# Slave owners, Calvin/Servetus, Luther/Anti-semite... How can we take these guys serious?



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

I am far from educated on the ins and outs of the content with which Im about to share, but I operate from what I do know (or think I know)...

I know we arent to throw the baby out with the bath water, but on earth are we to embrace men who were "theologically correct" on so many issues, yet were slave owners? On Calvin who, maybe didn't preside over it, but did stand like Saul over Stephen when Servetus was burned at the stake (and Calvin merely remorse that burning was harsh and perhaps death by head chopped off is a better way for annoying heretics)? And Luther (and this one I have only HEARD) that he was an Anti-Semite...

(the scary part is, what if I/we too are so a part of our day and age that we too dont realize things we engage/champion might possibly look back on in 100 years and cringe... O Lord, that we would not be citizens of this world but your unchanging and forever Kingdom!!!)

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> I am far from educated on the ins and outs of the content with which Im about to share, but I operate from what I do know (or think I know)...


So, how 'bout educatin' yourself on it before furthering the accusations with no context, first?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 10, 2017)

My first bit of advice would be to get a true sense of sinfulness of one's own heart. Once you do that, you will find you have enough to occupy your time without obsessing over whether or not people, who are now long dead, were the "real deal." Still, I am not completely naive, and I realise that these questions do trouble us to some degree. 

On the issue of chattel slave-owners, I do not deny that they were complicit in the crime of man-stealing. That being said, I would only question the salvation of those who were totally stiff-necked in that error. Beyond that general observation, I would not want to say much more.



Stope said:


> On Calvin who, maybe didn't preside over it, but did stand like Saul over Stephen when Servetus was burned at the stake (and Calvin merely remorse that burning was harsh and perhaps death by head chopped off is a better way for annoying heretics)?



No. The martyrdom of Stephen is not comparable to the execution of a stiff-necked, public blasphemer like Servetus. Your question assumes that it is a civil right to blaspheme the Triune God. Before you criticise Calvin, you may wish to question the validity of the supposition underlying your question. As I understand it, Calvin did all he reasonably could to get Servetus to recant to spare him execution.



Stope said:


> And Luther (and this one I have only HEARD) that he was an Anti-Semite...



You should consult Carl Trueman's _Histories and Fallacies_ for more on this issue. The term anti-Semite has racial connotations that were probably not relevant to Luther's critique of the Jewish religion. Luther was anti-Jewish as he opposed their religion, but to be anti-Semitic is to oppose the Jews simply as a race of people.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 10, 2017)

Putting aside for a moment the overblown nature of these accusations, even if they are partially true, we must judge men according to the context in which they lived. It is neither fair nor possible to judge men who lived hundreds of years ago according to modern standards born out of modern circumstances. It is much better to appreciate their significant accomplishments, which are made all the more impressive in light of their circumstances, while also understanding that they were flawed just as we are

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 10, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Putting aside for a moment the overblown nature of these accusations, even if they are partially true, we must judge men according to the context in which they lived. It is neither fair nor possible to judge men who lived hundreds of years ago according to modern standards born out of modern circumstances. It is much better to appreciate their significant accomplishments, which are made all the more impressive in light of their circumstances, while also understanding that they were flawed just as we are



Bill, in relation to Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians, I have sometimes said that it is unfair to judge pre-Reformation theologians by post-Reformation standards. Now, of course, we judge all things by scripture, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect Aquinas or Anselm to speak with the same clarity as Luther or Calvin did on some issues. Would you say that that assertion is reasonable?


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> So, how 'bout educatin' yourself on it before furthering the accusations with no context, first?


Alright wise guy, i do then remove my Luther accusations, but maintain my Calvin one as I am educated on that scenario. 

Sheesh


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Putting aside for a moment the overblown nature of these accusations, even if they are partially true, we must judge men according to the context in which they lived. It is neither fair nor possible to judge men who lived hundreds of years ago according to modern standards born out of modern circumstances. It is much better to appreciate their significant accomplishments, which are made all the more impressive in light of their circumstances, while also understanding that they were flawed just as we are


---I think, as much as it is tru in some scenarios, it is NOT true when it comes to CLEAR teaching. Calvin knew full well that killing a person for being an annoying heretic does not warrant death. The man can nuance most any theological fine point so we will not give him a free pass on this. Further not a few of Calvin's contemporaries maintained that its just flat out wrong to kill heretics (meaning, he also doesnt get a free pass because thats just the way they did things back then)

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Alright wise guy, i do then remove my Luther accusations, but maintain my Calvin one as I am educated on that scenario.
> 
> Sheesh


I am not sure where the seeming hostility from you is coming (a la the _wise guy_ address and the _sheesh _comment); however, I was only responding to your self-admission that you had not educated yourself on the matters, yet proceeded to post about them. This seems counter-intuitive and counter-productive, especially with all of Solomon's words pertaining to the wise withholding speech, etc. As for Calvin, it has already correctly been pointed out to you that the comparison of Calvin to Saul of Tarsus at the feet of Stephen is far from accurate. The truth is, God is against freedom of religion (1st Commandment). When a civil ruler rightly suppresses heresy as is ensconced by that particular civil society's laws, and a heretic -after much admonition and warning- continues to stir up disturbance of the peace of a society, as well as blaspheme the God of Scripture publicly, and subsequently refuses to repent (although given opportunity), then execution may well be the consequence. As for the method of execution chosen, why do you believe Calvin -who was not a civil magistrate- had the authority to change it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Calvin knew full well that killing a person for being an annoying heretic does not warrant death.



Actually, he did not "know" that at all. Calvin and the entire Reformed tradition (pre-Enlightenment) believed that the civil magistrate had the right to inflict death upon stiff-necked, gross heretics as (at the very least) a maximum punishment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Your question assumes that it is a civil right to blaspheme the Triune God. Before you criticise Calvin, you may wish to question the validity of the supposition underlying your question. As I understand it, Calvin did all he reasonably could to get Servetus to recant to spare him execution.


---He did respond to Servetus saying that he couldnt promise him he could keep him alive if he came, and perhaps he didnt have as much pull at the "hearings", but the fact remains he DIDNT OPPOSE IT 

---I have a more pressing question though, do you maintain that it is NOT a civil right to blaspheme the Triune God?

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> . . . do you maintain that it is NOT a civil right to blaspheme the Triune God?


From _Whom_ are "rights" derived? From what is "law" derived? The Lord says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---I have a more pressing question though, do you maintain that it is NOT a civil right to blaspheme the Triune God?



See the above post for the answer to that question. I agree with the Reformed tradition prior to the Enlightenment on this issue.


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> I was only responding to your self-admission that you had not educated yourself on the matters, yet proceeded to post about them


---As mentioned, I have educated myself on Calvin's issue



Joshua said:


> As for Calvin, it has already correctly been pointed out to you that the comparison of Calvin to Saul of Tarsus at the feet of Stephen is far from accurate.


---No, this was posted AFTER I wrote the comment



Joshua said:


> execution may well be the consequence


---You cant be serious? Would you say that, for example, the LDS "Prophet" who reeks of blasphemy deserves death?



Joshua said:


> As for the method of execution chosen, why do you believe Calvin -who was not a civil magistrate- had the authority to change it?


---I dont believe Calvin had the authority to change the ruling. But he sure had MANY opportunities to speak against it (and as mentioned, the most he said was the MODE of death rather than death itself)


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> From _Whom_ are "rights" derived? From what is "law" derived? The Lord says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."


--So, you DO say heretics can be executed?


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> You cant be serious? Would you say that, for example, the LDS "Prophet" who reeks of blasphemy deserves death?


We all deserve death, m'Friend. Thus are the wages of sin.



Stope said:


> --So, you DO say heretics can be executed?


Is God cruel? Are you telling the Lord that heretics _*may not*_ be executed?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> We all deserve death, m'Friend. Thus are the wages of sin.


---Then it would not be wrong if the government killed you since you deserve death? Everyone deserves death, do you have a shirt that says "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 10, 2017)

Jason,
Many of us here on the Puritan Board hold to the original Westminster Confession, which states,



> Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, *that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed*, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. - XXIII.iii.



So the civil magistrate has the duty to punish heretics. Whether this ought to be done via execution is a matter of discretion.


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> We all deserve death, m'Friend. Thus are the wages of sin.
> 
> 
> Is God cruel? Are you telling the Lord that heretics _*may not*_ be executed?



---I see you trying to dodge the question, I put it to you again; are you saying its okay to kill heretics? I thought the Lord was long suffering and desires that none should perish, I thought his kingdom of this world, etc...

All the rest of you reading this thread, please tell me if you think its ok for Heretics to be killed by civil magistrates, because I am at the wrong place if that is the common belief


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---Then it would not be wrong if the government killed you since you deserve death? Everyone deserves death, do you have a shirt that says "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"?


It is clear to me that either

1) You do not understand the nuances of the particular context Calvin was in

or

2) You do not care, and would prefer to take what you perceive to be the higher road and paint a picture of those with whom you disagree as men who would proudly say things like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

So, I am confident until one of the two is established, we would get nowhere in discussing it further.



Stope said:


> ---I see you trying to dodge the question, I put it to you again; are you saying its okay to kill heretics? I thought the Lord was long suffering and desires that none should perish, I thought his kingdom of this world, etc...
> 
> All the rest of you reading this thread, please tell me if you think its ok for Heretics to be killed by civil magistrates, because I am at the wrong place if that is the common belief



No dodging. I am simply trying to help you think through the consequences of your reactive posts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## chuckd (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---I see you trying to dodge the question, I put it to you again; are you saying its okay to kill heretics? I thought the Lord was long suffering and desires that none should perish, I thought his kingdom of this world, etc...
> 
> All the rest of you reading this thread, please tell me if you think its ok for Heretics to be killed by civil magistrates, because I am at the wrong place if that is the common belief



Who may and may not be killed by civil magistrates according to the Bible?


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> It is clear to me that either
> 
> 1) You do not understand the nuances of the particular context Calvin was in


Ok then my enlightened one, please teach me the nuances that justify a man who knows the Word of God to not speak against (to the best of their ability and authority) killing a heretic?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 10, 2017)

Jason, please read my post above (#17). It provides necessary context for this discussion.


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> say things like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."


Just observing, to my utter horros, that you probably have that shirt on right now is all (and you probably where it "proudly")


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Jason, please read my post above (#17). It provides necessary context for this discussion.


Thank you for trying to help me understand!

That said, am I seeing the correct post you referenced? I see the WM standards... Al I see there is that the divines as well say punish heretics (but I say, first: was death an option and second: even if they said that it doesnt/shouldnt go beyond what is written in that this is NOT a Theocracy, that the Kingdom is not of this earth, that vengeance is the Lords...)

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 10, 2017)

This isn't an issue I've had to deal with, thankfully, but one thought I've had in the past is if it is the duty of the civil magistrate to administer capital punishment to those who destroy men's bodies, then why not capital punishment for those who destroy men's souls? Is there some taboo on the latter? Is a soul-destroyer untouchable, allowed free reign but a body-destroyer isn't?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Just observing, to my utter horros, that you probably have that shirt on right now is all (and you probably where it "proudly")


This is far from a charitable esteem of one's neighbor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> It is clear to me that either
> 
> 1) You do not understand the nuances of the particular context Calvin was in
> 
> ...


---Nope, still dodging. Still waiting for that response


----------



## Ray (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Alright wise guy, i do then remove my Luther accusations, but maintain my Calvin one as I am educated on that scenario.
> 
> Sheesh


The Civil Magistrates have a Obligation to put down unrepentant Criminals and ect.
Belgic Confession Article 36:

We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.
For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God's Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> This is far from a charitable esteem of one's neighbor.


Perhaps you should kill me?
(this is called satire)


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Ray said:


> The Civil Magistrates have a Obligation to put down unrepentant Criminals and ect.
> Belgic Confession Article 36:
> 
> We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.
> ...


Brother, the civil magistrates are not afforded the righ tto kill based on heresy, because Christ (even though affords civil leaders sword its NOT for heresy) has made it clear the tone of his church (hand them over to satan, NOT, hand them over to the Sword/fire)

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Thank you for trying to help me understand!
> 
> That said, am I seeing the correct post you referenced? I see the WM standards... Al I see there is that the divines as well say punish heretics (but I say, first: was death an option and second: even if they said that it doesnt/shouldnt go beyond what is written in that this is NOT a Theocracy, that the Kingdom is not of this earth, that vengeance is the Lords...)


Jason,
I think you would do well to make a study of the classical Reformed doctrine of the civil magistrate. The issue is what is called the Establishment Principle, or the principle of the Establishment of Religion (note that this is the language used in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." They were consciously contradicting what most Christians in the world had accepted as true).


----------



## Ray (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Brother, the civil magistrates are not afforded the righ tto kill based on heresy, because Christ (even though affords civil leaders sword its NOT for heresy) has made it clear the tone of his church (hand them over to Satan, NOT, hand them over to the Sword/fire)


You do know your on a Confessional Board? Right?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Brother, the civil magistrates are not afforded the righ tto kill based on heresy, because Christ (even though affords civil leaders sword its NOT for heresy) has made it clear the tone of his church (hand them over to Satan, NOT, hand them over to the Sword/fire)


Jason,
There is a difference between church power and civil power. The Church does not have the power to kill anyone, but the civil magistrate has the power of the sword (Rom. 13:4).


----------



## jw (Jan 10, 2017)

I regret getting involved in the thread, and am reminded of _one_ of the reasons I had stepped back my participation on the PB significantly. It is regrettable when one would like to interact in a meaningful way with someone with whom he may disagree, but the inevitable consequence (it seems) is the casting of aspersions, rather than seeking to understand one another, learn something, and grow from the discussion.

Call it _satire_, or whatever you would like, but your professed "horror" and outrage at a position that is well supported -even required- by Scripture, and your subsequent insulting and evil surmisings of those who hold to it, are unwarranted. It is clear to any fair reader that you do not want to understand the position, else you would restrain the expressions of "horror" before hearing it all out.

I confess to being a man of like passions as any other son of Adam -so I am not seeking to correct you without having first taken inventory of my own speech and behavior- but I hope you will bethink your carriage in this thread (and perhaps, others, I do not know), hold it up to the mirror of the requirement that God has for us in our interaction with one another in his word, and consider changing it for future interaction.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> I am far from educated on the ins and outs of the content with which Im about to share, but I operate from what I do know (or think I know)...
> 
> I know we arent to throw the baby out with the bath water, but on earth are we to embrace men who were "theologically correct" on so many issues, yet were slave owners? On Calvin who, maybe didn't preside over it, but did stand like Saul over Stephen when Servetus was burned at the stake (and Calvin merely remorse that burning was harsh and perhaps death by head chopped off is a better way for annoying heretics)? And Luther (and this one I have only HEARD) that he was an Anti-Semite...
> 
> (the scary part is, what if I/we too are so a part of our day and age that we too dont realize things we engage/champion might possibly look back on in 100 years and cringe... O Lord, that we would not be citizens of this world but your unchanging and forever Kingdom!!!)


 Realise that all of us still have areas where we do not fully apply and practice what we know to be true, and that we need to reserve our sight fixed upon Jesus Christ, for He dos not have any blemish of not acting as he ought!
And alo that many were the products of their time/culture, could not quite make full break that they should have!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> I regret getting involved in the thread, and am reminded of _one_ of the reasons I had stepped back my participation on the PB significantly. It is regrettable when one would like to interact in a meaningful way with someone with whom he may disagree, but the inevitable consequence (it seems) is the casting of aspersions, rather than seeking to understand one another, learn something, and grow from the discussion.
> 
> Call it _satire_, or whatever you would like, but you're professed "horror" and outrage at a position that is well supported -even required- by Scripture, and your subsequent insulting and evil surmisings of those who hold to it, are unwarranted. It is clear to any fair reader that you do not want to understand the position, else you would restrain the expressions of "horror" before hearing it all out.
> 
> I confess to being a man of like passions as any other son of Adam -so I am not seeking to correct you without having first taken inventory of my own speech and behavior- but I hope you will bethink your carriage in this thread (and perhaps, others, I do not know), hold it up to the mirror of the requirement that God has for us in our interaction with one another in his word, and consider changing it for future interaction.


--Just dont be so smug and rude next time and you will do well


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Jason,
> There is a difference between church power and civil power. The Church does not have the power to kill anyone, but the civil magistrate has the power of the sword (Rom. 13:4).


--The sword is context of violence and finances and NOT orthodoxy vs heresy - we know that because Rome was pagan, so surely it doesn't mean they are to executed judgment on persons Theological positions

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Jason,
> I think you would do well to make a study of the classical Reformed doctrine of the civil magistrate. The issue is what is called the Establishment Principle, or the principle of the Establishment of Religion (note that this is the language used in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." They were consciously contradicting what most Christians in the world had accepted as true).


---Sorry brother, Im not understanding to what end I should look into "Establishment Principle"??

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Ray said:


> You do know your on a Confessional Board? Right?


is our primary adherence to man made confessions or the Word? In other words, if the word trumps a confession who should be regarded?


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

FYI, the reason I bring this up is:
1. I just started reading Institutes and was curious to learn more of Calvin and so I poked around and:
2. I found, and listened, to this


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> I am far from educated on the ins and outs of the content with which Im about to share, but I operate from what I do know (or think I know)...


Sometimes, just maybe, we don't know what we think we know. From what I have read in the thread to date, you are laboring under several misunderstandings.

We embrace some of those that have come before us because we have no warrant for chronological snobbery, as if we are somehow more endued by the Spirit than others before us. Accordingly, is serves us well to _check-in_ on what others have to say about that which we hold dear, lest we go off attempting to re-create what others have driven mostly to ground. We interpret Scripture in a community of like-minded saints. We are not _Lone Ranger_ believers. In not a few of the threads at this site, you have actually done this. See for example some of your discussions related to the Trinity or Christology topics. It is far better to test the results of our personal studies against those that have withstood the test of time and challenge by the church militant before we boldly claim this or that and embarrass ourselves.


Stope said:


> I know we arent to throw the baby out with the bath water, but on earth are we to embrace men who were "theologically correct" on so many issues, yet were slave owners? On Calvin who, maybe didn't preside over it, but did stand like Saul over Stephen when Servetus was burned at the stake (and Calvin merely remorse that burning was harsh and perhaps death by head chopped off is a better way for annoying heretics)? And Luther (and this one I have only HEARD) that he was an Anti-Semite...


Why then would we embrace men like Moses, David, Solomon, or Paul? Yes, of course these men were inspired writers of Scripture, in a class of their own, but sinners all, grievous sinners at that. Apparently God thought that even these terrible sinners could be used as instruments to teach us something. For that matter, there is no doubt that the very Confessions each of us affirmed when we joined this site, were created by men who sinned, some greater than others. Yet we embrace these Confessions for their fidelity to Scripture.

The same could be said of the _old, dead guys, _as it relates to their sins real or imagined, you see often appealed to or quoted herein.

What are you suggesting by these comments, all of which have been rightly corrected by not a few of the other sinners posting herein and in no need of adding to by myself?

Tell me, exactly, what is your logical conclusion of what appears to be a hyperbolic screed that we Reformed regularly encounter offered up by the anti-Reformed?

In short, you have asked and I would like to now ask what is it that you are proposing based upon your observations above? After all, you must have had some motive in mind behind your post?



Stope said:


> (the scary part is, what if I/we too are so a part of our day and age that we too dont realize things we engage/champion might possibly look back on in 100 years and cringe... O Lord, that we would not be citizens of this world but your unchanging and forever Kingdom!!!)


Are you intimating by the above that you think we could all be wrong for "embracing" the theological efforts of others, especially those you hold up for examination, Luther and Calvin? What is it about the beliefs they espoused from their careful studies of Scripture, that have been shown to be accurate summaries of the actual teachings of Scripture, that you find unworthy of embracing as timelessly accurate?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 10, 2017)

Wow! The tone of the thread is disheartening.
Look up establishmentarianism, you might learn a thing or two about someone else's beliefs.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> FYI, the reason I bring this up is:
> 1. I just started reading Institutes and was curious to learn more of Calvin and so I poked around and:
> 2. I found, and listened, to this



Why is this relevant? Please summarize the points you believe are pertinent to the discussion as many do not have the time to site through the video.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> is our primary adherence to man-made confessions or the Word? In other words, if the word trumps a confession who should be regarded?


Jason,
You're on thin ice already. Quit while you're ahead.
Confessions are viewed by Churches as standard expositions of the Word. It's cute to pit your understanding of the Word against a Church's confession but whose confession is it now? Jason's.
In other words, is it the case that all who put their trust in Christ shall be saved by His imputed righteousness?
Yes.
that's a confession. It's true because it represents many ministers common confession of the Scriptures and they bind themselves to one another promising that they hold to orthodox, Biblical ideas.
A Confession can be changed - most American Presbyterians do not subscribe to the original Confession and do not believe that the magistrate has a role in ecclesiastical affairs.
That said, a government might decide it has an interest in upholding a principle of God's law for the common good of its citizenry. If they decide to outlaw commerce on Sundays for reasons sufficient to the magistrate (perhaps they believe that it is God-honoring and gives people rest) then it is not "theocratic". It is simply the magistrate deciding what it believes is good for its citizenry.
Now we can all debate what the death penalty should and should not be administered for but this is a discussion regarding what the magistrate does and not the Church. The magistrate can have reasons, sufficient for its own purposes, to administer the death penalty. Some governments may put adulterers to death. Can we say, before God, that he abhors (in His very nature) the notion that a government would put someone to death for the crime of adultery? Again, we can debate whether we want our government to perform this.
It's then simply a matter of what crimes we believe should and should not be capital crimes. We do not reflexively believe that anyone should be inhibited from the free exercise of any religion they want to practice.
Oh, that's right, provided _it doesn't harm anyone_. 
Harm them in what way?
What if a locality believes that a religion would be destructive to the very fabric of society?
Again, you just need to think through this harder. We don't have to advocate for something in order to understand it. Our government was not founded on establishmentarian principles and in many ways I am grateful for that. That, however, does not mean that a government cannot legitimately be formed that gives preference to the Christian religion and decide that it will punish heretics.
The irony is that even the colonies that were formed fleeing persecution ended up realizing there are certain religions you don't want around. These things get messy historically and it's anachronistic to treat everyone as if they have to agree, in principle, with Article 1 of our Constitution or that God abhors the very idea of a government that would put to death someone they believe is dangerous because of his religious views.
That does not mean that the Church is putting the man to death in such cases. It just means that the Magistrate, in its role, may be permitted to do so and you have to treat that case independently of how you would act as one citizen to another or as one member of a Church to another. If you cannot keep these categories in mind then you have not really studied the issue in the lease.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Wow! The tone of the thread is disheartening.
> Look up establishmentarianism, you might learn a thing or two about someone else's beliefs.


Dont be disheartened, instead encourage!!!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Why is this relevant? Please summarize the points you believe are pertinent to the discussion as many do not have the time to site through the video.


I was just trying to say that I bring up Calvin in the context that this video, agrees with what most of you folks are saying, Im not Arminian or trying to slander, I THOUGHT I was calling a spade a spade and assumed you would all say "Yeah, that was bonkers that he didnt speak up"

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## lynnie (Jan 10, 2017)

This is a general comment not specific to the men you mentioned. But the God who wrote the Old Testament was the same God as the one who wrote the New Testament. The One God, one will and one mind, wrote the laws of Moses. 

I struggled with God for a long time. I mean, God told Israel to wipe out entire cities including babies. Why didn't he say to adopt the babies? Huh? ( I have an adopted child). God said to kill a kid who cursed his parents. What, no grace, no patience? Kill a gay? I know a "Christian" gay that was raped repeatedly as a child...how about some counseling and time and patience. Kill them? What if my husband's brother died and my husband had to take my sister in law as a wife and impregnate her? Yech, polygamy, really God? I could go on. Your issue is with God at the root. The Old testament had laws about slavery ( I am NOT endorsing it for today, just pointing out that it is there). 

We live in a world where the fall has made us all VERY fallen. Even the best of us are deeply flawed. I hope you can come to peace with it.


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In short, you have asked and I would like to now ask what is it that you are proposing based upon your observations above? After all, you must have had some motive in mind behind your post?



Thank you for your asking me this (by the way I wanted to respond more to your post but the multi quote tool isnt working, its bringing previous quotes and isnt separating them).

As for my reasons for bringing this up was 2 reasons:
1. Simple curiosity. That is, I know that great and Jesus loving men have owned slaves. I know that Calvin loved Jesus, yet he didnt speak against the torture-killing of Servetus. That is to say, how do we reconcile in our minds the fact that great people of God who can nuance scripture could have simply "overlooked" or just been a "product of their time", when, a sit appears to me, the Bible in no way even close allows for, since the time of Christ, persons (in any position of authority) the right to kill heretics (or own slaves).

2. Safeguard. I do fear that there might be some aspect of my culture and day and age where it is common/just part of that time and culture, so that I would, unbeknownst to me, disobey/ignore God. 

As far as me getting confused, some of you seem to say its wrong TODAY to kill heretics, yet some allude to it being the norm.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jason,
> You're on thin ice already. Quit while you're ahead.
> Confessions are viewed by Churches as standard expositions of the Word. It's cute to pit your understanding of the Word against a Church's confession but whose confession is it now? Jason's.
> In other words, is it the case that all who put their trust in Christ shall be saved by His imputed righteousness?
> ...


From the point of your response where you said "A confession can be changed" and that is below is very very very helpful. Thank you!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 10, 2017)

Let's just be absolutely clear. The number of people John Calvin killed, murdered, tortured, executed, etc., is zero. We as a society who have a remarkable access to the annuls of history need to get this notion out of our heads for good. Calvin never killed anyone. Of course, he might not have "spoken out" (depending on how one defines this, for he did, indeed, petition to have the punishment lessened, for which he himself was fortunate not to have been accused of having sympathies for a heretic and a traitor) against Servetus' execution. Sure, I will grant that. However, if we are going to start condemning this act of omission, I am absolutely positive that nobody on this board or anywhere else would like to have listed before their eyes the number of evils in this world concerning which we remain absolutely silent, either unwittingly or deliberately. And we have no excuses, considering we are aware not only of what happens around us locally but what happens everywhere in the world virtually instantaneously via the Internet.

Was Calvin perfect? Of course not. But we need to be a little more careful about how we talk about our brothers and sisters in Christ (which he _is_, even at this present moment). I certainly do not want people looking back on me after I am dead with the scrutiny and Pharisaical superiority that Calvin has received _post mortem_. If that will be the case, then no doubt my earlier days—when for years, while professing Christianity vigorously, I thoroughly enjoyed the sexual objectification of women indicative of p0rnography—will render me a monster in all men's eyes until the resurrection.

A personal question, Jason: Do you support the death penalty here in America? If so, why?


----------



## Ray (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> From the point of your response where you said "A confession can be changed" and that is below is very very very helpful. Thank you!


Yes a Confession can be changed for being unbiblical, for example the London Baptist Confession should change articles Chapters 28, 29 and 30 and should adopt chapters 27, 28, and 29 of WCF or 33, 34, and 35 of Belgic Confession of Faith  just one thing we can point out of that Confession to change, so it can conform more to Scripture Sorry I could not resist.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Let's just be absolutely clear. The number of people John Calvin killed, murdered, tortured, executed, etc., is zero. We as a society who have a remarkable access to the annuls of history need to get this notion out of our heads for good. Calvin never killed anyone. Of course, he might not have "spoken out" (depending on how one defines this, for he did, indeed, petition to have the punishment lessened, for which he himself was fortunate not to have been accused of having sympathies for a heretic and a traitor) against Servetus' execution. Sure, I will grant that. However, if we are going to start condemning this act of omission, I am absolutely positive that nobody on this board or anywhere else would like to have listed before their eyes the number of evils in this world concerning which we remain absolutely silent, either unwittingly or deliberately. And we have no excuses, considering we are aware not only of what happens around us locally but what happens everywhere in the world virtually instantaneously via the Internet.
> 
> Was Calvin perfect? Of course not. But we need to be a little more careful about how we talk about our brothers and sisters in Christ (which he _is_, even at this present moment). I certainly do not want people looking back on me after I am dead with the scrutiny and Pharisaical superiority that Calvin has received _post mortem_. If that will be the case, then no doubt my earlier days—when for years, while professing Christianity vigorously, I thoroughly enjoyed the sexual objectification of women indicative of p0rnography—will render me a monster in all men's eyes until the resurrection.
> 
> A personal question, Jason: Do you support the death penalty here in America? If so, why?



I never said anything close to Calvin did kill anyone (in fact Geneva only killed 1). I said, as you did, that he didnt "speak up". Indeed we all have turned a blind eye, but the scenario is apples and oranges. For example, Im anti abortion and I do "speak out" against it cause its killing babies, but if I was in a hearing and I wasnt ARDENTLY opposed to that abortion and making my voice heard than I am just as guilty. This is what it appears Calvin has done (further, he NEVER said it was wrong to kill him, only it was wrong to burn him).

Yes I do believe in capitol punishment in America as enacted by our current system of govt.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 10, 2017)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Bill, in relation to Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians, I have sometimes said that it is unfair to judge pre-Reformation theologians by post-Reformation standards. Now, of course, we judge all things by scripture, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect Aquinas or Anselm to speak with the same clarity as Luther or Calvin did on some issues. Would you say that that assertion is reasonable?



Yes I would agree. We can certainly fault Aquinas et al for any unscriptural positions they may have held, but we really can't fault them for being Catholic. What other church should they have joined?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ...the scenario is apples and oranges.



How so?



Stope said:


> This is what it appears Calvin has done (further, he NEVER said it was wrong to kill him, only it was wrong to burn him).
> 
> Yes I do believe in capitol punishment in America as enacted by our current system of govt.



These last two statements in juxtaposition are interesting to me. Although you did not explain why as I requested, you seem to believe it is just and right for the American government to enact capital punishment (as do I). However, in the same breath you seem (to me) to be denying the Genevan government the same authority and right. Servetus was not just a heretic, brother; he was a traitor, an enemy of the state. He committed a civil crime and was administered the due civil punishment by the civil (not Church) authorities. America does the exact same thing. How is it consistent to support the latter and decry the former?

Thanks for clearing this up for me.


----------



## MW (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> is our primary adherence to man made confessions or the Word? In other words, if the word trumps a confession who should be regarded?



The Confession declares what the Word teaches.

Saul of Tarsus, who was transformed into Paul the apostle by Jesus Christ, completely changed his mind on the truth as it is in Jesus, but he never changed his mind on the moral principle that judgment should be according to truth; and when he was being judged on theological matters as they affected the civil society he submitted himself to the authority of Caesar and was willing to undergo the death penalty if he were found to deserve anything worthy of death. Please read Acts 25:6-12.



> 6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
> 7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
> 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
> 9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

MW said:


> Saul of Tarsus, who was transformed into Paul the apostle by Jesus Christ, completely changed his mind on the truth as it is in Jesus, but he never changed his mind on the moral principle that judgment should be according to truth; and when he was being judged on theological matters as they affected the civil society he submitted himself to the death penalty if he were found to deserve anything worthy of death. Please read Acts 25:6-12.


Interesting point. Surely Saul was being the martyr there not actually thinking he did anything wrong. In fact I think most would agree that was just his rhetoric.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Stope (Jan 10, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> How so?


For example, Im anti abortion and I do "speak out" against it cause its killing babies, but if I was in a hearing and I wasnt ARDENTLY opposed to that abortion and making my voice heard than I am just as guilty. This is what it appears Calvin has done (further, he NEVER said it was wrong to kill him, only it was wrong to burn him).

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> For example, Im anti abortion and I do "speak out" against it cause its killing babies, but if I was in a hearing and I wasnt ARDENTLY opposed to that abortion and making my voice heard than I am just as guilty. This is what it appears Calvin has done (further, he NEVER said it was wrong to kill him, only it was wrong to burn him).



I read that in your first post, but I was wondering if I could get some more explanation. I think you have skated around the point that I made regarding the internet. Because of the internet, we are "in a hearing" every single day. Are we all held morally responsible for not responding to everything with ardent opposition? Furthermore, does not Calvin's petition for mercy indicate at least some level of unease about the dilemma?

Also, I asked a few other questions that have been unanswered. Would you mind answering them? It would help me understand better.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 10, 2017)

The civil magistrate does have the right to execute those who tear apart the fabric of society.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---Then it would not be wrong if the government killed you since you deserve death? Everyone deserves death, do you have a shirt that says "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"?



Eeaasy. Are you still asking for advice on handling these 'issues' with unbelievers who raise the question?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 10, 2017)

Jason, you might want to read up on the differences between crime and sin, also the nature and extent of differing jurisdictions. That's assuming you are interested in discussion on thsi point, which I sort of suspect you aren't.


----------



## MW (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> Interesting point. Surely Saul was being the martyr there not actually thinking he did anything wrong. In fact I think most would agree that was just his rhetoric.



The condition on which he was willing to die was if he were found to be guilty of doing something worthy of death. Martyrs are put to death unjustly. Evil-doers are put to death justly. And in order to show his innocence of the charges brought against him by the Jews (which included theological issues) he appealed to the judgment seat of Caesar, thereby confirming the competency of Caesar to make judgment on the issue. It is not mere rhetoric. It is part of a series of defences which forms an apologetic for the Christian faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> --Just dont be so smug and rude next time and you will do well


It is a testimony to the patience and longsuffering of the moderators on this board that you are not a banned user for exactly what you've accused a brother of.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 10, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---You cant be serious? Would you say that, for example, the LDS "Prophet" who reeks of blasphemy deserves death?



I'm am really not very involved with this thread but I just thought of something Paul said. It goes like this:

Edit: Oops! I just noticed that someone beat me to this subject.

What was Paul being accused of by the Jews? Heresy!

Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

To this charge of heresy Paul agrees that death can be the penalty.

Acts 25:11
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 10, 2017)

Here’s a link to some very interesting reading on the views of not a few New England Christians on defending both tables of the Law, including various kinds of punishments for 1st table offenses:

An Abstract of the Laws of New England,
as They Are Now Established.
printed in London in 1641.
JOHN COTTON

https://goo.gl/1fDnxW

See particularly the following chapters:

CHAPTER VII.
Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man's people, whether by death or banishment.

CHAPTER VIII.
Of other Crimes less heinous, such as are to be punished with some corporal punishment or fine.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 10, 2017)

Thread closed.

Reactions: Like 6


----------

