|
Well said, David. Your comments have not fallen
completely on deaf ears. I've very much appreciated the history
lesson.
Thanks,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:12
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's
beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Your quote from Dave Hunt's book is great. I have no problems with
his facts or how he explains the connection between Calvin and the City
Council. What he says below is exactly what I have been saying, and I
hope you can see that what he says is much different than saying that Calvin
had murderous hatred toward Servetus and murdered him.
The only comment I might make to clarify matters stated below is
that Calvin indeed believed in separation between Church and State, but not in
the way that we think of it today. The church, which Calvin was
part of and was a leader of, had only the power to excommunicate. That's
it. This is what Calvin taught. The State, on the other hand,
had the responsibility to wield the sword of God (Romans 13). So he
argued that the State, not the church, was the one who punished evil
doers. The difference comes in when we consider laws against adultery,
homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy, not observing the Sabbath, drunkenness,
etc. These days, separation of Church and State mean to most people that
the State should not be involved in any matters that concern God or the
church. From Calvin's perspective, the State had an obligation to wield
the sword of God in matters that affected the Church and God.
So from his view, the State wielded the sword of God to punish evil doers
while the Church ministered forgiveness, mercy, the love of
Christ, etc. This was Calvin's view of separation of Church and State,
and this is what he worked toward accomplishing in Geneva.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:13
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's
beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Hi David, thank you for your response.
I am not an expert on Servetus and did not live in
Geneva so like you I am depending on written accounts by others -
and
it appears as though there are other opinions about
the situation in Geneva. In Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" P.63
he writes:
"Calvin's defenders turn a blind eye to the facts
when they attempt to exonerate him by blaming events in Geneva on the civil
authorities. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Boettner
even insists that "Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete
separation between Church and State." In fact, Calvin not only
established ecclesiastical law but he codified the civil legislation.
He held the civil authorities responsible to "foster and maintain the
external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and condition of the
church" and to see that "no idolatry, no blasphemy against God's name, no
calumnies against his truth, nor other offenses to religion break out and be
disseminated among the people ... (but) to prevent the true religion ...
from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public
blasphemy"
Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar
doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who pored
over the official records of the City Council for Calvin's day tells us
"There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council
in which we do not find the remark "Better consult Master Calvin about
this" Pike reminds us that Calvin was given a "consultant's chair" in
every meeting of the city authorities and "when he was sick the authorities
would come to his house for their sessions" Rather than diminishing
with time, Calvin's power only grew. John McNeil, a Calvinist, admits
that "in Calvin's latter years, and under his influence the laws of Geneva
became more detailed and more stringent"
Servetus may have been a rank heretic - but where
there is life there is hope of repentance. His life was taken from
him. judyt
Judy, elders and bishops are the same thing in Scripture. The
passage that Bill quotes is "bishop" in the KJV. I thought that was
the version of your Bible.
You still don't get the situation in Geneva. John Calvin was
brought to Geneva to help them organize a "reformed" church. Calvin
outlined an organization with Doctors, Pastors, Deacons, and Elders.
The powers went only as far as excommunication. This was the only
power that Calvin had, and when he exercised it once to the chagrin of the
city council, he himself was banished from Geneva for 3 years, until a new
city council had invited him back. In regards to Servetus, Calvin
had NO POWER or AUTHORITY to put him to death, as mandated by his own
outline of powers of the church. His involvement was by exhorting
the city council to do something about this man, and then by making the
case for how Servetus had blasphemed the name of God. So your
question of, "how would it have been possible for one of these men living
in Geneva to reign in John Calvin," has already been answered. All
they had to do was say to Calvin, "no." That's it. In fact,
Servetus had made the case that Calvin should be the one on trial and he
sought to have Calvin put to death and all his belongings given to
Servetus. The council took no action on his exhortation. What
would history have been like if they had accepted Servetus's arguments
instead of Calvin's? Think about it.
I'm off to meeting with the saints now. God bless.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'Calvin's
beliefs are of Satan-He was an evil man' says Dean Moore
Are you reading from the Latin Vulgate
Bill? My Bible calls them "elders" - yes they are to be "examples"
to
the flock but Jesus is head of the Church and
they are at best undershepherds. How would it have
been
possible for one of these men living in Geneva
to reign in John Calvin?
cd writes: Better read Titus 1:9-13
jt writes: Where in scripture does one find a
"Bishop-led" Church?
Titus 1.7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward
of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker,
not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of
good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful
word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many
unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the
circumcision . . .
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
|
