RE: Calvin's Geneva. . .

[Paulomycin]

Question #1. Was Christianity compulsory in Calvin's Geneva?

Question #2. If "yes" to the above, then wouldn't this constitute an implicit denial of God's sovereign regeneration? The reprobate cannot genuinely repent by force.

Question #3. Was there any Reformed community where Christianity was not legally mandatory?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Compulsory according to Calvin, or those who dragged him along?

Nevertheless, the same question could then be asked of modern Presbyterians, no?

But in my opinion (not that I am for compulsory [political] Christianity) this reminds me of old Israel's Theocracy. Also fits pretty much any major political system in Calvin's time (and before) --constant control struggle with Religion. Thank God for our First Amendment.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The reprobate cannot genuinely repent by force.

Nor by freewill, haha. But there is a 'third option'.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Calvin in Wikipedia is described as the least "anti-semitic" of the Reformers so I'm guessing that it was not compulsory only highly recommended.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvin is described as the least "anti-semitic" of the Reformers so I'm guessing that it was not compulsory only highly recommended.

Just curious, here, but what does Anti-Semitism have to do with the questions?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Just curious, here, but what does Anti-Semitism have to do with the questions?

Oh that easy, the only way to test the compulsory claim was to test the position against Judaism since that was the only widely practiced religion other than Christianity in Western Europe at that time!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh that easy, the only way to test the compulsory claim was to test the position against Judaism since that was the only widely practiced religion other than Christianity in Western Europe at that time!

By which, then, you are assuming political systems were necessarily also religious, and compulsory acquiescence?

 

[JM]

Question #1. Was Christianity compulsory in Calvin's Geneva?

Yes.

Question #2. If "yes" to the above, then wouldn't this constitute an implicit denial of God's sovereign regeneration? The reprobate cannot genuinely repent by force.

No, not at all.

Reformed Christians also view the Law of God as having a threefold use. The second use of the Law is to restrain evil, "Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgement, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4). Thus it secures civil order, and serves to protect the righteous from the unjust." Source

So, we believe God saves His people in community and the Law of God has a continued role in society. "God...has ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end has armed them with the power of the sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers." Source

Christianity is truth! It is the revelation of God to mankind and therefore absolutely true even for those who do not believe, it's objectively true and therefore we are to based society in and on it. Scripture doesn't allow for religious pluralism or syncretism.

Question #3. Was there any Reformed community where Christianity was not legally mandatory?

Religious pluralism and syncretism is an American (Enlightenment) idea and God is not an American.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Mark Quayle]

Christianity is truth! It is the revelation of God to mankind and therefore absolutely true even for those who do not believe, it's objectively true and therefore we are to based society in and on it. Scripture doesn't allow for religious pluralism or syncretism.

Do you support the US First Amendment?

 

[Pioneer3mm]

I remember...'Reformation Wall' in Geneva.
- Interesting history.
- Short trip to Switzerland.. some years ago.
---
On Question 3
Early settlers came to North America.. from England & Continent.
- Many of them...to escape persecution from 'State & Church Establishment'.
- Those people were Protestants..( & some Catholics )
----
Some historians view that 'persecution experience' influenced on the concept/idea.. the 'Separation of Church & State' in United States.

 

[JM]

Do you support the US First Amendment?

The question should be is the first amendment biblical? Scripture encourages us to speak freely about truth, scriptural truth, to speak against falsehoods, to guard our tongue against filthy or perverse language, not to gossip (not bear false witness 9th commandment), but never encourages or allows us to speak lies, falsehoods, etc. so total libertarian free speech as practiced in the West is an Enlightenment principle not a biblical one. The Bible places limits on what we say and how we act.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Mark Quayle]

The question should be is the first amendment biblical? Scripture encourages us to speak freely about truth, scriptural truth, to speak against falsehoods, to guard our tongue against filthy or perverse language, not to gossip (not bear false witness 9th commandment), but never encourages or allows us to speak lies, falsehoods, etc. so total libertarian free speech as practiced in the West is an Enlightenment principle not a biblical one. The Bible places limits on what we say and how we act.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

what I'm trying to find out is if you are in favor of freedom of religion as opposed to theocracy present day. Do you want religious government? .

 

[JM]

what I'm trying to find out is if you are in favor of freedom of religion as opposed to theocracy present day. Do you want religious government? .

Pagans, liberals, secularists, all legislate and impose their beliefs and morality upon Christians so yes I would like a government based on the general equity of biblical law.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes.



No, not at all.

Reformed Christians also view the Law of God as having a threefold use. The second use of the Law is to restrain evil, "Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgement, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4). Thus it secures civil order, and serves to protect the righteous from the unjust." Source

So, we believe God saves His people in community and the Law of God has a continued role in society. "God...has ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end has armed them with the power of the sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers." Source

Christianity is truth! It is the revelation of God to mankind and therefore absolutely true even for those who do not believe, it's objectively true and therefore we are to based society in and on it. Scripture doesn't allow for religious pluralism or syncretism.



Religious pluralism and syncretism is an American (Enlightenment) idea and God is not an American.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Thanks JM. Can I ask a follow-up question? You're not obligated to answer at all. Are you a Dominionist?

 

[JM]

Thanks JM. Can I ask a follow-up question? You're not obligated to answer at all. Are you a Dominionist?

Yeah, kinda. Not in the 1970's and 80's sense of the term but yes, a modern theonomist. I believe theonomy is biblical and in accord with the Reformed Confessions. Guys like Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin express modern theonomy using Greg Bahnsen as a springboard and do a fine job.

It's God's law of humanism.

It's Christ or chaos and this chaos is being demonstrated before our eyes right now.

This is a great video and I believe Calvin and the Reformed tradition of scriptural interpretation line up with it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah, kinda. Not in the 1970's and 80's sense of the term but yes, a modern theonomist. I believe theonomy is biblical and in accord with the Reformed Confessions. Guys like Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin express modern theonomy using Greg Bahnsen as a springboard and do a fine job.

It's God's law of humanism.

It's Christ or chaos and this chaos is being demonstrated before our eyes right now.

This is a great video and I believe Calvin and the Reformed tradition of scriptural interpretation line up with it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

So when should a missionary plant a church, before or after a theonomy is firmly established in an unchurched region?

 

[JM]

So when should a missionary plant a church, before or after a theonomy is firmly established in an unchurched region?

We should engage in the battle of Holy Evangelism at all times. We need to establish beachheads so we can storm Satan's pillboxes and take ground. The Kingdom advances much like a rock climber when they head up the side of a cliff. Sometimes you move forward, sometimes to the side and sometimes back, always reaching...reaching for souls.

 

[Paulomycin]

We should engage in the battle of Holy Evangelism at all times. We need to establish beachheads so we can storm Satan's pillboxes and take ground. The Kingdom advances much like a rock climber when they head up the side of a cliff. Sometimes you move forward, sometimes to the side and sometimes back, always reaching for souls...

I'm just looking for a reliable process here. When we send out missionaries, do we plant a church and then establish a theonomy, or is it the other way around?

When establishing a theonomy, is it necessary to overthrow the existing government?

 

[JM]

I'm just looking for a reliable process here. When we send out missionaries, do we plant a church and then establish a theonomy, or is it the other way around?

When establishing a theonomy, is it necessary to overthrow the existing government?

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I believe the biblical model is to "teach all nations" first. Preach the Gospel. Affect real change in society by making disciples. God's law is part of the Gospel and not something added on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Pagans, liberals, secularists, all legislate and impose their beliefs and morality upon Christians so yes I would like a government based on the general equity of biblical law.

Let me ask it this way --The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", unlike, for example, the Vatican, where the Church IS the government. Is the Vatican's government the sort of thing you would prefer?