Cynic

In the interest of helping to provide some fuller account of what Wierwille/TWI maintained about heteros and allos, I wish I could find my copy of the Advanced Class Syllabus that was distributed at the 1975 AC. I think it was in those materials that TWI definitions for allos and heteros were presented, positing an indefiniteness/definiteness distinction between allos and heteros -- maintaining that in some instances the distinction between the two words was with respect to number and in other instances with respect to kind. That AC syllabus, however, also included a version of the PFAL syllabus that was older than the syllabus then being distributed with PFAL class materials. The allos/heteros stuff might have appeared in the old PFAL syllabus -- or even in some other TWI materials. I am somewhat confident, however, that it appeared either in the Advanced Class Syllabus or in the PFAL syllabus enclosed with it, in the same green binder. It seemed to present rather fully the Wierwille/TWI position on what those words indicate in Greek biblical manuscripts.

Laleo, Soteriology is the branch of theology dealing with the doctrine of salvation. The crucial difference between Calvinistic soteriology and other soteriological views (e.g. Arminian, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian) is that Calvinistic soteriology recognizes an effectual (never resisted) calling by which God draws his elect to Christ. There is a general call of the gospel made in its declarations and entreaties to all who hear it preached. There is a special call worked by the Holy Spirit in the elect, causing them to embrace in faith the Christ of the gospel. You made a good point about Augustine preceding Calvin on election. Post-apostolically, at least, Augustine was the patriarch of sovereign grace theology. In A History of Christianity, K. S. LaTourette maintained that Calvinism should be more properly referred to as Augustinianism. For a quick rundown on some terms and theological viewpoints, you can read this interview: http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/rc_sproul.html This page has links to some articles: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...generation.html

Shellon, I dislike the degree of control cultural revisionists exert in the social worker establishment, but why doesn’t this call rather for disgust at and outrage against the criminal justice establishment?

Garth, I mentioned Genevese civil authority over Servetus’ execution and Calvin’s opposition to its mode in refutation of a flawed and rabid accusation that baited outrage over the gratuitous suffering inflicted in the mode of execution. I did not bring up the mode of execution as an issue. Goey did. And you damned well should know it. You merely pretend that I suggested something about that making the situation “not so bad,” although you are correct in your implicit observation that I have not characterized Servetus’ execution as “a murder.” I will not put things in your terms, or make concessions to your froth and obsessions. Facts? You don’t much bother with determining facts. Cite where I have mentioned “historical context” in this thread or any other thread as an ethically mitigating consideration. After some folks brought up historical contextual consideration in this thread, I actually opposed it as constituting “bad theology,” though I did characterize it as an element of “honest historicizing.” I used the following words: Judging from your various posts, I think you spew from and are committed to your polemical obsessions. I do not think you are very capable of distinguishing among arguments, characterizations, un-researched assertions, under-researched assertions, speculations and facts.

I have distaste for the nature of Calvin’s theological entanglement with the the Law of Moses. I have more distaste for his lack of recognition of a superlative ethic revealed in and taught by Christ that replaced harsh, though divinely ordained, ways of dealing with infractions in the covenanted community of Israel under that law code. While going back through this thread and rereading some posts, I found the following comment by Evan that I strongly agree with (though the Reconstructionist element among the Reformed should be exempted from association with the word “moderation”): As I mentioned previously, the way some Reformed folks view the Law of Moses is among the principal reasons I presently sit in a soteriologically Calvinistic Baptist church rather than in some soteriologically-and-otherwise Calvinistic church. I expect, moreover, to find that Calvin had, at some levels, responsibility for other deaths in addition to that of Servetus, and I do not think it invalid to assess Calvin’s responsibility for Genevese executions on the basis of indirect (e.g. pedagogic) as well as more direct influence. I will not let Garth shift the issues and the nature of his accusations, however, by changing from old-words-to-new-words here and shifting issues there in some rhetorical and conceptual shell game.

Garth, Elaborate and show how (and that) I have engaged in a “whitewash,” or have endeavored to “rationalize” or “downplay” Calvin’s actions. In mentioning that Calvin opposed the mode of Servetus’ execution and that Servetus’ guilt was determined and his sentence prescribed by Genevese civil authorities, I opposed Goey’s charge that Calvin “had Michael Servetus burned at the stake." (I later also mentioned that Servetus’s execution was determined by Genevese civil authorities in making a case against Trefor’s tritely made comparison of Calvin’s authority in Geneva to Kholmeini’s authority in Iran.) Goey’s charge baited outrage at the slowly burning “green wood” used in the execution. It implicated Calvin for the gratuitous infliction of suffering. Calvin had sought Servetus’ death, but had opposed what was being waved around as a point of outrage. I also stood against the suggestion that the execution of Servetus was something that had occurred at Calvin’s authoritative direction. Stripping charges of their hyperbole does not constitute a rationalization, a downplay, or a whitewash. You are dealing in assertions, characterizations and misrepresentations, rather than in facts.

Following is the text of a letter from Calvin to William Farel concerning Servetus, as it appears (with better formatting) in The John Calvin Collection, published by AGES Software, Inc. Also included are referenced footnotes. ***** LETTER 322 TO FAREL (f393) ARREST OF SERVETUS, AND INSTITUTION OF THE PROCESS AGAINST HIM. GENEVA, 20th August 1553. It is as you say, my dear Farel. Although we may be severely buffeted hither and thither by many tempests, yet, seeing that a pilot steers the ship in which we sail, who will never allow us to perish even in the midst of shipwrecks, there is no reason why our minds should be overwhelmed with fear and overcome with weariness. We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge, offering himself as security according to the lex talionis. (f394) On the following day he adduced against him forty written charges, He at first sought to evade them. Accordingly we were summoned. He impudently reviled me, just as if he regarded me as obnoxious to him. I answered him as he deserved. At length the Senate pronounced all the charges proven. Nicolas was released from prison on the third day, having given up my brother as his surety; on the fourth day he was set free. Of the man’s effrontery I will say nothing; but such was his madness that he did not hesitate to say that devils possessed divinity; yea, that many gods were in individual devils, inasmuch as deity had been substantially communicated to those, equally with wood and stone. I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him; but I desire that the severity of the punishment may be mitigated. (f395) Adieu. My colleagues again salute you. Bude does the same, and Normandie, who has now recovered. Present my regards to my brother Claude. JOHN CALVIN. [Calvin’s Lat. Corresp. Opera, tom. 9, page 70.] ***** The footnotes: (ft393) We have already read at letter 159, of the present volume of Calvin’s first connection with Servetus, and of the rupture of that connection as attested by the letter of Calvin to John Frellon (13th February 1546). Wandering by turns in France, Germany, and Italy, Servetus had taken up his residence at Vienne in Dauphin, where he at once exercised the profession of a doctor, and persisted in his daring attacks on Christianity, for which he aspired to substitute a rational philosophy. Such is the drift of his book entitled Christianismi Restitutio, which he published anonymously in 1553, after having two-and-twenty years before directed his bold attacks against the doctrine of the Trinity, in his book De Trinitatus Erroribus, published at Haguenau in 1531. Accused by a Genevan refugee before the Inquisition of Lyons, as the author of these writings, Servetus was arrested, cast into the dungeons of Vienne, and condemned by Catholic judges to be burnt, from which he only escaped by flight. Hear how Theodore Beza recounts, in his letter to Bullinger the preparations for the trial of Servetus, of his escape from prison, and of his arrival and arrest at Geneva: — “You have heard doubtless of that impious blasphemer Servetus. He caused a book, or rather volume of his blasphemies to be secretly printed at Lyons. Certain good brethren at Lyons informed the magistrate of this deceitful action. Persons were despatched to Vienne, where he was practicing as a physician, to bring him bound [to Lyons]. He was seized, but soon after effected his escape by deceit. At length he came to Geneva, where he went skulking about. He was forthwith recognized, however by a certain person, and cast into prison. Calvin also, whom he treated very unhandsomely by name in thirty printed letters, pled the cause of the Church against him in the Council, in the presence of a great assemblage of the pious. He continued in his impiety. What will come of it I know not. Let us pray the Lord to purge his Church of these monsters.” — MSS. of Zurich. Letter of the 27th August 1553. Such was the opening of the process which terminated so fatally for Servetus. Born in an age not disposed to show mercy to errors of faith, he seems, says a historian, to have fled from Spain — the native country of the auto-da-fe — only to see his effigy burnt in a strange land by the torch of a Catholic executioner, and to come afterwards to expire amid flames kindled by Calvinistic justice. — Albert Rilllet. Relation du Proces Criminel intente contre Servet. Geneve, 1844. 8vo. [Translated into English by the Rev. Dr. Tweedie.] (ft394) Nicolas de la Fontaine, a servant of Calvin’s, was made, conformably to the judicial usages then in operation at Geneva, criminal prosecutor against Servetus. — Registers of the Council, 14th August 1553. (ft395) It is curious to read on this point the reply of Farel to Calvin: — “In desiring to mitigate the severity of his punishment, you act the part of a friend to a man who is most hostile to you. But I beseech you so to manage the matter that no one whatever may rashly dare to publish new dogmas, and throw all things into confusion with impunity for such a length of time as he has done.” In his relentless rigor against heresy, Farel did not hesitate to pronounce himself even to be worthy of death if he should teach any dogma opposed to the faith. His words deserve to be recorded: — “When I read Paul’s statement that he did not refuse to suffer death if he had in any way deserved it, I saw calmly that I must be prepared to suffer death if I should teach anything contrary to the doctrine of piety. And I added, that I should be most worthy of any punishment whatever, if I should seduce any one from the faith and doctrine of Christ.” — 8th September 1553. Calv. Opera tom. 9, page 71.

Slim chance, dweeb. :)-->

I have taken shots at LSG’s errant teachings (e.g. Socinianism, Unitarianism, open theism), and once exposed a CES youth newsletter for using a pilfered logo (it appears the newsletter and its back issues are now gone from the internet). To my knowledge, however, I have not bothered to comment on such stuff as JAL’s in/then-temporarily-out/then-in/then-maybe-out/or-unemployed-while-still-in/or-both-in-and-out-and-out-and-in soap opera.

I do not intend for this discussion to go away. Let's have a robust discussion that brings out historical details and competent historical assessments. Let Calvin's memory be buried face down and urinated on, should that be where facts and appropriate interpretations of facts lead. Let the good, the bad and the ugly things about Calvin and incontinent accusers such as Garth be dragged into the light of day.

I recently read a compelling, though rather irritating piece about Romans 7 called “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by a guy named Walt Russell. Russell opposed some traditional interpretations of Romans 7 (e.g. that Paul was referring to a conflict within a Christian; that Paul was referring to a conflict common to unbelievers), and also argued that Romans 7 is referring to a conflict within a religious Jew under the Law.

Although Trefor tells us he has "studied this period intently at university,” Trefor merely has pressed some characterizations. He has not brought out historical facts to support an assertion about there having been similarity between Calvin and Khomeini. After being confronted with an argument pointing to a significant and quite evident difference in the process and the loci of authority involved in Calvin’s actions against Servetus in Geneva and Khomeini’s public announcement of a decree in Iran calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie and his publishers, Trefor did not move his rhetoric from characterization to historical substance. Trefor needs to show, rather than merely assert, that Calvin and Khomeini had qualities or influence similar in kind and/or degree. Pressing what is some essentialist notion about “theocracies” does not constitute capable historicizing or a sound argument. Actually, it does not constitute what is history or reasoned argumentation at all.

Correction: Servetus’ trial was before Geneva’s Little Council (or Council of 25). It was that council that condemned him to be burned. Sevetus reportedly attempted to appeal to Geneva’s Council of Two Hundred, but did not obtain a hearing by that body. ***** The following is from Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch13.htm ): “The Republic was composed of all citizens of age, who met annually in general assembly (conseil g?ral), usually in St. Peter’s, under the sounding of bells, and trumpets, for the ratification of laws and the election of officers. The administrative power was lodged in four Syndics; the legislative power in two Councils, the Council of Sixty, and the Council of Two Hundred. The former existed since 1457; the latter was instituted in 1526, after the alliance with Freiburg and Bern, in imitation of the Constitution of these and other Swiss cities. The Sixty were by right members of the Council of Two Hundred. In 1530 the Two Hundred assumed the right to elect the ordinary or little Council of Twenty-Five, who were a part of the two other Councils and had previously been elected by the Syndics. The real power lay in the hands of the Syndics and the little Council of Twenty-five, which formed an oligarchy with legislative, executive, and judicial functions.”

[Removed duplicate post.]

Cynic, remember when I spoke earlier of 24 people killed by Calvin? You were right; I was incorrect. It was 58! There are problems both with the sources Garth has invoked and with what Garth represents those sources as indicating. As for Garth’s representations of what several sources he has cited indicate, those sources do not brazenly charge Calvin with killing 58 people. The allegation they make against Calvin is an implicit one. In the above-quoted piece, for example, the author implicitly alleges that the 58 executions that occurred in a five-year period (between 1542 and 1546) were a result of Calvin’s authorship of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances submitted to Geneva’s Council of Two Hundred in 1541 and adopted, after some revisions, by that body. (I have supplied some additional details from what I have read from other sources in order to clarify what the author of the quoted piece is obviously getting at, since the subject part of that piece is very poorly constructed.) What were the Ecclesiastical Ordinances (referred to in the piece as “the ordinances of 1541”)? I found a translation of them on the internet at http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-word/5-calvin-ordinances.rtf . I find no mention of death-by-fire, death-by-sword, death-by-anything among the punishments that are prescribed for various offenses. The document does indicate that blasphemers of a certain sort would be remanded, upon a second or third offense, to the civil authorities for corporeal punishment as those authorities saw fit. Language addressing quarrels and sedition is similarly silent and deferential to conciliar authority concerning punishment. I do suspect, due to what I have read about some disagreement between Calvin and the Council over the frequency of the administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the document to which I provided a link is the amended version of the EO, rather than the EO as it was submitted to the Council by Calvin and others. I cannot say whether the original submission to the Council mentioned or did not mention the death penalty. If Calvin set up and/or oversaw a theonomic execution machine in Geneva, he could not have done so merely by the content of the enacted EO. Sources merely mentioning 58 executions in the five years following the Council of Two Hundred’s enactment of the EO are suggesting a connection between the executions and the EO rather than examining one. I do not completely discount all suggestions about the document’s influence. Judging from prescribed punishments for various offences in the document, it appears the EO was quite possibly a basis for what Garth’s cited piece referred to as “numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison.” Prison terms were prescribed by the EO. Fornication got folks six days on bread and water and a 60-sous fine. Spinning “wildly round in dance” could net an offender a three-day stint in prison. It is noteworthy, nonetheless, that the death penalty was unmentioned, and ostensibly left as it previously had been applied or, possibly, was extended somewhat without specific mention in language placing punishment for certain crimes under the discretion of Genevese authorities on a case-by-case consideration. The mere number of executions in Geneva while Calvin resided in the city does not establish what responsibility, if any, Calvin had for them. Garth does not establish there were 58 persons killed by Calvin merely by citing a source that says something about there having been 58 executions in Geneva during a certain period. There were actually more than 58 executions in Geneva while Calvin was there. There were 58 executions between 1542 and 1546. Servetus was executed, however, in 1553. Gruet in 1547. The Comparet brothers in 1555. The issue of Calvin, Geneva and executions involves numbers, but it is does not merely involve numbers. It necessarily involves the specific charges brought against the condemned (some, such as Gruet, were condemned on multiple charges), the nature and justness of the charges and of the assessment of a capital penalty for those guilty of them, and the nature and extent of Calvin’s relevant involvement and/or influence. ***** Garth, in his chronically dishonest fashion, has changed various elements of his assertions that have been an issue in my confrontations of him. My confrontation of Garth over allegations he made concerning Calvin began over Garth's alleging either that Calvin had killed dozens of heretics or that Calvin had had dozens of heretics killed. In Garth’s opening post of this thread, however, the heretics changed to “people,” which would obviously include all persons executed in Geneva for all capital offenses. In his most recent post to Laleo, Garth fudged the issue even more. Garth reported our contention as being over the number of killings for which Calvin had “direct or indirect responsibility.” Under the language of “indirect” responsibility, it would be unnecessary for Calvin to have had involvement in any execution or to have pressed capital punishment for any class of crime for Garth to uncover victims of Calvin by pretended analyses and specious arguments. Several posters obviously have noticed that Garth specializes in misrepresentations, straw man arguments, fabricated allegations and squalidly false assertions. ***** Several clarifications: 1. I think taking the views and practices common in Europe in Calvin’s time into account when assessing Calvin words and behavior makes for honest historicizing, but pretty bad theology. The New Testament gospels exhibit an ethical principle revealed in Christ that transcends the harshness of the Old. I have a problem with the way some Reformed folks view the Law of Moses (which is among the principal reasons I presently sit in a soteriologically Calvinistic Baptist church rather than a Presbyterian church). 2. I have acknowledged Calvin’s responsibility only for Sevetus’ death, though I have not denied Calvin had responsibility for others. It is my view that historical facts should be considered and whatever responsibility appropriately falling on Calvin assessed, rather than bloody accusations and pretended substantiations be accepted as they are spouted from some intellectually unprincipled, frothing punk.

Trefor equates Calvin’s influence in Geneva with Khomeini’s influence in Iran. The deficiency of such a comparison can be seen in the fact that Calvin presented arguments before an authoritative civil body in the matter of Servetus, whereas the influence Khomeini exerted was such that Khomeini merely proclaimed a fatwa to call for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie and his publishers. The authority of Geneva’s Great Council of Two Hundred was significantly more than “theoretical.” The Council obviously demonstrated some independence from Calvin in refusing Calvin's request for a quicker mode of execution for Servetus. The Council included some opponents of Calvin, and once had expelled Calvin and William Farel from the city. Calvin proclaimed no decrees of death. He did not urge Geneva’s citizens or the Reformation’s hoi polloi to rise and execute punishments. Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap. (For the text of Khomeini’s fatwa concerning Rushdie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwah ) ***** Note to Garth: I read that Rushdie ditched this babe, alleging she was “not intellectually challenging enough” for him. (I also have read that Rushdie denied making such a statement.) You might need only to grow a beard, don some glasses, memorize a few literary-sounding phrases, and go for it.

Natural Light. Low-carb, cheap and rather tasty.

Patience, Punk.

I think Rafael’s statements are (somewhat refreshingly) factual.

Goey, I have not rationalized away Calvin’s responsibility, and have stated before elsewhere on this forum that Calvin did have responsibility for Servetus’ death. I oppose, however, your distortions and lies. You came in here pointing to fire and slow-burning green wood--making an issue of the mode of execution--and crudely asserted that Calvin had Sevetus burned at the stake. Face yourself. That is FALSE.

Although Calvin was the central figure in the prosecution of Servetus, and is not recognized for being tolerant, he opposed fire as the mode of Servetus’ execution. The death-by-burning sentence against Servetus was determined and set by Geneva’s larger governing Council. It was not imposed by some fiat of John Calvin. Calvin did not have the civil authority in Geneva to impose death sentences. The allegations in Goey’s post range from incautiously made to near-rabid, and thereby are quite fitting in a thread started by Garth.

I quit more than 32 months ago, after smoking for about 30 years. I figure I’d still be smoking if I had used special filters, motivational tapes, or the patch. Did I quit cold turkey? Not quite. I sniffed secondhand smoke several times a day for a couple months, and hit a box of cheese crackers hard for the first couple nights. (Never touched karaoke.)

It’s good to see D. A. Reed posting.

Hebrews 1:10 clearly and unmistakably speaks of the Son having created the earth and heavens. Socinianism (the Christological position that Christ’s existence began at conception in Mary) has no biblical testimony supporting it, and was not a biblically ministered or inspired view of Christ.

There is an apparent lack of inclination in Garth’s cognitive functions towards knowing facts and communicating what is factual. Garth has not retracted his calumnies concerning Baptists, though he has essentially admitted he cannot support them. Garth obviously had no justification for his allegations, yet he invokes brute possibility and keeps his calumny somewhat alive, and even characterizes his calumny as probable. Garth’s charge that Jews had been hunted down because they were not Trinitarians carried the notion that there was some pronounced Trinitarian aspect about the targeting of Jews for persecution. If Garth had any sources to mention, it is likely he would be talking about them. Absent such things as sources, facts and a well-articulated argument, Garth preened loudly and proudly and changed the issue from there having been some Trinitarian motive driving a persecution of Jews to an issue of there having been forced conversions of Jews and a necessary Trinitarian element in professions of faith that would be received as credible. What should be obvious before we get to Calvin and Genevan bloodletting is that Garth shows little thoughtfulness or restraint in making flawed, and quite bloody, accusations. My previously posted point involving Durant was that, barring wording changes in some later edition of The Story of Civilization, Durant was significantly misquoted. I should get to that in a bit and provide, hopefully, a scanned image of Durant’s words for comparison to words quoted as being fully his on several Reformers-bashing Romanist sites. Garth provided a link some time ago to one such site in an attempt to support an accusation that Calvin had dozens of heretics killed. The discussion about Genevan executions needs to be significantly deeper and broader, however, than a mere discussion about Durant being misquoted. Before getting to that, I plan to offer some first principles by which one might come to know something about and evaluate Genevan figures and bloodshed.