|
cd: Don't believe it Judy -Dave Hunt is a Calvinist. That's why DavidM likes his-He speaks the word that David wants to hear.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 12/1/2005 10:12:22 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)
|
