Dean, I have been spending too much time on e-mail and must back off. I just want to make a few comments.
I am not a fan of Calvin. Please try to remember that. In the matter of Calvin and Servetus, I am on the side of Servetus in the sense that I do not support "thought police." In other words, I do not support the Council of Geneva putting Servetus to death. The difficulty I have about being completely on the side of Servetus is that Servetus himself tried to get the same council that convicted him to convict and kill Calvin, and to have all of Calvin's possessions given to him as compensation for all the trouble Calvin caused him. So I really can't be on either guy's side if all the truth fully be known. In regards to Arminius, you are confusing "Calvinism" with "Calvin." Arminius considered John Calvin a brother in Christ and greatly supported his writings. What he was against was the Calvinists who were twisting Calvin's writings to their own purpose. I recommend you read the Works of Jacobus Arminius. It is available for free. If you download the pdf versions, search for Calvin's name, and see how often Arminius quotes him and relies upon the writings of Calvin to defend himself against his Calvinistic opponents. In regards to the Creeds, you will see (if my memory serves me correctly), that he fully supported the Westminster Confession. This Creed was the "biggie." The other creeds you mentioned are not that relevant in regards to John Calvin. There is a lot of politics involved here that is sometimes difficult to follow. You should also know that while the modern Calvinists put the order of our salvation as regeneration / faith / justification, Calvin himself appears to me and many others to have it faith / regeneration / justification. Therefore, while you might be disagreeing with Calvinists about this issue of regeneration, you are probably in agreement with John Calvin himself. Calvin can be read about on this in Book 3, Chapter 11 of his Institutes. In regards to your comment about Calvin's will. I'm not sure you are interpreting his quote right. When Calvin speaks of his exhortation, he is simply accepting responsibility... "yes, I exhorted the council to do something about this man." Part of the law was that the accuser had to go to prison too in case the accusations were false. It was Calvin's personal secretary who played this role of accuser and went to prison. I have no doubt of Calvin's culpability in the matter. The problem is when we characterize it as Calvin murdering Servetus. That's not what happened. Calvin exhorted the authorities to do something about this man in their city. The city took it from there, judging and executing Servetus. If you read Calvin's writings, he was not at all happy with how Geneva was progressing. He despised the lack of liberty, and was himself excommunicated from the city for 3 years with his buddy Farel who Judy had quoted. There is no doubt that the Geneva "experiment" was a failure, but to lay it all at Calvin's feet is not right because it is not accurate. People talk like Calvin was the mayor, or the pope, or some great official. He was not even a citizen. He was a lawyer and preacher in town. His power was to excommunication only, and the city even did not allow him to exercise that the way he wanted. You mentioned John Wesley and say that faith must be present for regeneration. Yet, surely you are aware that John Wesley believed in and practiced infant baptism. How does an infant have faith? Wesley believed in baptismal regeneration and practiced it. When John Wesley wrote what you quoted, he was talking about what happens when an adult believes and enters baptism and is only addressing a particular situation, not his perspective overall of regeneration / faith / justification. He does not even use the word regeneration there. You mentioned that you had a goal of clearly defining the difference between Calvin and Arminius. Perhaps what you really should do is contrast Calvinism and Arminianism. I am not resisting your efforts, but only trying to help you accurately portray history. I don't think characterizing Calvin as being someone with murderous hatred, or as someone who murdered Servetus, is a good way of presenting that contrast. Stick with the modern disciplines of Calvinism and Arminianism and perhaps your goal will be more readily realized. I really am interested in conversing more, but I have lots of work here to do and some research concerning my preaching campaign at the University of Florida. I hope you understand. 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.
