# Discipline in Calvin's Geneva



## Phil D.

Calvin succeeded after a fierce struggle in infusing the Church of Geneva with his views on discipline. The Consistory and the Council rivaled with each other, under his inspiration, in puritanic zeal for the correction of immorality; but their zeal sometimes transgressed the dictates of wisdom and moderation. The union of Church and State rests on the false assumption that all citizens are members of the Church and subject to discipline.

...The official acts of the [Geneva City] Council from 1541 to 1559 exhibit a dark chapter of censures, fines, imprisonments, and executions. During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease. From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed. During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offenses amounted to four hundred and fourteen—a very large proportion for a population of 20,000. 

(Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_, Vol. 8: § 107. _The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva_)​One particular case that stood out to me was,

...A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment. (_Ibid_.)​
I imagine everyone here laments the breathtaking collapse of public morals all around us, but would you concur with Schaff's assessment of excess? Why or why not?


----------



## Tom Hart

What is Schaff's source for this?
See here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2019/06/john-calvin-had-58-people-executed-in.html?m=1


----------



## ZackF

What is strange is that Servetus is the one that Geneva's critics drum up? Scholars can document fairly well Calvin's hatred of Servetus and vice versa. That incident is still used by Calvin(ism)'s detractors as the example of his intolerance. So why is there nothing in the opponents literature (I'm not expert BTW). Wouldn't the examples above be better evidence of Calvin's tyranny?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Given that we in the UK and USA live in nations that have murdered millions upon millions of preborn infants, I think that we should be fairly slow when it comes to throwing stones at others on such matters. 

For my part, I believe that most of the punishments listed in the judicial law are of common equity and thus still applicable at least as maximum punishments for these crimes. So, no, I am not losing any sleep about such things taking place in Geneva (assuming that the above history is accurate on this point).

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## Phil D.

Tom Hart said:


> What is Schaff's source for this?



That's an excellent question. I agree many historical accounts display prejudice against Calvin with respect to many of the city council's actions. On the other hand, it would be difficult to say he didn't have a significant hand in what went on. This tension is seen in the case of Servetus where Calvin advocates his death, but petitions for beheading vs. burning at the stake. 

The link you gave does state this about historical documentation.

There is an admission though that the statistics in questions were compiled by Galiffe, using the Registers of the Council of Geneva from the period in question. _The bones are finally gaining some meat_: Galiffe goes on to provide actual data to back up his statistics. The data for the executions begins on page 100. He says thirty were men, twenty-eight were women. Of these, thirteen people were hanged, ten were decapitated, and thirty-five burned alive. Of these fifty-eight executions, twenty were for ordinary crimes: murder, robbery, counterfeit money, forgery, political offenses, etc. These twenty people were men. The other thirty-eight did involve women, and they were cases involving questioning through torture, most notably in regard to the spread of the plague. There were also some involving witchcraft and divination, but almost all of them were in regard to the spreading of the plague.​


----------



## Phil D.

ZackF said:


> What is strange is that Servetus is the one that Geneva's critics drum up? Scholars can document fairly well Calvin's hatred of Servetus and vice versa. That incident is still used by Calvin(ism)'s detractors as the example of his intolerance. So why is there nothing in the opponents literature (I'm not expert BTW). Wouldn't the examples above be better evidence of Calvin's tyranny?



Servetus certainly gets the lion's share of attention in this context, for whatever reason, but I have seen the overall statistics cited by his critics quite a few times as well.


----------



## Phil D.

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Given that we in the UK and USA live in nations that have murdered millions upon millions of preborn infants, I think that we should be fairly slow when it comes to throwing stones at others on such matters.



Point well-taken, although of course one wrong never justifies another.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> For my part, I believe that most of the punishments listed in the judicial law are of common equity and thus still applicable at least as maximum punishments for these crimes.



So are you saying you wouldn't be opposed if a duly enacted law mandated beheading for children who strike their parents? And of course then the same could be done with regard to such things as Sabbath-breaking (Ex. 31:14) and blasphemy (Lev. 24:15-16).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Phil D. said:


> Point well-taken, although of course one wrong never justifies another.



Justice demands that we focus more on the greater wrongs, especially those being perpetrated in our own day and age, rather than the lesser wrongs committed by others over which we have no control.



Phil D. said:


> So are you saying you wouldn't be opposed if a duly enacted law mandated beheading for children who strike their parents?



No, I would not in stiff-necked cases, though I may recommend a different form of execution than beheading.


----------



## Phil D.

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Justice demands that we focus more on the greater wrongs, especially those being perpetrated in our own day and age, rather than the lesser wrongs committed over which we have no control.



Of course. Yet as a church historian you surely consider and evaluate former cases to varying extents in that pursuit.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> No, I would not in stiff-necked cases, though I may recommend a different form of execution than beheading.



Well, thank you for your candor.


----------



## Dachaser

Phil D. said:


> Point well-taken, although of course one wrong never justifies another.
> 
> 
> So are you saying you wouldn't be opposed if a duly enacted law mandated beheading for children who strike their parents? And of course then the same could be done with regard to such things as Sabbath-breaking (Ex. 31:14) and blasphemy (Lev. 24:15-16).


Would the punishment be same for all, or more severe for those claiming to be Christian's?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Phil D. said:


> Of course. Yet as a church historian you surely consider and evaluate former cases to varying extents in that pursuit.



Oh, yes, of course, I do. What I object to, however, is the sanctimonious tone taken by some (not referring to anyone here) about people in the past when the very same people have little to say about evils in the present.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Phil D.

Dachaser said:


> Would the punishment be same for all, or more severe for those claiming to be Christian's?



If you mean historically in Geneva (as in all Reformation era Christendom), then there was no apparent distinction. Schaff made an applicable comment in the OP, "The union of Church and State rests on the false assumption that all citizens are members of the Church and subject to discipline."


----------



## Dachaser

Phil D. said:


> If you mean historically in Geneva (as in all Reformation era Christendom), then there was no apparent distinction. Schaff made an applicable comment in the OP, "The union of Church and State rests on the false assumption that all citizens are members of the Church and subject to discipline."


That would be the bane of having a modern day version of what Calvin attempted to do.


----------



## Phil D.

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What I object to, however, is the sanctimonious tone taken by some (not referring to anyone here) about people in the past when the very same people have little to say about evils in the present.



On that we are entirely agreed.

This gets at one thing I hoped would come out in the discussion. I believe much misunderstanding and sanctimony results from anachronistic readings of history. It is very easy to judge history through the lens of hindsight and modern sensibilities, while not adequately accounting for the prevailing norms and conventions of a given time and place.

Once understood to the extent possible, the next step is to explore how we can learn from history to our current benefit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## smalltown_puritan

If the crimes were truly committed, then I could not think that the aforementioned ensuing discipline was excessive: 'To [the people of Israel] also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use' (BCF 1689, XIX.5). 

Schaff seems to place the emphasis on the union of Church and State as it relates to all citizens being members of the Church. I think our issue of examining this historical record is more likely to be on the view of the Genevan council that the State is to uphold the first table of the Law and not just the second (which is an even weightier presupposition). I do not think the Council and Consistory were excessive in this, however, because, 'Justice exalteth a nation, but sin is a shame to the people' (Proverbs xiv.34).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Minh

I have Schaff's two volumes of the History of the Reformation. His comments on the subject of discipline in Geneva shows that he was in favor of a more liberal approach in legislating morality in contrast to Calvin's strict order. In the same section of the book the OP mentions, Schaff wrote elsewhere:



> It is impossible to deny that this kind of legislation savors more of the austerity of old heathen Rome and the Levitical code than of the gospel of Christ, and that the actual exercise of discipline was often petty, pedantic, and unnecessarily severe.





> The most cruel of those laws - against witchcraft, heresy, and blasphemy - were inherited from the Catholic Middle Ages, and continued in force in all countries of Europe, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, down to the end of the seventeenth century.



While acknowledging Calvin's zealousness for God, it's obvious that Dr. Schaff considered these measures to be excessive.

As for me, I will admit that I am still infected by a liberal and modern style of moral legislations (e.g. free speech, etc..). Nevertheless, I would agree with Calvin's strict discipline as long his are consistent with the Word of God. I would add that such moral regulation should be implemented in a diplomatic manner - that is, don't trigger a rebellion!


----------



## jwithnell

After exile from other parts of Europe, people in Geneva likely found freedom _in _the law. That's difficult to discern when viewing history through the lens of the 20th-century academics.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## James Swan

Tom Hart said:


> What is Schaff's source for this?
> See here:
> http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2019/06/john-calvin-had-58-people-executed-in.html?m=1



Thanks for posting my link. Just some background: last year I was hired to "fact check" a writer who was putting forth a book of uncomfortable facts about a number of people from church history. Calvin of course, made the list. Based on this research, I put up a number of blog entries on Calvin's Geneva. I found a number of errors, and I was thankful the author retracted most of them from his finished volume. We did have a battle though over the Calvin chapter, and a number of my findings were not heeded. The author basically said he trusted the sources he relied on for the facts, even if the actual evidence those authors used was not readily apparent. 

The majority of the Calvin facts came from Schaff and Durant (Durant being the worse of the two). My favorite blunder was the assertion that Calvin had a child beheaded for striking its parents. One would think that if Calvin actually did do such a thing, that would trump whatever happened to Servetus. Wouldn't the emotional outrage of Calvin "the dictator of Geneva" executing a child be the first thing a Calvin detractor would point to, rather than Servetus? After digging around a bit, it appears the child in question was executed in Geneva in 1568. What was John Calvin, the despotic tyrant doing in 1568? Was he staring down the child in Genevan court as a prosecutor, boldly proclaiming God's law was broken and the child must be punished with death? Was he watching the beheading of a child for breaking God's law? No, Calvin was at rest in his grave. He died May 27, 1564.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 4


----------



## KMK

The Reformation was a war--fought not only by soldiers, but executioners all over Europe. The rules of war are different than the rules of church discipline. The use of torture and execution on both sides of that war should be judged accordingly. Even then, our judgment should be seasoned with humility since we have the benefit of centuries of hindsight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

James Swan said:


> After digging around a bit, it appears the child in question was executed in Geneva in 1568.



Before commenting, can you give your historical reference for this?


----------



## Pergamum

I agree with the OP. Calvin's Geneva was no haven for human freedom, but a spiritual tyranny.

One example is the practice of forced naming at baptism. Calvin and others thought that a baptized child must have a Christian name.

The new excellent book, "Controversies in Mission: Theology, People, and Practice of Mission in the 21st Century (Evangelical Missiological Society Series Book 24)" by Rochelle Cathcart Scheuermann, Edward L. Smither have a chapter written by the missionary anthropologist Robert J. Priest where he documents the forced giving of "Christian" names on newly baptized children.

"When a Genevan father brought his son for baptism to one of Calvin’s French ministers, desiring to name his son Claude after himself, the minister unilaterally baptized the child “Abraham.” This was experienced as a usurpation of a father’s right to name. Indeed so resentful, and on occasion violent, did Genevans become at this usurpation of parental naming prerogatives, that Calvin wondered if an armed guard would not need to be posted at every baptism (Naphy 1995, 89, 92)."

Really? Armed guards to force parents to endure having a minister name their kids? The police at your baptism to make sure you comply? I am sure this displayed the inviting love of God to the citizens of Geneva.

In other places you can read of banishments and imprisonments and torture of those who simply criticized Calvin. How convenient to reason that the government is given by God and subjects must obey the leaders or else disobey God. 

He made laws from what should have been issues of individual conscience. He forbade sweets to be served at wedding banquets. He forbade all kinds of amusement – especially gambling, singing and dances – as inventions of the Devil. He forbade people to drink from a mountain spring that was famous for healing the fever and called it idolatry. Those who were healed were arrested and denounced in public. (J.B. Galiffe, _Notices genealogiques sur les familles genévoises,_ vol. 3, p. 381.)


I cannot believe the amount of control that religious leaders have tried to exercise over even parents. If this happened today I'd be tempted to smack the minister and revolt against the State.

Robert J. Priest then applies this to mission settings where the Church forces the taking of "Christian" names"

"In mission settings when missionaries or church officials declare that the name given by a loving parent is bad, wrong, unchristian and needs to be replaced with one acceptable to them, this is an act of intrusive power. When a missionary school only admits students with “Christian names” (Aluko 1993, 28), this, too, is hegemonic.""

Nope, Calvin's Geneva is not a model for us today. All good Baptists would flee or take up arms to overthrow it, if it indeed existed and tried to forcibly rule over the souls of men with the power of the civil sword. When Church and State jump into bed, it is not a wonderful union, but a whoredom for both parties. We are to have no theocracies today.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> One example is the practice of forced naming at baptism. Calvin and others thought that a baptized child must have a Christian name.


This is inaccurate.


Pergamum said:


> "When a Genevan father brought his son for baptism to one of Calvin’s French ministers, desiring to name his son Claude after himself, the minister unilaterally baptized the child “Abraham.” This was experienced as a usurpation of a father’s right to name. Indeed so resentful, and on occasion violent, did Genevans become at this usurpation of parental naming prerogatives, that Calvin wondered if an armed guard would not need to be posted at every baptism (Naphy 1995, 89, 92).


This is inaccurate as well, if my memory serves. What does Naphy cite as his source?


Pergamum said:


> In other places you can read of banishments and imprisonments and torture of those who simply criticized Calvin.


Sources, please.


Pergamum said:


> He made laws from what should have been issues of individual conscience. He forbade sweets to be served at wedding banquets. He forbade all kinds of amusement – especially gambling, singing and dances – as inventions of the Devil. He forbade people to drink from a mountain spring that was famous for healing the fever and called it idolatry. Those who were healed were arrested and denounced in public. (J.B. Galiffe, _Notices genealogiques sur les familles genévoises,_ vol. 3, p. 381.)


Who made laws? Calvin? That is false, and obviously so to anyone who knows anything at all about the state of Geneva.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> This is inaccurate.
> 
> This is inaccurate as well, if my memory serves. What does Naphy cite as his source?
> 
> Sources, please.
> 
> Who made laws? Calvin? That is false, and obviously so to anyone who knows anything at all about the state of Geneva.



I gave you the sources. Writing "inaccurate" doesn't make it so. I think many folks only believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> I gave you the sources.


Show me the primary sources.


Pergamum said:


> Writing "inaccurate" doesn't make it so.


I'm not about to do your homework for you.


Pergamum said:


> I think many folks only believe what they want to believe.


And others search for truth.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> Show me the primary sources.
> 
> I'm not about to do your homework for you.
> 
> And others search for truth.



Remain in your ignorance, then, I gave two primary sources in my reply already...at least start with those.


----------



## smalltown_puritan

Pergamum said:


> All good Baptists would flee or take up arms to overthrow it, if it indeed existed and tried to forcibly rule over the souls of men with the power of the civil sword.



As a confessional Baptist, I would disagree with this assessment and call to arms, brother. Could the Lord not bless His elect in such a way that the nations bow to Christ the King? Is this not the promise of Psalm lxxii.8 - 'His dominion shall be also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the land'?

As it relates to the original post, would you view that it is permissible for confessional Baptists to view the Genevan model (albeit with some exceptions) as an acceptable, if not exceptional, model of seeking to guard both tables of the Law and seeking that God's name be hallowed as in the first petition?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

smalltown_puritan said:


> As a confessional Baptist, I would disagree with this assessment and call to arms, brother. Could the Lord not bless His elect in such a way that the nations bow to Christ the King? Is this not the promise of Psalm lxxii.8 - 'His dominion shall be also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the land'?
> 
> As it relates to the original post, would you view that it is permissible for confessional Baptists to view the Genevan model (albeit with some exceptions) as an acceptable, if not exceptional, model of seeking to guard both tables of the Law and seeking that God's name be hallowed as in the first petition?



I don't believe the Genevan model was biblical. The persecution of the Baptists in the American colonies is the logical outcome of such practices. The promise is that Christ's Dominion, not Calvin's, will spread over the whole earth. The two are not the same. Thus far all of man's attempts have been cheap imitations with severe flaws which have harmed great segments of Christ's Sheep, even those efforts from true Christians. We need not support all that Calvin did; he was a child of his own times. And he was not even as bad as Zwingli, who drowned Baptists. 

Power corrupts; even (and "especially" I have come to believe) religious power.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## smalltown_puritan

Pergamum said:


> We need not support all that Calvin did; he was a child of his own times.


I certainly agree with such a statement. Though I wonder if the ubiquitous sentiment of one being ‘a child of the times’ negates the reality of universal truth and biblical practice, regardless of modern sensibilities. It seems that this is Schaff’s issue as well - either the Council was out of accord with biblical principles, or the Genevan model is a biblically permissive form of government.


----------



## Pergamum

smalltown_puritan said:


> I certainly agree with such a statement. Though I wonder if the ubiquitous sentiment of one being ‘a child of the times’ negates the reality of universal truth and biblical practice, regardless of modern sensibilities. It seems that this is Schaff’s issue as well - either the Council was out of accord with biblical principles, or the Genevan model is a biblically permissive form of government.



Calvin definitely held to the universal and eternal truths of Scripture. But in practice, the culture of the time and place also impacted how he ruled over the Church. Nobody gets it perfect. And we, too, are children of our own tolerant age and its benefits and curses.

I don't support civil fines for missing church, for example, but many of our forefathers in the faith took this as common sense and godly government.

I agree with Schaff here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> Remain in your ignorance, then, I gave two primary sources in my reply already...at least start with those.


Which primary sources?

You're missing a few steps in the historical inquiry here, and some of your statements are plainly incorrect.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Great care ought to be taken to discern the facts around such things as Calvin's legacy in Geneva. After all, the Ninth Commandment does not apply only to saints who are still living.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A much better historical account of John Calvin, the man and his true nature, of Geneva, and of Calvin’s part in it is found in the third book of “2,000 Years of Christ’s Power” by N. R. Needham. It’s a thorough treatment by a serious and respected (and Reformed Baptist) church historian.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...l=kn=2000+years+of+Christ%27s+power&sortby=17

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## James Swan

Phil D. said:


> Before commenting, can you give your historical reference for this?



Sure. The particular tidbit that Calvin had a child executed was one of the fact-checks I had to search out for the book project I was involved in last year. The author, if I recall, chose to delete it from his book after I informed him precise documentation was too vague and that the account was probably from 1568, after Calvin died. 

For my long-winded analysis, see this link: Calvin Beheaded a Child in Geneva? There you will find the trail I followed to determine where Schaff and Durant pulled this story from. The 1568 date can be found in this book.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## James Swan

Pergamum said:


> One example is the practice of forced naming at baptism. Calvin and others thought that a baptized child must have a Christian name.



I took a look at this one as well. See, Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.

The reason the name "Claude" was outlawed was because, "_Claude was a name that had been popular in Geneva because of devotion to St. Claude, bishop of Bassancon and patron of the neighboring abbey of St. Claude, which attracted numerous Pilgrams_." Perhaps some may think Geneva went to far with this sort of Reforming effort, but it does certainly show to what extent they sought to root out Romanism.


----------



## Dachaser

James Swan said:


> I took a look at this one as well. See, Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.
> 
> The reason the name "Claude" was outlawed was because, "_Claude was a name that had been popular in Geneva because of devotion to St. Claude, bishop of Bassancon and patron of the neighboring abbey of St. Claude, which attracted numerous Pilgrams_." Perhaps some may think Geneva went to far with this sort of Reforming effort, but it does certainly show to what extent they sought to root out Romanism.


Wonder what they would have thought of naming kids Jesus, as common in Spanish speaking nations?


----------



## James Swan

Tom Hart said:


> Great care ought to be taken to discern the facts around such things as Calvin's legacy in Geneva. After all, the Ninth Commandment does not apply only to saints who are still living.



Great point. I forget who I took this from, but I've since made it my own: I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all.

I'm not one who would simply give Calvin a free pass, and say that everything he did was wonderful (treating him like a Reformed "saint"). On the other hand, I've learned that history is tricky thing, filled with presuppositions, nuances, and bias. The scorn heaped on Calvin (and Luther!) is a great exercise in interpreting the facts of history according to worldview. Consider how pop-historian Wil Durant summarized Calvin: ..._we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense_" [Will Durant, The Reformation: _The Story of Civilization_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 490]. 

That conclusion sums up well Durant's treatment of Calvin. Later in his Dual Autobiography, he and his wife jab the Reformation's seeming rejection of the Renaissance "_as pagan_" and a reversion "_to the gloomy theology of saint Paul and Saint Augustine, leading to the predestinarianism of Calvin and Knox, the Puritan regime, and the replacement of papal authority with the authoritarianism of the state in religion in Germany and Great Britain_." Durant did not hide the fact that he was not sympathetic to either Calvin or the Reformation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## James Swan

Dachaser said:


> Wonder what they would have thought of naming kids Jesus, as common in Spanish speaking nations?



Hmm... don't know! I suspect it was not an issue... I'm not sure how many Spaniards were residing in Genva during Calvin's time!


----------



## James Swan

Jeri Tanner said:


> A much better historical account of John Calvin, the man and his true nature, of Geneva, and of Calvin’s part in it is found in the third book of “2,000 Years of Christ’s Power” by N. R. Needham. It’s a thorough treatment by a serious and respected (and Reformed Baptist) church historian.
> https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30472276902&searchurl=kn=2000+years+of+Christ%27s+power&sortby=17



Since we're recommending books on Calvin's Geneva, here are a few of my picks:

Philip Hughes, _The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin

Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva_

Robert Kingdon, _Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_

E. William Monter, _Calvin's Geneva_

Richard Stauffer, _The Humanness of John Calvin_

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## JKL1647

I would be very careful speaking about the child who struck her parents and was executed as if it was some "evil tyrannical" thing to do. Simply because this was a judgment commanded by God in the OT.

Exodus 21:15
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

God would not put this in His law if it was some evil or cruel practice. In fact, He put it there because it was 100% the best thing to do. The same with the judgment on witches. 

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

I don't believe it is right to be critical on the Civil Magistrate who looks at these judgments God commanded in the OT and adopts the use of them. We shouldn't filter these political things through a enlightenment influenced, libertarian mindset and shout "Tyrant!" so quickly.


----------



## Phil D.

I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Here are some of my thoughts.

Personally I think Calvin is often demonized (wrongly and in some cases very prejudicially) by his detractors. Yes, like all mortals he had his faults, some perhaps quite serious (think also of Luther’s frequent crassness), but he was clearly no monster. With all things considered, I believe he must be deemed a great man of God and even a hero of the faith.

Given his prominence in church history, I do think it is legitimate to scrutinize and, as appropriate, critique Calvin’s actions. The 9th Commandment may predominantly forbid the telling of negative falsehoods, yet as the WLC points out it also comprehends such things as idolizing people (“…thinking or speaking too highly…of ourselves or others…fond admiration…” Q.145).

With respect to the general matter of discipline under consideration here, the Geneva city council was ultimately responsible for determining and passing sentence both for civil and religious offenses. While Calvin did have considerable input and influence with that body—for which he is accountable, and in some cases was arguably over severe—his petitions were actually ignored more often than one might expect. The legendary charge that Calvin was the Pope of Geneva, made by Catholics and some Protestants alike, is simply not credible.

James Swan has done yeoman’s work in searching out the sensational case of a person that was beheaded in Geneva for striking a parent mentioned in the OP, which shows Calvin’s culpability to be at most subsidiary (see link in post #33). Excellent article, James, thank you.

Corporeal and capital punishment for religious offenses was _de jur_ in 16th century Europe. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating figures living within that historical milieu. We may rue the fact that leaders like Calvin failed to oppose or transcend such conventions, and rightly appreciate those who eventually did. But to simply ignore the role that entrenched views and practices played in their affairs is anachronistic at best, certainly nonobjective and distorted, and at worst slanderous.

For myself, I’m very glad the convention of capital punishment for religious offenses in Christianity faded away over time. While the OT Law retains valid and thus valuable general equity in matters it pertains to, I think the mercy displayed by Jesus toward the woman caught in adultery is didactic as well. If everyone that committed sexual impurity, profaned the Sabbath or uttered a blasphemy were still put to death, I think there would be a lot of very, very small churches…

Finally, here are parts of Schaff’s contexed evaluation of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, which I believe is fairly balanced and in some points even insightful. In any event, it is certainly thought-provoking.

Revolution is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this task Calvin was providentially foreordained and equipped by genius, education, and circumstances... Calvin, the Frenchman, would have been as much out of place in Zurich or Wittenberg, as the Swiss Zwingli and the German Luther would have been out of place and without a popular constituency in French-speaking Geneva. Each stands first and unrivaled in his particular mission and field of labor.

...Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had the great advantage of building on their foundation. He had less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a man of action, but superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the stones in the quarries, he polished them in the workshop. They produced the new ideas, he constructed them into a system. His was the work of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather than to plant, God giving the increase.

Calvin’s character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or Zwingli’s, but he left his Church [i.e. the Calvinist branch of Protestantism] in a much better condition. He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern, severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection glowing beneath the marble surface. His name will never arouse popular enthusiasm... But he surpassed them [Luther and Zwingli] in consistency of self-discipline, and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted and still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant Churches of Latin and Anglo-Saxon races.

…History furnishes no more striking example of a man of so little personal popularity, and yet such great influence upon the people [as Calvin]; of such natural timidity and bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and character, and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer and ruler of churches.

Widely as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Christ.​


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Phil D. said:


> Calvin’s character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or Zwingli’s, but he left his Church [i.e. the Calvinist branch of Protestantism] in a much better condition. He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern, severe, unbending


From everything I have read (that I trust) this is simply not true of John Calvin.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## James Swan

JKL1647 said:


> I would be very careful speaking about the child who struck her parents and was executed as if it was some "evil tyrannical" thing to do. Simply because this was a judgment commanded by God in the OT.



Over the years I've encountered non-Reformed people with a negative bent towards Calvin, quick to disparage Calvin's Geneva, yet have no problem with the law of God as presented in the Old Testament. The inconsistency is amazing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## James Swan

Jeri Tanner said:


> From everything I have read (that I trust) this is simply not true of John Calvin.



Track down the book I mentioned above, _The Humanness of John Calvin_ by Richard Stauffer... if I recall, originally in French. It's a good balance to the typical negativity attributed toward Calvin. True, Calvin had flaws and sins, but often he's overly caricatured coldly and with negativity. The older I get, the more complicated people become, even those that have been dead for a long time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Phil D. said:


> I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Here are some of my thoughts.
> 
> Personally I think Calvin is often demonized (wrongly and in some cases very prejudicially) by his detractors. Yes, like all mortals he had his faults, some perhaps quite serious (think also of Luther’s frequent crassness), but he was clearly no monster. With all things considered, I believe he must be deemed a great man of God and even a hero of the faith.
> 
> Given his prominence in church history, I do think it is legitimate to scrutinize and, as appropriate, critique Calvin’s actions. The 9th Commandment may predominantly forbid the telling of negative falsehoods, yet as the WLC points out it also comprehends such things as idolizing people (“…thinking or speaking too highly…of ourselves or others…fond admiration…” Q.145).
> 
> With respect to the general matter of discipline under consideration here, the Geneva city council was ultimately responsible for determining and passing sentence both for civil and religious offenses. While Calvin did have considerable input and influence with that body—for which he is accountable, and in some cases was arguably over severe—his petitions were actually ignored more often than one might expect. The legendary charge that Calvin was the Pope of Geneva, made by Catholics and some Protestants alike, is simply not credible.
> 
> James Swan has done yeoman’s work in searching out the sensational case of a person that was beheaded in Geneva for striking a parent mentioned in the OP, which shows Calvin’s culpability to be at most subsidiary (see link in post #33). Excellent article, James, thank you.
> 
> Corporeal and capital punishment for religious offenses was _de jur_ in 16th century Europe. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating figures living within that historical milieu. We may rue the fact that leaders like Calvin failed to oppose or transcend such conventions, and rightly appreciate those who eventually did. But to simply ignore the role that entrenched views and practices played in their affairs is anachronistic at best, certainly nonobjective and distorted, and at worst slanderous.
> 
> For myself, I’m very glad the convention of capital punishment for religious offenses in Christianity faded away over time. While the OT Law retains valid and thus valuable general equity in matters it pertains to, I think the mercy displayed by Jesus toward the woman caught in adultery is didactic as well. If everyone that committed sexual impurity, profaned the Sabbath or uttered a blasphemy were still put to death, I think there would be a lot of very, very small churches…
> 
> Finally, here are parts of Schaff’s contexed evaluation of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, which I believe is fairly balanced and in some points even insightful. In any event, it is certainly thought-provoking.
> 
> Revolution is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this task Calvin was providentially foreordained and equipped by genius, education, and circumstances... Calvin, the Frenchman, would have been as much out of place in Zurich or Wittenberg, as the Swiss Zwingli and the German Luther would have been out of place and without a popular constituency in French-speaking Geneva. Each stands first and unrivaled in his particular mission and field of labor.
> 
> ...Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had the great advantage of building on their foundation. He had less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a man of action, but superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the stones in the quarries, he polished them in the workshop. They produced the new ideas, he constructed them into a system. His was the work of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather than to plant, God giving the increase.
> 
> Calvin’s character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or Zwingli’s, but he left his Church [i.e. the Calvinist branch of Protestantism] in a much better condition. He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern, severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection glowing beneath the marble surface. His name will never arouse popular enthusiasm... But he surpassed them [Luther and Zwingli] in consistency of self-discipline, and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted and still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant Churches of Latin and Anglo-Saxon races.
> 
> …History furnishes no more striking example of a man of so little personal popularity, and yet such great influence upon the people [as Calvin]; of such natural timidity and bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and character, and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer and ruler of churches.
> 
> Widely as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Christ.​


Was he right in setting up that government ruling structureas he did though? Should we set up modern City in Same fashion then?


----------



## Phil D.

Jeri Tanner said:


> From everything I have read (that I trust) this is simply not true of John Calvin.



Fair enough. To one degree or another every author brings their bias to their presentation. I've seen various works about Calvin that I thought were looking through a dark cloud, and others through rose colored lenses. While I probably wouldn't state it as austerely as Schaff did, I get what he means in a relative context.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> Was he right in setting up that government ruling structureas he did though? Should we set up modern City in Same fashion then?


Calvin set up no civil government at all. He fought for a _separate _establishment of a independent (if inter-dependent, given the times) church government.

Part of the Reformation's advances (or return to biblical form) was to pry the institutional concerns of the church _out from under _the thumb of the political class.

Calvin worked his whole ministry within the local governing parameters of the Genevan city-state, which had two governing councils, a Great and a Small. They preexisted his entrance, and were still in place at his death.

Prior to his _return _to Geneva, his effort to gain ecclesiastical self-rule for the church had failed. He was expelled for his Reforming ways.

When he was asked back, one of his conditions was that the church in Geneva would exercise its own power independent from the state.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Calvin set up no civil government at all. He fought for a _separate _establishment of a independent (if inter-dependent, given the times) church government.
> 
> Part of the Reformation's advances (or return to biblical form) was to pry the institutional concerns of the church _out from under _the thumb of the political class.
> 
> Calvin worked his whole ministry within the local governing parameters of the Genevan city-state, which had two governing councils, a Great and a Small. They preexisted his entrance, and were still in place at his death.
> 
> Prior to his _return _to Geneva, his effort to gain ecclesiastical self-rule for the church had failed. He was expelled for his Reforming ways.
> 
> When he was asked back, one of his conditions was that the church in Geneva would exercise its own power independent from the state.


So only those who were members of his church and who agreed to have their cases ruled by Biblical Law were under the influence and outreach of the rulers judgements, not general public?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> So only those who were members of his church and who agreed to have their cases ruled by Biblical Law were under the influence and outreach of the rulers judgements, not general public?



I can't speak for him but I am not sure that was the point Reverend Buchanan was making. The point was that the Civil Authority and rule of Geneva was not set up by Calvin. It was set up by the people before he was there. He wanted to bring Church discipline concerning Church matters before the Church and not before the Civil magistrate. If a civil crime was committed then the Civil Authorities were expected to do their duty. There does seem to be some blurring of the line. From my past reading and memory Calvin had disagreement with Geneva and the Civil Authorities on more than a few instances.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> So only those who were members of his church and who agreed to have their cases ruled by Biblical Law were under the influence and outreach of the rulers judgements, not general public?


I can't follow your train of thought. You have to start reasoning from some sure, specific fact that you know. If you start reasoning, but at some point learn that your starting point was no fact but an error, you have to go back to the beginning and start reasoning over again, this time with the correct fact as the starting point.

What you can't do: is assume that <X-amount> of what you've accomplished by reasoning is basically OK, and all you have to do is go back and "tweak" some earlier portion of the process, and everything just aligns _better_.

******************************
The Geneva city-fathers of the mid-16th century made a years-long determination (during which there was lots of disagreements and political fluctuation) to "go with the Reformation instead of staying with Rome," so far as local religion went. The eventual price they paid was _radical _church-&-state separation. But that's not how things started out.

But one early result, after requesting Calvin's return, was a church government that was free to conduct its internal affairs. Here's something on which this decision had no impact: A local resident's existence under various governmental authority geographically defined.

A person living within Genevan secular jurisdiction was subject to Geneva's laws--no matter if he was a citizen or a refugee. We understand this sort of thing today (except for where certain ideas are under modern assault)--that to be inside certain borders entails subjection to local laws.

Well, given medieval holdover concerning religious identity, residents of particular place were also subject to the church's jurisdiction, the church OF that particular place. "Various denominations" was not a thing.

In medieval ecclesiastical theory, the church govt asserted its primacy over secular govt, so that the state was (supposedly) obligated to obey (in the end) the pope and his bishops. In actual historical fact, there was a centuries long tug-of-war between the authorities of church and state; and the state consistently aimed at controlling the bishopric within its borders. This effectively made church govt adjunct to the state govt.

Leaders of the Reformation often saw all that interconnection of govts as detrimental overall to the church's mission; and so sought freedom for church govt from state domination. The new theory would be: neither govt controls the other, but may and should speak TO the other govt with advisement.

However, no one in a given jurisdiction--such as Geneva--was _not under _the religious jurisdiction of Geneva's established religion. Bringing in a later notion (fueled by Lockean rationalism) that some person in Geneva had some "freedom" to decide for himself what religious "rules" or jurisdiction he would submit himself to--this is confused anachronism. To abide in 16C Genevan society was to be subject to whatever government(s) held sway there.

And what is this "Biblical Law" of which you speak? It is jargon and terminology that has no connection to the time of church history which is under evaluation. It only clouds the questions even further to speak so curiously.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> I can't follow your train of thought. You have to start reasoning from some sure, specific fact that you know. If you start reasoning, but at some point learn that your starting point was no fact but an error, you have to go back to the beginning and start reasoning over again, this time with the correct fact as the starting point.
> 
> What you can't do: is assume that <X-amount> of what you've accomplished by reasoning is basically OK, and all you have to do is go back and "tweak" some earlier portion of the process, and everything just aligns _better_.
> 
> ******************************
> The Geneva city-fathers of the mid-16th century made a years-long determination (during which there was lots of disagreements and political fluctuation) to "go with the Reformation instead of staying with Rome," so far as local religion went. The eventual price they paid was _radical _church-&-state separation. But that's not how things started out.
> 
> But one early result, after requesting Calvin's return, was a church government that was free to conduct its internal affairs. Here's something on which this decision had no impact: A local resident's existence under various governmental authority geographically defined.
> 
> A person living within Genevan secular jurisdiction was subject to Geneva's laws--no matter if he was a citizen or a refugee. We understand this sort of thing today (except for where certain ideas are under modern assault)--that to be inside certain borders entails subjection to local laws.
> 
> Well, given medieval holdover concerning religious identity, residents of particular place were also subject to the church's jurisdiction, the church OF that particular place. "Various denominations" was not a thing.
> 
> In medieval ecclesiastical theory, the church govt asserted its primacy over secular govt, so that the state was (supposedly) obligated to obey (in the end) the pope and his bishops. In actual historical fact, there was a centuries long tug-of-war between the authorities of church and state; and the state consistently aimed at controlling the bishopric within its borders. This effectively made church govt adjunct to the state govt.
> 
> Leaders of the Reformation often saw all that interconnection of govts as detrimental overall to the church's mission; and so sought freedom for church govt from state domination. The new theory would be: neither govt controls the other, but may and should speak TO the other govt with advisement.
> 
> However, no one in a given jurisdiction--such as Geneva--was _not under _the religious jurisdiction of Geneva's established religion. Bringing in a later notion (fueled by Lockean rationalism) that some person in Geneva had some "freedom" to decide for himself what religious "rules" or jurisdiction he would submit himself to--this is confused anachronism. To abide in 16C Genevan society was to be subject to whatever government(s) held sway there.
> 
> And what is this "Biblical Law" of which you speak? It is jargon and terminology that has no connection to the time of church history which is under evaluation. It only clouds the questions even further to speak so curiously.


It seems to me that you are saying here that Calvin authorized to have church matters of discipline and judgment to stay out of the secular courts, but some of his followers became overzealous and blurred that distinction between state and church that he wanted to erect?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> Itvsee me s to me that you are saying here that Calvin authorized to h a church matters of discipline and judgment to stay out of the secular courts, but dome of his followers became overzealous and blurred that distinction between state and church that he wanted to erect?


Ignoring whatever exceptional cases one wishes to raise and reasons for them, *everyone *in 16C Geneva was recognized as being "within" the Church of Geneva, as respecting matters of religion. So, if someone had an interest in worship, receiving sacraments, moral supervision, preaching, governance--*anything *falling under a Christian's life _qua _Christianity--such a matter was identified as a matter of ecclesiastical supervision.

In that pre-modern era, the sphere of an individual's private life was greatly reduced from how it is regarded today. The sphere of his _communal life _was massive; and man in relation to others is rendered subject to a communal government in matters common. Just so, consider the flux of life in the USA today, where the State defines more and more of life-as-an-American as _communal _in nature, and so grows its jurisdictional powers. This trend goes the opposite way of the trend that became pronounced after the 16th century in certain places (usually those impacted by the Reformation); then, places like England and then the N.A. Colonies saw "limited" government enshrined.

So, returning to 16C Geneva, it was simply taken as a "given" that one's communal life as a Christian was subject to degrees of moral supervision. Nor did the Reformers wake up on a morning in the 1540s, and start imagining a Christian society that was significantly less regulated publicly. Who could then imagine that certain areas that had been public (and subject to communal regulation) for generations would, in a relatively short period of time be regarded as private, and outside oversight of church govt?

But this devolution of power is exactly what happened, in virtually all spheres of government, over the course of a few more generations.

I don't know if I am able to understand what you are getting of my explanation, and what you aren't. The Company of Pastors in Geneva were not responsible for civil government, or civil policing, or civil punishment. The City Councils were not responsible for policing or punishing church matters, or governing the church.

At the same time, the City would have on its books civic regulations, laws, that were informed in various ways by the citizenry's religious outlook. So, people in govt passed laws then (as in all ages) that reflected the moral concerns of at least some influential segment of the population. Hence, it was civil legislation, passed not by the church or enforced by it, that outlawed witchcraft and other such things, and imposed penalties for convictions for practicing it; along the lines of having laws against theft or murder or adultery. Back then, it was assumed that the state should enforce certain moral matters pertaining to the 1st Table of the Law, and not more narrowly (neighborly) moral matters of the 2nd Table only.

If you can disentangle from your mind or thinking a vision of the culture of Reformation Europe 500yrs ago that is either fusion of church-&-state, or modern hermetically sealed-off isolated spheres, you may perhaps imagine 16C Geneva (and other places) more accurately. Church govt had achieved a measure of autonomy from state apparatus; but there was still a "Christian society" all around these two governmental structures. And the parties in charge in both institutions spoke and interacted with each other.

They did not govern together (strictly speaking); although what we see from our five-centuries-gone vantage point are coordinations and cooperations that look like that. However, the principle of separation having been engaged, understanding it allows us to interpret a widening gap between the two govts over decades of time subsequent. Until today, we often have the governments of state and church in the West operating in overlapping geographic jurisdictions; but who have very little to say to each other, govt to govt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Many reformed are less than truthful scholars when it comes to their heroes and they do not so much as produce biographies as they do hagiographies. Simply put, many reformed are unreliable scholars due to an effort to white-wash their heroes. Geneva was repressive in many ways.

Regarding naming once again, we see that the Modern Missions Movement was not successful through those who would levy the civil sword against souls (though overly much is made over a small and failed mission to Brazil from Geneva), but rather the Modern Missions Movement was launched by the Moravians and the gentle example of William Carey, Marshman, and Ward (the Serampore Trio), baptists, who annually swore to uphold the Serampore Compact, a set of missiological principles to govern their practices, among which is this gem about "heathen" names:

"We have thought it our duty not to change the names of native converts, observing from Scripture that the Apostles did not change those of the first Christians turned from heathenism, as the names Epaphroditus, Phoebe, Fortunatus, Sylvanus, Apollos, Hermes, Junia, Narcissus, etc., prove. Almost all these names are derived from those of heathen gods. We think the great object which Divine Providence has in view in causing the Gospel to be promulgated in the world, is not the changing of the names, the dress, the food, and the innocent usages of mankind, but to produce a moral and divine change in the hearts and conduct of men. It would not be right to perpetuate the names of heathen gods amongst Christians, neither is it necessary or prudent to give a new name to every man after his conversion, as hereby the economy of families, neighbourhoods, etc., would be needlessly disturbed. In other respects, we think it our duty to lead our brethren by example, by mild persuasion, and by opening and illuminating their minds in a gradual way rather than use authoritative means. By this they learn to see the evil of a custom, and then to despise and forsake it; whereas in cases wherein force is used, though they may leave off that which is wrong while in our presence, yet not having seen the evil of it, they are in danger of using hypocrisy, and of doing that out of our presence which they dare not do in it."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

James Swan said:


> Over the years I've encountered non-Reformed people with a negative bent towards Calvin, quick to disparage Calvin's Geneva, yet have no problem with the law of God as presented in the Old Testament. The inconsistency is amazing.



I consider Calvin a hero of the faith. And Geneva was a great beacon of Gospel hope. But let's not imagine that they were not infected by some of the weaknesses of their time. It was a repressive time in general and, yes, they, too, were repressive.

Calvin imprisoned people who criticized him personally (touch not the Lord's annointed, I guess). He punished people in civil courts for ecclesiastical offenses, often trifling. He rules on things legally and publicly that should have been matters of private conscience. 

Imagine in our day being arrested and fined for missing church. This is not how you win souls. 

Another example is the prohibition of the sick going to springs. Many hot springs are medicinal. Some have lithium in them. Folks have always flocked to them for healing. This is medicine, not witchcraft. To denounce the sick who seek a cure such as this as idolators shows the repressive nature of both the man Calvin and the city Geneva. 

That being said, Geneva was probably less repressive than some cities. And the Greek City states and other nations in history were much more repressive despite being impressive. But, I sure would not want to revive any of that. We have a tendency to white-wash the past, but for example, Sparta was a downright evil empire even though we marvel at them now. 

We need not hate Calvin to be disturbed at his mistakes. Though overall I believe the excesses of the religious become a long-term encouragement for atheists as they show the intolerance of religion. 

I also believe it weakens the trust of people when the reformed blindly rubber-stamp everything that Calvin does or do silly things like charge any criticisms of Calvin as being "9th Commandment Violations" which usually just means I disagree with you and must find a religious excuse to shut you up. Calvin was a public personage, his acts are well-documented, some of the secular sources are more objective than the reformed hagiographies, and he is open to criticism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

@Pergamum,

Please take time to consider, first, the historical facts (with which you evidently are not as well acquainted as you would seem to think), and, second, your tone. You are being extremely uncharitable, now to living saints as well as dead.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> @Pergamum,
> 
> Please take time to consider, first, the historical facts (with which you evidently are not as well acquainted as you would seek to think), and, second, your tone. You are being extremely uncharitable, now to living saints as well as dead.


There is nothing uncharitable. I have made valid points. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I have done anyone wrong. My points again: 1. The reformed do not always portray their heroes accurately and with warts and all. They white-wash them. Or they will only accept sources that similarly whitewash their heroes and disregard opposing sources, who are often better scholars. 2. If you point this out to some reformed, they will moan "9th commandment Violation...9th Commandment Violation!" even as they say also terrible things about Osteen or other non-reformed pastors. My suggestion is that you engage the argument in this thread and not me as a person.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> Calvin imprisoned people who criticized him personally (touch not the Lord's annointed, I guess). He punished people in civil courts for ecclesiastical offenses, often trifling. He rules on things legally and publicly that should have been matters of private conscience.


Have you read this whole thread? Scratching my head over here.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> I have made valid points.


You have made historically inaccurate statements. Your subsequent conclusions can, thus, hardly be regarded as valid.


Pergamum said:


> Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I have done anyone wrong.


What is that supposed to mean? Whether I like them has nothing do do with it. You've made factual errors. And you've been uncharitable, claiming, even in spite of your profound misunderstanding of the historical circumstances, that biographers who portray Calvin positively are merely authors of hagiography, dishonest with the facts. These are your brothers in Christ, remember. Slow down before you judge their motives. And, again, acquaint yourself with the history.


Pergamum said:


> My suggestion is that you engage the argument in this thread and not me as a person.


What argument? How am I engaging you as a person? Sir, you appear utterly confused.

For clarity, I am opposing two things:
1. The factual errors you have presented, and
2. Your uncharitable statements towards your brethren in Christ, living and dead.

I urge you to step away and cool off. Do your homework. (Don't trust secondary sources only. Look at primary sources wherever possible and identify their biases.) Then come back and reconsider everything you've said here.


----------



## Pergamum

Tom Hart said:


> You have made historically inaccurate statements. Your subsequent conclusions can, thus, hardly be regarded as valid.
> 
> What is that supposed to mean? Whether I like them has nothing do do with it. You've made factual errors. And you've been uncharitable, claiming, even in spite of your profound misunderstanding of the historical circumstances, that biographers who portray Calvin positively are merely authors of hagiography, dishonest with the facts. These are your brothers in Christ, remember. Slow down before you judge their motives. And, again, acquaint yourself with the history.
> 
> What argument? How am I engaging you as a person? Sir, you appear utterly confused.
> 
> For clarity, I am opposing two things:
> 1. The factual errors you have presented, and
> 2. Your uncharitable statements towards your brethren in Christ, living and dead.
> 
> I urge you to step away and cool off. Do your homework. (Don't trust secondary sources only. Look at primary sources wherever possible and identify their biases.) Then come back and reconsider everything you've said here.



1. I have written of events described by respected historians, 4 of them so far (Schaff, Durant, and the two I cited in my reply). More citations can be provided.
2. You saying these are errors do not make them so. Especially if you cherry-pick hagiographic sources which only defend your viewpoint.
3. I am cool as a cucumber. I would assert that maybe you are triggered because I am poking your sacred cow. You appear a bit unhinged by my criticisms.
4. Criticisms are valid of public historical personages.

I suggest you stop focusing on me and focus on the points of the discussion. Or even better, I suggest the same to you, that you step away. You appear quite confused.


----------



## Pergamum

Some other quotes which demonstrate that discipline in Calvin's Geneva went too far and confused the spheres of Church and State:

“In March the Anabaptists were banished. In April, at Calvin’s instigation [a house-to-house inspection was launched] to ensure that the inhabitants subscribed to the Confession of Faith. … On October 30 there was an attempt to wring a profession of faith from all those hesitating. Finally, on November 12, an edict was issued declaring that all recalcitrants ‘[who] do not wish to swear to the Reformation are commanded to leave the city’’. …” (Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 200), 128-130.

Will Durant is also a respected historian and he also writes:

"To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established … and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives. … The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height. … Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged: books … of immoral tendency were banned. … To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death … a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558–59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000."

---

Durant continues (agreeing with Schaff):

"All the claims of the popes for the supremacy of the church over the state were renewed by Calvin for his church. … [Calvin] was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new religion had begun. … In Geneva … those … who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant [Calvinist] services, or continued refusal to take the Eucharist was a punishable offense. Heresy again became … treason to the state, and was to be punished with death. … In one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague."

---

The Register of Geneva also tells the story of the city notary John Trolliet, who did not like the doctrine of predestination. The Genevan courts thereafter decreed that nobody should speak against Calvin's Institutes or its doctrine. I am not a fan of banned books or book burnings or fines for reading unapproved literature.

---

Citizen Jacques Gruet was suspected of putting a nasty note in Calvin’s pulpit which called Calvin a “Gross hypocrite …" Gruet was tortured twice daily. After a month Gruet confessed and was beheaded. (J.M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1914), i:443-44).

---

Calvin and witches:

Calvin was not above the supersitions of his own time. The Witch craze was a shameful period of European history and became the fuel of much Freethought later and has ever since been used as a bad example against the medieval Christians. It is widely admitted that the evidence to condemn a witch was often very insubstantial and many of the crimes were but folk remedies for medicine and no actual curses or spells at all. 

Geneva killed a lot of "witches" or tortured some to death, and some killed themselves awaiting torture. Calvin approved all of this.

In Calvin's own letter to a friend he speaks of witches: “The Lord tests us in a surprising manner. A conspiracy has just been discovered of men and women who for three years employed themselves in spreading the plague in the city by means of sorcery. … Fifteen women have already been burned, and the men have been punished still more rigorously. Twenty-five of these criminals are still shut up in the prisons. … So far God has preserved our house.” (Cottret's book, 180-181).

Did you get that? The reason for the plague was sorcery. Sounds just like backwards places like Papua. They kill "witches" in my jungle tribe, also, when somebody falls sick and the burden of proof of such witchcraft is quite low. Maybe the tribals ought to torture these "witches" first to gain a confession just like Geneva did.

Cottret continues: “Calvin therefore shares in all respects the fantasies of his entourage. He found occasion to exhort his contemporaries to pursue sorcerers in order to ‘extirpate such a race’’. …. A pair of these henchmen of Satan had just been burned the previous month. …” Calvin even believed that the devil, on at least one occasion, helped rid Geneva of evil, “for in October 1546 he [the devil] bore away through the air (so Calvin himself testifies) a man who was ill with the plague, and who was known for his misconduct and impiety.”

Why the devil would make a man fly away through the air I do not understand, but Calvin certainly believed it.





Conclusion:

Calvin was a hero of the Reformation, but that medieval template still existed.

Instead of the Pope being the supreme leader invested in extraordinary powers in both spheres of Church and State, the temptation was great for some of the lead Reformers to take on similar powers, even as they made attempts to separate Church and State. It was expected at that time.

And Calvin did many reforms to separate Church and State, but it was incomplete in his lifetime and he ruled much in both spheres and even mixed those spheres often and punished ecclesiastical offenses with the civil sword. 

As the Protestants decried the Spanish Inquisition, that mindset was so prevalent that the Protestants often set up what can only be called Inquisitions of their own. It was a time of growth and change. While Calvin gets much of the credit for many of these changes, he also fell into the errors of his own time. And we should admit both the good and the bad. All human heroes are flawed. If Reformed people do not admit any of this nuance, it just hurts their case and makes them look naive and unable to tolerate ambiguity and even sin in their leaders.


----------



## Tom Hart

Pergamum said:


> 1. I have written of events described by respected historians, 4 of them so far (Schaff, Durant, and the two I cited in my reply). More citations can be provided.
> 2. You saying these are errors do not make them so. Especially if you cherry-pick hagiographic sources which only defend your viewpoint.
> 3. I am cool as a cucumber. I would assert that maybe you are triggered because I am poking your sacred cow. You appear a bit unhinged by my criticisms.
> 4. Criticisms are valid of public historical personages.
> 
> I suggest you stop focusing on me and focus on the points of the discussion. Or even better, I suggest the same to you, that you step away. You appear quite confused.


Never mind. Let those who read the thread make up their minds.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Many reformed are less than truthful scholars when it comes to their heroes and they do not so much as produce biographies as they do hagiographies. Simply put, many reformed are unreliable scholars due to an effort to white-wash their heroes.



Despite disagreeing with much of what Perg says on this thread (I for one have no problem with mandatory church attendance believing it to be required by the fourth commandment and useful for facilitating the preaching of the gospel), he is correct on this point. Carl Trueman and other historians have made similar statements as well. All too often, biographies written by Reformed writers are hagiographies and not objective accounts of their subject. This sort of thing is propaganda, not objective history. It also does not sit well with a Reformed view of indwelling sin in the regenerate.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart

The half-truths and outright falsehoods appear to be multiplying.

Future readers of this thread, I ask that you not accept the claims that you find here as anything approaching historical precision.


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed Covenanter said:


> All too often, biographies written by Reformed writers are hagiographies and not objective accounts of their subject. This sort of thing is propaganda, not objective history. It also does not sit well with a Reformed view of indwelling sin in the regenerate.


Are there any books you have in mind? Especially biographies of John Calvin, as that is most relevant to the thread.


----------



## Phil D.

Tom Hart said:


> Future readers of this thread, I ask that you not accept the claims that you find here as anything approaching historical precision.


You've made several terse, broad-brush denials of apparently everything that has been discussed here. For clarity and others' benefit, could you at least outline your own beliefs as to what is historically accurate regarding the subject-matter at hand?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Phil D. said:


> could you at least outline your own beliefs as to what is historically accurate regarding the subject-matter at hand?


Speaking for myself, I would think the posts by James Swan and Reverend Buchanan have been adequate to show that there are a lot of false stories swirling around John Calvin. Please refer to those for the answer to your question, as the thread is nearing the shut down point.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D.

Jeri Tanner said:


> Speaking for myself, I would think the posts by James Swan and Reverend Buchanan have been adequate to show that there are a lot of false stories swirling around John Calvin. Please refer to those for the answer to your question, as the thread is nearing the shut down point.



If my various posts haven't already made it clear, I would substantially agree with what James and Bruce have said. They provide the positive side of Calvin's Geneva. Others have brought balance by pointing out some of the negative aspects. Yet I believe a remark as nebulous as the one I noted calls for clarification by its author.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Phil D. said:


> If my various posts haven't already made it clear, I would substantially agree with what James and Bruce have said. They provide the positive side of Calvin's Geneva. Others have brought balance by pointing out some of the negative aspects. Yet I believe a remark as nebulous as the one I noted calls for clarification by its author.


If the things the others have pointed out are false then they haven’t brought balance. I think everyone’s position on the thread has been made perfectly clear.


----------



## Phil D.

Jeri Tanner said:


> If the things the others have pointed out are false then they haven’t brought balance.


Yes, that is self-evident but begs the question.



Jeri Tanner said:


> I think everyone’s position on the thread has been made perfectly clear.


I would respectfully disagree. I think it would be truly beneficial to the discussion for Tom to clarify his broadly stated opposition as it might relate to specific points that have been brought up. Of course it is the prerogative of moderators to shut down a thread as deemed fit, but I hope he's at least given ample opportunity to speak for himself.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Moderating. There is nothing wrong with sifting this out as long as everyone does so respectfully. The point on whitewashed histories is certainly valid, whether it is so in Calvin's case is not my area. That Presbyterian history has suffered from such, is very true.


Phil D. said:


> Yes, that is self-evident but begs the question.
> 
> 
> I would respectfully disagree. I think it would be truly beneficial to the discussion for Tom to clarify his broadly stated opposition as it might relate to specific points that have been brought up. Of course it is the prerogative of moderators to shut down a thread as deemed fit, but I hope he's at least given ample opportunity to speak for himself.





Jeri Tanner said:


> If the things the others have pointed out are false then they haven’t brought balance. I think everyone’s position on the thread has been made perfectly clear.





Phil D. said:


> You've made several terse, broad-brush denials of apparently everything that has been discussed here. For clarity and others' benefit, could you at least outline your own beliefs as to what is historically accurate regarding the subject-matter at hand?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D.

NaphtaliPress said:


> as long as everyone does so respectfully.


That has certainly been my intent. If I've transgressed this I will gladly apologize.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Phil D. said:


> You've made several terse, broad-brush denials of apparently everything that has been discussed here. For clarity and others' benefit, could you at least outline your own beliefs as to what is historically accurate regarding the subject-matter at hand?


Not denials of everything, no. I just don't like bad history. It ought to be done right.

I pointed out early in the thread that a number of historically inaccurate comments had been made. I have been pressing the user who made the comments to take greater care to acquaint himself with the historical circumstances.

The number of false statements, as I said, have multiplied. To begin with, they had to do mostly with Calvin as some kind of dictatorial legislator of Geneva. This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the political and religious situation in the city. The lie has its origins in nearly 500-year-old calumnies against Calvin.

Other accusations surfaced. I asked for primary sources and none were produced. Let me say that, very often, I will recommend looking at solid secondary sources. For the general reader this will suffice.

However, John Calvin has been subject to more abuse than most historical personages. The utmost care is required here. We need to dig up the sources of the secondary authors. Plenty of Calvin's contemporaries bore grudges against him, and many who came later hated him violently. Slander swirls around the very name of Calvin to this day.

So, in short, if anyone's going to make inflammatory comments on the internet, he ought to do a little digging first.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

In addition to the case histories so carefully addressed by James Swan, a rather famous one is the one from @NaphtaliPress regarding the often-repeated-as-fact claim that Calvin was observed bowling for leisure on the Lord’s day. Chris traces this out in the essay that can be found online, “Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines.” That title is apt. Those who dislike (to say the least) historic, confessional Presbyterian doctrine seem to be the widest perpetrators of fables about the man. A lot of careful tracing out of history went into Chris’s article and obviously the same can be said for James Swan’s work. At the least, one should be very careful not to be complicit in sharing stories that could fall into the category of “unsubstantiated.” Any negative tale about Calvin not confirmed by anything Calvin himself said or by those closest to him who knew and loved him should be viewed as suspect. It’s what we always do for the brethren we love and appreciate, is it not?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Phil D. said:


> That has certainly been my intent. If I've transgressed this I will gladly apologize.


I shall say that I appreciate your balanced tone in this conversation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jeri Tanner said:


> “Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines.”


https://www.naphtali.com/articles/c...hilistines-or-did-calvin-bowl-on-the-sabbath/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

There is no doubt historical giants like Calvin draw proportional attention from all sides. I am a huge advocate of searching out primary sources to the extent possible, and carefully evaluating the inevitable biases of secondary sources before reaching any conclusions.

I wholly concur that some of Calvin's harshest opponents have been dishonest with the facts, and are at times outright slanderous. Some supporters, in my opinion, tend to whitewash history by ignoring known facts in seeming attempts to portray him as almost perfect. The truth surely lays somewhere in between, and I genuinely value when specific claims are shown to be either credible or not.

I've already stated my high esteem of John Calvin. I believe much can and needs to be learned from both the virtues and faults of all great Christian leaders like him.

With that said, I'll retire from the thread. Pax.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Phil D. said:


> Some supporters, in my opinion, tend to whitewash history by ignoring known facts in seeming attempts to portray him as almost perfect.


Before you're completely gone Phil )), could you provide an example of this? Do you think this has happened in this thread?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## James Swan

Pergamum said:


> Will Durant is also a respected historian and he also writes:



So... this may be construed as a tangent or nitpicking:

Wil Durant was a poor Reformation historian whose bias is blatant. If you're going to rely on Durant for an accurate picture of Calvin, you will end up with a caricature of Calvin. See my comments about Durant above in this discussion. Durant appears to have simply utilized secondary sources, some quite biased. I've come across no instances thus far of Durant actually doing primary research into the extant historical documents of Geneva. Rather, Durant quotes this person or that person, that *may *have actually looked at the primary material.

Lest this be interpreted to be white-washing Calvin by downplaying a historian (Durant) that did sub-standard work: I have no problem with Calvin having sins, faults, or having a negative impact on some of the particulars of Genevan society. Durant though is not the source to utilize for Reformation history. There are much better sources available for the serious student of Reformation history. 

JS

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Phil D.

Jeri Tanner said:


> could you provide an example of this?



I primarily have in mind various articles, websites and such that I've read over the years. I've not made hard notes or saved any specific links.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Do you think this has happened in this thread?



Not to any offensive degree. Some have almost exclusively focused on one side, some on the other, but such can still be conducive to an overall profitable discussion.


----------



## deleteduser99

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Despite disagreeing with much of what Perg says on this thread (I for one have no problem with mandatory church attendance believing it to be required by the fourth commandment and useful for facilitating the preaching of the gospel), he is correct on this point. Carl Trueman and other historians have made similar statements as well. All too often, biographies written by Reformed writers are hagiographies and not objective accounts of their subject. This sort of thing is propaganda, not objective history. It also does not sit well with a Reformed view of indwelling sin in the regenerate.



Albert Martin said that biographers tend to be blinded by their subjects. You don't hear about Calvin or Whitefield or Lloyd-Jones at their worst moments. The exhortation they didn't make, the truth they watered down, whether there was a tendency to snappiness, the times when they really did sin in their preaching or oversight.... We ought to take these men seriously when they talk about feeling, like Edwards, that their heart is an infinite abyss which only the eye of God could fathom to its bottom. Because it is true. But we probably tend to see them as committing a holy class of sins, like self-destructive overworking.

You would have thought that if anyone deserved a hagiography it would be Abraham, as he is the paradigm of faith. Yet how honest is God about Abraham's failings.

One good reason to only imitate virtues, but never compare ourselves by ourselves. Judgment Day will correct and fill in the blanks in all biographies and personal impressions.

Even the ones we pose here on PuritanBoard.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tom Hart said:


> Are there any books you have in mind? Especially biographies of John Calvin, as that is most relevant to the thread.



There are some books that I have in mind. One of which is J. L. Porter's biography of his father-in-law, _The Life & Times of Henry Cooke_, which another Irish Presbyterian contemporary described as falling into "a form of idolatry." I am of the view that many 19th-century accounts of Reformed history were influenced by Romanticism and especially the Carlylean notion of hero-worship. 

As for John Calvin specifically, I cannot think of a hagiographical account of his life off the top of my head. If you wish to understand Calvin's life, you obviously need to read a responsible (peer-reviewed and with footnote/endnote references) biography or a monograph looking at specific aspects of his life and ministry.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Susan777

Phil D. said:


> He had less genius, but more talent.


If it is true that he wrote The Institutes at the age of 27 then his intellect is at least on a par with Luther and Zwingli.


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> Wonder what they would have thought of naming kids Jesus, as common in Spanish speaking nations?


From what I have read, naming children after the Godhead was not permitted. (I need a source for that, I know.)


----------



## Minh

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I for one have no problem with mandatory church attendance believing it to be required by the fourth commandment and useful for facilitating the preaching of the gospel



Brother, perhaps we can wholeheartedly agree on implementing the law of God on moral and civil matters, but I respectfully disagree on this part for a good reason. It would be outrageous to compel unbelievers into the communion of believers to worship God when their hearts are at enmity with God, and such mandate can led to a wrong impression of the Christian religion as bondage and legalistic in the unregenerate minds. This is my experience as a non-Christian in Romanist school where they require us to attend the mass every month regardless of our non-Popish faiths.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Minh said:


> Brother, perhaps we can wholeheartedly agree on implementing the law of God on moral and civil matters, but I respectfully disagree on this part for a good reason. It would be outrageous to compel unbelievers into the communion of believers to worship God when their hearts are at enmity with God, and such mandate can led to a wrong impression of the Christian religion as bondage and legalistic in the unregenerate minds. This is my experience as a non-Christian in Romanist school where they require us to attend the mass every month regardless of our non-Popish faiths.


What alternative do you propose? Permission for willful avoidance of corporate worship?

In a Christian state, such a thing would be unthinkable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Minh

Tom Hart said:


> Permission for willful avoidance of *corporate worship*?



If you are speaking that in case of believers then I can agree that we should have some discipline since believers are obliged to obey the 4th commandment in worshipping God.

But what about unbelievers? I'm not saying they cannot attend in churches if they desire for free salvation in Christ. But to compel these people to worship God in the congregation of believers would also be unthinkable as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Tom Hart said:


> What alternative do you propose? Permission for willful avoidance of corporate worship?
> 
> In a Christian state, such a thing would be unthinkable.


There is no such thing as a Christian State. Coerced worship is false worship and the Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and truth. We are not Catholic integralists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom

Susan777 said:


> There is no such thing as a Christian State. Coerced worship is false worship and the Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and truth. We are not Catholic integralists.


Would you be equally opposed to the Government using its legislative power to close all commerce and recreational facilities, so that the Christian community could worship God unhindered on the Lords day?


----------



## Minh

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Would you be equally opposed to the Government using its legislative power to close all commerce and recreational facilities, so that the Christian community could worship God unhindered on the Lords day?


----------



## Tom Hart

Minh said:


> If you are speaking that in case of believers then I can agree that we should have some discipline since believers are obliged to obey the 4th commandment in worshipping God.
> 
> But what about unbelievers? I'm not saying they cannot attend in churches if they desire for free salvation in Christ. But to compel these people to worship God in the congregation of believers would also be unthinkable as well.


You would compel believers to attend church, but on what basis? Their profession? Meanwhile professed pagans, heretics and atheists would be exempted? Do you see the problem here? That Geneva was a _Christian state_ ought to be borne in mind. But perhaps that is where a more basic disagreement lies.


----------



## Tom Hart

Susan777 said:


> There is no such thing as a Christian State.


Tell that to the Reformers, Puritans, and Scottish Presbyterians.

Here's the Psalmist on the subject:

_Now, therefore, kings, be wise; be taught,
ye judges of the earth:
Serve God in fear, and see that ye
join trembling with your mirth.

Kiss ye the Son, lest in his ire
ye perish from the way,
If once his wrath begin to burn:
bless'd all that on him stay.
_
(Psalm 2:10-12 in the Scottish Psalter)

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Tom Hart

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Would you be equally opposed to the Government using its legislative power to close all commerce and recreational facilities, so that the Christian community could worship God unhindered on the Lords day?


Indeed. I would hope that every Christian would answer in the negative, but, sadly, the toxen of religious "freedom" is widespread. (And, anyway, most professing Christians today have no love for the Sabbath.)

For to whom does God's moral law apply? Believers merely? Or all men? If all men, surely magistrates, too! And if magistrates, then those magistrates are bound to enforce it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> Tell that to the Reformers, Puritans, and Scottish Presbyterians.


That is precisely where the debate lies. Those who subscribe to the original WCF would agree with Calvin. But those who subscribe to the American revision of the WCF, the Savoy Declaration, or the 1689 Baptist Confession would disagree with Calvin's view of Church and State.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Civil fines levied by the State for missing church services confuses what is Ceasar's and what is Christ's.

Plus, if we must lawfully attend church then the question enters, "What is a church" and also "Who is a lawful pastor"?What sort of lawful registration is needed by the State to preach? 

And thus we have as a result of this baptists and independents and nonconformists who had to meet in secret lest they be prosecuted by the state and become persecuted martyrs. Many of these were not considered lawful churches or preachers in the past. The Puritans also had their times of hiding in the caves, too. Let's not forget the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, has now become a hero due to his banishment and his efforts to promote religious tolerance. 

Sure, you can dispute and say that the next time a theocracy succeeds that there will be tolerance for all (at least Christians) in the future, but in the past this has never really happened, so why would we expect it in the future?

In heavily Muslim parts of Indonesia during the fasting month, there are roving bands of devout religionists who go around and check restaurants to make sure no Muslims are eating therein. I told one guy if they kept doing such I was going to carry around a bacon sandwich and eat it in front of the mosque everyday, and to just leave people alone. But religious people cannot seem to leave people alone, but want to regulate every part of their life. And such is why atheism begins to look good to people.

Religion should never be coerced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

Under the rubric advocated for by some, poor Nehemiah looks pretty bad for upholding the Sabbath.



> So it was, at the gates of Jerusalem, as it began to be dark before the Sabbath, that I commanded the gates to be shut, and charged that they must not be opened till after the Sabbath. Then I posted some of my servants at the gates, so that no burdens would be brought in on the Sabbath day. Now the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside Jerusalem once or twice.
> Then I warned them, and said to them, “Why do you spend the night around the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you!” From that time on they came no more on the Sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should go and guard the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day.
> 
> Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of Your mercy! _Nehemiah 13:19–22, NKJV_



We'll see how the Western experiment of "freedom of religion" pans out. I suspect you'll find yourself in just as much hot water for not bowing down to the religion of the land (fundamentalist liberal atheism) as if a Muslim ran things around here soon enough.

Man is a religious creature. It is a question of _which _religion the State will enforce. Don't get so haughty that Western Democracies built upon Christian principles which have been around for a handful of years have "got it right" and Christian states got it wrong. If things continue as they are, some of you might beg to be led back into the Geneva of Calvin's day.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

kodos said:


> Under the rubric advocated for by some, poor Nehemiah looks pretty bad for upholding the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see how the Western experiment of "freedom of religion" pans out. I suspect you'll find yourself in just as much hot water for not bowing down to the religion of the land (fundamentalist liberal atheism) as if a Muslim ran things around here soon enough.
> 
> Man is a religious creature. It is a question of _which _religion the State will enforce. Don't get so haughty that Western Democracies built upon Christian principles which have been around for a handful of years have "got it right" and Christian states got it wrong. If things continue as they are, some of you might beg to be led back into the Geneva of Calvin's day.



As if the only two alternatives are Geneva or America in 2019.


----------



## kodos

I'm saying that in the flow of history, America of 2019 is "inevitable" in a State that does not, in some way, set apart the Christian religion from the rest. If you are tolerant toward all religions, you end up where we are now because that rubric becomes the governing religion of the land (as evidenced by the COEXIST bumper sticker). As Christianity is _intolerant_ by its very gospel message - such a State will never be happy to keep a religion in its bounds that proclaims sin and repentance and that "Christ is King!" and will not bow down to the altar of secularism. As seen in the book of Daniel, the Kingdom of God always comes into conflict with nations as well as individual sinners. History has shown this cycle over and over again as well.

Even the revised American Westminster Confession does not seem to go so far as to advocate for the magistrate to open up a _complete _freedom (or equality) of religions. It advocates for a State favorable to the _Christian Religion _by being nursing fathers_._ It still believes that the civil magistrate is supposed to protect the Church (Isaiah 49:23). At this point, though, someone has to define the Church. Nicene Christianity? The Papacy? etc. Sometimes tolerance sounds simple, but it really isn't.



> Yet, as *nursing fathers*, it is the *duty *of civil magistrates to *protect the Church of our common Lord*, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. (Isa. 49:23, Rom. 13:1–6) And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. (American WCF 23.2)



Now, I prefer the original 1646 in Chapter 23, but I wonder if this portion of the American Revision might still be too narrow for some here? Or, maybe this is what you brothers and sisters are after? Maybe my reading of the 1788 is completely wrong. Maybe one of the brethren who are officers in churches that have adopted this confession can give me the right interpretation of it.

Have to get back to my studies. I was just taken aback by what appeared to be the wholesale embrace of secularism in government in this thread.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart

kodos said:


> I was just taken aback by what appeared to be the wholesale embrace of secularism in government in this thread.


I think someone said earlier something to this effect: "Men are products of their times." (Of course, there, it was said so as to portray a certain Reformer as rather backwards and mediæval.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Folks, a reminder to please cite the post you are responding to.


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> I think someone said earlier something to this effect: "Men are products of their times." (Of course, there, it was said so as to portray a certain Reformer as rather backwards and mediæval.)


Believe that the framers called this the separation between Church and State, as I do not want to become as Middle Age Catholic church age, when the government and church became strange bedfellows!


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.


Does the potential for abuse invalidate the principle?


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> Does the potential for abuse invalidate the principle?



It doesn't, but I don't think it is merely the potential. My claim was that govt money corrupts churches. The Church in America, with all of its problems, is far healthier than German and English state-churches.

Are we really going to send IRS agents to make sure people tithe to the Presbyterian Church?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> It doesn't, but I don't think it is merely the potential. My claim was that govt money corrupts churches. The Church in America, with all of its problems, is far healthier than German and English state-churches.


Really?


BayouHuguenot said:


> Are we really going to send IRS agents to make sure people tithe to the Presbyterian Church?


Deal with the outworkings once the principle has been established. Church and state partnership does not mean automatic persecution of Baptists, for instance.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> Really?



Yes. On the grounds of biblical literacy, church attendance, etc.


Tom Hart said:


> Deal with the outworkings once the principle has been established. Church and state partnership does not mean automatic persecution of Baptists, for instance.



The only way this principle can get off the ground is for some sort of generic "Establishment of Athanasian Christianity" without committing to a specific denomination. 

Baptists won't be persecuted because they are by far the largest. Presbyterians are 1% of 1% in America. We won't be calling the shots any time soon.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Minh said:


> Brother, perhaps we can wholeheartedly agree on implementing the law of God on moral and civil matters, but I respectfully disagree on this part for a good reason. It would be outrageous to compel unbelievers into the communion of believers to worship God when their hearts are at enmity with God, and such mandate can led to a wrong impression of the Christian religion as bondage and legalistic in the unregenerate minds. This is my experience as a non-Christian in Romanist school where they require us to attend the mass every month regardless of our non-Popish faiths.



The fourth commandment demands that the stranger within your gates be required to externally observe the Sabbath. The civil magistrate, as father of the commonwealth, just like the father of a house, has the right to compel all those within his jurisdiction to attend worship on the Lord's Day. Doing so is not the same as forced conversion, as they are not to be compelled to believe but merely to attend the preaching of the word. Nor is it the same as forcing the ungodly to attend communion, as that ordinance, in distinction from the preaching of the word, is only for believers.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.



Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.

Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.
> 
> Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?



Here in America, if you take the Earned Income Credit or Child Tax Credit--which some part you can claim even if you have $0 tax liability--you are getting a free handout.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.
> 
> Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?



Receiving money like Ezra isn't the same thing as perpetually living on govt dole. 

While I have received "services" from the govt, it was never in the sense of living off of its teat.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with a church perpetually living off of the govt. I can conceptually grant that it might be right. But the churches today that are doing that are gutted.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Receiving money like Ezra isn't the same thing as perpetually living on govt dole.



You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.



BayouHuguenot said:


> While I have received "services" from the govt, it was never in the sense of living off of its teat.



So, yes, you have received government money. State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

And, for what it is worth, I am not saying that the church always has to be financed by the state, but I deny that there is anything iniquitous about the state doing so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.
> 
> State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.



In addition, most churches go for tax-exempt status in the United States, which helps their (usually) meager budget considerably.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99

kodos said:


> In addition, most churches go for tax-exempt status in the United States, which helps their (usually) meager budget considerably.



Interesting too, the way to lose that tax-exempt is for a church to try to have _any_ influence in politics.

In other words, "We won't tax you so long as you make no application of the Word to us."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, you have received government money. State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.



Granted we can have those qualifiers. I allow them. I am all for the state doing things that allow for the flourishing of the gospel. I just want to know if this requires IRS agents working in tandem with pastors. That's all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Granted we can have those qualifiers. I allow them. I am all for the state doing things that allow for the flourishing of the gospel. I just want to know if this requires IRS agents working in tandem with pastors. That's all.


Once a church takes government monies, then liable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Once a church takes government monies, thenliable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.



That's the fear. I guess it doesn't have to be that way but it almost always is.


----------



## kodos

Dachaser said:


> Once a church takes government monies, then liable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.



That is when the Church says, "we must obey God rather than man" and refuse the money. As mentioned above, most churches already take tax exempt status which comes with certain strings as @RPEphesian noted.

And frankly, the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and other Presbyterian bodies is really a story of refusing to cede to government control and Erastianism and denying themselves the benefit of government sanction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the fear. I guess it doesn't have to be that way but it almost always is.


There would be much greater pressure of the government to regulate churches into confirming to current social morals and practices, as can see pastors forced to agree to teach same sex and other religions as being valid for example.


----------



## Susan777

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The fourth commandment demands that the stranger within your gates be required to externally observe the Sabbath. The civil magistrate, as father of the commonwealth, just like the father of a house, has the right to compel all those within his jurisdiction to attend worship on the Lord's Day. Doing so is not the same as forced conversion, as they are not to be compelled to believe but merely to attend the preaching of the word. Nor is it the same as forcing the ungodly to attend communion, as that ordinance, in distinction from the preaching of the word, is only for believers.


But this assumes the hegemony of the true religion. It could just as likely be the case that one could be forced to attend the Mass. An unrelated question: was the stranger within the gate required to participate in the cultus or merely refrain from work in the manner prescribed for Israel?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> There would be much greater pressure of the government to regulate churches into confirming to current social morals and practices, as can see pastors forced to agree to teach same sex and other religions as being valid for example.


It looks like there may be no need for the Church to accept any help from the Government here for this to happen. We shall soon see. The Roman Church is going to have a Federal Law suit judged soon over firing a Counselor from their School here for entering a Union with the same sex, which was a violation of her Contract. It is a discrimination case.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It looks like there may be no need for the Church to accept any help from the Government here for this to happen. We shall soon see. The Roman Church is going to have a Federal Law suit judged soon over firing a Counselor from their School here for entering a Union with the same sex, which was a violation of her Contract. It is a discrimination case.


Interesting case here, as it will force the Court to decide which right is more constructional.


----------



## Tom Hart

Susan777 said:


> But this assumes the hegemony of the true religion. It could just as likely be the case that one could be forced to attend the Mass.


No one here is making the case that we should attend pagan or apostate worship at the insistence of the magistrate.


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. On the grounds of biblical literacy, church attendance, etc.


I'm not sure about this, actually. Catechesis was fairly strong in Scotland. Going by my own background in Canadian churches don't think laymen, or many pastors, for that matter, have a lot of biblical literacy at all. There's a lot of wretched doctrine about.

It's an interesting question: "How does the biblical literacy of the church compare across the centuries?"


BayouHuguenot said:


> The only way this principle can get off the ground is for some sort of generic "Establishment of Athanasian Christianity" without committing to a specific denomination.


I don't really expect this to get off the ground at all. But you're right that if ever it did it would not be a Westminster Presbyterianism.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Baptists won't be persecuted because they are by far the largest. Presbyterians are 1% of 1% in America. We won't be calling the shots any time soon.


My comment was in response to another user's apparent fear that Baptists would have to have hide about in bunkers and tree forts, sneaking to ponds and swimming pools at night to baptize adults. But, I say, why should we persecute Baptists anyway? Most of them are perfectly nice people. (I stress _most_.)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tom Hart said:


> But, I say, why should we persecute Baptists anyway? Most of them are perfectly nice people. (I stress _most_.)



Speak for yourself. Personally, I would be quite happy to jail Perg.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Tom Hart said:


> I don't really expect this to get off the ground at all. But you're right that if ever it did it would not be a Westminster Presbyterianism.


Well, never say never. It depends on what God brings about.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Susan777 said:


> But this assumes the hegemony of the true religion. It could just as likely be the case that one could be forced to attend the Mass.



The magistrate's duty is to establish true religion and remove idolatry. Ergo, fears that a civil magistrate professing the gospel of Christ as summarised in the Reformed confession would demand mass attendance are illogical. 



Susan777 said:


> An unrelated question: was the stranger within the gate required to participate in the cultus or merely refrain from work in the manner prescribed for Israel?



He was to externally observe the Sabbath. Neglecting public worship is an open profanation of the Sabbath, so ...?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Hart said:


> was fairly strong in Scotland



I meant today


----------



## Tom Hart

Jeri Tanner said:


> Well, never say never. It depends on what God brings about.


You're quite right. Thanks for that correction.


----------



## Tom Hart

BayouHuguenot said:


> I meant today


Ah, I misunderstood.

In that case I agree with you. Definitely the church in America is healthier than the state churches in Europe. But that's not saying much.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Granted we can have those qualifiers. I allow them. I am all for the state doing things that allow for the flourishing of the gospel. I just want to know if this requires IRS agents working in tandem with pastors. That's all.



Under the American Constitution, such an establishment and endowment is not currently possible. So, while it is fine to discourse about these things in the abstract, we must also recognise that we are currently about a zillion miles from such a situation becoming a reality. 

I prefer to fixate, for the time being, on secular theocrats forcing abortions on the unborn, drag queen story hours on preschool children, and the homosexual mafia attempting to force Christian businesses to celebrate their perversions.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed Covenanter said:


> a zillion miles


Maybe even a kazillion miles.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> My comment was in response to another user's apparent fear that Baptists would have to have hide about in bunkers and tree forts, sneaking to ponds and swimming pools at night to baptize adults. But, I say, why should we persecute Baptists anyway?


Well Gen 17:14 says "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Tom Hart said:


> No one here is making the case that we should attend pagan or apostate worship at the insistence of the magistrate.


Of course not! What ever made you think I was implying that. I’m just wondering how the Magistrate could be, or continue to be Christian in this day. It sounds like just so much theory but not likely now unless there is some sort of national repentance. The same argument is found on the Catholic sites I’ve visited, ie God wills the State to be a Catholic State and all must bow to her authority. The experiment in religious tolerance was the result of Protestant rebellion and American Catholics should wean themselves off this false religious error.

In Europe the State Churches are dead, or nearly so, having succumbed to the forces of secularism. Europe is rapidly becoming islamicized. In this country we still have pockets of orthodoxy but the future looks grim. Could the reason be that we have not fallen into the error of wedding church and state?


----------



## RamistThomist

Susan777 said:


> Of course not! What ever made you think I was implying that. I’m just wondering how the Magistrate could be, or continue to be Christian in this day. It sounds like just so much theory but not likely now unless there is some sort of national repentance. The same argument is found on the Catholic sites I’ve visited, ie God wills the State to be a Catholic State and all must bow to her authority. The experiment in religious tolerance was the result of Protestant rebellion and American Catholics should wean themselves off this false religious error.
> 
> In Europe the State Churches are dead, or nearly so, having succumbed to the forces of secularism. Europe is rapidly becoming islamicized. In this country we still have pockets of orthodoxy but the future looks grim. Could the reason be that we have not fallen into the error of wedding church and state?



Kuyper noted that while the Queen of the Netherlands was formally a Christian monarch over a Christian nation (which I actually approve as a monarchist myself), she ruled an empire of 100 million Muslims. Her Christian nation had more Muslims than Christians.


----------



## Tom Hart

Susan777 said:


> The same argument is found on the Catholic sites I’ve visited, ie God wills the State to be a Catholic State and all must bow to her authority.


The Papists' imagined supremacy is not the same as the Protestant Establishment Principle.


Susan777 said:


> In Europe the State Churches are dead, or nearly so, having succumbed to the forces of secularism. Europe is rapidly becoming islamicized. In this country we still have pockets of orthodoxy but the future looks grim. Could the reason be that we have not fallen into the error of wedding church and state?


If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for America's "pockets of orthodoxy" is that Americans have never fallen into the "error of wedding wedding church and state." But is it not more likely that religious tolerance (they call it "freedom") has led to a proliferation of godlessness?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> The Papists' imagined supremacy is not the same as the Protestant Establishment Principle.
> 
> If Bunderstand you correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for America's "pockets of orthodoxy" is that Americans have never fallen into the "error of wedding wedding church and state." But is it not more likely that religious tolerance (they call it "freedom") has let to a proliferation of godlessness?


Perhaps allowing for the Gospel freedom to be preached also means that darkness will be on the rise, as darkness hates the light.


----------



## Susan777

Tom Hart said:


> The Papists' imagined supremacy is not the same as the Protestant Establishment Principle.
> 
> If Bunderstand you correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for America's "pockets of orthodoxy" is that Americans have never fallen into the "error of wedding wedding church and state." But is it not more likely that religious tolerance (they call it "freedom") has let to a proliferation of godlessness?


You might be right. But what accounts for the dead and apostate churches of all Europe? Thanks for replying. I’m still working through this.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

God, of course, is the one who brought about the Reformation and raised up heroes of the faith like Huss and Wycliffe and Luther and Calvin and other men in England and Germany and France and Scotland. The covenanting of the three kingdoms and establishment of the church was the natural outcome of this revival and reformation. No one could have planned it or foreseen it. The Scots were wild men, heathens, and then were conquered by Rome. But the winds of Reformation began to blow and under the preaching of Knox and others God wrought a change. 

Such times could come again but surely violent upheaval would precede it, just as it has throughout history (Post tenebras lux).

Or, perhaps the church will just be called to hold faithfully to what she has.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Susan777 said:


> You might be right. But what accounts for the dead and apostate churches of all Europe? Thanks for replying. I’m still working through this.


Susan you asked Tom, but this is on my mind as I’m reading a couple of good commentaries on Revelation and also listening to Pastor Todd Russell’s readings on Revelation; consider Christ’s words to the 7 churches. They’re warned against falling away, losing their first love, etc., and many/most of those historic churches did (and they had been established by the apostles).


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Speak for yourself. Personally, I would be quite happy to jail Perg.



Forget prepping for the Boogaloo for Beto since he's out of the race. Now I'm digging a bunker for the Geneva 2.0 Boog. If Servetus had an Ar-15 he still might be alive today.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

*Six points of consideration, then a conclusion:*

1. The US does not give govt' money to churches. It merely refuses to tax them. There is a difference. And doing away with this entirely might be the best course of action due to the abuses involved.

2. Laws reflect morality and the 10 commandments are moral. Therefore, the Sabbath laws in the past served to close stores, etc, so that people could worship, but stopped short of demanding coerced church attendance. There is also a difference there as well. The first was promoting general morality, the second was to levy the civil sword to enforce ecclesiastical affairs. 

Some could counter-argue and insist that the government could also enforce church attendance of some type without specifying the specific church, as long as they went somewhere for mandatory worship on Sundays. But even this is too far, I believe, for then you'd have to register approved churches to prove that you attended an actual church. And this is what happened in the past.

3. Baptist were persecuted in both Europe and then again in America under such systems. In years past many on the PB always scoff at that and say, "Naw....we'd NEVER do that. Baptist are silly for even bringing this point up." And maybe baptists are now too numerous to make easy victims. But it happened in the past. Twice. And it happened because of the mixture of church and state.

Here is an example of how this happened:

_"Early Baptists did face opposition. Dozens of their ministers were jailed before the American Revolution. Some, particularly among the Separates, had refused to obtain legally required preaching licenses. Others violated the terms of their licenses, which usually specified places of worship, making itinerancy and revival meetings illegal. Some were incarcerated for the more general charge of disturbing the peace. Both preachers and congregants also sometimes ran afoul of the local churchwardens, as all Virginians were legally required to tithe to the Anglican Church and attend Anglican worship at least once a month." _ https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Baptists_in_Colonial_Virginia#start_entry

4. Historically we see every time the State prefers the Church, that the Church sinks into error from that point on (medieval Europe after Constantine). When persecution or toleration turns to support in the form of the State getting involved in "helping" the Church, the Church always suffers from the taint of the State's touch.

[cue the meme of Ralphie Wiggums from the Simpsons saying, "I'm helping!" That is the State "helping" the Church].

Power corrupts. And it corrupts religious institutions who think they are doing the will of God, too. Sometimes even worse.

The Anglicans persecuted the baptists and were the State-Supported established Church in the Colonies. But where are the Anglicans in Virginia now compared with the baptists? The State Churches in Europe now are dead mostly. But the Gospel is still alive in America. 

The "help" of the State was poison to the Church in the long-run.

5. Back to the OP, discipline in Calvin's Geneva was repressive. He meant well and he was reforming. But let's be real and admit that he went overboard sometimes. The Gospel is strong enough that it does not need the puny arm of civil fines and punishments to protect it.

6. The govt' is largely spoken of in the negative in the NT. We run to Romans 13 because our government has not yet turned on us, but we forget about Revelation 13. Big Government is Beastly.

--
I mean, does any Presbyterian today really believe the current US government has the power to call and preside over synods? Do we expect or want President Trump (as much as I like him...MAGA y'all!) to preside over the next Nicene Council?

The larger idea here is that the concept of "Christendom" has died. That is hard to swallow, but I believe it to be a good thing. Calvin was still operating under the "Christendom" concept of the faith. We no longer have such a thing.

Finally,
Call me a hopeless American, but I really believe that the Establishment Clause is much better written than the theocratic parts of the original WCF before the 1788 American Revision.

_"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. . . nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”_

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## deleteduser99

Pergamum said:


> *Six points of consideration, then a conclusion:*
> 
> 1. The US does not give govt' money to churches. It merely refuses to tax them. There is a difference. And doing away with this entirely might be the best course of action due to the abuses involved.
> 
> 2. Laws reflect morality and the 10 commandments are moral. Therefore, the Sabbath laws in the past served to close stores, etc, so that people could worship, but stopped short of demanding coerced church attendance. There is also a difference there as well. The first was promoting general morality, the second was to levy the civil sword to enforce ecclesiastical affairs.
> 
> Some could counter-argue and insist that the government could also enforce church attendance of some type without specifying the specific church, as long as they went somewhere for mandatory worship on Sundays. But even this is too far, I believe, for then you'd have to register approved churches to prove that you attended an actual church. And this is what happened in the past.
> 
> 3. Baptist were persecuted in both Europe and then again in America under such systems. In years past many on the PB always scoff at that and say, "Naw....we'd NEVER do that. Baptist are silly for even bringing this point up." And maybe baptists are now too numerous to make easy victims. But it happened in the past. Twice. And it happened because of the mixture of church and state.
> 
> Here is an example of how this happened:
> 
> _"Early Baptists did face opposition. Dozens of their ministers were jailed before the American Revolution. Some, particularly among the Separates, had refused to obtain legally required preaching licenses. Others violated the terms of their licenses, which usually specified places of worship, making itinerancy and revival meetings illegal. Some were incarcerated for the more general charge of disturbing the peace. Both preachers and congregants also sometimes ran afoul of the local churchwardens, as all Virginians were legally required to tithe to the Anglican Church and attend Anglican worship at least once a month." _ https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Baptists_in_Colonial_Virginia#start_entry
> 
> 4. Historically we see every time the State prefers the Church, that the Church sinks into error from that point on (medieval Europe after Constantine). When persecution or toleration turns to support in the form of the State getting involved in "helping" the Church, the Church always suffers from the taint of the State's touch.
> 
> [cue the meme of Ralphie Wiggums from the Simpsons saying, "I'm helping!" That is the State "helping" the Church].
> 
> Power corrupts. And it corrupts religious institutions who think they are doing the will of God, too. Sometimes even worse.
> 
> The Anglicans persecuted the baptists and were the State-Supported established Church in the Colonies. But where are the Anglicans in Virginia now compared with the baptists? The State Churches in Europe now are dead mostly. But the Gospel is still alive in America.
> 
> The "help" of the State was poison to the Church in the long-run.
> 
> 5. Back to the OP, discipline in Calvin's Geneva was repressive. He meant well and he was reforming. But let's be real and admit that he went overboard sometimes. The Gospel is strong enough that it does not need the puny arm of civil fines and punishments to protect it.
> 
> 6. The govt' is largely spoken of in the negative in the NT. We run to Romans 13 because our government has not yet turned on us, but we forget about Revelation 13. Big Government is Beastly.
> 
> --
> I mean, does any Presbyterian today really believe the current US government has the power to call and preside over synods? Do we expect or want President Trump (as much as I like him...MAGA y'all!) to preside over the next Nicene Council?
> 
> The larger idea here is that the concept of "Christendom" has died. That is hard to swallow, but I believe it to be a good thing. Calvin was still operating under the "Christendom" concept of the faith. We no longer have such a thing.
> 
> Finally,
> Call me a hopeless American, but I really believe that the Establishment Clause is much better written than the theocratic parts of the original WCF before the 1788 American Revision.
> 
> _"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. . . nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”_



Perg,

I think first of all we should thank you for yo0ur honesty, and willingness to be impartial with the heroes of the faith. Truly we are liable to be blinded to the faults of our heroes, and we sometimes tend to gloss over even their greater sins as though a holy class of sinning, or justified on the merits of who they were. It's unrealistic to see these men as anything other than what they were--like Abraham, redeemed sinners who lived by faith, but still capable of conspicuously sinful deeds.

If you reply and I don't answer, it's because new family developments will demand too much of my time.

Let me propose this: we are living under the Baptist / Roger Williams ideal for government. The Bible is forbidden to be the authority of Law under the First Amendment. Elsewhere in our Constitution it says that no religious test will ever be performed for any office. Under this direction of government, we have slaughtered 60 million babies. Not only have we slaughtered them, but we are harvesting their organs while they can still breathe. Chances are too we have an underground sex trafficking industry going on, and likely some government persons are in on it. p0rn is rampant, our entertainment is utterly filthy, and every true Christian in America feels like Lot living in Sodom with his righteous soul being vexed daily or hourly by things he sees just driving down the road, in his work office, everywhere else.

You've argued the persecution of Baptists is the result of the system under the Westminster. Why does it not go the other way, that the Roger Williams / Baptist ideal is in some measure responsible for all the above? We removed the mold by nuking the house. 

Given, the government is spoken of in the negative in the New Testament in Revelation 13, yet nonetheless it is spoken of positively in Romans 13 and in 1 Peter 2. He is called the "Minister of God", and given that title, we ought to realize that in the eyes of God the government has a place of honor. Furthermore, Romans 13 goes on to tell us not what a government always is, but what a government is expected to be. "A terror to evildoers, and a rewarder of good." I don't see how you can be called the Minister of God and think you have no obligation to acknowledge the one true God, or Christ, or swear your allegiance to Him per Psalm 2, or uphold the Ten Commandments. I don't think Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 or even 1 Timothy 2 allow any neutrality toward God whatsoever, but the NT requires that government be God's agent for good.

The idea that a government should be absolutely neutral toward any religion is based on a false premise: that wicked men, once they get into a government office, can be neutral toward God; or that a godly men, when he gets into office, is willing to be neutral toward God. It doesn't accord with reality or even Scripture, and is anti-New Testament. "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." 

The inevitable outcome is that if God's law is not the law of a nation, it will by default be the devil's. And if you put ungodly, unconverted men in office, whether with much common grace or little common grace, it is a man who is enslaved to sin--inherently an enemy of God--that governs you. Their governance will not be based on what is right in the eyes of God, but what is politically expedient, and true right and wrong are going to give way according to what is convenient. That's clear with the Democratic party, and frankly, I think we've seen that with our current President. Blood earnestness to have a wall built on the Texas/Mexico border, unquenchable zeal to "drain the swamp", yet none of that same earnestness to end abortion, to restore marriage to one man and one woman. My proposal that so long as we do not require men to fear God before the take a public office, our politicians even on the GOP side are going to continue to toy with these moral atrocities for the sake of garnering votes.

Is it for the sake of bringing converts that I want this? No. The government is not an office to bestow saving grace on the elect. That only happens through the church. However, the government as the minister of God is there to make sure God's law is upheld; and as long God's law is not upheld, God is dishonored, blasphemed, disregarded, and God is not getting His due obedience. For that end the government should be the "Minister of God."

As for the idea that once the government condones religion that there tends to be a downgrade, I would only say that if you appreciate the Nicene Creed, the Chaldeon, the Five Points of Calvinism, or even the London Baptist Confession, you have the countenancing of the government to thank for it. But if we must say that the countenancing of the church by the government results in social and moral downgrades (which I do not hold), _how much more_ the system under which the United States is now governed.

God bless you brother, with much thanks for your honesty and challenges.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergy,
You make some good points Pergy but you get a few things incorrect. Faith based organisations here in Indiana do receive some financial assistance from our Government. Also, Under the King all denominations (except for the Church of England) in pre-revolutionary America were heavily regulated and persecuted. Even the Presbyterians were. The Methodists were Anglican back then so.... That is why Patrick Henry lobbied so hard for the Christian denominations and their freedoms. This Nation was not to have a State Sponsored Denomination. But it also shouldn't have been so free to accept False Religion such as Islam or anything that opposed Historic Christian doctrine. And I am not so sure that it was to be set up to do so but that is where we are now. 

I am not sure when you were here in America last but things are going down hill quite quickly as the Millennials (or whatever generation that is turning adult) have a very watered down understanding of the Gospel. It is actually no Gospel at all. We are becoming an Opiate, Pot Smoking, Be Whatever Sex you want to be people. The boundaries have become so blurred. Kids have no idea there is a Moral Law. They have barely heard if there was a Moses or Ten Commandments.

Islam is taught in our Schools to help us Westerners come to understand them. Christianity is mocked and repudiated as an old Archaic false teaching to keep the masses under control. We have entered a new revolution of Enlightenment. I am amazed at how fast things have digressed here.


Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

RPEphesian said:


> Perg,
> 
> I think first of all we should thank you for yo0ur honesty, and willingness to be impartial with the heroes of the faith. Truly we are liable to be blinded to the faults of our heroes, and we sometimes tend to gloss over even their greater sins as though a holy class of sinning, or justified on the merits of who they were. It's unrealistic to see these men as anything other than what they were--like Abraham, redeemed sinners who lived by faith, but still capable of conspicuously sinful deeds.
> 
> If you reply and I don't answer, it's because new family developments will demand too much of my time.
> 
> Let me propose this: we are living under the Baptist / Roger Williams ideal for government. The Bible is forbidden to be the authority of Law under the First Amendment. Elsewhere in our Constitution it says that no religious test will ever be performed for any office. Under this direction of government, we have slaughtered 60 million babies. Not only have we slaughtered them, but we are harvesting their organs while they can still breathe. Chances are too we have an underground sex trafficking industry going on, and likely some government persons are in on it. p0rn is rampant, our entertainment is utterly filthy, and every true Christian in America feels like Lot living in Sodom with his righteous soul being vexed daily or hourly by things he sees just driving down the road, in his work office, everywhere else.
> 
> You've argued the persecution of Baptists is the result of the system under the Westminster. Why does it not go the other way, that the Roger Williams / Baptist ideal is in some measure responsible for all the above? We removed the mold by nuking the house.
> 
> Given, the government is spoken of in the negative in the New Testament in Revelation 13, yet nonetheless it is spoken of positively in Romans 13 and in 1 Peter 2. He is called the "Minister of God", and given that title, we ought to realize that in the eyes of God the government has a place of honor. Furthermore, Romans 13 goes on to tell us not what a government always is, but what a government is expected to be. "A terror to evildoers, and a rewarder of good." I don't see how you can be called the Minister of God and think you have no obligation to acknowledge the one true God, or Christ, or swear your allegiance to Him per Psalm 2, or uphold the Ten Commandments. I don't think Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 or even 1 Timothy 2 allow any neutrality toward God whatsoever, but the NT requires that government be God's agent for good.
> 
> The idea that a government should be absolutely neutral toward any religion is based on a false premise: that wicked men, once they get into a government office, can be neutral toward God; or that a godly men, when he gets into office, is willing to be neutral toward God. It doesn't accord with reality or even Scripture, and is anti-New Testament. "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."
> 
> The inevitable outcome is that if God's law is not the law of a nation, it will by default be the devil's. And if you put ungodly, unconverted men in office, whether with much common grace or little common grace, it is a man who is enslaved to sin--inherently an enemy of God--that governs you. Their governance will not be based on what is right in the eyes of God, but what is politically expedient, and true right and wrong are going to give way according to what is convenient. That's clear with the Democratic party, and frankly, I think we've seen that with our current President. Blood earnestness to have a wall built on the Texas/Mexico border, unquenchable zeal to "drain the swamp", yet none of that same earnestness to end abortion, to restore marriage to one man and one woman. My proposal that so long as we do not require men to fear God before the take a public office, our politicians even on the GOP side are going to continue to toy with these moral atrocities for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> Is it for the sake of bringing converts that I want this? No. The government is not an office to bestow saving grace on the elect. That only happens through the church. However, the government as the minister of God is there to make sure God's law is upheld; and as long God's law is not upheld, God is dishonored, blasphemed, disregarded, and God is not getting His due obedience. For that end the government should be the "Minister of God."
> 
> As for the idea that once the government condones religion that there tends to be a downgrade, I would only say that if you appreciate the Nicene Creed, the Chaldeon, the Five Points of Calvinism, or even the London Baptist Confession, you have the countenancing of the government to thank for it. But if we must say that the countenancing of the church by the government results in social and moral downgrades (which I do not hold), _how much more_ the system under which the United States is now governed.
> 
> God bless you brother, with much thanks for your honesty and challenges.



Praying for your family developments. 

It is a false dilemma to say either (1) We agree with Calvin's Geneva and stick with that model, or else (2) BAMMM...We end up getting the messed-up America of 2019. 

Let's remember, America in 2019 is still pretty good by history's standards. And let us also remember that those countries which had State Churches did not do better, but rather worse, than America. 

I have not been to Geneva, but I would wager it is probably a nice city because the Swiss are an orderly people. But I am not sure how Christian they are or not? Any info on that? Any lasting effects from Calvin's reforms in Geneva today? Holland is very Calvinistic, but I've seen pictures of Amsterdam. Calvin would disapprove. 

Most of the laws of America have been generally informed by broad Christian principles. But this is not what Geneva did. They legislated church attendance. All laws are derived from general principles of morality; but Geneva's laws confused civil and ecclesiastical categories.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

We must remember that Calvin was not a tyrant by relative comparison with his times. But yet his times were fairly tyrannical. Transported to the 20th century, he would be considered repressive. Perhaps Jim Jones-ish in his control over the people. 

But for the times, this was normal. If I remember correctly he himself fled some militant Catholics in France. In the era of the Edict of Nantes and tens of thousands massacred for their faith, Calvin's Geneva was downright free by comparison. So that was the flavor of the times. And so his actions were consistent with the general mood of the era. But that doesn't make them desirable for us today. 

In the Amaeux episode where a man criticized Calvin and the city's ministers, Calvin made him bow and apologize and then do the same at every intersection in a form of a sort of civil penitence. Apologists for Calvin such as Dr. Clark on the Heidelblog excuse this and say, "technically it was the city council who effected the sentence.." and I laughed out loud at that defense by Clark because that is pretty much the same defense that Catholics give to the execution of Protestant heretics in Catholic regions of Europe during that same era (the Catholic Church "delivering" the guilty over to the civil sword to be executed, so that the Church is not guilty of shedding blood). This is all merely a technicality when you control both the Church and the City Council.

At least Clark gets it right a few sentences later when he rightly notes:

"Nowhere in the New Testament or in the moral law is theological heresy a ground for _civil_ punishment. The only sphere authorized by God to correct theological error is the visible church (see Matthew 18) and their means are purely spiritual: Word, sacrament, and discipline (e.g., rebuke, censure, excommunication)."


----------



## Steve Curtis

Pergamum said:


> I have not been to Geneva, but I would wager it is probably a nice city because the Swiss are an orderly people. But I am not sure how Christian they are or not? Any info on that?



Purely anecdotal... 

We were in Geneva a couple of years ago and I asked a store clerk where I might find Calvin's church (Cathédrale Saint-Pierre). She asked, "Calvin who?"
Turns out the shop was literally next door to the church...


----------



## Smeagol

Minh said:


> If you are speaking that in case of believers then I can agree that we should have some discipline since believers are obliged to obey the 4th commandment in worshipping God.


It’s important to remember that all humans are bound to obey all of God’s moral law. The 4th command is just as binding on a Buddhist as it is on an Christian.

Westminster 19.5:


> 5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;a and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.b Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.c


----------



## Minh

Grant Jones said:


> All humans are bound to obey all of God’s moral law. The 4th command is just as binding on a Buddhist as it is on an Christian.



I don't deny that all men in Adam are obligated to serve and worship God who expresses his preceptive wills through the 10 commandments. That being said, my opinion is that though the unbelievers can recognize God and His commandments that they should perform (Romans 2:14), their heart are at enmity with Him (Romans 8:5) since they are spiritual dead. It's impossible for them to worship God without His regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

I would advice not to be so divisive over this complex matter and rely instead on evangelism to convert unbelievers to Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Minh said:


> It's impossible for them to worship God without His regeneration by the Holy Spirit.



Again that is true of all men. It would also seem that the Prophet Nehemiah (Chapter 13) saw zero issue with expecting and forcing outsiders to respect the Sabbath.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

So, will this theocracy be denominational or generic Trinitarianism? This is the nightmare question that more or less tanks the project.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Closing for remainder of the Lord's day; and another reminder.


NaphtaliPress said:


> Folks, a reminder to please cite the post you are responding to.


----------

