bothering to check the facts.

If you want higher accuracy in history the best way to achieve this is to go to old history books, and encyclopedia type resources, not blogs and places where people have chips on the shoulder and axes to grind. It's safe to say it was a bloody time in history, with killings on every side of the fence, mostly based on the types of government and the relationship between Christianity and governments, and abuses of power and pressures between the two.

 

[zippy2006]

One problem with the debate context is that it tends to emphasize differences. Arminius was an admirer of Calvin’s theology, who considered himself Reformed. He agreed, contra Pelagius, that we are hopeless without grace. However he thought God graciously enables everyone's will, but it’s possible to reject this.

I looked at Pelagius a couple of years ago. He certainly thought the will is free, but in a different sense from Arminius. He didn’t believe, as Arminius did, that our will is bound until God graciously regenerates us. He saw Christianity as a moral struggle.

Did Arminius believe in predestination? Or did he just believe that God "enables everyone's will" and knows their choice through foreknowledge? According to Arminius, does God predestine or merely foreknow?

What about modern day Arminians?

 

[Anto9us]

I don't know what you mean by "merely foreknow".
To Arminius and Arminians, Foreknowledge is the BASIS of Predestination.
He/we believe in Predestination by Foreknowledge.
Some discuss predestination in terms of both Corporate and Individual predestination.
Corporate is the sense that God decrees that a CLASS of people -- BELIEVERS -- will be saved. Individual aspect is God's foreknowledge that a given individual will believe and persist in beleiving.

 

[hedrick]

Did Arminius believe in predestination? Or did he just believe that God "enables everyone's will" and knows their choice through foreknowledge? According to Arminius, does God predestine or merely foreknow?

What about modern day Arminians?

To my knowledge this is a reasonable summary: http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/arminius_on_foreknowledge_and_predestination

Arminius believed in middle knowledge, i.e. that God knows what someone will freely do in any circumstance. In principle this would allow him to completely determine all events while respecting free will. However it appears that he accepted real predestination in corporate terms, with individual predestination being dependent upon knowing what the individual would do.

 

[Anto9us]

I am glad to see the thread move to ANYTHING besides how many Protestants killed/were killed by Catholics and vice versa, which was never my intention.

Prevenient Grace is the Arminian concept of the grace that allows the 'will' to make a decision to accept Christ. Free Will is assumed to be a reality.

In a way, I am sorry that there ever had to be anything such as Arminianism.

 

[hedrick]

I should note that middle knowledge allows a type of predestination that goes beyond foreknowledge. It allows God to determine what is going to happen without violating free will. What I haven't been able to tell is whether Arminius thought that's actually the way God worked. This article suggests that he comes very close: http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminius-on-middle-knowledge/. It's possible that when people say Arminius based predestination on foreknowledge, what they actually mean is middle knowledge. The difference is significant, because if it's just foreknowledge then God isn't responsible for the overall path of history, whereas if it's middle knowledge, he is.

 

[Anto9us]

I would not say it is entirely accurate to equate Arminianism with either Molinism or Open Theism, related, but not exactly the same.

When I say I am sorry that there ever had to be anything such as Arminianism, even though I believe in it myself, I know that must sound strange.

As far as I am concerned - the ancient church dealt with the main issues of Arminianism vs Calvinism 1000 years earlier. Augustine's Double Predestination was never fully accepted by the ancient church, neither was Pelagianism. Some kind of middle ground was taken, whether that should be called Semi-Pelagian or not, I don't know.

 

[Anto9us]

The evangelicalarminians.org site that hedrick posted is good for info, especially helpful I would find the SURVEY on 'are you an Arminian and don't know it?'

You see, I believe most Christians believe in free will, even if they have never read a word of Arminius.

 

[Anto9us]

The Reformation came along and with Calvin's writings the 1000 year old issue of Augustine vs Pelagius was opened up again. Beza and other followers of Calvin pretty much exalted Predestination to a high degree. Arminius, A Calvinist in Holland, was at one time tasked by the Beza bunch to write a defense of a guy named Koornherdt, but Arminius, in researching for the debate - switched sides.

 

[Anto9us]

Arminius died before the famous Synod of Dort which denounced his followers (called Remonstrants). Those followers basically had to flee Holland. Much later, John Wesley in England picked up Arminius' theology, and it spread into English speaking world.