Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore

[Judy Taylor]

David, I have Will Durant's book on the Reformation and some other historical type works that say much the same as what Dean is writing.  Why do you call these ppl "enemies of Calvin?"  I certainly would not seek something written by a "Calvinist" for an objective view and I don't believe you would either.   cd wrote: At one point,it is true,Calvin wanted Servetus beheaded. Beheading was employed for civil offences, and Calvin wanted it to appear to be a civil matter rather than a religious one. But as there were no grounds for this, the idea had to be given up.( Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced. p.116).   DM: Why do you always read the enemies of Calvin and quote only them as authoritative?  Don't you think it would be proper to read both sides of the issue? Again, I am on your side concerning Calvin.  I just want you to criticize fairly and accurately, not with emotional spin.   The book you quote here is not a history book per se, but a book designed to refute Calvnism.  He sounds somewhat objective here, but he puts spin on it when he says, "Calvin wanted it to appear to be a civil matter."  Such a notion is ridiculous.  Calvin himself has argued long before this situation that only the civil authorities have power to execute, whether it be with the sword or by fire.  Calvin's reason for beheading rather than burning at the stake was mercy, not so that it would appear to be a civil matter rather than a religious one.   Maybe so technically but Calvin's agenda in Geneva was to make it like Augustine's City of God and he ruled with an iron fist.  Will Durant says that Calvin lived simply and ruled Geneva by the power of a personality armed with the delusions of his followers and his position became stronger as years gave it roots.  When Calvin was informed that Servetus attended church it was he who ordered his arrest (according to Durant).   CD wrote: So it does seem that Calvin wanted Servetus put to death David.   DM: No doubt he did, but this is like me thinking that Paul Hill deserved to die for putting down his Bible and taking up a shotgun to kill people. Personally, I have nothing against Paul Hill, but if he is going to do that, my position is that he should be executed for taking the life of another.   How is this similar - Servetus hadn't taken the life of anyone so it was not an eye for an eye? Calvin's perspective was that the civil authorities should execute those who are guilty of blasphemy and become incorrigible such that they cannot be corrected.  His argument for this position comes from the law of God.  You may disagree with him, but that does not give you the right to misrepresent the situation between him and Servetus, as if it was all surrounding some personal vendetta between them.   This is the way many historians present what they see as the facts, even Will Durant and I doubt he has any religious agenda.  Calvin sounds every bit as proud as Servetus and in the light of the Words of Christ just as wacky.  Jesus said of those in error "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind"  Paul said that even when Christ was preached with a wrong motive he rejoiced that his name was named and both believed in leaving vengeance with God.  So where did Calvin get off taking it into his own hands?  This too was the influence of Augustine who both taught and practiced persecution of the Donatists. 1200yrs earlier   cd wrote: Convicted of hersesy by the Roman Catholic authoroties, Servetus escaped the death by a prison break. Headed for Italy, Servetus unaccountably stopped at Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seized the day after his arrival, condeemed as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin.(William P. Barker, Whos Who In Church History, p252) This is not true about him being seized the day after his arrival.  He arrived in the middle of July, 1553, and stayed at the Auberge de la Rose. When asked whether he was married, he answered that "women enough could be found without marrying."  He was arrested on August 13, 1553, about one month after arriving in Geneva.   Yes Durant says he stayed a month trying to organize transportation to Zurich and thinks he probably went to church so that he would not be investigated for non attendance.   cd: Calvin wrote:...But I am willing to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, providing my authortiy be of any avail. (Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p159). Calvins letter to a friend during the trial: I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty. (Walter Nigg, The Hertics, p 328)   DM: You have misquoted him here.  In his letter to Farel seven years prior to Servetus coming to Geneva, Calvin said that he was "unwilling" to pledge his word for his safety.    It is also on record that he wrote in the same letter to Farel "if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive" (The Letters of John Calvin, Banner of Truth Trust 1980).  And this would probably stand in a court of law as evidence of evil intent. Calvin certainly had no love for this enemy.  In Geneva to speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime yet Calvin called his opponents rifraff, idiots, dogs, asses, pigs, and stinking beasts... To me he sounds like the street signs that say "ONE WAY"  Like Dean I see nothing of the Spirit of Christ in any of this.   None of this argues for murder.  Murder is ILLEGAL killing.  Calvin's position toward Servetus regards LEGAL killing, as in capital punishment for a capital crime.  Was he wrong in thinking this way? Yes, I think so, but let's criticize him for that.  Let's not make up stories about Calvin having murdering hatred in his heart.   David Miller wrote: >> What has Calvin not repented of?   cd wrote: > Calvin never changed his view or regreted > his conduct towards Servetus.   Agreed, but is it a sin for Calvin to believe that a man should be put to death for blasphemy?  If you were consistent here, then you need to condemn Moses too, right?   CD wrote: Nine years after the reproaches of Baudouin (1562) saying: Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destored him not less than his impiety.And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my extortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengence on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgement of Malanchthon,posterity owes me a dept of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.(Scaff, History of the Christian Church,Vol, VIII, pp. 690, 691). ------   Are you overlooking the fact here that Calvin says that is was not by his will that Servetus died?  This quote argues against your thesis, that Calvin had murderous hatred toward Servetus.   What Calvin did was put forth an exhortation along with several Churches that Servetus should be tried.  He then says that while Baudoin might abuse him  for his part, the judgment of Malanchthon was that posterity owes him a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church.   David Miller wrote: >> Can a liar and astrologer be saved?  Servetus was >> both a liar and an astrologer.  Does he get a free pass >> from you?  Why do you refer to him as "innocent"?   cd : And what do you offer as proof of this accusation towards Servetus?   I've already given you my reference in Schaff.  Apparently you have not read it thoroughly.  Let me do some of the homework for you and quote it below.   Schaff wrote: He wrote an "Apologetic Dissertation on Astrology," and severely attacked the physicians as ignoramuses, who in return denounced him as an impostor and wind-bag. The senate of the University sided with the physicians, and the Parliament of Paris forbade him to lecture on astrology and to prophesy from the stars (1538). -----   In what follows, "Villeneuve" is the false name for Servetus.  He had hidden his identity for a decade. Schaff wrote: After dinner Villeneuve, having been sworn on the Holy Gospels, was interrogated as to his name, age, and course of life. In his answers he told some palpable falsehoods to mislead the judges, and to prevent his being identified with Servetus, the heretic. He omitted to mention his residence in Toulouse, where he had been known under his real name, as the books of the University would show. He denied that he had written any other books than those on medicine and geography, although he had corrected many. On being shown some notes he had written on Calvin's Institutes about infant baptism, he acknowledged at last the authorship of the notes, but added that he must have written them inconsiderately for the purpose of discussion, and he submitted himself entirely to his holy Mother, the Church, from whose teachings he had never wished to differ. At the second examination, on the sixth day of April, he was shown some of his epistles to Calvin. He declared, with tears in his eyes, that those letters were written when he was in Germany some twenty-five years ago, when there was printed in that country a book by a certain Servetus, a Spaniard, but from what part of Spain he did not know!  At Paris he had heard Mons. Calvin spoken of as a learned man, and had entered into correspondence with him from curiosity, but begged him to keep his letters as confidential and as brotherly corrections.1157  Calvin suspected, he continued, that I was Servetus, to which I replied, I was not Servetus, but would continue to personate Servetus in order to continue the discussion. Finally we fell out, got angry, abused each other, and broke off the correspondence about ten years ago. He protested before God and his judges that he had no intention to dogmatize or to teach anything against the Church or the Christian religion. He told similar lies when other letters were laid before him. Servetus now resolved to escape, perhaps with the aid of some friends, after he had secured through his servant a debt of three hundred crowns from the Grand Prior of the monastery of St. Pierre. On the 7th of April, at four o'clock in the morning, he dressed himself, threw a night-gown over his clothes, and put a velvet cap upon his head, and, pretending a call of nature, he secured from the unsuspecting jailer the key to the garden. He leaped from the roof of the outhouse and made his escape through the court and over the bridge across the Rhone. He carried with him his golden chain around his neck, valued at twenty crowns, six gold rings on his fingers, and plenty of money in his pockets. Two hours elapsed before his escape became known. An alarm was given, the gates were closed, and the neighboring houses searched; but all in vain. ---- Dean wrote: > > History states that Sarvetus begged for pity from Calvin > > (who used green wood as to make him suffer longer)for > > 3 hours and received none. Do you believe Calvin will > > receive any from God?   David Miller wrote: > Something is wrong with the history books you are reading. > <snip>   cd: > Maybe something is wrong with what you read?   You have given me no solid references for Servetus begging for pity from Calvin, nor any reference that indicates that Calvin was responsible for green wood being used to make him suffer longer.  I have given you two good historical references that repudiates this idea.   David Miller wrote: >> John Wesley believed Calvin to be a wise and >> pious man, and a great instrument of God. >> Do you think Wesley was wrong?   cd: > Book and Chapter please?   The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition, 1872, Volume 10, "Some Remarks on "A Defense of the Preface to the Edinburgh Edition of Aspasio Vindicated." Edinburgh, May, 1766.  Section 6.  Page 379   You might be interested to know what Schaff quotes James Arminius as saying the following:   "Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551-1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination (cum delectu), like the writings of all men." -----------   If you read the works of Arminius, he argues that his disagreement is not with Calvin, but with many of the doctors that came after Calvin.  He quotes Calvin's institutes profusely in his arguments, often agreeing with Calvin and using Calvin to prove his accusers as being in error.   cd: Why would I want to study from a man that states: Surely seeing the kingdom of God is a act of faith and, if so,such faith is impossible without regeneration. Hence regereration must be pior to faith. We can affirm then on these grounds that the order is regeneration,faith, justification. (John Murry, Redemption-Accomplished and appied p.104)   In this, I agree.  Jesus said that unless a man is born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God.  If we understand that faith is spiritual sight, then regeneration must happen before faith, which results in justification.  Do you really disagree with this notion?   cd: > Why are my studies fiction and yours truth?   Maybe because you are reading fictional accounts or twisted propaganda while I read history?   Look, I have challenged some basic assertions that you have made.  Namely, that Calvin had murderous hate, and that he was uncompassionate toward Servetus, not allowing him the sword when he begged him for it.  If you have references that establish these concepts, bring them forth and we will examine them.  I just hope that your references are not anti-Calvinistic Baptist propaganda.  Such are prone to errors.   Just to remind you:  I follow the Arminian tradition in my perspective, very much like John Wesley.  My doctrine is not Calvinistic.  I simply do not think Calvin should be misrepresented by his critics.  I hope you understand what I am trying to help you do here.  I'm interested in truth, not spin and propaganda.   Peace be with you. David Miller.   ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.