> [Original Message]
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Date: 11/28/2005 5:27:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil
man' says Dean Moore
>
> 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).
>
> 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?
cd:Do I have to walk in the steps of a sinful man to know if he is sinful?
Calvins own decrees point out that he was a sinful which you failed to
address. John Calvin wrote: Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to
put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur
their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority: it is God who
speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his church. (Shaff, History of
the Christian Church,Vol VIII, p.791) It is my understanding that a lot of
people died because of this decree.And if you will notice it is Shaff who
wrote this-as you have advised me to read.Where is this in the Bible?Did
God say such ?I think not. Did Paul Say such? I think not-so where did
Calvin get authority to decree such? This along should also show you what
power this " famous Prost ant 'Pope' of Geneva" had (Stephen Hole Frithman,
Man of Liberty p.8) Certainly enough to stop the burning huh?
>
> Again, I am on your side concerning Calvin. I just want you to criticize
> fairly and accurately, not with emotional spin.
cd: Where does this emotional spin stuff come from?Are you inferring that
towards me David to win a debate?If so I remind you we are searching for
truth-not attempting to degrade anyone.
>
> 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.
cd; Calvin power would suggest otherwise David.
>
> CD wrote:
> So it does seem that Calvin wanted Servetus put to death David.
>
> 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.
> 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.
cd: I fail to see where the Law of God directs us to do such in the period
of Grace David.Tell me where it was ordered by the Church -in the Bible
under the period of grace to kill people for such crimes as Servetus
committed ? I will go into more detail on this below.
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
cd: Typo on my part-not intentional.
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.
cd: So what is the capital crime?Blasphemy? Better read Titus 1:9-13 Where
we are instructed to silence the false teachers by sound doctrine and to
rebuke them sharply-not kill them be show they are wrong. Calvin said God
gave him his authority to kill-God clearly did not do so.I have giving you
quotes that show I did not make Calvin a man that hated he did that
himself-because you disagree does not mean that I made them up.Let not make
this personal David?
>
> 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: No as Moses live under a different spiritual dispensation.In Samaria
Jesus was rejected because he would not worship in their temple but was
headed to Jerusalem to die.James and John ask if they should call fire down
from heaven ,and consume them as Elias did . Jesus rebuked them and said:
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come
to destroy mens lives but to save them. This clearly shows we are of a
different spirit than those in the Torah and as we follow Christ neither
are we to condemn even for Blasphemy as Paul stated it Titus-nor could
Calvin.If you are correct then the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses come
to my door I should overpower them bind them to a stake and make human
candles out of them-boy then my enemies could really shout "Violent
Preacher".
>
> 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.
cd: No it does not .Did you fail to read that Calvin said Servetus was"
killed at my extortion"? Calvin asked "was it by my will" then answered
that it was(ie extortion). I believe he was saying not by my will alone.
Yet he held "Pope like authority.
>
> 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.
cd: He was wrong to do so and this wasn't then only death he promoted/fixed
>
> 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.
cd: If this "Church" was after me I would also change my name and escape
the first chance I got-maybe even lowered from a wall in a basket. Remember
under this "Church" one could be punished by death if you disagreed with
Calvin and the killings of heretics and blasphemers you could be put to
death. Both Judy and I would die a horrible death lead by Calvin and be
correct as God stated in the bible. Do you agree that Christs death was for
all men? If so you and many who answer my question ere would be heretics
and as I have copies of their answers it would be all the proof I needed
for their deaths-in that era.The Bible also existed in that era and Calvin
is guilty of preaching another gospel-An eternal death penialty.When is a
false teacher a good man.
> ----
> 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.
cd: Then show me where Calvin denied using green wood or regreted that type
of death. Where did he examine the executioner
for this wrong of using green wood-How about the wreath strewn with sulfur
that was placed on Servetus's head-Calvin was there did he object? I
believe I have given you solid references as many came from the source you
recommended (Schaff).
> 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
cd: I don't have that book-giving to the Church-Care to copy the passage?
>
> 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."
cd: Sound good till one reads history and learned that Arminius was going
to prove Calvin wrong at the Synod of Dort,but died instead-Possibility?
Could J.Arminius have agreed with Calvin at one time-and then later found
fault with Calvins works?
" He was at first a strict Calvinist,but while engaged in investigating and
defending the Calvinistic doctrines against the writings of Dirik
Volckaertic zoon Koornheert, at the request of the magistrate of Amsterdam,
he found the augments of the opponent stronger then his convictions, and
became a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and of the freedom of
will. He saw in the seventh chapter of Romans the description of a
legalistic conflict of the awakened but unregenerate man,while Augustine
and the reformers referred it to the regenerate. He denied the decree of
reprobation, and moderated the doctrine of original sin. He advocated a
revision of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism...etc (The
Creeds of Christendom, vol 1,pp.510,511)
David I find it hard to believe you did not know this-be honest did you
already know Arminius converted?
> -----------
>
> 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: I disagree as faith must first be present-How can a lot man be
regenerated without faith? J. Wesley also disagree as does Arminius in the
above passage (The creed of Christendom). J. Wesley said: And at the same
time that we are justified,yea, in that very moment, sanctification begins.
In that instant we are born again, born from above, born of the spirit:
there is a real as well as a relative change. We are inward renewed by the
power of God. We feel the love of God shed abroad in our heart by the Holy
Spirit which was given to us ( The Standard Sermons of John Wesley Vol II
p.446)
>
> 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.
cd: Actually most of my references are Arminic. It seems to me you
should read Arminius writings more often.
>
> 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.
cd: Then you are defending a man that would have had you killed for those
Arminian Traditions-and did so to many of your Arminic brothers. I believe
I am presenting you with truth. Just to remind you-when I started this
question ere my goal was to clearly define the difference between both
beliefs of Calvin and Arminius as the church is infected with these
Calvinistic views-I was attempting to do what Arminius sought to also
do-but you have resisted my efforts and muddied the waters. I feel it would
have been a good work.
>
> 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.
----------
"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.
