# The Ugly Side



## PuritanSchmidt (Jun 28, 2010)

Please do not tar and feather me for asking this, but I want to because I do not want to idolize or even over esteem this specific theologian.

I am a Calvinist and probably always will be, however I do want to know if there is an ugly side to Calvin. For example, Martin Luther had a very ungodly hatred for the Jews. I still admire Luther and his contribution, but it helps show me that he is still human.


----------



## Andres (Jun 28, 2010)

Every man has an ugly side. It's called sin.


----------



## PuritanSchmidt (Jun 28, 2010)

Sin is an easy answer. You ask a man if he is a sinner and he will answer yes without cringing. However, if you talk about specific sins, it is infinitely more effective. (Yes I know that being a sinner should be enough to make any man cringe, but I admittedly still want to know)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 28, 2010)

To be honest, Luther was much more transparent with his personal life and thoughts than was Calvin. People love reading about Luther for that reason (I mean what other Reformer would openly refer to his flatulence as a form of spiritual warfare!). Calvin was much more reserved in that respect and so much of his personal life remains something of a mystery.


----------



## ClayPot (Jun 28, 2010)

From what I know, there isn't a "dark side" to Calvin. He was a worthless sinner, but one saved by God's grace who seems to have taken his sanctificaiton seriously. However, you may hear the "dark side of Calvinism". Usually, this is what people who think the doctrines of grace are disgusting things and there are usually a number of straw men thrown in to the mix.


----------



## Montanablue (Jun 28, 2010)

Andres said:


> Every man has an ugly side. It's called sin.



I think its important to remember that the reformers were all men of their times, and thus they were susceptible to the sins of their times. To be honest, Luther's contemporaries probably didn't think twice about his hatred of the Jews or about some of the things he said about women. (And he was a happily married man, which indicates that a lot of his statements about women were probably a reflection of the time rather than a deep statement about his character). I suspect that several hundred years from now, people will look back on us and our sins and say something to the effect of, "How could they have _done_ that!" - when we're not even cognizant that what we're doing is sin - that's the nature of our fallen state.

Reading Luther makes me realize how many sins I must commit every day without even knowing it. Ugh.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 28, 2010)

Most biographies of Calvin will bring out that he struggled with being irascible and severe with others. I think we see evidence, though, that he recognized these failings and sought to mortify them.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 28, 2010)

Are you referring to Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes' fame? Because he was a real stinker.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 28, 2010)

Well many Calvinists like to ignore and/or dismiss Calvin's views on the penal laws of Moses. Calvin for instance was a proponent of adultery being punished by the State by the use of the Death Penalty. See his Commentary on John 8:11.


----------



## Andres (Jun 28, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Every man has an ugly side. It's called sin.
> ...


 
In just the last 100 years, I believe racism would fall in this category.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 28, 2010)

His "involvement" in the events leading up to Servetus' execution is held, by many, to be his "dark side." If you don't see it that way, then there's probably not another dark side for you to look for. He's in the clear.


----------



## Andres (Jun 28, 2010)

nobody's gonna mention the fact that he was French?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 28, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Calvin for instance was a proponent of adultery being punished by the State by the use of the Death Penalty.
> ...


 

Well there are at least two of us that feel that way.


----------



## TimV (Jun 29, 2010)

Or maybe it's our modern American Hollywood/Dipsy view of the Jews that's warped and not Luther's.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 29, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...




And still more.

---------- Post added at 05:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 AM ----------




TimV said:


> Or maybe it's our modern American Hollywood/Dipsy view of the Jews that's warped and not Luther's.



Luther's anti-Jewishness is often wrongly confused with anti-semitism.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 29, 2010)

TimV said:


> Or maybe it's our modern American Hollywood/Dipsy view of the Jews that's warped and not Luther's.


 
So they SHOULD be driven out of our towns and their synagogues and homes burnt down?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 29, 2010)

PuritanSchmidt said:


> Please do not tar and feather me for asking this, but I want to because I do not want to idolize or even over esteem this specific theologian.
> 
> I am a Calvinist and probably always will be, however I do want to know if there is an ugly side to Calvin. For example, Martin Luther had a very ungodly hatred for the Jews. I still admire Luther and his contribution, but it helps show me that he is still human.


 
What's amazed me is how "good" Mr. Calvin seems to have been. He had a few peculiar beliefs (e.g. perhaps believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary) but here's the greatest theologian of all time.

In a fallen world, where idolatry is perhaps the most basic sin (putting something God has created in place of Him, whether that be a person, idea, intellect, a sin, etc.) we ought not be so surprised when we see it. Nor ignore how it is in ourselves. Also, we are commanded to try and hold others in a good light, especially those in the household of faith- not overlooking their sin, yet understanding our lack in assessing it, and being charitable in our esteem (Ninth Commandment).


----------



## Montanablue (Jun 29, 2010)

> If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham




From Grisiar's "Luther," - a well documented quote. And others are all over the place, just read Luther's "On Jews and their Lies"

Seriously, Tim? I'm not one to demonize Luther. Like I said, he was a sinner just like myself and a man of his times. But I would hope we would acknowledge that this is not a biblical view.


----------



## TimV (Jun 29, 2010)

> Seriously, Tim? I'm not one to demonize Luther. Like I said, he was a sinner just like myself and a man of his times. But I would hope we would acknowledge that this is not a biblical view.



And when he said that Saxons were the most honest of Germans because they are the dumbest? Do we take that as it stands, or was it just Luther being Luther? And the point still stands that our contemporary view of Jews may very well be just as far off as Luther's. By definition we're partially blind to our environment. Just this week there was a post about negative Arab influence on America, and everyone thought it natural. And if someone posted figures showing Jewish crime rates higher than Arab crime rates (insider trading, smuggling, money laundering, espionage, etc...) that natural dislike of Arabs would still be there. 

I think one has to spend some significant number of years time out of this country to see things more clearly. Kathleen, I would be interested in your opinon of what Billy Graham said to President Nixon about the Jewish influence on American culture, and how it related to Luther's thoughts.


----------



## itsreed (Jun 29, 2010)

No disrespect intended, but I think the original post of this thread is off focus.

What is being described of Luther, Calvin, etc., is not a dark-side that is an essential characteristice to Calvinism. It is rather a characteristice of the flesh, something shared by all regardless of doctrinal/religious persuasion.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 29, 2010)

No one's perfect. 

If you want perfect Reformers go and find some; you'll have a hard time.

The feted theologians of today, including some Calvinists, will have their "ugly sides".


----------



## torstar (Jun 29, 2010)

the ugly side is that his entire lifework of about 8,600 points has been compressed into 5 by those who want to join in but are not into the required reading list.


----------



## Montanablue (Jun 29, 2010)

Tim, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about "the Jews." To be honest, I have Jewish family members, and so I this isn't something I like to argue about - I get really touchy and annoyed when people start making broad generalizations - and when the political state of Israel is somehow equated with everyone who happens to be Jewish. If you actually think that Luther's characterizations of and attitudes towards the Jews are biblical, then I don't think I'm going to change your mind and I'm not particularly interested in trying. Been there done that.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 29, 2010)

*Folks, drop what will surely land this thread in politics and government unless you want it to land there.*


----------



## TimV (Jun 29, 2010)

I didn't say Luther's statements were Biblical. I said we have the opposite problem, which does more than just imply Luther had a problem. And there are people with French and Arab family members here also, but nobody loses it when the French and Arabs are painted with a broad brush. And that was my main point; that remember that we are products of our culture just as Luther was, so we should at least suspect we may have a bias as well.


----------



## Montanablue (Jun 29, 2010)

Tim, a few things:

1. My point was that Luther was a fallen man, prone to the sins of his time. Just as we are also fallen and prone to the sin of our times. I was not trying to make any kind of political statement.

2. It seemed as though you were defending Luther's position as Biblical. If that wasn't your intent, than I misunderstood and I am sorry. 

2. My not wanting to discuss "the Jews" doesn't mean I'm losing it. Its just not a discussion I'm willing to have, because its a personal thing for me -and something that I've discussed to death with people. Who wants to talk about whether their cousins are part of the evil empire? I don't come to the PB to discuss these issues. Also, as Chris points out, we'd really be taking the thread off track, and I don't want to do that for the sake of the original post


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 29, 2010)

I heard Calvin didn't clean the gunk out of his toe nails... does that count as "dark"?


----------



## PuritanSchmidt (Jun 29, 2010)

I didn't mean to upset anyone with this question...


----------



## Montanablue (Jun 29, 2010)

PuritanSchmidt said:


> I didn't mean to upset anyone with this question...


 
It was a completely valid question and I doubt anyone is upset. Don't worry.


----------



## travstar (Jun 29, 2010)

PuritanSchmidt said:


> I didn't mean to upset anyone with this question...



How dare you.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 29, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well many Calvinists like to ignore and/or dismiss Calvin's views on the penal laws of Moses. Calvin for instance was a proponent of adultery being punished by the State by the use of the Death Penalty. See his Commentary on John 8:11.


 
I wouldn't consider that a defect with Calvin.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 29, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Well many Calvinists like to ignore and/or dismiss Calvin's views on the penal laws of Moses. Calvin for instance was a proponent of adultery being punished by the State by the use of the Death Penalty. See his Commentary on John 8:11.
> ...



Neither would I. Just noting something that causes a lot of contemporary Calvinists to shudder when reading in Calvin.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 29, 2010)

You think Calvin's view of the enforcement of the 2nd Table of the Law is taboo, try talking to them about his views on the 1st!


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 29, 2010)

PuritanSchmidt said:


> I didn't mean to upset anyone with this question...


 
Welcome to the Puritanboard.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 29, 2010)

The neo-2Kers over at _Modern Reformation _magazine have a half page article in a recent issue titled “Why we don’t stone adulterers anymore” (or something to that effect). Apart from the obvious equivocation and ambiguity (who do they mean by “we”?), the way they frame the question is intended to leave little room for serious discussion. They do some hand waving about “natural law” and invoke Calvin as if that settles the question, but are they being honest invoking Calvin in this matter? Narrowly put, perhaps Calvin was not for literally “stoning” adulterers. But what might he have proposed as a remedy when the marriage covenant is broken and the state becomes involved? 

Consider the underlying proposition differently, “Why we shouldn’t execute adulterers” or “Why we shouldn’t execute blasphemers and heretics.” The reason why "we" (civil magistrates) do not is obvious; because our nation is no longer governed by the principles of the Word of God, and the civil magistrate is not compelled to conform his notions of justice to God's eternal law. But would that position be acceptable to Calvin? Clearly no. Why “we” should not execute persistent violators of God’s moral law is the question that gets neo-2Kers into trouble, and it leaves them searching in vain for any support from the Genevan pastor.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 29, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> “Why we don’t stone adulterers anymore” (or something to that effect).


 
Why we don't is a VERY different matter from why we should or should not.

Why we don't is because our magistrates are no longer ordained of God; they are ordained of the devil.

Cheers,


----------



## yoyoceramic (Jun 29, 2010)

Calvin on men wearing headcoverings in church!

For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this - that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2010)

Yeah, but Calvin had to mean only those 'scholar caps' he's always pictured wearing. Don't all you college football fans show up to worship Sunday with your team ballcap on your head! Now, if you happen to have a scholar cap..... Calvin's got your back!

I'm picturing a lot of PB'ers in scholar caps this Sunday, and it ain't a pretty sight!


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 29, 2010)

Brad said:


> Yeah, but Calvin had to mean only those 'scholar caps' he's always pictured wearing. Don't all you college football fans show up to worship Sunday with your team ballcap on your head! Now, if you happen to have a scholar cap..... Calvin's got your back!
> 
> I'm picturing a lot of PB'ers in scholar caps this Sunday, and it ain't a pretty sight!



Would colanders be okay? So many actors in "biblical epics" wear them. It's downright revolting, to think that _someone has probably just washed romaine in that,_ and now Richard Burton or some other doofus has it on his head as battle gear. If any actor in any movie or play is wearing a colander on his head, _I'm gone from the audience._ 

Just once, I'd like to wear a tiara under my regular, summer straw hat on Sunday mornings... Something modest, like this:





_*Kidding,*_ and way  too. Carry on. Sorry.

Margaret


----------



## Skyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Huh. No one mentioned the fact that Calvin sprinkled babies?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Huh. No one mentioned the fact that Calvin sprinkled babies?


Sshhh! We were trying to keep that one under water.... er... I mean wraps.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 29, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> The neo-2Kers over at _Modern Reformation _magazine have a half page article in a recent issue titled “Why we don’t stone adulterers anymore” (or something to that effect). Apart from the obvious equivocation and ambiguity (who do they mean by “we”?), the way they frame the question is intended to leave little room for serious discussion. They do some hand waving about “natural law” and invoke Calvin as if that settles the question, but are they being honest invoking Calvin in this matter? Narrowly put, perhaps Calvin was not for literally “stoning” adulterers. But what might he have proposed as a remedy when the marriage covenant is broken and the state becomes involved?
> 
> Consider the underlying proposition differently, “Why we shouldn’t execute adulterers” or “Why we shouldn’t execute blasphemers and heretics.” The reason why "we" (civil magistrates) do not is obvious; because our nation is no longer governed by the principles of the Word of God, and the civil magistrate is not compelled to conform his notions of justice to God's eternal law. But would that position be acceptable to Calvin? Clearly no. Why “we” should not execute persistent violators of God’s moral law is the question that gets neo-2Kers into trouble, and it leaves them searching in vain for any support from the Genevan pastor.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jun 30, 2010)

>



*Gasp*- a CALVIN smiley!!


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 30, 2010)

That is not a Calvin smiley. Everyone knows that both Calvin and Calvinists do not smile. They frown. And nothing brighter. (When they're not eating babies, that is).


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2010)

Under Biblical law there is an outlet for man's sexuality, and that is an easy divorce. This is for general society, not the stricter rule for God's people. But under Biblical law, partially so that adultery is without excuse, you basically just have to go down to the notary public and say you want one.

So, in a case like Ireland 100 years ago, the death penalty would not be fair, since divorce was not allowed. Biblical law is whole cloth. So, I would guess (and I THINK I read somewhere) that Geneva during Calvin's time of influence there was a civil penalty for adultery but it was jail time.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2010)

TimV said:


> Under Biblical law there is an outlet for man's sexuality, and that is an easy divorce. This is for general society, not the stricter rule for God's people. But under Biblical law, partially so that adultery is without excuse, you basically just have to go down to the notary public and say you want one.
> 
> So, in a case like Ireland 100 years ago, the death penalty would not be fair, since divorce was not allowed. Biblical law is whole cloth. So, I would guess (and I THINK I read somewhere) that Geneva during Calvin's time of influence there was a civil penalty for adultery but it was jail time.


 
Christ gives us the biblical law on the subject:



> 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
> 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
> 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
> 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
> ...



If you consider that an "easy divorce", then I must be missing something.


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2010)

You're missing the main and obvious point, which is that rules for God's people are stricter than rules for society in general. How else do you interpret what you've quoted?



> 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 30, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> *Gasp*- a CALVIN smiley!!


 
Are you sure that's not Gene Simmons after eating licorice?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2010)

TimV said:


> You're missing the main and obvious point, which is that rules for God's people are stricter than rules for society in general. How else do you interpret what you've quoted?
> 
> 
> 
> > 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.


 
I'm not followiing you. Whatever the people were doing according to their interpretation of Moses was not "rules for society in general." Christ was addressing the Church after all. That is the context of both Moses and Christ.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> I'm not followiing you.


 

That reminds me of an old Groucho exchange with Chico:

"Ya follow me?"

"Well stop followin me, or I'll have ya arrested!"


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2010)

> I'm not followiing you. Whatever the people were doing according to their interpretaiton Moses was not "rules for society in general." Christ was addressing the Church after all. That is the context of both Moses and Christ.



God through Moses allowed polygamy, but Christ pointed out that from the start of creation there was one man and one woman only, and it's reflected in the rules for elders in the NT, and expected as conduct for Christians. Right?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2010)

TimV said:


> > I'm not followiing you. Whatever the people were doing according to their interpretaiton Moses was not "rules for society in general." Christ was addressing the Church after all. That is the context of both Moses and Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> God through Moses allowed polygamy, but Christ pointed out that from the start of creation there was one man and one woman only, and it's reflected in the rules for elders in the NT, and expected as conduct for Christians. Right?


 
Which is biblical law, correct? And it is expected behavior for all men, not just Christians. That is the nature of the moral law (cf. WCF 19:5). 

I'm missing the easy part vis-a-vis divorce and biblical law.


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2010)

> I'm missing the easy part vis-a-vis divorce and biblical law.



Polygamy is wrong for God's people but was allowed by God under Moses. Yes or no.
Divorce was easy under Moses. Yes or no.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2010)

TimV said:


> > I'm missing the easy part vis-a-vis divorce and biblical law.
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy is wrong for God's people but was allowed by God under Moses. Yes or no.



Moses gave the law to God's people, right? The judicial law tolerated polygamy among the people of God, yes. Therefore, your question is unclear: "Polygamy is wrong for God's people" depends on when you are referring to. Was David part of God's people? Abraham? Jacob? Elkana?



TimV said:


> Divorce was easy under Moses. Yes or no.


 
The Jews seemed to think so, but Christ corrected their flawed understanding. They twisted Moses.

Cheers,


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2010)

TimV said:


> > I'm missing the easy part vis-a-vis divorce and biblical law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Are you equivocating by reducing the definition of biblical law to Moses?


----------



## TimV (Jun 30, 2010)

> Moses gave the law to God's people, right? The judicial law tolerated polygamy among the people of God, yes. Therefore, your question is unclear: "Polygamy is wrong for God's people" depends on when you are referring to. Was David part of God's people? Abraham? Jacob? Elkana?



One of the problems of trying to skirt around a banned issue. So I'll wait for Tom.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 30, 2010)

Back to the original post, the biographies of Calvin do speak of his cognizance of having a temper and a "severe" side. From the standpoint of contemporary American mores, his shyness would probably be counted against him in a pastoral call today.

Calvin's reputation is problematic due to the work done by his enemies and the RC trying to demonize him. Efforts to identify him with a man with the same/similar name in France who was a rascal probably left many people wondering about his character. However, from the reading I have done, there is no "smoking gun" as we find with Luther.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 30, 2010)

Enough with the sidebar issues. Get back on topic. This is not a thread about the general equity of the law or divorce or polygamy or the Jews.


----------



## dudley (Jun 30, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> PuritanSchmidt said:
> 
> 
> > Please do not tar and feather me for asking this, but I want to because I do not want to idolize or even over esteem this specific theologian.
> ...



I am a Calvinist Presbyterian and I will agree here with Scott. I also believe Calvin is one of the greatest theologians in Christian history and the church. He was also human and had all the weaknesses we human beings have but I admire him and think of him as a great Reformed theologian. It is primarily because of Calvin’s teachings and his theology that I am today a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 1, 2010)

PuritanSchmidt said:


> I didn't mean to upset anyone with this question...



You've struck a raw nerve. You're touching the apple of our eyes 

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



A non-theonomist might not or might not shudder. But he might disagree with Calvin, because he doesn't believe Calvin was infalllible on all subjects he addressed. 

A theonomist might shudder or not when he reads passages of Calvin that don't jive with theonomy. Calvin cuts both ways on this subject as Rush pointed out.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 1, 2010)

Well the point of this thread was not agree/disagree but if/what Calvin's "Ugly Side" was to some who look upon the Genevan Reformer. I brought up Calvin's view that the State should execute Adulterers and noted some would find this viewpoint "ugly".


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 1, 2010)

I can't believe no one's pointed out that he was a Calvinist.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jul 4, 2010)

TimV said:


> I didn't say Luther's statements were Biblical. I said we have the opposite problem, which does more than just imply Luther had a problem. And there are people with French and Arab family members here also, but nobody loses it when the French and Arabs are painted with a broad brush. And that was my main point; that remember that we are products of our culture just as Luther was, so we should at least suspect we may have a bias as well.




That's food for thought right there...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 4, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well the point of this thread was not agree/disagree but if/what Calvin's "Ugly Side" was to some who look upon the Genevan Reformer. I brought up Calvin's view that the State should execute Adulterers and noted some would find this viewpoint "ugly".


 
Again I should say I think Calvin to be _*correct*_ on this matter.


----------

