Pages

Monday, August 14, 2006

What's Really Being Said...

I'd like to follow up Steve's excellent post on Calvin and Servetus with a few words of my own about this objection, since both unbelievers and some believers raise this objection. I would add that when unbelievers in particular raise this objection, all they are doing is substituting what they believe to be their more evolved sensibilities in this century for what they believe to be the less evolved sensibiliities of another age. So, they, in the name of their evolved morality simply practice the bigotry of assuming that their modern sensibilities are morally superior to those of the 16th century. How enlightened of them. Isn't this at odds with today's politically correct culture. How is it that they can judge Calvin in the 16th century from the ivory tower of 21st century ethics, which are, I might add, quite fluid. It's not as if a consistent atheist is operating with an absolute standard. If morals are determined by consensus, why then is the consensus of today superior to that of the 16th century? Might not the consensus 300 years hence look at the atheist today with the same kind of disdain as today's atheist does with Calvin?

As to the objection itself, we have to remember that Calvin was a man of his time. In addition, at this time in his life, he wasn't even in power in Geneva. No, he was in disfavor. In addition, Servetus was a known anti-Trinitarian heretic. His death was legal not only in Geneva but everywhere else in Europe. Calvin actually argued that his execution be merciful. Ah, but shouldn't he have opposed his execution? What good would it have done? He had no power to condemn him or save him.

Ah, but doesn't this speak to the character of Calvin? Well, if it does, does it prove that he was immoral or does it prove that he was a man of great mercy? Yes, he agreed with the decision of Geneva. So did all the religious and secular powers of that century, so if it proves Calvin was immoral, it also proves they were all immoral, secular and sacred alike. On the other hand, he pleaded with Servetus for him to recant. He also pleaded the council to make the mode of his execution quick. He was ignored. What's more, he prayed with Servetus and ministered to him in prison, in accordance with that particular axiom of the religion Calvin professed.

Now, I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I have no need to defend the Magisterial system nor the follies of Romanism, but even I can understand this age was the age of the Wars of Religion in which one petty ruler would use religion to excuse his private, petty, plunders of his neighbors territories. The states of Germany and Italy was kept it disarray by France, Spain, Britain, and Holland until the 19th century because of this kind of political behavior, behavior which was condoned by many a Roman Pope. In fact, this behavior resulted in what we know as World War 1 and then, because of the conditions imposed by that treaty, we wound up with World War 2.

In the 16th century, to be an anti-Trinitarian was a worse heresy than to be a Reformed Protestant or Lutheran. Even Anabaptists received more mercy than these individuals. Had the Genevan government not executed Servetus, and Calvin opposed them, then it surely isn't difficult to imagine the Pope inciting France against Geneva. Have you ever been to Geneva? When you leave the train station, if you go one direction, they speak French. If you go another they speak German. Why? Because Geneva is on the Swiss / French border. Ah, but wouldn't the Lutherans intervene? Maybe, but if they had, then all that would do is incite the Romanist states neighboring the Lutheran states in the Holy Roman Empire against them. In addition, if Geneva had fallen, will anybody think Zurich would have remained? The Reformation would likely have ended there.

It's worth noting that our atheist friends can thank the Reformed tradition in particular for the representative government that enables them to live with great freedom today. Look at the map of Europe and the way it evolved politically from the time of the 16th and 17th centuries onward. The Roman states remained monarchial. The Lutheran states were kept down by the Roman states in particular. The states where the Reformed tradition took hold were governed with ever increasing degrees of republican government. In Britain, the Puritans spawned the Congregational and Baptist churches, and they went to America, where the Baptist tradition took hold. The Presbyterian and Baptist traditions colluded to form a great many of the ideals in the Bill of Rights, like the First Amendment that gives our atheist friends the freedom to get away with the things Servetus could not. So, in arguing this objection, our atheist friends are sawing off the very limb on which they stand. That's what makes the objection so baseless.

In addtion to this, Calvinism is an ecclectic tradition. In addition to the traditions that Steve has outlined, I'd add that Calvin does not function for Calvinism the way that Luther functions for Lutheranism. Calvin is one among many. Our theology can be traced beyond Calvin and as having arisen in others like Zwingli and Bullinger, from whom, I might add the Baptists derive their views of the Lord's Supper. In addtion, we have the Covenant theologies from which to draw. So, which brand of Calvinism are our interlocutors wishing to impeach?

34 comments:

  1. I'd add that Calvin does not function for Calvinism the way that Luther functions for Lutheranism.

    Yeah, I agree.

    And again, it is a reference to character, not pretending to invalidate a man's theology, but questioning one's choice of "hero"...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel,

    Do you know anything else about Calvin's character? He was a faithful, devoted Christian who sought to glorify God in every area of his life. His intellect and learning were way above ours, and he labored as a faithful minister most of his life. Every account of him I've read was that he exhibited the fruits of Christian piety as outlined in Scripture. He wasn't perfect, he had flaws and weaknesses, he was a sinner redeemed by grace, and he sinned as far as his part was concerned in the Servetus incident. He's not our hero, but a great Christian man...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel,

    My heros are all sandwiches....

    Be that as it may, when you say it's a "reference to character" then doesn't this mean you're taking it upon yourself to give us a standard for what character is good and what character is not good?

    If all you're doing by this is saying, "John Calvin's character is different than mine" then so what?

    If, as it instead seems, you are saying, "John Calvin's character is worse than mine" then you have a burden of proof that you need to bear; namely, you must give us a reason why your moral views can rightly judge when a person's character is "better" or "worse" than some meaningful standard.

    (Note: a meaningful standard is not, "Because I feel that way.")

    In other words, if you claim that this is a reference to an objective idea of character then you must give us that objective standard. If you claim that this is a subjective idea of character, then why does anyone else need to care what you think?

    ReplyDelete

  4. As to the objection itself, we have to remember that Calvin was a man of his time. In addition, at this time in his life, he wasn't even in power in Geneva. No, he was in disfavor.

    It appears Gene Bridges is a man of his time. He is a simple liar, and will say anything to defend and apologize for his personal hero. I'm not surprised really.

    Calvin was in complete control of Geneva at the time of Servetus capture, trial and execution. And I'm just assuming Gene isn't really that ignorant, and instead is just lying to try and cover up the facts.

    There were many other men of "that time" who were clearly against Calvin's tyranny in Geneva The Libertines battled him for a decade, and Christian clerics like Sebastian Castellio stood up to Calvin as well. Many paid with their lives.

    I guess I'm just one of those modern "bigots" who believe that a democratic society based on freedom of thought, speech, the press, and religion, and allowing people to DANCE, is preferable to one based on tyrants buring people at the stake because they don't agree with some minute detail of your Christian theology or imprisoning them for DANCING.

    Of course I'm not surprised that the Calvin wannabes who blog at this site would much prefer latter.

    Thanks to Servetus and all the other people who were murdered by Christian tyrants for their speech and beliefs, so we can enjoy these freedoms we have today.

    If only the Ismlamic fascists could learn from this example.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Celsus is setting up a false dichotomy, as if the choice is between either rubberstamping everything that Calvin ever said and did, or equating Calvin with Hitler.

    Calvin was certainly a representative of Christianity. One can say that without idolizing the man.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Celsus is setting up a false dichotomy, as if the choice is between either rubberstamping everything that Calvin ever said and did, or equating Calvin with Hitler.

    I'm not setting up any "false dichotomy", nor am I comparing Calvin to Hitler.

    It's you and your homeboys who can't decide if you want to defend the guy and claim he was right, or apologize for his persecution of others, or simply try to cover it up and claim it didn't really happen.

    Come to think of it...I guess that is what the Neo-nazis also kinda do, so I guess there is that parallel to Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I note here that Celsus' problem is with Calvin's politics, not the man's theology. Since I assume all posting here are NOT members of established Churches, might I respectfully suggest our temperate friend is barking up the wrong tree?

    Toleration as a religious principle in America and Britain dates from the time of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The men responsible were Calvinistic Independents, Baptists and the Presbyterian William of Orange. Initially, only Trinitarian Protestants were allowed protection, but, with the principle established, it expanded to eventually comprehend other faiths. Like the primitive Christianity of the Roman Empire, toleration recognises the rights of conscience of others, no matter how much one may disagree with them, in contrast to the intolerant 'tolerance' of modernity.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Celsus, I don't know about you, but I do not owe my religious and political liberty to antitrinitarians. I owe my liberty to my Methodist and Independent forebears.

    Don't know what that means...I never claimed that I "owe" my religious liberty to Servetus, I owe it to the founding fathers like Jefferson and Madison and others who managed to somehow get a Constitution passed with no mention of your god, and a First Amendment that provides those freedoms.

    Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the Christianity and Methodist Christian ethics of John Wesley, a man I admire, to the Christian tyrant and murderer John Calvin.


    I, for one, am consistent. I, like all voluntaries, reject the Constantine principle which identifies the state with the Church and the population of a given territory as members of that Church.

    Well...that's good to hear, now that its the LAW!

    I suppose you also support allowing women to vote and not allowing slavery?

    You're a swell guy, I can tell!


    The Church is the community of visible saints, gathered from out of the world.

    Don't know what "church" you're talking about Gerard, but I'm sure by capitalizing it, I supposed to be impressed. There's lots of Christian "churches" Gerard, Catholic, Reformed, Methodist, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah Witness, Unification Church...their a dime a dozen, and the people in them aren't all "saints"...sorry...they are just regular schmucks who like to pretend that their verison of god is THE god.


    You, on the other hand, are a hypocrite, and a fairly low one at that. After denying that you are comparing Calvin to Hitler, you proceed to compare all Christians to Nazis.

    Where did I do that Gerard?

    I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

    I said there may be parallels with certain fans of Calvin who try to justify, cover-up or deny what he did, just like certain neo-Nazis do the same with Hitler.

    I don't mean to imply that all Christians do that. Again, there were very brave Christians like Castellio and Servetus who stood to tyrants like Calvin.


    With weasel words and guilt by association you seek to tar everyone with a brush of your own imagining.

    Nope...I know lots of wonderful Christians who are making a real difference in the world...just not any of the Calvinist dorks who spend their days on this site.

    ReplyDelete

  9. I note here that Celsus' problem is with Calvin's politics, not the man's theology. Since I assume all posting here are NOT members of established Churches, might I respectfully suggest our temperate friend is barking up the wrong tree?

    Sorry...it's hard for me to compartmentalize them as easily as you can.

    Was Calvin exiling, jailing, toruring and executing people who differed with his theology and his rigid Christian morality a "political" issue for him?

    Thanks for more hilarious examples of the Calvin fan club rationalizing.

    Was Calvin filled and being directed by Jesus' Holy spirit only when he was writing his theological tripe, but not when he was torturing someone?

    Hilarious...

    We will know they are Christians by who they torture, exile and burn alive....
    Toleration as a religious principle in America and Britain dates from the time of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The men responsible were Calvinistic Independents, Baptists and the Presbyterian William of Orange.

    Oh Really?

    Garsh! I wonder why Jefferson had to write that letter to the Danbury Baptists to convince them it was a good idea then!

    Thanks for the revisionist history...is there any sunny day you and the Calvinists want to take credit for as well?

    The history of Christian Europe and Christian America has been one of persecution of non-Christians, or even Christians of the wrong sect.

    The only thing that keeps you in check is our secular government, and the fact that you are such a splintered set of competitive little cults that don't trust each other.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Celsus said:

    “Calvin doesn't ‘represent’ Christianity anymore than Hitler represents Germany.”

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/calvin-servetus.html#comments

    celsus said:

    “I'm not setting up any ‘false dichotomy’, nor am I comparing Calvin to Hitler.”

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/whats-really-being-said.html#comments

    Garsh! If our addlebrained critic can’t keep track of his own comments, why should anyone else give him the time of day?

    If any of you happen to see him along the side of the road (he'll be dressed in institutional garb), thumbing a ride, please report him to the warden of the local loony bin so the guys in long white jackets can pick him up and return him to his padded cell before he does himself serious harm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, they, in the name of their evolved morality simply practice the bigotry of assuming that their modern sensibilities are morally superior to those of the 16th century.

    If the atheist were critiquing the sensibilities of those who lived in the 16th century in a wholesale manner, and they did so on the basis that modern versus pre-modern sensibilities are morally superior, then you might be able to put together a case for this statement. But if one is focusing only on a particular act or ruling and measuring according to a standard that would apply in the 16th century as well as it applies today, then no dice for you here. Imagine someone today saying "You can't condemn the atrocities of the Third Reich because to do so would be to assume the moral superiority of us moderns, and that's bigoted!" No doubt there might be some who do this, but that sample does not speak for all. Anyway, nice opinion piece. When you get some arguments to back it up, I'd like to see them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "(he'll be dressed in institutional garb)"

    He'd be fit to be dressed in institutional garb if he started cursing a tree for failing to produce fruit, wouldn't you say? Or, is that an example of rational behavior in your view?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought this was the local loony bin?

    Isn't this the place where nutjobs believe in YEC, and talking snakes, and prophets parting seas, and "stopping" the sun, and resurrected god men who fly up into the clouds?

    Hilarious...these dorks believe all this and more, yet they think they are sane...the irony is deep.

    As far as institutional garb, I picture Steve as someone hunched over his computer wearing clothes like these:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin-best-likeness-jpg

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very good point Celsus. Ol' Calvin sured did dorn institutional garb if there ever was anything of the sort. But Steve might say that Calvin was never out thumbin' a ride. Perhaps that is true, but that's probably because he was hiding his thumbs from the thumbscrews. There is no honor among the pious, you know. If they didn't have atheists to complain about, they'd turn on each other soon enough. Ever heard of something called "heresy"?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Celsus, what happened to George? You don't like Calvin, huh? Well, I have to admit he was hardly as productive as Mao or Stalin, or any of the other godless tyrants who were the direct product of atheism and naturalism. Hey, survival of the fittest is a great idea. What's your beef with Calvin?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Celsus, Calvin's belief that the state should punish heretics WAS a part of his politics. Beliefs about the relationship of Church and State are political, whether you like it or not.

    Now, I have never burned anyone, nor have I tortured them. Nor, I suspect, has any other Christian commentator on this site.

    On toleration, specifically Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is clear to me that you haven't actually read it. I quote:

    'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'

    'Believing WITH YOU that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God' In other words, he was AGREEING with the Danbury Baptists that religion was a matter of conscience. Not telling them that they ought to adopt toleration.

    The letter was written to Cannecticut Baptists to assure them that the infant republic would respect their belief in religious toleration.

    Here it is in full:

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson

    ReplyDelete

  17. anti-celsus said...
    Celsus, what happened to George?

    Are you stalking me? I'm flattered!


    You don't like Calvin, huh? Well, I have to admit he was hardly as productive as Mao or Stalin, or any of the other godless tyrants who were the direct product of atheism and naturalism.

    LOL...sorry dork, I'm not a fan of "godless tyrants" anymore than "god-filled" ones. You see nitwit, I don't call myself a Stalinist or Maoist, I don't keep their books on my nightstand or go to the church of Mao.

    Nice try...but we were talking about Calvin...you know...the hero of all these frustrated, self righteous, god wannabes who post on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Celsus, Calvin's belief that the state should punish heretics WAS a part of his politics. Beliefs about the relationship of Church and State are political, whether you like it or not.

    LOL...

    Oh...I see...so "love your neighbor", forgiveness, and mercy were Calvin's "theology" and "burn your neighbor", never forgive anyone who trespasses against your religious beliefs, and torture, were just his "politics".


    Calvin had wonderful theology just lousy politics? Is that your hilarious defense of his actions now?

    Gotcha!

    You're a friggin' RIOT!

    Hey! Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all swell guys, filled with the Holy Spirit, they just had lousy politics as well!

    Snort!

    Now, I have never burned anyone, nor have I tortured them. Nor, I suspect, has any other Christian commentator on this site.

    You sure about Manata?


    The letter was written to Cannecticut Baptists to assure them that the infant republic would respect their belief in religious toleration.

    Wrong! The letter was written to assure them that as a minority Christian sect in CT., that the first amendment would protect their rights to religious freedom from being infringed by the Christian Congregationalist church that was TAXING them.

    Again, the context here is you claiming that Christians were all FOR religous liberty. WRONG. The Christian sects who were in the MAJORITY in any given state were against it, and the Christian sects in the MINORITY were for it...what a surprise. Meanwhile the Jews and Catholics were both marginalized by the Protestants in power.

    Today we have the Christian right in this country, and a fundy President, trying to infuse their particular brand of Protestant Christian religion back into the government in direct violation of the Constitutition. Of course I'm not surprised, I doubt Bush has read it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. celsus said:

    Isn't this the place where nutjobs believe in YEC, and talking snakes, and prophets parting seas, and "stopping" the sun, and resurrected god men who fly up into the clouds?

    Hilarious...these dorks believe all this and more, yet they think they are sane...the irony is deep.

    ********************************************

    The irony is, indeed, deep...of pseudointellectual unbelievers like Ted and celsus who substitute assertions for arguments and never miss a chance to dodge a counterargument. All attitude, no reason.

    ReplyDelete

  20. The irony is, indeed, deep...of pseudointellectual unbelievers like Ted and celsus who substitute assertions for arguments and never miss a chance to dodge a counterargument. All attitude, no reason.

    LOL...was that an assertion, an argument, or a counterargument Steve?

    Stop trying so hard to be "wise" Steve...Paul told you that you need to be a fool to be a member of his cult...

    ReplyDelete
  21. On Jeffeson's letter. I was aware of the context. However, your initial response indicated you believed he was lecturing the Baptists on tolerance. I am well aware of the situation with the established Congregational churches of New England. Baptists and Methodists have, however, always believed in religious liberty for all, as have Independents. When Cromwell ruled England, he enforced toleration and allowed the Jews to settle free from persecution. As for your statement about Christian sects, here in Wales the majority were so much in favour of religious liberty that they rejected money from the state and forced the disestablishment of the state church.

    As for political beliefs, I think you'll find that any belief which requires the government to do something or addresses the stateis a political belief. So, if I go out and feed the hungry or look after my neighbour, that is a personal belief/action. If I campaign for the government to do it, then that is different.

    'Calvin had wonderful theology just lousy politics? Is that your hilarious defense of his actions now?'

    You may have missed the bit where I condemned Calvin's support for the burning of Heretics. My position is that Calvin was right about some things but wrong about others. Sort of like Thomas Jefferson and his slaves.

    As for your comment on your President and politics, you know as well as I do that the Supreme Court would block any attempt to establish religion. Beyond that, I will not be drawn on the politics of a sovereign state to which I do not belong. But if you wish to indulge in paranoid fantasies, who am I to stop you? The problem with your sort is that you honestly think that there is only a thin wall of law that stops all Christians from going out and persecuting you.

    Finally, my dear man, calm down. If you keep on like this you'll burst a blood-vessel.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, and on Calvin's theology, I note that he was a Presbyterian. I am an independent. Many of the posters here would also disagree with Calvin's views as to the mode of Baptism, and still others as to his sacramental views.

    Now, name five men you admire and whose beliefs you agree with completely.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Listen, I've had a very hard life. Nothing has ever gone my way. I'm just a product of my social conditioning and DNA, so please understand that I can't be responsible for my actions. Jerkness is in my gene pool. All my insults shouldn't bother you anyway, you have no more significance than a carrot or a block of cheese. Now, since all my argumentation is stupid and self-refuting, I'm going to go refute myself.....thanks, losers

    ReplyDelete
  24. If, as it instead seems, you are saying, "John Calvin's character is worse than mine" then you have a burden of proof that you need to bear; namely, you must give us a reason why your moral views can rightly judge when a person's character is "better" or "worse" than some meaningful standard.
    Okay, let us use the standard of burning human beings alive, and say that those who burn human beings alive are less merciful and gracious than those who execute them via less painful methods. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

    Torture, defined as causing excessive pain in another conscious creature which is not necessitated by self-defense, and could be avoided entirely, is one objective standard, now isn't it, ol' pal?

    (Note: a meaningful standard is not, "Because I feel that way.")
    Oh, thanks for clearing that up, since that was my automatic reply [eye roll]

    In other words, if you claim that this is a reference to an objective idea of character then you must give us that objective standard.
    A standard was given. If you don't like it, then explain why it is more merciful and/or gracious to burn someone alive than to chop off their head or hang them (with a long enough rope to snap the neck).

    If you claim that this is a subjective idea of character, then why does anyone else need to care what you think?
    Well, I'll make sure not to claim that, since according to you, nothing subjective is worth caring about.

    PS: Don't you get tired of repeating yourself? We'll go from this standard to you saying it isn't "absolute and universal"...and on and on. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  25. And, Daniel, what effect does this have on the chap's doctrine? Yes, Calvin supported the burning of heretics. But this no more invalidates the man's contribution to theology than the fact that Jefferson owned slaves invalidates the Declaration of Independence (and as a British subject I feel able to be disinterested on that one).

    I have long held that the practice of quasi-canonisation of Protestants is misaken. All men have sinned, and all have fallen short of the glory of God. The best of men are men at best, and some of the wisest of men have done foolish things which have left a stain on their character. However, since I am not a statesman, and since I enjoy freedoms which they could only dream of, I must judge them leniently. And I include here Torquemada and Mary Tudor, before anyone says I'm guilty of favouritism.

    Now, moderns like Pol Pot and Phelps, I condemn because they should most definitely have known better.

    The magisterial reformers broke free of Rome's errors regarding the Gospel, but they did not discard Rome's errors regarding the relation of Church and state, nor did they recognise that the Church is a voluntary association of believers called out from the world, rather than conterminous with the national community. That was left to Browne in Norwich (my place of birth) a generation later.

    On the mode of execution, as you know, this was the prescribed mode of execution for heretics. Calvin did argue that a sword should have been used, but the law being what it was...

    And, I repeat, I do not approve of the burning of heretics. That was a medieval relic which was yet to be discarded by the states of Europe. As an independent, I do not believe that the state has any role in enforcing religious belief, only a role in creating safe conditions for freedom of worship.

    And I rebuke the gent pretending to be Celsus flouncing off. It's not nice to give a dog a bad name.

    ReplyDelete

  26. On Jeffeson's letter. I was aware of the context. However, your initial response indicated you believed he was lecturing the Baptists on tolerance.

    You misunderstood my intention.


    I am well aware of the situation with the established Congregational churches of New England. Baptists and Methodists have, however, always believed in religious liberty for all, as have Independents.

    I didn't realize that you spoke for all Baptists, Methodists and Independents that ever lived. That's a very impressive power of attorney you have.


    When Cromwell ruled England, he enforced toleration and allowed the Jews to settle free from persecution. As for your statement about Christian sects, here in Wales the majority were so much in favour of religious liberty that they rejected money from the state and forced the disestablishment of the state church.

    I'm not denying that liberal Christian thinkers and congregations didn't play an important role in establishing the concepts of freedom of religion and speech. The Libertines, the Unitarians and men like Sebastian Castellio were doing in in Calvin's day, long before Cromwell.

    Heck, the Roman Empire was tolerating religious freedom before it franchised one particular brand of Christianity.


    As for political beliefs, I think you'll find that any belief which requires the government to do something or addresses the stateis a political belief.

    I don't think you quite understand who the "government" was in the 16,000 person city of Geneva when Servetus and many others were executed for religious heresy or rebuking Calvin's beliefs.


    You may have missed the bit where I condemned Calvin's support for the burning of Heretics.

    You may have missed the part where Gene and other Calvinists lied about his role in that.


    My position is that Calvin was right about some things but wrong about others.

    Well...what an impressive and clear position that is!


    Sort of like Thomas Jefferson and his slaves.

    What's wrong with owning slaves? Isn't that supported throughout your bible? Did Jesus ever condemn it? No.

    And what's wrong with a Christian theocrat executing heretics? Isn't that commanded by your god in your bible? Did Jesus ever condemn it? No.


    The problem with your sort is that you honestly think that there is only a thin wall of law that stops all Christians from going out and persecuting you.

    Not all...but certainly some. You seem harmless enough. But trust me, there are plenty of Christian nutjobs in my country who would happily execute homosexuals and atheists if they had the chance.


    Finally, my dear man, calm down. If you keep on like this you'll burst a blood-vessel.

    I'm perfectly calm...but you should stop masturbating...or you'll go blind! LOL...

    ReplyDelete

  27. And, Daniel, what effect does this have on the chap's doctrine?

    What doctrine?

    Calvin was a hypocrite. He was an egotistical, hate filled, self rightous prig who knew first hand what it was like to suffer under the threat of Catholic persecution, and the moment he came to power in Geneva, he did the exact same thing.

    He had a large number of people tortured and executed for rebuking him and his theology, and never once expressed any remourse or regret for having done so.

    Again, compare him with Sebastian Castellio or John Wesley.

    Why should anyone care what a hate filled murderer has to say about theology?


    Yes, Calvin supported the burning of heretics. But this no more invalidates the man's contribution to theology than the fact that Jefferson owned slaves invalidates the Declaration of Independence (and as a British subject I feel able to be disinterested on that one).

    Jefferson was also a hypocrite. Again, other men of that time were against slavery, and spoke out against it. Others free their slaves voluntarily. Jefferson did not. The Declaration of Independence was completely invalid and meaningless to Jefferson's slaves.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here is a perfect example of a person looking back on history and imposing his 21C morality (one that he can't account for, except it's the one he likes) upon slavery. All the while he has no basis for saying slavery is wrong or anything else he likes to whine about. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am not sure how you imagine "Luther functions for Lutheranism", but if you suppose Lutherans believe Martin Luther is the infallible fount of all knowledge and if Luther said it, it must be true, that is incorrect.

    The standard summation of Lutheran belief is the Augsburg Confession, which was just as much a collegial work as the Westminster Confession. It was given its final edit not by Luther, but by Philip Melanchthon, Luther's close friend and a brilliant scholar in his own right. In an effort to achieve unity with other Christians, Melanchthon later produced a revised version of the Augsburg Confession that John Calvin found acceptable enough to sign. For that very reason the revised confession did not meet with the approval of many Lutherans because, well, Lutherans and Calvinists historically have had their differences.

    As for the idea that Nazism is a product of Lutheranism, that is quite a moldy chestnut. It is a variation of the idea that Nazism resulted from some unique aspect of German culture, not from the evil within every human heart.

    In fact, Germany, or what we know today as Germany, was never a monolithically Lutheran country. The cradle of the National Socialist movement was Roman Catholic-dominated Bavaria and, of course, Hitler himself was raised in Catholic-dominated Austria.

    That is not to lay the responsibility for Nazism at Rome's doorstep, either. Hitler never had much use for Christianity per se, but he was fascinated by the personal charisma of Christian leaders. It was apparently for this reason he once idolized the local Catholic priest. Later he is supposed to have remarked, after being driven through the German countryside and having thousands of people cheer him from the roadside, that only one other German could have understood how he felt at that point: Martin Luther.

    Nevertheless, it was in the solidly Lutheran countries of Scandinavia that the Nazis encountered the strongest resistance with which they had to deal in continental Europe.

    Sad to say, we must all admit that torture and execution of political and religious dissidents was the normal practice of all governments in 16th Century Europe. This was not a simple matter of religious fanaticism. The armies of the Turkish Empire were encamped within a few hundred miles of Vienna. Both secular and religious leaders were concerned that lack of unity in religion would have a dire consequence: political disunity in the face of a unified and implacable enemy.

    Speaking of Islam, it is interesting to note that attitudes vis a vis torture and execution of political and religious dissidents have changed dramatically over the past 500 years in some parts of the world, but not in others.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'Calvin was a hypocrite. He was an egotistical, hate filled, self rightous prig...'

    I should be careful, my lad. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

    As an Independent, I agree with you that Calvin was guilty of a shameful inconsistency. He did not believe in Freedom of conscience. As an Independent (founder, Robert Browne, persecuted by the magisterial Anglican Church), I would say that on the question of Church-State relations Calvin was wrong. As I keep telling you. On the relation of the Church to the state I follow Oliver Cromwell, Jeremiah Burroughs and Charles Spurgeon.

    'Why should anyone care what a hate filled murderer has to say about theology?'

    Why should ANYONE care about what a slave-owner who sexually exploited his slaves said about politics? (cf. Jefferson)

    Unlike Wesley and William Wilberforce, evangelical Christians who opposed the Slave Trade, eventually getting it banned. Now, if Jefferson and co. hadn't rebelled, you might have had Slavery abolished 30 years earlier and without a Civil War.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Daniel wrote:
    ---
    Okay, let us use the standard of burning human beings alive, and say that those who burn human beings alive are less merciful and gracious than those who execute them via less painful methods.
    ---

    How is this a standard? Because it's your opinion? But why should we care what your opinion is?

    See, this is the part you're still not getting in our discussions! You want to start with these moral statements as a given, without proving any of them. You just want them to be true for no reason. Right now, you're camping on the fact that we agree morally to ignore the fact that while I have a reason for my morality, you do not. You are stealing the capital from my worldview and pretending it comes from yours. You're hoping that the fact that we agree on the moral point can cover the fact that you cannot justify this moral point in your worldview.

    But I don't play that game :-)

    Daniel wrote:
    ---
    Do you disagree, and if so, why?
    ---

    I don't disagree, but then I have reasons for my morality. The question is WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THIS MORAL CLAIM? How does it fit in your worldview?

    Daniel wrote:
    ---
    Torture, defined as causing excessive pain in another conscious creature which is not necessitated by self-defense, and could be avoided entirely, is one objective standard, now isn't it, ol' pal?
    ---

    Because you say so?

    When a cat kills a mouse, he often plays with the mouse before he kills it, catching and releasing it over and over and over again. Is this torture? After all, it's needless and unjustified pain inflicted on the mouse by the cat. Needless because the cat could mercifully kill the mouse and eat it.

    If it's torture, then doesn't nature justify torture? And if nature does justify torture, where do you get your morality that goes against torture?

    In fact, where do you get your morality at all? This is the point you still refuse to look at. You still want us to just assume these moral structures already in place without you having to argue for them.

    Daniel wrote:
    ---
    A standard was given. If you don't like it, then explain why it is more merciful and/or gracious to burn someone alive than to chop off their head or hang them (with a long enough rope to snap the neck).
    ---

    A standard was not given. An ad hoc statement by you was given that you are asserting is a standard without demonstrating that it is a standard. Again, it boils down to the fact that it is your opinion (and you can roll your eyes as much as you want, it won't change that fact).

    And do I get tired of repeating myself? Of course I do. But since you keep engaging in the same error over and over, I have to keep pointing out the same thing to you. One of these day's you'll get it and I won't have to repeat myself with you any more.

    ReplyDelete
  32. hiraeth wrote:
    ---
    Now, if Jefferson and co. hadn't rebelled, you might have had Slavery abolished 30 years earlier and without a Civil War.
    ---

    Good point. Even though I appreciate the current governmental system that I live under as an American, I think that the Revolution was, on its face, an immoral uprising against a properly instituted civil government (cf. Romans 13).

    I think that the inevitable result would have been a free America even without the revolution, much like how Canada and Australia became their own countries. Instead, the Founding Fathers were a bit hasty and went overboard, even though they had legitimate complaints against George III. However, raising taxes, even without representation, does not rise up to the level of an offense against God's law such that the Christian is obligate to obey God rather than man. Therefore, I don't think they were justified in throwing off the yolk of a properly instituted government, and I think that the Civil War was partially a judgement for that too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Calvindude, I agree with you. But, as a Britisher, I suppose I might be considered biased.

    I remember for American politics reading the Declaration of Independence and about the 'Tyranny' of George III. My thoughts were, 'if you think that's tyranny, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

    However, I feel it incumbent on myself to note that Celsus has become guilty of the genetic fallacy, claiming that the character of the promoter of an idea invalidates the idea nevertheless.

    Even if I were to grant that Calvin was a hypocrite (and I do not, he sincerely believed that antitrinitarian heretics should be burned. He did not believe Roman Catholics should, however, and thus was consistent in his opposition to the burning of Protestants), in what way would that invalidate his principles? Jefferson's political belief that 'all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights' is hardly proved wrong because Jefferson acted contrary to it in his personal life, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've had the Servetus argument brought by Roman Catholics who conviently forget that Servetus was only in Geneva after escaping imprisonment by the RC's and was slated to be executed by them.
    (or by a RC state anyway)

    The fatc he escaped their clutches somehow makes it okay to make their accustaions.

    But the main point is made well here as to the connection between Calvin the man & Calvinism the theologies.

    ReplyDelete