Some information about Calvin

[Albion]

See, I thought that's where it all started. Was the Presbyterians?

Presbyterians--Calvinist church started by one of Calvin's followers.

Reformed Churches--more directly descended from Calvin.

And then there are Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and others who have been influenced by Calvinistic teaching, but those churches are normally not called "Calvinist" churches.

 

[rturner76]

Yeah, I'm a Methodist and Whitfield was a Calvinist but Wesley did not agree with that way of looking at things so they went their seperate ways. They still had respect for each others "Method" of being devout and modest etc. Just didn't agree on the TULIP stuff. I'm glad I was raised the way I was personally.

I didn't think Calvin touched all those churches though. I thought Anglican was English-Catholic

 

[iLogos]

I never said you shouldn't respect his work. I understand he was a fine lawyer and theocratic ruler. Though I would not say his writings were divinely inspired. I wasn't aware of this Calvin's exploits before a few days ago so I wrote about it in a place where there are people that will know more about it than I. I didn't set out to cause you personal offence. I am baptized and I grew up in an African Methodist Episcopalian Church thank you for asking. I was baptized young and would like to do it again but many churches believe in 1 baptism and I did choose it at the time. I was 13 and did not want to be confirmed Lutheran.

So would you call yourself a "Calvinist?" Is that why I seem to have offended you. Have I offended you? If so I apologize.

I know nothing of his work as a lawyer, the work I respect was his theological work. I don't view Calvinism as a "denomination or religion". I simply see it as the correct way to understand the Bible, the way it was actually intended from God. I don't like Calvinism, it goes against my human grain and personal will. Which is why so many don't like it too. So when it comes to who's in charge, the ME-self likes to think I am in charge, but the reality and Truth is GOD is in charge, always. A lot of people don't like that reality, but is the truth. A lot of people don't like Calvinism because they think Calvin started all this. He didn't. Augustine did. The reformers all followed these views, but Calvin gets the credit and namesake for popularizing it again. So a lot of people don't like Calvin.

I think the alternative to Calvinism is ludicrous. That would make God dependent on man's will and have to act according to man's will. It's not like that at all. Man is dependent on God's Will and God is always in full control and never has to wait to see what man will do first. If God is the Master of the Universe, in complete control of the heavens and earth right down to minute quantum particles, what makes you think He would need to wait to see what man would do? God actually guides every thing, including man's thoughts and actions, and man acting as a free agent, freely does God's Will thinking he is following his own will or course of actions. Not realizing his is actually following God's course of action. Nothing happens by chance or mistake. It is all, every thing God's Will in action. This was revealed to us by the apostles, and even known in the OT. It is well cemented in the scriptures!

Man prefers to be his own god, and prefers to imagine that God just created every thing and then stepped back to let man take it where man wants. Not what the Bible teaches

 

[mothcorrupteth]

In our present age, the Church's beliefs about the functions of the civil government are heavily influenced by relativism and to a lesser extent, by the Voluntaryism of Roger Williams' Rhode Island. However, in many of the Reformers' systems of thought, the Church was not viewed as entirely separate from the civil authorities, nor were outright heretics viewed as simply another denomination. Kings and queens, as in Is. 49:23, were the foster fathers and nursing mothers of the Church, destined to help Her spread Her doctrine over all the earth by protecting correct religion.

Moreover, modern evangelicalism has chosen to see the relationship of Old and New Testament as fundamentally discontinuous. The Reformers saw it as more continuous. The model for Church-State relations was not to be found in Church's status in the first century as a persecuted subculture. The model for Church-State relations was found in the manner in which the civil authorities of Israel interacted with the Levites of the temple. The judges and kings of Israel supported the Temple and its work. They also were under orders by the Law of God to stone to death anyone who had been established in a court of law as a murderer, a blasphemer, a homosexual, a bestial, or a sorcerer. Consequently, most of the Reformers saw it as the civil magistrate's duty to do the same for the Church.

We must remember that Calvin himself, and his church in Geneva, killed no one. It was not, as some people like to paint it, an instance of murder. It was an instance of civil justice, carried out by the Genevan City Council. By attacking the Trinity, Servetus had declared himself an enemy of that God upon which the State relied for its authority. To the Reformed mind, this was the same as treason against the State.

We are modern people, influenced by Enlightenment rationalism in ways we often do not perceive. Do not let your modern sensibilities cloud your judgment of what was ultimately a biblical response to Servetus and others like him.

 

[rturner76]

So at this time there was pretty much no such thing as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

@iLogos-I hear what you are saying about TULIP, I completly disagree but I'd rather save that argument for the soteriology section. THough I will agree that God is supreme ruler of all things seen and unseen and I respect your opinion. I was not trying to make a case that a man such as this could not have intelligent writings.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I was raised in an AME church but I recognize that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have Apostolic succession and are the root of all forms of Christianity. Something like they are the root and Methodism is one of the branches.

I agree with you about the root, and all non-Catholic Protestants are the branches...

 

[Albion]

So at this time there was pretty much no such thing as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Noooooo. That's why Calvin was the boss of Geneva. And he was not unique. It wasn't at all unusual in the Swiss federation for there to be other, similar "morals governors," whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

So at this time there was pretty much no such thing as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Well, that depends on what you mean by those two phrases. I don't think there's a total freedom of speech in any society--there are always limits on what you can say publicly. Sometimes those limits are imposed formally by the government, and other times those limits are imposed informally by threats of litigation. But you definitely couldn't just spout out whatever heresy you pleased. You would be excommunicated by the Church and punished by the civil magistrate if you started teaching something contrary to the Faith.

Likewise, there is always a certain degree of freedom of religion, even within an established church, because not every minutiae of doctrine is set in stone. But there are certain doctrines that are always going to be considered essential for everyone in the realm to believe--even in America. We have "freedom of religion" in America, but does that mean you can be a cannibal if your religion requires it? From a certain point of view, American law intolerantly excludes you from the freedom to belong to a cannibal religion, and I could paint people who uphold that exclusion as barbaric and power-hungry. But the question should never be whether a law is tolerant or intolerant. The question should always be whether a law is in conformity with God's commands. The execution of a brazen blasphemer was.

 

[hedrick]

Well, that depends on what you mean by those two phrases. I don't think there's a total freedom of speech in any society--there are always limits on what you can say publicly.

Sure. But in the 16th Cent the limits were a lot narrower. Today we try to let people express any viewpoint and practice any religion as long as it doesn't interfere with others. There are lots of practical difficulties with that that mean freedom isn't unlimited, but we don't intentionally mandate theology. In the 16th Cent it was considered that the Church and State were two aspects of a society, and it was expected that everyone (with a few partial exceptions, such as Jews) would belong to the religion. Thus things like rebaptizing and denying the Trinity were often punishable by death.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that today we have within limits a reasonable approximation to freedom of speech and religion, and this was not really a goal or reality in the 16th Cent.

Calvin (and some of the other Reformers) were a bit unusual in that they actually tried to create Christian societies. The rules they enforced were present everywhere, including in Catholic countries. But Calvin did attempt to apply church discipline to the population of Geneva more consistently than was normally done. This got him in big trouble with a group referred to as "libertines", who would no doubt have been fine in many other places in the 16th Cent.

I don't hold this against Calvin. The ideal of a well-disciplined Christian society was common in the 16th Cent. He was just trying to do a good job. However it's not an approach that I would advise today. I have mixed feelings whether in the abstract it's a good idea. In theory it seems to be. But in practice allowing that level of control over people is bound to result in abuse.

 

[mantelofaprophet]

I was doing some research about Calvinism trying to really understand this religon and I came across some stuff that shocked me. I'm surprised he has so many followers since Christ preached against killing and all.

Of crimes against humanity: 1531 John Calvin 1000s of religious nonconformists are killed and witches burned after John Calvin (1509-1564) turns Geneva into religious police state.
Of murder : (1553) That John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva did order Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy.
Of murder: (1531) Jacques Gruet Calvin orders beheading of Jacques Gruet for blasphemy.

Just a couple things I saw, there was a ton of terrorizing in Geneva. I'm sick, I thought he was a good preacher and was reading his stuff like he was a man of God.

not to surprising that the daughter would be alot like her mother

 

[rturner76]

But in practice allowing that level of control over people is bound to result in abuse.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. History proves this over and over again.

 

[iLogos]

Yeah, I'm a Methodist and Whitfield was a Calvinist but Wesley did not agree with that way of looking at things so they went their seperate ways. They still had respect for each others "Method" of being devout and modest etc. Just didn't agree on the TULIP stuff. I'm glad I was raised the way I was personally.

I didn't think Calvin touched all those churches though. I thought Anglican was English-Catholic

I'm not really familiar with Methodists. I thought most were Calvin leaning. Is there a distinction between them over this (split)? Or is it like Baptists, some do, some don't?

 

[WinBySurrender]

I'm not really familiar with Methodists. I thought most were Calvin leaning. Is there a distinction between them over this (split)? Or is it like Baptists, some do, some don't?

Free Methodists are Calvinists. The United Methodist Church traces it's roots to John Wesley (identified by today's pigeonholers who have to label everything) as an Arminian.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Free Methodists are Calvinists. The United Methodist Church traces it's roots to John Wesley (identified by today's pigeonholers who have to label everything) as an Arminian.

Ehhh... Are you sure about Free Methodists? I used to be Bible Methodist myself, and every single Free Methodist whose sermons I ever listened to were solidly Arminian. I'm pretty sure the only Calvinistic Methodists left are the Welsh.

 

[rturner76]

Ehhh... Are you sure about Free Methodists? I used to be Bible Methodist myself, and every single Free Methodist whose sermons I ever listened to were solidly Arminian. I'm pretty sure the only Calvinistic Methodists left are the Welsh.

I think this is correct though if you were a Methodist "pureist" you would need to go back and study the daily routine set by John Wesley and the Oxford group that were named "Methodist" fir their "Method" of daily prayer and daily living of modesty and piety. A far cry from today's Methodist's. There is a bit of an identity crisis going on within the Methodist community concerning homosexuality and abortion. Right now these things are still officially considered not Christian but we are not to judge anyone seeking God. There is a movement and outright disobedience to this code with some Pastor's providing gay marriage and having pro-choice ministries. I think there wil be a split like the Lutherans pretty soon. Onr for the "old ways" one for the new more liberal ways. My personal opinion is like one one hand I don't care about your rules, my relationship with God is my own and on the other hand, there should be a moral compass in the church so I guess I'm confused about it. Like mom and dad getting a divorce.

 

[Albion]

Ehhh... Are you sure about Free Methodists? I used to be Bible Methodist myself, and every single Free Methodist whose sermons I ever listened to were solidly Arminian. I'm pretty sure the only Calvinistic Methodists left are the Welsh.

You are correct. The Free Methodists (the Free Methodist Church of North America, to be more precise) is decidedly and openly Arminian. Although the Welsh Methodists were Calvinist, I don't know that any of the various American Methodist bodies are Calvinist. If so, correct me.

 

[apache1]

Sounds like the "Christians" in positions of authority in those days were kinda like the ayatollahs and mullahs in the Muslim world now. I worship Jesus Christ, and him only, and don't submit to any "ecclesiastical" (or whatever ten dollar word you want to use) authority. Neither Calvin nor Servetus mean jack crap to me.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Nobody pay any attention, they just want rush around leaping on each other's posts.

... OK, one more time:

I don't know where that came from, but Calvin couldn't have had a hand in the death of thousands because, frankly, there were nowhere near that many people executed for heresy, though I'd admit one is too many. He did have a major role in the trial and execution of Servetus, but I get the impression from historical accounts he was not enthusiastic about it, and he certainly wasn't going around denouncing anyone and demanding they be sent to the gallows or be burned to death. Might want to check this out:

John Calvin: The Tyrant Who Never Was

Pay particular attention to the links at the bottom of the article, and check them out.

For those with attention deficit disorder: Calvin wasn't a saint, but he wasn't a demon, either. Kinda describes most of us, too.

 

[rturner76]

Burning people alive does not describe me.

 

[iLogos]

Burning people alive does not describe me.

I agree. But is not any form of torture equally distasteful? The Spanish Inquisition invented new torture and that was just to get confessions! After the confessions death followed usually! All approved by the Pope of course.

While the accused heretics were on strappado or the rack, inquisitors often applied other torture devices to their bodies. These included[bless and do not curse] heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices. Although mutilation was technically forbidden, in 1256, Pope Alexander IV decreed that inquisitors could clear each other from any wrongdoing that they might have done during torture sessions.

source

I would say none are totally innocent.