Quote of the Day (2)
33 comments | Permalink
"The amount of misrepresentation to which Calvin's theology has been subjected is enough to prove his doctrine of total depravity several times over."
J. I. Packer, "John Calvin and Reformed Europe," in Packer, Honouring the People of God, p. 19.
J. I. Packer, "John Calvin and Reformed Europe," in Packer, Honouring the People of God, p. 19.
posted by JT at Monday, June 18, 2007
33 Comments:
Thank you for your recent quotes from Packer's book you are going through. I am going through his "Quest for Godliness." He is so quotable at times. Thanks.
Hilariously awesome.
Mmm. Some pure truth right there.
Clever! But not clever enough. For by the same kind of argument this misrepresentation also proves that the doctrine is false: if people are not totally depraved they recognise the errors in Calvin's theology. So, this theology in fact needs to stand or fall by whether or not it conforms with the Word of God, including 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Ironically, just a couple of lines later Packer refutes this (mis)understanding of total depravity: "His doctrine of sin as total depravity is still taken to mean that we are all by nature as bad as we could be, despite his explicit teaching that common grace, working through science, law, environment, and civil government, constantly restrains the full outworking of corruption and moves even the ungodly to social and cultural enterprises of abiding worth."
Ooh, pithy.
Very, very clever - and yes just cleaver enough
the theology of total depravity does stand and fall directly upon the Scriptures
Total Depravity (Total Inability)
The doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) understands the Bible to teach that all men, as a consequence of the Fall, are born morally corrupt, enslaved to sin, and unable of themselves to please God or even to turn to Christ for salvation.
Is man basically good or basically evil?
Ecclesiastes 7:29 - "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."
Romans 5:12,19 - through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned... through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners
Psalm 116:11
Are there any exceptions?
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Isaiah 53:6 - All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way;
Romans 3:9-12 - What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.
1 John 1:8,10 - If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar and His word is not in us.
Additional verses - Psalm 143:2, Proverbs 20:9, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Micah 7:2-4
Is this wickedness superficial or essential? Are people good deep down?
Mark 7:21-23 - "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
Isaiah 1:5-6 - The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil.
Romans 7:18 - I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh
Is it basically a matter of ignorance? Do men just "not know any better?"
Romans 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Romans 1:21 - For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:32 - and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Are men willingly sinful? Do they at least have good intentions?
John 3:19 - "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."
Proverbs 21:10 - The soul of the wicked desires evil
Proverbs 10:23 - Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool
Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 - Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually... from youth.
2 Peter 2:12-13
Can men still perform good deeds when they want to?
Matthew 7:18 - "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
Titus 1:15-16 - to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
1 Samuel 24:13, Matthew 12:34, Romans 14:23
Are men at least born pure?
Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth.
Isaiah 48:8
What is the natural disposition of man toward God?
John 3:20 - "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
Romans 8:7-8 - the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Colossians 1:21 - you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds
James 4:4 - You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
What is man's relationship to God?
Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth.
Ephesians 2:12-13 - remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 2:3 - Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Isaiah 59:2
Can man then do anything to please God?
Proverbs 15:9,8 - The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord (cf. Proverbs 21:27)... The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord
Proverbs 28:9 - He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, even his prayer is an abomination.
Isaiah 64:6 - For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
Romans 8:7-8 - the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Hebrews 11:6 - And without faith it is impossible to please [God]
Psalm 50:16, Isaiah 1:10-15, Amos 5:21-24
What about human freedom?
John 8:34 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
2 Timothy 2:25-26 - if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
Titus 3:3 - For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.
Romans 6:6 - our old self was crucified with Him... so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient... and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:20 - For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Romans 7:14 - For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
John 8:31-32,36, Galatians 4:9, 2 Peter 2:19
Any questions?...
Peter Kirk,
Could you please tell me how 1 Tim. 2:4 and Peter 3:9 rejects or has anything to do with total depravity. Even good classic Arminians, not semi-pelagians (there is a difference) believe in the total depravity of man. It seems the debate in those verses cited is not with total depravity, it is with election.
B-Man,
Thank you so much for the wealth of scripture listed in response to all the questions you listed. Those verses and many others are why I believe in total depravity. Thank God we don't have to rely on Calvin, but the word of God.
-Trey from South Hamilton
Any questions?...
Yes. Where's the hat tip for traviscarden.com?
LP
Here! Here! Never is this more true than in the modern day SBC!
Barry
"The amount of misrepresentation to which Calvin's theology has been subjected is enough to prove his doctrine of total depravity several times over."
Sadly, I think many Calvinists consider this to actually be true.
Luke 6:44 says that trees are known by their fruit, and thornbushes do not produce grapes. Proverbs 20:11 says that even a child is known by his right (or wrong) doings.
Calvin is known by his doings, which include the execution by agonizing torture of Michael Servetus, the disgraceful banishment of Sebastian Castellio, and the torture and killing of other residents of Geneva, such as Jacques Gruet, who was tortured and beheaded for offending and disagreeing with Calvin.
Geneva, of whom Calvin was ruler, declared Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" to be "holy writ" and incontestable doctrine.
Sadly, some Calvinists are so attached to Calvin that they continue to defend his violent, heretical and murderous behavior.
The biblical response to both the behavior of Calvin and the acquiescence of Calvinists is to ask: if Calvin's theology is pure and good, then why does it produce such evil and bloody fruit?
Anon...
You have an unfortunately twisted view of Calvin's life and heart. First let us deal with Servetus. Servetus, while educated in medicine and the arts, dabbled in theology. His theology was heretical and divisive. He denied the deity of Christ. He very quickly became the enemy of the Catholics and many protestant groups. He started writing letters attacking Calvin and his theology and Calvin wrote back. Yet in comparison to most of the writing of the day (and Michael Servetus's own letters, Calvin was kind and compassionate, urging Servetus to come back to orthodox truth. When Servetus was being hunted by the Catholics, Calvin went to Catholic France to meet with him, only to be stood-up (he risked his own life). Later, Servetus was captured by the Catholics and sentenced to death but escaped. He ran to Geneva to escape the Catholics. Unfortunately, he did not have many friends there either. Servetus was captured and put on trial (Calvin visited him in prison and tried, unsuccessfully,to reason with him to save his life). Calvin was forced by the Genevan Magistrate to prosecute Servetus which while he had reservations, he did to the best of his ability. It was decided by the magistrate that Servetus was a heretic and decided to execute him. They even called upon other protestant groups for deliberation, all said he should be executed. They decided that as a heretic he should die a heretic's death, by burning. Calvin urged them to reconsider, asking for beheading as a mercy for an unbalanced man, but the Magistrate would not listen. It was they, not Calvin, who burned Servetus at the stake.
You must understand the times. We tend to look back at things with our own context in mind and condemn these people for their "horrible" acts. We live in a relatively peaceful society, unlike any other in history and probably unlike any that will come after. Calvin lived in an age where beliefs were a legitimate cause of death. If you strayed into this territory or that you could be rounded up and slaughtered. There were spies and assassins all over seeking the lives of those who believed differently. Protestants wanted peace to grow and live practicing their faith, but they were not perfect either. Some (like Servetus) associated freedom from the Catholic church to be freedom from any doctrine which was not what Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli advocated. Because the lives of the protestants were hanging in the balance, heresy could not be tolerated.
Calvin may not be completely justified in all his decisions (neither can Luther, Zwingli, Augustine, David, Moses, etc.), but that does not negate some of the greatest pastoral/practical applications of Scripture and theology the world has seen. If you were to read his Institutes and his commentaries on Scripture with your Bible open next to it(and I hope you try it), you will see a very different view of the man.
anonymous:
I would encourage you to research the full scope of the ministry of John Calvin. He was far from perfect, but unlike what most believe he was a compassionate pastor/theologian. I will simply say that the full history is there if you are interested in knowing the man. Calvin sat at the bedside of dying saints, visited the prisoners with the hope of reforming them, and most importantly his commentaries and sermons have serviced the Church of the Living God for almost five centuries. It is also interesting that Calvin trained more missionaries and church planters than Huddson Taylor, William Carey, or almost anyother human in the history of the church, but those facts are unjustly ignored by those who refuse to research the truth. I pray that you will be careful in your unjust condemnation of a fellow fallen human. Remember that we are warned we will be judged by the same standard as we judge others!
"When Servetus was being hunted by the Catholics, Calvin went to Catholic France to meet with him, only to be stood-up (he risked his own life). Later, Servetus was captured by the Catholics and sentenced to death but escaped."
In fact, Calvin exposed Servetus's pseudonym to the Catholic Inquisition, which is what lead to his capture and interrogation.
"Calvin urged them to reconsider, asking for beheading as a mercy for an unbalanced man,"
Far from unbalanced, Servetus was a brilliant man who first correctly explained how blood circulates through the human body. What other medical knowledge might have been gained had he not been pointlessly murdered, we will never know.
"...but the Magistrate would not listen. It was they, not Calvin, who burned Servetus at the stake."
In 1546, Calvin wrote to a friend that:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
And in fact, Calvin had Servetus arrested after Servetus attended one of Calvin's sermons in Geneva.
Ultimately, Servetus was killed in an agonizing 30 minute burning in which green wood was used to slow the torture. The citizens of Geneva, Calvinists, stood and passively observed what must have been a grotesque spectacle.
"You must understand the times. We tend to look back at things with our own context in mind and condemn these people for their "horrible" acts."
I don't need to understand the times, because I have the bible. Murder is not permitted, regardless of one's cultural backdrop.
Read in Matthew 22. These are the words of Jesus, who I hope we agree is more authoritative than Calvin:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. "
By this Jesus meant that you cannot have a guest in your town arrested as he leaves church, throw him into a miserable dungeon, and then have him tortured to death in the public square by burning him with green wood on the basis of something he said or wrote that offended your town's leader.
This is basic. If the words of Jesus are not taken as truth and if an act of obscene murder by a group of self-titled Christians is excused for "cultural reasons", then there is nothing to talk about. We do not have enough common ground to reason together.
In 1561, Calvin wrote:
"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."
What in Calvin's theology caused him to view a human being as someone to be "exterminated"?
"I pray that you will be careful in your unjust condemnation of a fellow fallen human. Remember that we are warned we will be judged by the same standard as we judge others!"
Murder is wrong, whether you like me to say it or not.
I detest anonymous comments so I'll put my name up there. Whether you are a follower of Calvin or not, to say that he was not a murderer is to not study history. Your defense of him is disturbing. Defend his doctrine if you wish and do so vigorously. Many will cheer you, many will scorn you, but please don't attempt to use revisionist history. It destroys your credibility.
Anon, while I applaud your accurate presentation of history, your unwillingness to attach a name to it does not help your credibility.
Let's be careful what we call "revisionist." I accurately portrayed Calvin's heart to reach a man who was a heretic. Calvin did approve of killing those he viewed as heretics. As I said before, at the time not only were these actions acceptable, they were expected. Giving only the negative aspects of Calvin's character and pulling him out of his cultural context in order to judge him is revisionist. I cannot fully support all that Calvin did, but at the same point it is not exactly fair to condemn him and the theological tradition that bears his name because of these actions.
Joe & Anon...
You said, "Far from unbalanced, Servetus was a brilliant man..." I will not deny his contributions to science, but he did things that showed him to be unbalanced. His reactions to people and his insistence on dabbling in theology beyond his training led directly toward his death. When Calvin sent him a letter of response, Servetus rudely wrote corrections and insults all over the letter itself and sent it back to Calvin. This is only one example that shows the man was lacking in normal social skills. This single act is not what led to his death, but was likely a contributing factor. Calvin tried repeatedly to bring Servetus to an Orthodox view for Servetus’s own good and that of the people of Europe. You do a disservice to the man and his legacy when you dismiss him over these things.
You, again, do not seem to be taking into account the whole man or his role. He was placed in a position that no longer exists in our society. He was the spiritual protector of a city full of new believers in a fledgling and fragile faith. They were hemmed-in on all sides by Catholics that were more than willing to utterly destroy them (Zwingli died when the Catholics attacked Zurich by surprise). Death was a real penalty of faith or lack thereof. Heresy simply could not be allowed to crop-up in Geneva and it was Calvin’s role to see to that. He was not the executioner, but he agreed with the findings of the court. He could not afford not to. For you to call him a murderer and place responsibility for Servetus’s death solely at his feet takes him out of his unique role and is rather naive.
Steve
Oh Steve! Using your argument makes it OK for dictators to kill people because that is the context they live in. It's a silly argument. If what you are saying is correct then it was OK for the Catholic church to kill those they felt were heretics. If Mr. Calvin were truly the man of God ,most Calvinist want me to believe he was he should have stood up and said, this is wrong. Now, there was a lot of great men who were murderers (Paul, David, Moses, just to name a few) so your point that his being a murderer may not have any relevance on his theology can certainly be debated. You could certainly make some well thought out arguments along those lines. But please don't insult my intelligence and tell me that because of the culture he lived in, he wasn't a murderer. I want to share a true story with you. My great-grandfather killed my great grandmother because she burnt supper. In the country in which he lived, it didn’t even generate a blink. 4 years later he was sheriff of the town. Did he murder her? Yes, he did. His culture said he didn’t. He just gave a her a good beating. The fact that she died was unfortunate. What about slavery? I’m trying to stay away from emotionally charged arguments here but how far away is your argument from the slavers who beat and murdered caught slaves who escaped? Or the Nazi’s.
My point is everyone thinks they are right. People tend to think this even more so when they are killing someone in the name of a cause.
Defend the guy's theology all you want, but please don't say he didn't murder people because we all know he did. If you decide to answer any of this, please answer this one question. Would you say, “Mr. Calvin was not a murderer?”
Joe,
Thank you for your response. I am not sure we'll ever come to agreement on this subject, but we can give it a shot. Gladly, it certainly will not lead to murder here!
I agree that the situation with your ancestor was, indeed, murder, if that is all there was to it. Although manslaughter might be a more accurate term. I am really not trying to get into semantics here. The reason why Calvin was NOT a murderer was that he was not acting as a private citizen, taking the law into his own hands to do-away with someone he didn't agree with. He was acting in an official capacity as the spiritual leader and judicial prosecutor of Geneva (two separate offices). Now from what I know of the man, he had personal sentiments in the affore-mentioned cases, but he would have kept the personal things out of the pursuit of his duty as an official. He would feel that it was necessary to prosecute the person to the best of his ability as a glorification of God. Now I realize that you do not feel that God is glorified in the "murder" of his "innocent ones," but realize that few if any felt that Servetus was innocent.
Next, if it was murder to execute Servetus, then it would have been murder to execute Hitler (if he had been brought to trial) for war crimes. Was it wrong to execute Saddam Hussein? Was it wrong to execute Nazis for war crimes? Is that murder? Murder is a term that is generally reserved for the unwarranted killing of an individual by another individual, killing ceases to be murder when it is performed by authorities in line with the public will. This was the case with Servetus. Just as David was considered a murderer for killing Uriah the Hittite (not a fellow ethnic Jew by-the-way), over a personal matter but was not considered a murderer for killing many Philistines and other Canaanite people, even when not in an official war. Context, while not being everything, is significant.
Mathaetaes, thank you for stating your position. You are probably correct we will not come to agreement here. Let me state the flaw that I believe is in your argument. The Nazi’s were murderers even though they were acting as agents of the state. They killed people that they believed (twisted as it was) to be “guilty.” The “I’m just an agent of the state” doesn’t work in any civil court, it certainly shouldn’t work as we evaluate those who have given us our theology. How is what Calvin did, different than what the Nazi’s did? How is it different than what the Catholic Church did? (A question I asked in my last post) I believe Calvin was sincere. I just believe he was sincerely a murderer. As for “murdering” Hitler, to me that is apples and oranges. Hitler ordered the murder of people and probably murdered people on his own. Servetus was “guilty” of not agreeing with Calvin. This is just one murder that I believe can be laid at the feet of Calvin. He also believed that children should be taken from parents who did not give stated child a “biblical” name. It seems to me that because you agree with Calvin theologically he wasn’t a murderer, but because you disagree with the Nazis and the Catholics (I’m assuming this, of course) they were not justified in their actions and therefore they were murderers but he is not. Am I accurately summarizing your position? If not, please explain how you see them differently.
Thanks.
Mathaetaes said: "Murder is a term that is generally reserved for the unwarranted killing of an individual by another individual, killing ceases to be murder when it is performed by authorities..."
This is the peek-a-boo semantics game routinely used by tyrants and dictators. They set up tribunals and kangaroo courts fueled by secrecy, power games and "evidence" obtained by coercion and torture. All of this gives the murder of political or ideological opponents the veneer of respectability.
When the "Bodies" exhibit came to my city from China, I refused to go see it. Why? Because the bodies for "Bodies" came from Dalian University which has been known to use "executed prisoners for commercial purposes". This is doublespeak for "murder victims of the Chinese government whose bodies are sold for profit by their murderers".
I'm not letting China hide behind legal excuses, and I'm not letting John Calvin either.
Pardon me for saying so, but every time I talk to Calvinists about humane treatment of others, the discussion meanders to a discussion of either the technicalities of the law or philosophy.
"...in line with the public will."
From the book of Matthew:
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
It is not acceptable to kill someone because the mob demands it.
I don't have a lot of time, so I will respond to Twig quickly now and get back to Joe later.
Twig,
Was it wrong to kill Christ? Is Scripture condemning the crowds? Jesus does not condemn them, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The reason we so vehemently disagree with the death of Christ was because he was innocent of any real crime. He was who he said he was. Yet if he had said that he was "I am" and had not been, they would have been performing a God-mandated service, unfortunately overshadowed by Rome. If Jesus had lied about who he was, he would be a blasphemer rightly punished by death. But we know the truth.
Really all of this is a perspective game. Our society says death is bad, and should never be used for any reason. Even horrible people who commit the most violent and heinous acts imaginable are to be spared from a death penalty. Why? Because of some innate nobility of the human spirit? Because we are made in God's image? It is because we are made in God's image that their SHOULD be a death penalty. If we are made in God's image (and we are) it must not be marred by sin, idolatry, blasphemy, murder, and the other twistings that have come from Satan and the minds of men. Instead we are to exemplify God's image through living like Christ. Yet God provides civil authority (which must not be separated from morality and theology) in order to protect its citizens from those who have twisted God's image. Executions are necessary pressure valves which must be carefully and rightly used. Just because justice has been perverted does not mean we ditch a God-sanctioned penalty. Instead we must work to convert justice back to what it should be. This is a similar sentiment to that of the American founding fathers. A "reboot," so-to-speak, of justice, faith, and godly society, but with freedom for all, even if they dissent (which brings its own set of problems).
Let us remember that it was not the mob that killed Christ, but God. God set everything up from the beginning so that Christ would be needed and that he would die for man's sins. The law was set up to kill Christ. It was God's "good pleasure" to see him crushed and destroyed. It is by this alone that we can stand before God. Apart from God we can do nothing; we cannot stand before the throne of God. The mob was wrong, but it was also right. The people and the Pharisees did what they were "supposed" to do. But they were wrong because this individual was God.
Calvin, with all his faults (and I do not deny he had faults), was, in an official capacity, defending the image of God in the Genevan population. I do not think we may call that "murder" any more than civil authorities killing violent dissenters or terrorists today.
China is a completely different situation in that it is based on a pagan concept (humanistic socialism) and is directly opposed to the image of God, in which case their government is illegitimate. Let this suffice to also answer Joe’s question about Nazis. A government that sees itself as a tool of God, and tries to rightly govern its people based on that is not illegitimate. God is the final authority and those who govern justly in his name are a blessing to the world. The question that remains is, did Calvin rule justly? That may not be for us to decide. I think that for the most part, he did. Others disagree. But remove those things that are questionable for a moment and examine the writings of the man. Where do they stand? Do they glorify God or do they glorify men? There is much good meat in Calvin’s writings and it is a shame to throw that out because of contextual and philosophical disagreements.
And so now it seems we are back to "I believe Calvin was right Theologically, so he is not a murderer, but the other people were wrong theologically, so they were/are murderers." I don't see how we can use the man's theology to justify his actions. I know you said, you'd answer me later but...it would at least seem that I did indeed represent your view correctly.
Joe,
Sorry, had to work, just got back. As to your last couple of postings, no, I do not think you have my position right yet. It is not just a matter of agreement or disagreement with theology. I brought that in because of Twig's use of China and your use of Nazis as examples. As far as Calvin and the Catholics go, while I am not in theological agreement with Catholics, I am not in complete condemnation of them either. I would not call what Hus and Zwingli underwent "murder" either. These men were certainly martyred for their faith. But they were killed by court and religious edict. So they were executed. While some believe this to be only semantics, I find it to be a meaningful distinction. The Catholics, believing themselves to be right, defended their faith and put to death those who endangered it. They were well within legal rights to do so. I cannot condemn them any more than I can condemn Calvin.
My problem with some of the comments of this post is their pejorative idea of Calvin. He becomes a larger-than-life monster who is only out for blood. His theological ideas, are, by inference, intolerable, and his legacy void of merit. This is not fair to the man or his work. To use the term "murderer" of Calvin is inaccurate and dishonest, and is often used to further infer diabolical intentions on the part of present-day "Calvinists."
I'll add another two cents. The term Calvinism, while bearing his name is not the brainchild of Calvin. Really it is a modified Augustinianism. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, Melancthon, Bullinger, the Puritans, and others have affected it along the way. To reject this line of thinking because of a poor view of one man would be rather silly.
There seems to be quite a bit of contention between those who consider themselves Calvinists and those who consider themselves Arminians (I wonder if that is what you consider yourself to be, Joe), but we must be careful to prevent ourselves from becoming antagonistic and hateful toward one another. To reduce Calvin to a murderer and his theological descendents as some sort of spawn of a murderer makes the same mistake for which Calvin is here being blamed, devaluing a life made by God. The reasoning is flawed. To be honest, both views have some things going for them and some flaws (most of the flaws are inflated by individuals who are sloppy or uneducated about the position they are taking and also with how they run their lives. I must state that I am not inferring this about you, Joe. What I am trying to say is that we should look upon John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, and each other with some grace. We cannot condemn them even if we disagree with their actions or ideas. That is God's job. I do belive Calvin is in heaven. I think Arminius is probably there also. And Joe, it is my most sincere hope that someday when we have left this world behind we might strike up a friendly debate about this when we have all the pieces of the puzzle revealed to us. Blessings.
Steve
What am I? That my friend is the million dollar question. At one time I was a staunch Calvinist defender. I still believed he was a murderer though, I simply defended his theology. To me the two are separate issues. Today, I am not nearly as reformed in my faith.
I will say you are consistent in your defense of your position, but it my opinion it is flawed. The crowd isn't always right. The mob shouldn't always get their pound of flesh.
I'll say it again, everyone believes they are right when they are acting in the name of God, even if they happen to call him Allah, and are flying a plane into a building.
I must also say, that if you are ever in the Western mi. fire me an email. We can sit around a fire, drink some coke and chat up a storm. I ussually find most defenders of Calvin to be rather abrasive. Often I am convinced they believe they are the excrement ejection hole of the body because of the rate at which they call names.
I have enjoyed our discussion.
Mathaetaes says:
"Yet God provides civil authority (which must not be separated from morality and theology) in order to protect its citizens from those who have twisted God's image."
This implicates a significant number of people. In fact, anyone who disagrees theologically with the religious and political elite who establish what twisting God's image means would be subject to punishment.
Europe endured hundreds of years of bloodshed as different religious factions battled, burned, tortured and "purified" their regions of perceived heresy. Is this what you want?
"Executions are necessary pressure valves which must be carefully and rightly used. Just because justice has been perverted does not mean we ditch a God-sanctioned penalty."
Sure... "Let's keep imposing the God-ordained death penalty on innocent people who were railroaded because the death penalty is biblical!"
Executions are not "pressure valves", unless you are Stalin, or the Communist Chinese, and you want to terrify people into submission or purge dissidents.
Your ideas scare me.
"Calvin, with all his faults (and I do not deny he had faults), was, in an official capacity, defending the image of God in the Genevan population."
Calvin desecrated God's image by presenting himself and his community as godly when in fact he was a proud, political, bloody, cruel and vengeful man.
To this day, people point out Calvin's Geneva as an example of why the religious elite should not be allowed to have great political influence, or, heaven forbid, actually rule.
"I do not think we may call that "murder" any more than civil authorities killing violent dissenters or terrorists today."
So now we have it. Calvin killing a man who disagreed with him theologically is the equivalent of killing a terrorist.
Where did I leave my smelling salts?
Twig,
This discussion is unraveling. I'll be brief. You, and the anonymous person before you, have taken snippets of works or of my own postings and used them as entire arguments or ideas. For example, you quoted me as saying, "Executions are necessary pressure valves which must be carefully and rightly used. Just because justice has been perverted does not mean we ditch a God-sanctioned penalty." Yet you failed to deal with the following, "Instead we must work to convert justice back to what it should be." So you are not being completely honest or fair in your argument style, but picking and choosing partial thoughts to hash over. I am sure we do not see eye-to-eye on most things and that arguments at this point will prove fruitless. I will no longer respond on this topic. In the future I hope that you might take into account whole arguments and weigh the merits and detriments to each before responding. I am sorry if I scared you.
Steve
"You, and the anonymous person before you, have taken snippets of works or of my own postings and used them as entire arguments or ideas."
I was the anonymous person, obviously. But joe wanted me to assume an identity, so I obediently did so.
"Yet you failed to deal with the following, "Instead we must work to convert justice back to what it should be."
I'm a school librarian, it is the end of the school year, and my library is in disarray. I'm working 11 hour days and I don't have time to address everything, particularly the obvious.
What is obvious is that you do not necessarily consider freedom of speech and conscience to be a basic human right under the law. I support your right to disagree with me because I, in fact, do believe in freedom of speech and conscience under the law. No burning books OR people for me, dear friend! I will defend your right to hold and state your opinion even if I don't like it.
Therefore, your idea of "converting justice back to what it should be" may be very different from my idea.
So why discuss it? Even with a perfect system of justice, executions still do not function as a "pressure valve", as if we need to get rid of a certain number of criminals so that we get down to a bearable level.
I used to know a librarian named Twig. Her daughter broke her leg and I stablized it with a "Life" magazine. I also taught her son. Henceforth, I shall think of them when I read your post twig.
Steve, I know you said your done posting here but I would like for you to address your line about murder ceasing to be murder when it is done in an official capacity to the will of the people. There is not way you actually believe that is true across the board is it? Also, I do think that it is you being disingenuous with Twig, the librarian. This thread is far from unraveling.
Twig, the librarian presented his or her view and made some statements about yours. Come back and make this a whole discussion.
Twig and Joe,
Okie-doke, you got me back. I don't mind continuing this as long as we can be a little more civil with each other and it is alright with J.T. A few comments by Twig seem to indicate more of a desire for quarreling than for any sort of consensus or agreement. I don't think that we should continue if that is the case. 2 Tim. 2:22-26.
As far as the distinction between murder and execution goes, I do think that it would be a distinction generally across the board. Yet we can say that an execution was wrong for some reason, because it was set up by a "kangaroo court" as mentioned earlier, or because the person was innocent. Execution, however, should be seen as a court mandated death by will of the people. If a leader wrongly uses this mandate (so that it is no longer the will of the people but the will of the singular governing head) it is a different matter. Certainly this is an abuse of power. So David's act WAS murder because it was a personally motivated act to remove evidence of his guilt. A president or dictator could perform this sort of act and be a murderer or they may go through with the whole court system to legitimize it resulting in an execution, but then the leader is still guilty of murder, even if the other agents are not for their part (although some could be cognizant of the crime, becoming accomplices at least and co-murderers at worst). We must be careful to set up right distinctions before we accuse a person or a system of government of murder. Really it depends less on the action taken than on motive. If we are to use Hitler as an example, he may rightly be accused of murder because he allowed personal views and vendettas to inform his decisions to kill countless people. Stalin has the same legacy. Lenin was even worse in that rather than only partaking in ideology which led to murder or death, he personally murdered members of his own cabinet in meetings by pistol and by baseball bat.
Let us get back to Calvin. Did Calvin murder Servetus? Did he hate Servetus and want him dead for some reason so that he personally took his life or used the court to do so. I think that the answer must be no. Did he perform actions that indirectly or directly led to Servetus’s death? Certainly he did. What were the motivations? As far as I can tell, they were to protect the citizenry of Geneva and Protestants everywhere, and to bring Michael Servetus to the realization of his sinful actions, before he was killed. But I cannot say this with certainty, just as you cannot say with certainty that his motivations were completely lethal.
As far as the will of the people is concerned, this country’s bill of rights and other founding documents are based on mob rule. The citizenry are to rule themselves. A citizen is to become president, citizens to become representatives, citizens to judge, and citizens to police those elected to rule. This is supposed to prevent tyranny, but it doesn’t always work. If a people (of a country or group) base their ideas on something (the Bible, the Bill of rights, Mein Kampf, The Articles of the Revolution, etc.) how do they keep their ideas “pure” and free of alternate perspectives? If there is no censorship put in place, will their ideas endure? If we say that ideas SHOULD evolve, what of the Bible? Should it and its concepts evolve as well? How far? We are told in Scripture that God is changeless, he is “I AM,” who was and is and will be. How do we who believe this protect it?
In response to Twig, my defense of Calvin does not mean in any way that I support a loss of freedom of expression within reason, but we must realize that we should police ourselves when it comes to that expression. Not everything should be allowable. I am also not for executing people for speaking their mind or even for heresy. As far as Calvin and Servetus go, in this line of thinking, they were in a different context and therefore are not fairly attacked by using today’s standards.
As far as prisons go, there are many violent and horrible people that we are paying good money to keep alive and “reform.” Most of these, by any of the studies you look at, will not be reformed and must be classified as incorrigibles. Why are we keeping them alive? If we were to open up all the prisons and let them walk free, would you feel safe? Some studies have found proof of a link between execution and a general cessation of violent crimes. Moreover, Old Testament civil law demands execution for murder, rape, blasphemy, adultery, etc. What I find most interesting, Twig, is your antipathy toward Calvin and yet you do not favor the Israelite Law. Calvin would be considered a “covenant theologian,” meaning he saw a definite difference between the old covenant and the new. He also believed in a cessation of the civil and Levitical/priestly laws but saw a continuation of the moral law in the new covenant. If you disagree with everything Calvinistic, shouldn’t you believe the civil laws to be still in effect resulting in execution for violent crime and unfaithfulness, as well as heresy and other blasphemous ideas? I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but wanting to try to keep consistency. Why do you feel the way you do?
Joe, a coke around the fire and a good chat is right up my alley!
If you ever get to Michigan. Look me up and we'll do it.
For the record, I'm not against all things Calvin, I just think he was a murderer. But the horse is starting to smell as I've been away for a few days from this post.
This seems to be somewhat dead, but I thought I would post anyway. I am the pastor of FUEL ministries in Lawton, Oklahoma. The discussion about John Calvin and his Calvinism is very interesting.
It has been said that everyone must fall into the category of either synergism or monergism. However, this is an oversimplification of scriptural concepts about God's sovereignty. Calvin used the Creation (and Fall) passages in Genesis to create a concept of Total Depravity, on which he constructed, using a series of what are called today "necessary and sufficient conditions" (causal relationships), a set of related theses. He named these the, "Institutes of the Christian Religion." He utilized other scripture throughout the Bible as proof texts to uphold his other points.
The basis of the Total Depravity concept is, essentially, that man does not, as a result of the fall, contain within his soul, a conscience. The conscience, according to 1 Timothy 4, does certainly exist in human beings after the fall, and can be seared or deadened to sin. The bottom line, it seems, is that the piece of God's character that Adam obtained by eating the forbidden fruit, is exactly what the Holy Spirit can speak to and through in order to convince man of sin and draw him to an appropriate response.
So the "T" in Calvin's institutes is certainly interpreted to mean, "Total Depravity, denying God's ability through the Spirit of God, to speak to mankind." That is, man is so far fallen, that he no longer has a conscience that God can speak to or through.
The word, "conscience" is in the King James Bible 30 times. each time, it references man's ability to discern and do what is right. According to Calvin, there is no ability within a man to do what is right unless he is one of God's elect. However, the very principles discussed in the CONTEXTS of the "conscience" proof-texts, determine that God can, indeed, speak to the consciences of mankind.
Furthermore, the idea that God CANNOT speak to or through the conscience of a human is a limitation on the very same sovereignty of God.
Therefore, although mankind is totally depraved and unable to save himself from his sin, he IS able to hear from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus' words in John 12:32, can be relevant for everyone--Jesus draws all men to Himself.
So Calvin's "T" is flawed. Since his institutes were built upon this foundation of man's inability to perceive the wooing and drawing of the Holy Spirit, the whole of the U, L, I, and P are also flawed. Remember that the institutes were not "doctrines" built upon scripture, but a system built upon one misunderstanding of God's relationship with mankind.
This being the case, there is no foundation on which Calvinism can stand. Without Calvin's version of the "T", the other four points have no root. The U, L, I, and P are, again, logical clauses that relate to one another--and they all must stand upon Calvin's interpretation of the "T".
Now, why? This system, built upon eisegetical proof texts and exalted beyond my present ability to believe, was founded as a justification to societal norms and mores of the period. In particular, Calvinism was the perfect excuse for totalitarian rule, slavery, a lower class, poverty, etc. As it were, if you were a slave, it was because God simply had determined that you should be. Therefore, there was no personal freedom or right (or expectation of such).
I suggest that, had it not been for John Calvin and his Calvinism, slavery would not have lasted as long as it did in America. While the Christianity of our forefathers is certainly not in question, the slant of their Christianity had to be changed as a result of the flagrant Arminianism of the Second Great Awakening.
This is not in dispute. Certainly, I am not in agreement wholly with Arminianism either, as it is also a system that is based upon human logic, not upon the Word of God.
Simply, John Calvin was a totalitarian, murderous, ruler, who clearly had no business even approaching the realm of Christianity, as a leader.
The messenger has been discredited by his own life and actions.
Simply, Calvinism is a flawed system of logic, based upon an eisegesis of the Genesis account of the fall of man, and has no business anywhere near the precious Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, for which He gave all, to win all!
The message (Calvinism) has been discredited by its utter inability to support itself, and by its messenger, who is utterly excused from the realm of the qualified.
Al Christian, FUEL
Lawton, Oklahoma
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home