Pages

Monday, August 14, 2006

Calvin & Servetus

Since this is a canard which unbelievers regularly trot out, I’ll address it separately.

Once again, I have to pose the question of whether unbelievers want to be treated as intelligent or unintelligent interlocutors.

If they want to be treated as intelligent interlocutors, then they need to at least raise some intelligent objections to the faith.

The case of Servetus is a dumb objection, and the only effect of raising this objection with Pavlovian predictability is to reinforce the impression that unbelievers have nothing but dumb objections.

Calvin’s personal judgment in the case of Servetus has no more bearing on the truth or falsity of Calvinism than the biographical details of Newton or Darwin have any bearing on the truth or falsity of Newtonian physics or Darwinism.

Are unbelievers really so dense that they are unable to draw such an elementary distinction?

The most charitable interpretation is that unbelievers do know the difference, but choose to demagogue the issue.

Or perhaps they’re so blinded by their pathological hatred of the faith that even if they have the intellectual capacity to draw this distinction, they lack the emotional detachment to do so.

A commitment to Calvinism, as a belief-system, is logically independent of a commitment to the person of Calvin as a role model of statecraft.

Calvin could have been right about Servetus, but wrong about Reformed theology—or he could have been right about Reformed theology, but wrong about Servetus—or right about both—or wrong about both.

When unbelievers continue to belabor this adventitious association, are they playing dumb, or are they really and truly that obtuse?

You tell me.

In addition, Calvinism is not monolithic. Calvinism is a family of affine theological traditions.

You have the Reformed Anglican tradition, the Reformed Baptist tradition, the Reformed Presbyterian tradition, The Reformed Congregationalist tradition, as well as Welsh Calvinist Methodism, to name a few of the major strains.

And you have variations within and between these traditions. There are varieties of Reformed Baptistery. John Owen was not an Anglican or a Baptist.

The Cameronians have a very different take on church/state relations than John Gill.

In matters of statecraft, you can’t equate Samuel Rutherford with John Whitgift, or Cotton Mather with Charles Spurgeon or John Brine.

The disagreement between the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists has less to do with sacramentology than it does with ecclesiology.

It’s ultimately concerned with the identity of the church. Who belongs to the church?

Just compare the Westminster Confession to the London Baptist Confession—or compare different editions of the London Baptist Confession—to see the difference in their respective starting-points.

And how you answer that question may, in turn, affect your view of church/state relations.

Presbyterians traditionally take a more Old Testamental view, which they regard as essentially continuous with the NT.

By contrast, Reformed Baptists operate with a modified Anabaptist model of church/state relations. They tend to split the difference between Anabaptism and Presbyterianism.

This is why the debate over credobaptism and paedobaptism makes so little progress. Swapping prooftexts for one’s respective sacramentology fails to break the impasse because the sacramental divide is symptomatic of a deeper, ecclesiological divide.

19 comments:

  1. Funny post...

    It basically lays out the facts about the lack of unity in 'the church' and the seeming impossibility of interpreting and understanding "God's Word."

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice try Steve, but everyone knows that Calvin's burning of Servetus is a rock solid argument against Calvinism and Christianity. Trying to make people look stupid for bringing up this common objection won't work. It's a common objection from unbelievers precisely because it is a solid and reasonable objection. I could have a post at DC where I say that such and such an objection just shows how stupid believers are, blah blah blah. That still doesn't change the validity of the objection. It just shows, once again, that you're afraid, very afraid of the truth....

    Did you hear that? That rumbling sound? I think it's the sound of Steve's little apologetic empire beginning to crumble. Bwa ha ha hah!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Define unity. Given that this post had to do with Calvinists, I think that the above cheap shot misses by a mile.

    Christians through the ages have disagreed about the nature of Church Government, the mode of Baptism and the relation of the Church to the State while enjoying fellowship across denominational boundaries with Churches which agree on the nature of the Gospel, the inerrancy and sufficientcy of scripture, the death of Christ, etc.

    The Church that Christ built is one, and it correctly interprets and undertstands the Word of God as relates to primary matters. On secondary matters there is some disagreement, although less than you might think.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and was it Daniel Morgan who spoke about the genetic fallacy?

    ReplyDelete
  5. When unbelievers continue to belabor this adventitious association, are they playing dumb, or are they really and truly that obtuse?

    I think the association is made more in reference to Calvin's character to than in his general intellect. Many otherwise-smart men have done awful things. Most of the time when I hear this brought up, it is brought up when someone is praising Calvin for his godliness, or something along those lines...and/or as a general rejoinder to the idea that knowing God/knowing the Bible makes one more morally sensitive and loving in character.

    (Not saying that I think it is a valid or invalid objection, just relating my own exposure experiences to it.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hiraeth said:

    "Define unity"

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unity

    "The state or quality of being in accord; harmony."

    What is the 'true Christian' answer on birth control? Death penalty? Abortion? Baptism? Exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit? End times? Prophecy? Tithing?

    You get the picture.

    Steve's post simply pointed this out, once again, although anyone who has had a foot in a church knows this already.

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTHWARRIOR!

    ReplyDelete
  7. So Truthwarrior seems to agree with you Hiraeth. That there is disagreement on the secondary issues. Death penalty? Abortion? Baptism? Exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit? End times? Prophecy? Tithing?
    I couldn't see much objection regarding the primary issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope, Daniel, that you are not saying that Calvin's character invalidates his doctrine. You know why.

    Truthwarrior. I am in accord and harmony with evangelicals everywhere on those primary issues like the Gospel and the Substitutionary atonement.

    On those issues you mention there is valid disagreement over the meaning of the passages which deal with them. This does NOT affect the truth of those central truths of Christianity.

    You appear to hold the somewhat odd view that because people disagree, the item over which they disagree is incorrect. Far from it, I believe that unity comes from dialogue and close Bible study. On some issues, Christians will have to agree to differ, either because the Bible verses being looked at allow for more than one interpretation (eschatology), or because of the enduring role played by tradition (Church Government, Baptism) or the world (Abortion).

    I have attended Charismatic, Episcopalian, Baptist and Presbyterian Churches. I found the same central doctrines being taught in each and unity with the brethren worshipping therein. I know the picture I have long been a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. John Calvin was a hate filled, egotistical, tyrant and a murderer.
    Servetus was hardly his only victim, only his most famous and most grisly murder. It's estimated that over a 5 year period, there were 57 executions, 76 banishments, and countless other violent acts of punishment committed against the 16,000 or so citizens of Geneva due to Calvin's strict laws against heresy and "immorality". All these sentences were sanctioned by John Calvin.

    It seems "love your neighbor" always takes on a new exegesis once a Christian tyrant comes to power.


    Calvin doesn't "represent" Christianity anymore than Hitler represents Germany. He was just another hate filled tyrant whose particular brand of theological tripe and bigotry still appeals to the same sort of egotistical, frustrated, self righteous, white males who you find on sites like this.

    Sebastian Castillo was a Christan cleric who had the courage to stand-up to Calvin's tyranny and violence, and he was hounded by an unapologetic Calvin and his henchmen till his death for it. Funny how none of these psuedo-intellectual defenders of the "faith" champion his version of Christianity.

    The upside of Calvin's tyranny and the centuries of Christian persecutions in Europe, is that it gave birth to the Enlightenment and the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, that we now take for granted in the Western World. It's the same thing that the fascist Ialamic states have to figure out...for THEMSELVES.

    I suggest reading "Out of the Flames" by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone for a look inside the Christian Taliban of the 16th century.


    Imagine a small city run by the likes of these, egotistical, self righteous, hate filled Triabloguers and you'll have a small idea of what it was like to live in Geneva in 1550.

    Servetus and everyone else who was persecuted and killed by European Christian tyrants did not die in vain, they were the martyrs of the early human freedom movement.

    Thankfully, all these Cavlinist Taliban can do now is sit hunched over their keyboards, and fill their blog sites with their babbling theological tripe, and hate filled missives, and threaten people with what their big bad personal gods will do to heretics and non believers after they die.

    Thanks Servetus!

    ReplyDelete
  11. celsus,

    You apparently seem fairly hate-filled yourself.

    You said:
    ---
    It's estimated that over a 5 year period, there were 57 executions, 76 banishments, and countless other violent acts of punishment committed against the 16,000 or so citizens of Geneva due to Calvin's strict laws against heresy and "immorality".
    ---

    Oh yes, "immorality." I assume you put it in quotes because you don't believe in immorality. Which makes one wonder why you are condemning Calvin for immorality.....

    I suppose you're one of those people who stands up and says, "You can't legistlate morality" as if there was something else you could legislate.

    You wrote:
    ---
    The upside of Calvin's tyranny and the centuries of Christian persecutions in Europe, is that it gave birth to the Enlightenment and the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, that we now take for granted in the Western World.
    ---

    Christian "persecution" gave birth to nothing. Instead, Christian principles slowly and inevitably wore down the barbaric morality of the pagans until we got to the point we are now.

    I would love to see you live under Druidic law. See how tolerant the German horde was when they fought against Rome. Look at the civility of the Huns.

    Funny how centuries of Muslim's slaughtering others hasn't led them to an Enlightenment. Perhaps it's because the Enlightenment was based on certain principles that were delivered in Christian belief.

    But it's easier to pretend that Christians were just persecuting everyone. It's far easier than actually comparing various cultures. It's far easier than actually looking at what the Scripture says. It's far easier than actually defending your own beliefs.

    Lead on celsus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello George, what's with this new name "Celsus"?

    It's hilarious how you make fun of self-righteous white males who are regular readers of Triablogue, and then you're here posting this bull. That just kills me, haw haw haw...

    Thanks for lurking George!

    ReplyDelete

  13. Oh yes, "immorality." I assume you put it in quotes because you don't believe in immorality. Which makes one wonder why you are condemning Calvin for immorality.....


    CalvinDude,

    I put it in quotes because in Calvin's delusional world, "dancing" was immoral, naming your children other than an approved biblical name was "immoral".

    Perhaps you agree with that as well?

    Why don't you reply with 'CalvinDue's' big list of absolute immoral behavior so I know what YOU think is immoral?

    *chirp*

    I thought so...


    Christian "persecution" gave birth to nothing. Instead, Christian principles slowly and inevitably wore down the barbaric morality of the pagans until we got to the point we are now.

    Delusional.

    The only principle that has slowly and inevitably wore down is the ability of Christian tyrants and bigots to persecute and kill those who disagree with their religion or personal verions of a god. And conservative Christians have fought freedom of religion every step of the way and are still fighting.

    Calvin's very public murder of Servetus was a catalyst in that movement. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of Christians like Castellio and the Unitarians who were champions of these freedoms.

    I would love to see you live under Druidic law. See how tolerant the German horde was when they fought against Rome. Look at the civility of the Huns.

    Please...spare me...I know I come from a very violent, tribal species famous for slaughtering those in other tribes. Your bible is filled with the stories. Christians are just one more of those who employed that strategy to gain and stay in power. Now that power has been stripped from them with the evolution of secular, Western governments.


    Funny how centuries of Muslim's slaughtering others hasn't led them to an Enlightenment. Perhaps it's because the Enlightenment was based on certain principles that were delivered in Christian belief.

    These things take time. It has taken place to a certain extent in places like Turkey. And guess what nitwit? Your Protestant Christian homeboys weren't allowing Black Christians to share the same toilets with them just a few short decades ago. You hate atheists and Muslims and you'd probably disown your son or daughter if they married one. Perhaps if they even married a Mormon. So spare me the lecture..."CalvinDude"


    Perhaps it's because the Enlightenment was based on certain principles that were delivered in Christian belief.

    LOL...

    Individual freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democratic government is NO WHERE to be found in the bible.

    Quite the opposite. The punishment for blasphemy or worshipping other gods is DEATH. Calvin was just doing what his bible suggested.

    Just like your Calvinist homeboy Fred Phelps would do if he was the supreme power.

    ReplyDelete
  14. celsus said:
    ---
    I put it in quotes because in Calvin's delusional world, "dancing" was immoral, naming your children other than an approved biblical name was "immoral".
    ---

    I'd be interested in seeing what sources you get this from.

    You wrote:
    ---
    Why don't you reply with 'CalvinDue's' big list of absolute immoral behavior so I know what YOU think is immoral?
    ---

    Because I don't bother wasting my time kowtowing to your baseless whims.


    You said:
    ---
    Delusional.

    The only principle that has slowly and inevitably wore down is the ability of Christian tyrants and bigots to persecute and kill those who disagree with their religion or personal verions of a god. And conservative Christians have fought freedom of religion every step of the way and are still fighting.
    ---

    You're right. Everything you say is delusional.

    You wrote:
    ---
    Christians are just one more of those who employed that strategy to gain and stay in power. Now that power has been stripped from them with the evolution of secular, Western governments.
    ---

    But here's the point that you don't get. There is no reason at all for any secular government to make any law. There are no moral absolutes in a secular society. There are no objective standards. Instead, you have majority rule.

    Remember, the Germans voted for the Nazi party.

    Remember, the men of Athens voted to attack Syracuse.

    But none of these actions are either right or wrong in the secular worldview. They are simply things that people have done.

    So it is with Calvin. He merely did something. So what? It wasn't right or wrong in secularism, so you have no basis by which to condemn him for it.

    Secularism cannot account for why tyranny is wrong. Thus, secularism cannot account for why we live under a representative government right now.

    On the other hand, Christianity can.

    You want the fruits of Christianity without the baggage of having to actually believe it.

    You wrote:
    ---
    Individual freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democratic government is NO WHERE to be found in the bible.
    ---

    Au contraire. These things are NO WHERE to be found in secularism. They can, however (and indeed MUST) be derrived from Christian principles. After all, even the Declaration of Independence recognizes that our rights are God-given rights, for without God there are no rights. Thus, the Declaration states plainly of the rights of men that:

    ...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

    And also informs us that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

    None of these can be found in secularism, which is why they had to appeal to God.

    Now if I thought you were actually interested in how this progressed from Biblical principles, I would take the time to flesh that out for you. But since all you're interested in is promoting your false sense of morality and practicing hypocritical indignation, I'm not going to waste my time with it and will merely point out that until you have a basis for morality that you can substantiate, I have no reason to listen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CalvinDude writes: "There are no moral absolutes in a secular society"

    So can you explain why every other non-Christian civilization has, for the most part, outlawed murder and rape? Aren't they a crime in Buddhist and Hindu (and atheist) countries as well? Where do you get the idea that Christianity has some particular claim to morality?

    Besides, where do you get the idea that Christianity offers "moral absolutes"?? It doesn't! As I've said, killing men, women and infants (which today we would call "war crimes") was justifiable in the Old Testament as was forcing a woman into becoming your wife (i.e., rape). Slavery was also condoned. While "one man, one woman" may be the ideal to St. Paul, the fact that God offered his prophets "wives" in an era when merely talking back to your parents earned one a public stoning, it's hard to see how God had any particularly NEGATIVE feelings towards it.

    Also, where in the Bible is a democratic form of government upheld as Godly? It's not.
    Instead, we're told that ALL authority is given by the invisible God, whether it's an emperor or a theocrat.

    Your version of morality is based on the ideals of the Enlightenment, and you're merely projecting these ideals on to your version of Christianity. You're very much a product of this era. Had you lived a couple hundred years ago, you'd be thinking quite differently.

    "Morality" WOULD in fact mean killing people for your faith, and it would imply a toleration of slavery and the oppression of women. It would probably mean despising science as well. I'm sure you're aware that using medicine to cure people was seen as the devil's work since it would be alleviating God's just "punishment" on a sinful people.

    See this is what happens: more secular minded people move the society forward and then Christians take the credit for any advances made.

    Nice.

    - Todd

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's estimated that over a 5 year period, there were 57 executions, 76 banishments, and countless other violent acts of punishment committed against the 16,000 or so citizens of Geneva due to Calvin's strict laws against heresy and "immorality"

    This sounds very like something Dave Hunt wrote. How ironic, not to mention unoriginal. Really, Celsus, can you do no better?

    So can you explain why every other non-Christian civilization has, for the most part, outlawed murder and rape?

    Yes, Christian theology has a doctrine of common providence. It also has doctrine of the Imago Dei. Thus, it has the metaphysical machinery to account for this phenomenon. One would think you'd know this if you're going to criticize Christianity.

    Aren't they a crime in Buddhist and Hindu (and atheist) countries as well? Where do you get the idea that Christianity has some particular claim to morality? You misunderstand the claim. The claim isn't that Christianity has a particular claim to morality as if only it is moral, rather it alone has the metaphysical machinery to ground objective morality. Pantheism and functional atheism must borrow from theism, particularly Christianity, in order to do this. There are certain morals that can be grounded in Christianity better than Judaism, which is wholly to be expected from a covenantal perspective.

    Besides, where do you get the idea that Christianity offers "moral absolutes"?? It doesn't! As I've said, killing men, women and infants (which today we would call "war crimes") was justifiable in the Old Testament as was forcing a woman into becoming your wife (i.e., rape). All this shows is that moral absolutes can be qualified, not that moral absolutes did not exist. The Ten Commandments are absolutes, but the Law explains their application. Your objection also overlooks the actual content of these very laws. Perhaps one day you'll avail yourself of a standard commentary instead of the skeptics online bible.

    Slavery was also condoned. What was the slavery outlined in the Law itself actually like? All you're doing is imputing 18th and 19th century views of slavery to the OT. (FYI, that view of slavery is grounded in the Enlightenment, not the Bible). You'll also find that in the NT the very seeds for the demise of slavery as an institution are brought out in the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. Slavery, in both covenants is a means for Gentiles to proselytize into the covenant (OT) and the gospel to spread (in the NT). The concern of Scripture is with the covenant community and its building through the ages, not the benefit of all people everywhere in some sort of utopian ideal. Don't forget, you're talking to Calvinists here, not Arminians. We are not constrained to believe that God loves everybody the same way and equally.

    the fact that God offered his prophets "wives" in an era when merely talking back to your parents earned one a public stoning, it's hard to see how God had any particularly NEGATIVE feelings towards it. In what text does God offer prophets "wives?" Rather, when polygamy is depicted it is always negative in consequence. As to public stoning, we're talking about apostate children who were adults not small children. Again, perhaps you'd care to actually do some research before trotting out such glaring errors.

    Also, where in the Bible is a democratic form of government upheld as Godly? It's not.
    Instead, we're told that ALL authority is given by the invisible God, whether it's an emperor or a theocrat.
    And in the NT, the distinctions between slave and free, male and female, and Jew and Gentile are abolished, and the covenant people are called a kingdom of priests. Order is retained in the family structure and the governnment of the church through elders and deacons. The concern is for the covenant community, not the world itself. As to the world itself, you can lay monarchial goverment at the feet of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant church. You seem to be forgetting that it's the doctrine of the priesthood of believers that leads to republicanism in the Reformed states of Europe and then America and their governments.

    I'm sure you're aware that using medicine to cure people was seen as the devil's work since it would be alleviating God's just "punishment" on a sinful people.

    On the contrary, where the gospel goes in Scripture the land is exorcised of sickness. Luke, if you'll remember was a physician. The OT priests were also rudimentary doctors. You can also thank the Protestants for much of modern medicine too.

    See this is what happens: more secular minded people move the society forward and then Christians take the credit for any advances made. Ah, secular fideism at its best. Yes, I'm sure the people of North Korea, the uber secular state of the world right now, are living in a state of great advancement and freedom. Sorry, Todd, but you can lay Social Darwinism and other evils at the feet of your precious secularism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also, where in the Bible is a democratic form of government upheld as Godly? It's not.

    While we're on this subject a couple more words are in order. If you'd care to actually read the OT, you'll find that the king is God's regent. So, he represents God. In addition, you'll find that the king requires the consent of the priesthood and the godly prophets in order to rule. Saul was appointed by Samuel. This was a judgment on the nation. However, the Law made provisions for a king to rule. God later chose David. Samuel anointed him, and later God covenanted with David through Nathan to maintain his line and throne if David and his successors were faithful.

    So, the king had to be faithful to the Law in order to rule successfully. A cursory reading of Kings and Chronicles establishes this much. Along the way, you also find little nuggets that say things like the elders had to give their approval in order for David and his successors to rule the land. Even in the time of the judges there was a ruling eldership composed of the elders of all the tribes that was supposed to meet, though this was abandoned. So, what you actually have in the Law are all the elements of representative government. Yes, there's a king in Israel eventually, but he rules with the consent of the elders representing the tribes and each house of the tribes, the priesthood and its 3 houses,the high priest, and the prophets. The power of the theocracy is divided. Only one Davidic king is prophet, priest, and king, and that is Christ in the NT.

    Read over the story of David. After Saul's death, he is supported by the elders of Judah and then anointed by the elders of the nation who covenanted with them. They do this freely. David also sets up a system of courts and administrators to administer the kingdom before he died so that Solomon and his successors would be able to govern in peace.

    The NT teaches the concept that the church is governed by a plurality of elders and deacons and the consent of the governed members. They repeat the system of government in the OT in the NT churches without the king physically present, because the king in the NT is Christ. The elders govern the local church in his name. Episcopacy and papal forms are from the 2nd and 3rd centuries and beyond. Even as late as Cyprian's era, we find that they said that congregations did not have to accept just any bishop they were given.

    Sorry, but representative government is all over Scripture. If you'd care to read the Bible you'd know that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Todd wrote:
    ---
    CalvinDude writes: "There are no moral absolutes in a secular society"

    So can you explain why every other non-Christian civilization has, for the most part, outlawed murder and rape? Aren't they a crime in Buddhist and Hindu (and atheist) countries as well?
    ---

    A) I notice that even you have to add the "for the most part" in there, which is a tacit admission that secularism has no strong claim to morality.

    B) From a secular standpoint, I cannot explain why so many secular societies have morals in place. All morals are in such a system is a set of ad hoc rules that are enforced by the might of the ruling party. There is nothing inherently wrong in murder or rape--those are just actions that happen that some people don't like. Enough people change their minds and morality changes.

    C) But yes, I can explain it within my worldview. People live inconsistently with the manner that their worldviews would require them to live because unconsciously they know their worldview is wrong. Thus, a secular person does indeed have a moral stand. He simply has no reason within his secularism to have that morality. Thus, he has to import his morality from a different source (i.e. religious sources) and then uses that morality while denying the origins of it.

    Todd wrote:
    ---
    Besides, where do you get the idea that Christianity offers "moral absolutes"?? It doesn't! As I've said, killing men, women and infants (which today we would call "war crimes") was justifiable in the Old Testament as was forcing a woman into becoming your wife (i.e., rape). Slavery was also condoned. While "one man, one woman" may be the ideal to St. Paul, the fact that God offered his prophets "wives" in an era when merely talking back to your parents earned one a public stoning, it's hard to see how God had any particularly NEGATIVE feelings towards it.
    ---

    This opens up a bunch of issues, so I am forced to abbreviate my response.

    A) Your first problem is that you err in thinking that morality is framed in human-to-human interaction. Morality begins first and foremost between man and God. Thus, when some group of people have sinned against God, God does indeed have the right to use other humans as His agents to enact His justice.

    .: Your claim that God ordered the deaths of people in the OT in a way that we would today consider "war crimes" is irrelevant. These people are sinners, and thus God has the right to exact justice in a manner He sees fit.

    B) Human-to-human morality is contingent upon the above. In cases where God, in His mercy, elects not to enact justice, it is not our right to extract justice in His place.

    .: It is immoral for us to kill anyone if God has not commanded it.

    C) The Old Testament times were indeed much different than today. Not only were the surrounding cultures more barbaric, but Israel needed to be safeguarded so that the Messiah would come forth. Now that Messiah has come, God does not need to safeguard the lineage of David, and thus He has different commands for His Church.

    Todd wrote:
    ---
    Also, where in the Bible is a democratic form of government upheld as Godly? It's not.
    Instead, we're told that ALL authority is given by the invisible God, whether it's an emperor or a theocrat.
    ---

    Your point is non sequitur to your question.

    A) God commands us to obey civil government except when that civil government goes against His precepts. Thus, the three Hebrews who disobeyed Nebudchnezar and were thrown into the firery furnace were saved because they obeyed God's Law, not man's.

    B) Representation started in the Garden of Eden when Adam was the federal head of all his descendants.

    C) Representation was likewise the norm in the Hebrew nation, where there were people over tens, hundreds, and thousands, etc.

    Todd wrote:
    ---
    Had you lived a couple hundred years ago, you'd be thinking quite differently.
    ---

    It's nice to see you're omniscient.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John Lost Us' comment about the burning of Servetus negating not only the Reformed faith but all of Christiainity is a good one.

    Does that mean, since about 170 million people were murdered by secularism during the 20th century, that secularism is invalid? And don't blame it only on the Communists. After all, they were just "liberals in a hurry" at one point.

    And if we are defending Asian religions, don't the 1947 massacres of Muslims (they boarded trains and pulled down the pants of all the male travellers to see who was circumcised first) then invalidate Hinduism?

    Don't the wars in Sri Lanka and Myanmar invalidate Theravada Buddhism; while the Boxer rebellion and the grand old Tibetan custom of the blood feud (goof mountain people they) invalidate Mahayana and Lama Buddhism respectively.

    Or, does man's propensity for violence somehow invalidate humanity?

    ReplyDelete