I know I said I was saying 'Caio' to this thread, but Cynic made some comments and distortions of his own that I cannot let pass. And if he wishes to make that an issue with this change to further sully me with, well, that's his straw man.
"Garth, in his chronically dishonest fashion, has changed various elements of his assertions that have been an issue in my confrontations of him."
You make that sound as if I am endeavoring to dishonestly shift and slide back and forth to avoid being honest. I take offense to that, as it is a lie! I admitted my discrepency re: the Baptists when shown my admitted lack of clear evidence supporting my frank opinion of the probability of that happening. Ie., you might feel someone is capable and probable of doing something yet, when presented with the lack of evidence of that individual doing something, it is the best thing to admit that one is incorrect. Thus I have done this. But because I have 'impugned Calvin's reputation' (in your view) that, by itself, makes me some dishonest 'punk' worthy of derision. Ie., your loyalty to Calvin's spiritual authority leaves you no choice but to impugn the reputation of any who dare challange Calvinism or Calvin himself, like you show your derision of Unitarians and other un-orthodox individuals. That's what I see anyway, and I call it as I see it. Well, guess what pal, you're gonna have to deal with it, as Calvin is but another human being like anybody else, not some VPW knock-off who should be blindly defended w/o question. This anal-retentive attitude of yours, if anything, only supports the common view of Calvinists as put here:
quote:
The cold, hard, but upright disposition characteristic of the Reformed Churches, less genial than that derived from Luther, is due entirely to their founder himself. Its essence is a concentrated pride, a love of disputation, a scorn of opponents.
(Emphasis mine)
Besides, you DID ask for me to provide sources, and I did just that. Now maybe you have provided (as in your last post quite well, by the way) a further clarification as to what went on there, but when you compare and couple that info with other information re: Calvin, ... well, you have a man practicing something that clearly surpasses 'bad theology' (Tell me something. Is that all you view the back-then-common punishment of heretics as? Bad theology? Or is that Yet Another Strawman argument? Or how would you have judged if you were in a similar position of judgement in those days, hmmmm?)
And even looking at the specific non-capital punishments you specify, look at how linked they are with religious doctrines: dancing, fornication, etc. And all most likely as a result of his 'reformist' doctrine, as Catholic specific doctrines were given the heave-to in due order. The ones allowed to stay were, naturally, in accordance with his doctrine.
Basically all you have managed to do (in my not-so-humble and polemic opinion) is an attempt to whitewash and rationalize Calvin as a whole, even with your acknowledgement of him murdering Servetus. One reason this is is because of his authority excercised in Geneva, that does have him bear ultimate responsibility for those abuses. I mean, how much responsibility have been put on the Catholic Church for specific abuses done under its name and oversight?
I make no apology in what/how I overall view Calvin, his doctrine, and his clearly controlling practices, and his god I will have nothing to do with; that's a no-brainer. I have made similar statements re: Luther about his serious anti-semitism as illustrated by his book: The Jews and Their Lies. And it's knee-jerk loyalty and apologetics in defending people like this, mainly because he is regarded as a Great Bastion for the Reformation, as well as derision of Unitarians and other non-orthodox people in general, all in the name of Defense of the Faith, by people like you that doesn't help me to respect people like that any more, and actually help make my case for me.
Oh, and another clarification. You seem to indicate that the reference to the 58 killed was from a quote by Durant. I could find no reference to Durant in that article, which was written by William Barry, transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Do you have verification of Durant's influence here, please?
Anywho, now I'm finished, as no doubt you'll come back with more slurs as regards yours truly, ... a heretic and proud of it.
Cynic's dismissal of "Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap." is in itself crap and totally missing the point regarding theocracies as excercised (as they always are) by human beings.
I studied this period intently at university and even my presbyterian professors, heirs of the equally horrid John Knox, at St Andrews differentiated between Calvin the theologian and Calvin the man.
Admittedly it was a more bloodthirsty age that we are casting our twenty first century eyes upon. Luther urges the princes to "stab and slay" the rebellious peasants, though this was a political rather than a religious thing. Catholics burnt heretics and Protestants had Catholics hung drawn and quartered (usually for political reasons). A not very pleasant age in many respects.
The claim is my argument is "crap" because Calvin argued before a council and Khomeni didn't. But how these two old birds were viewed was very similar - religion was still above politics and Calvin was given great deference and his word was gospel. To argue that a different mode of execution was somehow to make Calvin a cuddly teddy bear cannot hide the fact that Calvin was still avid and anxious for the death of Servetus on a point of theology. Even if he had not got his way, it is still a stain upon his character.
Trying to do a Mike on Calvin isn't going to change that.
Good post, Trefor. You make good points, both about the times and about the nature of things when an unchecked theocracy bears rule.
No, neither Calvin nor Luther lived entirely above the mode of their times. Nor did St. Thomas More, Bloody Mary or Mary Queen of Scots. I suppose the same even could be said about my personal Reformation hero, Tyndale, in that he spent much of his study time in the pub with his students.
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 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.”
According to the article, the Genevan council actually saked the opinion of 4 other sister cities concerning Servetus. It was their concensus that he should be executed.
Servetus' doctrine is an interesting mix of offbeat theology.
Hey, Garth, what's with the "ciao" stuff? Since you started the thread, you may as well stick around, don't you think?
You've made some assumptions and drawn some conclusions that I'm not convinced are well-founded. What Long Gone is doing (which you describe as "weak reasoning") is assessing actual damage, rather than perceived or imagined damage.
When it comes to Wierwille, the same "weak reasoning" should apply, if you ask me. Wierwille is often associated with things like atrocities, massacres, horrors, genocides, and much, much worse, which I think only minimizes and obscures the damage that he actually caused, and the contributions he may have made. Rather than standing or falling on the merits of his own actions, inactions, doctrines, and teachings, he's judged by people's hurts, disappointments, expectations, and prejudices. It's the same yardstick you're using to judge Calvin. (Didn't you compare Calvin earlier to either Hitler or Stalin or both? I think you forgot Pol Pot.) And maybe it's even the same yardstick the Genevan Court used to judge Servetus.
As far as Calvin's beliefs regarding "unconditional election," I think your gripe is with Augustine, who lived -- how many centuries? -- before Calvin.
quote:
As for those who by bounty of divine grace are singled out of that original body of the lost, there is no doubt that the opportunity to hear the Gospel is arranged for them. When they hear, they believe, and persevere unto the end in the faith which worketh by charity; and, if ever they go off the track, they are chastised by admonitions; and some of them, even though they are not admonished by men, return to the path they had abandoned; and some, too, having received grace at various ages, are withdrawn from the danger of this life by a swift death. All these things are done in them by Him who made them vessels of mercy, and who also chose them in His Son before the foundation of the world by a gracious choice . . . Since they are called according to God's purpose, they are surely chosen by the choice which we have termed gracious It is not made in view of their preceding merits, because their every merit is a grace.
As far as Calvin's actions and stringent beliefs being acceptable today, of course they aren't. But I also understand what others are saying about Calvin being humane in an intolerant sort of way, or intolerant in a humane sort of way, if you prefer. What is or is not considered "humane" is relative, and considering his times, requesting a less brutal death for Servetus does speak to his character. It doesn't excuse him, or justify his actions, but it does contradict your characterization of Calvin as "bloodthirsty."
Anyway, I don't know what your beliefs are about the Bible or Christianity, but surely you acknowledge that these events happen on a continuum, and that ultimately, eventually, the Protestant Reformation introduced greater tolerance, more dialogue, more "diversity" (if you don't mind the term) to Christianity. The same can't be said for Stalin or Hitler.
Cynic, I was right there with you, until I got to the part about being “soteriological.” My dictionary wasn’t much help, even though it’s two inches thick and promises me “the right word every time.” What is “spiritual salvation by divine agency”? Does this relate somehow to unconditional election, or crisis conversion or what?
One big reason I said 'Caio' was that I thought I was reaching the point where nothing more I said would add anything more to the thread, since I already made my point, plus Cynic was getting quite upset, and I didn't want him to 'pop a vein' as it were.
Read what I said about the Wierwille/Calvin comparison again. Note that I said if Wierwille did any of these activities, he'd be stomped in a heartbeat, whereas Calvin does what he does, and we get excuses and such. That is not the same as saying that the two leaders did the same thing.
Oh, and as regarding the historical context argument, there is only so far you can go with that argument, especially if we're talking about a Christian minister. For one thing, do you see Christ or his apostles burning people at the stake or killing unbelievers for blasphemy? Keep in mind now, that their time was *1500 years* prior to Calvin's, so it would stand to reason that they would be even less progressive in their punishments than in Calvin's time, ... right?
Plus, even back several hundred years ago, care to tell me whats so advanced and complex about realizing that it is cruel, inhumane, and wrong to burn someone at the stake, please? (And that it's not just 'bad theology'). Is it something that can only be figured out just in the past 200 years? ... You see how 'historical context' becomes ludicrous, even on its face?
Plus, if we're going to be propounding the need for absolute morality, then that further blows away any relative reasonings of 'historical context'.
quote:
... and that ultimately, eventually, the Protestant Reformation introduced greater tolerance, more dialogue, more "diversity" (if you don't mind the term) to Christianity. The same can't be said for Stalin or Hitler.
Good point, with one clarification: Calvin (IMHO) has done little, if anything, to further that tolerance, dialog, and diversity. At most, all he came out with is a theology (and a very stringent one) for Protestantism.
In one sense he did, Garth, according to the reading I did. The local reactions to servetus' burning is considered by some to be the beginning of a tolerance movement that swept through the reformation. A bit oblique, I admit, but I'm just repeating what I read.
If only Calvin had spent more time in the pub Evan, we wouldn't be having this discussion! ;)-->
Thanks for the comments on my post, yes men who were otherwise attractive and intelligent and deserving of respect could have their more barbaric blindspots.
But these respected the difference between earthly and heavenly rule.
Cynic's dismissal of "Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap." is in itself crap and totally missing the point regarding theocracies as excercised (as they always are) by human beings.
I studied this period intently at university and even my presbyterian professors, heirs of the equally horrid John Knox, at St Andrews differentiated between Calvin the theologian and Calvin the man.
Admittedly it was a more bloodthirsty age that we are casting our twenty first century eyes upon. Luther urges the princes to "stab and slay" the rebellious peasants, though this was a political rather than a religious thing. Catholics burnt heretics and Protestants had Catholics hung [sic] drawn and quartered (usually for political reasons). A not very pleasant age in many respects.
The claim is my argument is "crap" because Calvin argued before a council and Khomeni didn't. But how these two old birds were viewed was very similar - religion was still above politics and Calvin was given great deference and his word was gospel.
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.
Since we all have a dark side, what is the real point of this thread. Absolute power is a corrupting condition.
Is this thread really a subterfuge to slam Calvin, his doctrine or his politics.
Religious people more often than not make terrible political leaders. Their philosophy may have merit, but the lure of politica rule can make applications go where it was never intended.
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.
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.
Let Calvin's memory be buried face down and urinated on, should that be where facts and appropriate interpretations of facts lead.
A most curious dilemna you pose here. Let me ask you something, Cynic, and be straightforward here w/o hiding behind $64 words. And maybe the answer to this question might reveal how one is to deal with Calvin's reputation, as well as your seeming steadfast loyalty to his name.
According to what you believe in accordance with what you know about Christian morality (<-- notice the emphasis), rather than on any supposed 'historical context', what/how would you honestly treat a person's memory if they were responsible for another's death, (and even just for one) and that for heresy, like Calvin was with regard to Servetus? Which did happen, regardless of who 'lit the match', as it were. (Ie., let's set aside the whitewash, and go straight to the central point.)
Regardless of how you think of the points that I raise, of the validity of them (or not), me, (or of my alleged incontinence), think about that question anyway, if you dare, and let me and everybody else here know what your opinion/judgement would be, as I maintain that this is indeed an honest and valid question. Regardless of how it reflects upon Calvin's memory.
And as for me, as you can already guess by now, I have already relieved myself (as per Calvin's memory), as it were. ;)--> Mainly because, no matter how much you endeavor to rationalize or downplay Calvin's actions, I still find the man at the very least comparable to Martindale, ... at his spittling worst.
Oh, by the way, I looked up a link, and by the Reformed Church's website no less, about Calvin's friend William Farel, and lets just say that it reminds me of that old phrase "birds of a feather flock together": -- http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/farel.htm (I wonder if his name wasn't misspelled from 'feral' ;)-->)
Oh, by the way, this was how a lot of people, both supporters and opponents, saw him, as quoted directly from that link, "He was fiery and forceful, not given to the use of tact, impulsive in his actions and preaching, and one who roared against papal abuses."
NOW, I wonder how would his style fit with the admonishment of me and my communications as 'not being communication', or of being 'polemic' and 'incontinent', hmmm? He definitely looked 'polemic' to me, doncha think? ... 'Impertinent'?
And if that is the kind of "character that which God gave him", then I can more easily see why many of those who left the Old World and their descendants (with their embracing of the ideals of the Enlightenment) who founded this country were anti-thetical, if not downright hostile to the mindset of Calvinism in general.
Oh, and I have no problem having what I say "brought out into the light of day". Hell, I'm the one who usually brings it out to begin with.
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.
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”):
quote:
Originally posted by TheEvan:
Incidentally, I've come to think that Calvinist's embraced a stringent religious & civil legalism because of their so-called covenant view of God's dealings with man. In reformed theology, there is only one covenant and only one church. This puts essentially no difference between the Old & New Testaments. The upshot of this is fairly predictable. The history of the reformed movement post-Calvin, has been in one sense, a story of gradual 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.
I note that you conveniently avoid answering my question. Remember the question I posed in my most recent post?
You say that I deliberately misrepresent you. Hey chief, I call them as I see them, and part of your whitewash (or at the very least, what *I* see as whitewash), is the terms that you use to describe where you do differ from Calvin, and those terms go nowhere near what your everyday person would use in referring to someone who was directly involved in a murder. (a fact) Plus you try to downplay the Servetus situation by posing it as a 'not so bad, cause at least Calvin called for a beheading' situation (lot of good it did Servetus. -->), plus other attempts at explaining it away or using the 'historical context' argument. (an opinion)
Also keep in mind that Calvin did exercise authority in Geneva; not of a direct civil manner, but of a theological manner (a fact) (since he directed/taught at the academy there, and the folks in Geneva looked to him as an overall spiritual authority figure, (a fact) much like TWIers looked to VPW in much the same light), and since they did not have separation of church and state back then, there was nothing separating the religious influence of the Reform Church into government, (a fact) thus the magistrates judgement, which was influenced by Calvin's theology, and its severity. And Calvin DID want Servetus to die, (a fact) and it went a lot farther than the "Well, the law requires that you be put to death, as uncomfortable as I feel about it." point of view. To Calvin, he took Servetus' 'heresy' personally, and his anger clearly reflected this, that much is plainly (as in rabidly) clear, (a fact) and any claims for Calvin's 'compassion' in wanting for Servetus death to be quick rings kinda hollow.
And the magistrates going over Calvin's wishes, thus seemingly letting Calvin off the hook? "Hey look! They went beyond what I wanted them to do to Servetus, so the burden is off of my shoulders!" ... Ahh not quite. It's like Wierwille being ultimately responsible for Martindale's going beyond his "Father in the Word", because Wierwille was his prime source of 'spiritual judgement'. And Wierwille primed that boy to the hilt.
Thus I see a very similar comparison between Calvin and the magistrates (my opinion). Plus for one thing, you don't think that the magistrates would be in power if they were opposers of what Calvin taught, do you? Not by a mile! (a fact) Again, keep in mind the kind of government that existed in Geneva in those days. Ie., a democracy it was NOT. (a fact) At all. (Thus providing somewhat of a basis for Trevor's argument) Much like the rest of Europe. A result of which explains the rise of the Enlightenment Era, and the subsequent basis for the founding of our country. (a fact)
Hyperbole in my posts? Okay, I'll agree with you there, but then again, they were not without valid substance, regardless of your distaste for them, which were provided by my (and others) links.
And why is it that you automatically suspect a deliberate attempt to be dishonest on my part for my updating of my posts? Because I won't let Calvin off the hook as much as you'd like, therefore there *must* be some sort of immoral dishonesty on my part? (a lie!) ... Please! That is based on a childish fallacy. Nothing more. (a fact)
(Notice all the a fact notations that I use to illustrate facts)
Whatever. View it as you will. Hold Calvin to whatever high position theologically or historically that you wish. I know what my motivations/opinions are for speaking otherwise, ... even if you don't.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Cynic:
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).
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.
Cynic, I was right there with you, until I got to the part about being “soteriological.” My dictionary wasn’t much help, even though it’s two inches thick and promises me “the right word every time.” What is “spiritual salvation by divine agency”? Does this relate somehow to unconditional election, or crisis conversion or what?
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:
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
7
21
17
Popular Days
Mar 12
15
Mar 13
13
Mar 14
8
Mar 11
7
Top Posters In This Topic
def59 10 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Cynic 17 posts
Popular Days
Mar 12 2005
15 posts
Mar 13 2005
13 posts
Mar 14 2005
8 posts
Mar 11 2005
7 posts
Cynic
[Removed duplicate post.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I know I said I was saying 'Caio' to this thread, but Cynic made some comments and distortions of his own that I cannot let pass. And if he wishes to make that an issue with this change to further sully me with, well, that's his straw man.
"Garth, in his chronically dishonest fashion, has changed various elements of his assertions that have been an issue in my confrontations of him."
You make that sound as if I am endeavoring to dishonestly shift and slide back and forth to avoid being honest. I take offense to that, as it is a lie! I admitted my discrepency re: the Baptists when shown my admitted lack of clear evidence supporting my frank opinion of the probability of that happening. Ie., you might feel someone is capable and probable of doing something yet, when presented with the lack of evidence of that individual doing something, it is the best thing to admit that one is incorrect. Thus I have done this. But because I have 'impugned Calvin's reputation' (in your view) that, by itself, makes me some dishonest 'punk' worthy of derision. Ie., your loyalty to Calvin's spiritual authority leaves you no choice but to impugn the reputation of any who dare challange Calvinism or Calvin himself, like you show your derision of Unitarians and other un-orthodox individuals. That's what I see anyway, and I call it as I see it. Well, guess what pal, you're gonna have to deal with it, as Calvin is but another human being like anybody else, not some VPW knock-off who should be blindly defended w/o question. This anal-retentive attitude of yours, if anything, only supports the common view of Calvinists as put here:
(Emphasis mine)Besides, you DID ask for me to provide sources, and I did just that. Now maybe you have provided (as in your last post quite well, by the way) a further clarification as to what went on there, but when you compare and couple that info with other information re: Calvin, ... well, you have a man practicing something that clearly surpasses 'bad theology' (Tell me something. Is that all you view the back-then-common punishment of heretics as? Bad theology? Or is that Yet Another Strawman argument? Or how would you have judged if you were in a similar position of judgement in those days, hmmmm?)
And even looking at the specific non-capital punishments you specify, look at how linked they are with religious doctrines: dancing, fornication, etc. And all most likely as a result of his 'reformist' doctrine, as Catholic specific doctrines were given the heave-to in due order. The ones allowed to stay were, naturally, in accordance with his doctrine.
Basically all you have managed to do (in my not-so-humble and polemic opinion) is an attempt to whitewash and rationalize Calvin as a whole, even with your acknowledgement of him murdering Servetus. One reason this is is because of his authority excercised in Geneva, that does have him bear ultimate responsibility for those abuses. I mean, how much responsibility have been put on the Catholic Church for specific abuses done under its name and oversight?
I make no apology in what/how I overall view Calvin, his doctrine, and his clearly controlling practices, and his god I will have nothing to do with; that's a no-brainer. I have made similar statements re: Luther about his serious anti-semitism as illustrated by his book: The Jews and Their Lies. And it's knee-jerk loyalty and apologetics in defending people like this, mainly because he is regarded as a Great Bastion for the Reformation, as well as derision of Unitarians and other non-orthodox people in general, all in the name of Defense of the Faith, by people like you that doesn't help me to respect people like that any more, and actually help make my case for me.
Oh, and another clarification. You seem to indicate that the reference to the 58 killed was from a quote by Durant. I could find no reference to Durant in that article, which was written by William Barry, transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Do you have verification of Durant's influence here, please?
Anywho, now I'm finished, as no doubt you'll come back with more slurs as regards yours truly, ... a heretic and proud of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Cynic's dismissal of "Trefor’s rhetoric is shallowly generalizing and relativistic crap." is in itself crap and totally missing the point regarding theocracies as excercised (as they always are) by human beings.
I studied this period intently at university and even my presbyterian professors, heirs of the equally horrid John Knox, at St Andrews differentiated between Calvin the theologian and Calvin the man.
Admittedly it was a more bloodthirsty age that we are casting our twenty first century eyes upon. Luther urges the princes to "stab and slay" the rebellious peasants, though this was a political rather than a religious thing. Catholics burnt heretics and Protestants had Catholics hung drawn and quartered (usually for political reasons). A not very pleasant age in many respects.
The claim is my argument is "crap" because Calvin argued before a council and Khomeni didn't. But how these two old birds were viewed was very similar - religion was still above politics and Calvin was given great deference and his word was gospel. To argue that a different mode of execution was somehow to make Calvin a cuddly teddy bear cannot hide the fact that Calvin was still avid and anxious for the death of Servetus on a point of theology. Even if he had not got his way, it is still a stain upon his character.
Trying to do a Mike on Calvin isn't going to change that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Good post, Trefor. You make good points, both about the times and about the nature of things when an unchecked theocracy bears rule.
No, neither Calvin nor Luther lived entirely above the mode of their times. Nor did St. Thomas More, Bloody Mary or Mary Queen of Scots. I suppose the same even could be said about my personal Reformation hero, Tyndale, in that he spent much of his study time in the pub with his students.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I googled up this very interesting article on servetus by a Unitarian hisroical society
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html
According to the article, the Genevan council actually saked the opinion of 4 other sister cities concerning Servetus. It was their concensus that he should be executed.
Servetus' doctrine is an interesting mix of offbeat theology.
servetus article
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Never mind
Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Hey, Garth, what's with the "ciao" stuff? Since you started the thread, you may as well stick around, don't you think?
You've made some assumptions and drawn some conclusions that I'm not convinced are well-founded. What Long Gone is doing (which you describe as "weak reasoning") is assessing actual damage, rather than perceived or imagined damage.
When it comes to Wierwille, the same "weak reasoning" should apply, if you ask me. Wierwille is often associated with things like atrocities, massacres, horrors, genocides, and much, much worse, which I think only minimizes and obscures the damage that he actually caused, and the contributions he may have made. Rather than standing or falling on the merits of his own actions, inactions, doctrines, and teachings, he's judged by people's hurts, disappointments, expectations, and prejudices. It's the same yardstick you're using to judge Calvin. (Didn't you compare Calvin earlier to either Hitler or Stalin or both? I think you forgot Pol Pot.) And maybe it's even the same yardstick the Genevan Court used to judge Servetus.
As far as Calvin's beliefs regarding "unconditional election," I think your gripe is with Augustine, who lived -- how many centuries? -- before Calvin.
As far as Calvin's actions and stringent beliefs being acceptable today, of course they aren't. But I also understand what others are saying about Calvin being humane in an intolerant sort of way, or intolerant in a humane sort of way, if you prefer. What is or is not considered "humane" is relative, and considering his times, requesting a less brutal death for Servetus does speak to his character. It doesn't excuse him, or justify his actions, but it does contradict your characterization of Calvin as "bloodthirsty."
Anyway, I don't know what your beliefs are about the Bible or Christianity, but surely you acknowledge that these events happen on a continuum, and that ultimately, eventually, the Protestant Reformation introduced greater tolerance, more dialogue, more "diversity" (if you don't mind the term) to Christianity. The same can't be said for Stalin or Hitler.
Cynic, I was right there with you, until I got to the part about being “soteriological.” My dictionary wasn’t much help, even though it’s two inches thick and promises me “the right word every time.” What is “spiritual salvation by divine agency”? Does this relate somehow to unconditional election, or crisis conversion or what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Laleo,
One big reason I said 'Caio' was that I thought I was reaching the point where nothing more I said would add anything more to the thread, since I already made my point, plus Cynic was getting quite upset, and I didn't want him to 'pop a vein' as it were.
Read what I said about the Wierwille/Calvin comparison again. Note that I said if Wierwille did any of these activities, he'd be stomped in a heartbeat, whereas Calvin does what he does, and we get excuses and such. That is not the same as saying that the two leaders did the same thing.
Oh, and as regarding the historical context argument, there is only so far you can go with that argument, especially if we're talking about a Christian minister. For one thing, do you see Christ or his apostles burning people at the stake or killing unbelievers for blasphemy? Keep in mind now, that their time was *1500 years* prior to Calvin's, so it would stand to reason that they would be even less progressive in their punishments than in Calvin's time, ... right?
Plus, even back several hundred years ago, care to tell me whats so advanced and complex about realizing that it is cruel, inhumane, and wrong to burn someone at the stake, please? (And that it's not just 'bad theology'). Is it something that can only be figured out just in the past 200 years? ... You see how 'historical context' becomes ludicrous, even on its face?
Plus, if we're going to be propounding the need for absolute morality, then that further blows away any relative reasonings of 'historical context'.
Good point, with one clarification: Calvin (IMHO) has done little, if anything, to further that tolerance, dialog, and diversity. At most, all he came out with is a theology (and a very stringent one) for Protestantism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
In one sense he did, Garth, according to the reading I did. The local reactions to servetus' burning is considered by some to be the beginning of a tolerance movement that swept through the reformation. A bit oblique, I admit, but I'm just repeating what I read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
If only Calvin had spent more time in the pub Evan, we wouldn't be having this discussion!
;)-->
Thanks for the comments on my post, yes men who were otherwise attractive and intelligent and deserving of respect could have their more barbaric blindspots.
But these respected the difference between earthly and heavenly rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ohh, I dunno. Cynic like the cheap beer, and apparently it hasn't done anything to loosen him up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Since we all have a dark side, what is the real point of this thread. Absolute power is a corrupting condition.
Is this thread really a subterfuge to slam Calvin, his doctrine or his politics.
Religious people more often than not make terrible political leaders. Their philosophy may have merit, but the lure of politica rule can make applications go where it was never intended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
And let's refrain from insulting other posters you @#%*
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Slim chance, dweeb.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A most curious dilemna you pose here. Let me ask you something, Cynic, and be straightforward here w/o hiding behind $64 words. And maybe the answer to this question might reveal how one is to deal with Calvin's reputation, as well as your seeming steadfast loyalty to his name.
According to what you believe in accordance with what you know about Christian morality (<-- notice the emphasis), rather than on any supposed 'historical context', what/how would you honestly treat a person's memory if they were responsible for another's death, (and even just for one) and that for heresy, like Calvin was with regard to Servetus? Which did happen, regardless of who 'lit the match', as it were. (Ie., let's set aside the whitewash, and go straight to the central point.)
Regardless of how you think of the points that I raise, of the validity of them (or not), me, (or of my alleged incontinence), think about that question anyway, if you dare, and let me and everybody else here know what your opinion/judgement would be, as I maintain that this is indeed an honest and valid question. Regardless of how it reflects upon Calvin's memory.
And as for me, as you can already guess by now, I have already relieved myself (as per Calvin's memory), as it were.
;)--> Mainly because, no matter how much you endeavor to rationalize or downplay Calvin's actions, I still find the man at the very least comparable to Martindale, ... at his spittling worst.
Oh, by the way, I looked up a link, and by the Reformed Church's website no less, about Calvin's friend William Farel, and lets just say that it reminds me of that old phrase "birds of a feather flock together": -- http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/farel.htm (I wonder if his name wasn't misspelled from 'feral'
;)-->)
Oh, by the way, this was how a lot of people, both supporters and opponents, saw him, as quoted directly from that link, "He was fiery and forceful, not given to the use of tact, impulsive in his actions and preaching, and one who roared against papal abuses."
NOW, I wonder how would his style fit with the admonishment of me and my communications as 'not being communication', or of being 'polemic' and 'incontinent', hmmm? He definitely looked 'polemic' to me, doncha think? ... 'Impertinent'?
And if that is the kind of "character that which God gave him", then I can more easily see why many of those who left the Old World and their descendants (with their embracing of the ideals of the Enlightenment) who founded this country were anti-thetical, if not downright hostile to the mindset of Calvinism in general.
Oh, and I have no problem having what I say "brought out into the light of day". Hell, I'm the one who usually brings it out to begin with.
Your ball.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I note that you conveniently avoid answering my question. Remember the question I posed in my most recent post?
You say that I deliberately misrepresent you. Hey chief, I call them as I see them, and part of your whitewash (or at the very least, what *I* see as whitewash), is the terms that you use to describe where you do differ from Calvin, and those terms go nowhere near what your everyday person would use in referring to someone who was directly involved in a murder. (a fact) Plus you try to downplay the Servetus situation by posing it as a 'not so bad, cause at least Calvin called for a beheading' situation (lot of good it did Servetus.
-->), plus other attempts at explaining it away or using the 'historical context' argument. (an opinion)
Also keep in mind that Calvin did exercise authority in Geneva; not of a direct civil manner, but of a theological manner (a fact) (since he directed/taught at the academy there, and the folks in Geneva looked to him as an overall spiritual authority figure, (a fact) much like TWIers looked to VPW in much the same light), and since they did not have separation of church and state back then, there was nothing separating the religious influence of the Reform Church into government, (a fact) thus the magistrates judgement, which was influenced by Calvin's theology, and its severity. And Calvin DID want Servetus to die, (a fact) and it went a lot farther than the "Well, the law requires that you be put to death, as uncomfortable as I feel about it." point of view. To Calvin, he took Servetus' 'heresy' personally, and his anger clearly reflected this, that much is plainly (as in rabidly) clear, (a fact) and any claims for Calvin's 'compassion' in wanting for Servetus death to be quick rings kinda hollow.
And the magistrates going over Calvin's wishes, thus seemingly letting Calvin off the hook? "Hey look! They went beyond what I wanted them to do to Servetus, so the burden is off of my shoulders!" ... Ahh not quite. It's like Wierwille being ultimately responsible for Martindale's going beyond his "Father in the Word", because Wierwille was his prime source of 'spiritual judgement'. And Wierwille primed that boy to the hilt.
Thus I see a very similar comparison between Calvin and the magistrates (my opinion). Plus for one thing, you don't think that the magistrates would be in power if they were opposers of what Calvin taught, do you? Not by a mile! (a fact) Again, keep in mind the kind of government that existed in Geneva in those days. Ie., a democracy it was NOT. (a fact) At all. (Thus providing somewhat of a basis for Trevor's argument) Much like the rest of Europe. A result of which explains the rise of the Enlightenment Era, and the subsequent basis for the founding of our country. (a fact)
Hyperbole in my posts? Okay, I'll agree with you there, but then again, they were not without valid substance, regardless of your distaste for them, which were provided by my (and others) links.
And why is it that you automatically suspect a deliberate attempt to be dishonest on my part for my updating of my posts? Because I won't let Calvin off the hook as much as you'd like, therefore there *must* be some sort of immoral dishonesty on my part? (a lie!) ... Please! That is based on a childish fallacy. Nothing more. (a fact)
(Notice all the a fact notations that I use to illustrate facts)
Whatever. View it as you will. Hold Calvin to whatever high position theologically or historically that you wish. I know what my motivations/opinions are for speaking otherwise, ... even if you don't.
Knock yourself out! (a wish!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.