The Calvin / Servertus controvercy

[Locoponydirtman]

Penley is out on a limb, incorrect, uses false information, embellishes the narrative. This is all true yet if he serves ones purpose then it's all good.

The information is good as long as it slanders. Being objective or truthful is of no concern, nor is the person's character important, unless they want to attack another then the persons character is important, especially if the person holds to the Doctrines of Grace.
Anti-Calvinists prove this point time and again.

This isn't just hypocrisy, it's pure hate.

These will brush aside the fact that this hate, according to Scripture is indicative of a lost spiritual state by saying Calvinists aren't brothers, or it doesn't matter because "they got saved." I'd say several need to take a gander there in 1 John and couple it with 2 Corinthians 13:5.

Not all anti-Calvinists hold to this hatred yet many do.

I'm not a Calvinist, my only interest is truth, and defense of those who seek after and follow after the faith.
I have no desire to slander this man Penley either, however his writings are what they are, and they are decidedly anti Reformation and Protestant. He spends much time slandering all of the well known founders of the Protestant movement. It's also my opinion that he has no clue of the soveriegn nature of Christ, as he refers repetitively to the vision of Christ being destroyed in one form or another.

 

[UnderGrace]

When in history did Magistrates not have authority to put a man to death? The question is rhetorical because the answer is never.
Geneva was a theocracy.
The Code of Teodosius was completed by the Code of Justinianus (527-534). This latter Code, which was in force in the territories of the Sacred Roman Empire, prescribed in the chapter "Of summa catholica Trinitate et fide, hereticis, apostatis" the capital punishment for those negating the doctrine of the Trinity and the baptism of infants.
This is the code under which Servetus was prosecuted, it was sited in the case. Servetus was asked if he was aware of the code to which he answered yes. He argued that Justinious was not a member of the primative church but was from a time of bishop tyranny.
All that being said no one is advocating that the execution of Servetus was the right thing to do, simply that Calvin had much less to do with it than accused.

Actually he had much more to do with it than some would like to accept.

Calvin denied Servetus legal counsel

Yes interesting how Calvin insinuated that the death penalty was proper under the Justinian Codex of 534 A.D. for antitrinitarianism. This implied thereby that the defunct law should be followed by Geneva despite its own Civil Code's which had very different terms.
The Civil Code of Geneva only provided expulsion/banishment for the only religious verbal crime of blasphemy.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm not a Calvinist, my only interest is truth, and defense of those who seek after and follow after the faith.
I have no desire to slander this man Penley either, however his writings are what they are, and they are decidedly anti Reformation and Protestant. He spends much time slandering all of the well known founders of the Protestant movement. It's also my opinion that he has no clue of the soveriegn nature of Christ, as he refers repetitively to the vision of Christ being destroyed in one form or another.

We all need to keep in mind what slander is and what it isn't: It is making lies and false statements about a person in order to slam them, their reputation and character. It is not stating truths and facts about a person.

That said, I really don't care whether or not you are a Calvinist and assumed you were not from past posts. What I care about is Scriptural truth and being truthful which is fitting to those proclaiming themselves a believer.

The outright lies that fly around on here are a disgrace. It is highly probable that just because a person believes they are "saved" they believe it is OK to practice these things, after all they're "saved." Or it could be something else altogether as to why they practice these things.

 

[maxwel]

Can you find for me where "heresy" was on the books of the city government of Geneva at that time?

I didn't say it was.
I only said there were times when such things were commonplace.

I didn't enter this thread to debate Calvin's moral conduct.
I only jumped in to make one point: that his moral conduct, good or bad, does not constitute grounds for a theology debate.

That's all.

If he was a saint, that doesn't magically make all his theology right, and if he was terrible, that doesn't magically make all his theology wrong. The theological arguments stand or fall based on their own inherent truth or falsehood. Any statement is true or false intrinsically... it's truth is not dependent on the person speaking it.

It's the same with all debate.
This is actually a biblical principle.

You guys have fun.

...

 

[7seasrekeyed]

So I just spent some time reading other writings of Dr. Penley, not impressed. From cannibalistic comparisons of communion to Jesus condemned the rich because being rich indicated some unique sin.
Anyway, Calvin was never a Magistrate in Geneva or any where else for that matter.
Also no one would survive a green wood fire for 30 minutes nor could they scream, smoke asphyxiation is a real thing.
Plus Calvin is on record for having opposed buring Servetus at the stake, where he appealed to the council to not burn him.
Dr. Penley seems to have a lot of problems
Like this little quote, "Should we stop promoting personal Bible reading because it has dashed Jesus’ dream of unity? Let me qualify my answer. If we don’t promote anything else to quell the confusion of “biblical” truths, the answer is yes. Bible engagement is not inherently a good thing."

well that certainly is interesting...however historical records are far better preserved when Calvin went swinging for whoever did not agree with him

you folks, are history revisionists

do you not understand, that you provide nothing to refute any articles that shed light on the negative goings on surrounding Calvin?

not one thing. you simply personally attack the writer as some of you personally attack people here who offer another interpretation to the Bible

as Calvin supports his persecution of those who disagree with him with a verse from the OT, how do you explain his apparent departure from Jesus words of forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

at least those of us who disagree with the Calvin approach, offer articles and authors and historians as substantiated reason besides scripture itself

your simple and personal negation is proof of nothing other than your already apparent bias

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Servetus was put to death because of his denial of the Trinity and his denial of infant baptism.

there are people in this forum who deny the Trinity...and the Bible does not teach infant baptism

Calvin and his followers used a very old law, circa 533 AD, that made the above 2 beliefs a crime punishable by death...capital crimes

people in this forum do not believe in the Trinity but do believe Jesus is their Savior and most deny infant baptism


how many people have died to serve a man's interpretation of scripture? through the ages? probably a few million...obviously I am not solely addressing Calvin, but rather the same type of mental assent towards believing that 'you alone possess the truth and all others must be subdued at any cost'...we see this in Communist countries but we do not see this in scripture

Calvin is part of that desire to annihilate anyone who questions supposed God given authority

again, Calvin saves no one. no person saves anyone and it is alarming that hardline Calvinists seldom seem to speak about our actual Savior and prefer to defend a man who was as fallible as they are

doesn't even make sense and wanders from scripture itself

 

[7seasrekeyed]

When in history did Magistrates not have authority to put a man to death? The question is rhetorical because the answer is never.
Geneva was a theocracy.
The Code of Teodosius was completed by the Code of Justinianus (527-534). This latter Code, which was in force in the territories of the Sacred Roman Empire, prescribed in the chapter "Of summa catholica Trinitate et fide, hereticis, apostatis" the capital punishment for those negating the doctrine of the Trinity and the baptism of infants.
This is the code under which Servetus was prosecuted, it was sited in the case. Servetus was asked if he was aware of the code to which he answered yes. He argued that Justinious was not a member of the primative church but was from a time of bishop tyranny.
All that being said no one is advocating that the execution of Servetus was the right thing to do, simply that Calvin had much less to do with it than accused.

but Servetus' death was not the result of having broken the law in the sense he killed another or stole

no

I posted above what his crime was and he could only have been put to death for breaking a law that was enacted, ancient though it was, to shut him up.

Calvin and his followers used a very old law, circa 533 AD, that made the above 2 beliefs a crime punishable by death...capital crimes

 

[UnderGrace]

you folks, are history revisionists

Exactly, except the internet has exposed much, those original court documents have been made available to a wider readership and so their revisionism and denial is exposed.

Well at Mr. Piper is willing to admit to the truth somewhat.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Again I am not trying to justify the execution of Servetus, or any other so called heretic.
And yes men have made a wonderous mess of things, but perspective and honesty matter

 

[UnderGrace]

but Servetus' death was not the result of having broken the law in the sense he killed another or stole

no

I posted above what his crime was and he could only have been put to death for breaking a law that was enacted, ancient though it was, to shut him up.

Tis true.....

As well, Calvin intimated mid-trial that the Justinian Codex of 534 A.D. applied, and Calvin implied it provided a death-penalty for anti-trinitarianism, it did not.

As well Geneva had broken free of the Holy Roman Empire in the 1200's.

As well, many sound historians looking at primary sources have made a reasonable case that it was personal for Calvin, he was upset with Servetus who had heaped many acrimonious insults towards him on many occasions over infant baptism.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Again I am not trying to justify the execution of Servetus, or any other so called heretic.
And yes men have made a wonderous mess of things, but perspective and honesty matter

well I would like to bring to your attention, again, the fact that there are so called heretics not believing in the Trinity right here

shall we haul 'em out and serve them a death sentence?

Calvin PERSECUTED those who did not 'obey' his interpretations

to be sure, I do believe in the Trinity but some here do not and yet they espouse Jesus as their Savior

and infant baptism is not in the Bible anywhere

where does Christ command us to betray and kill believers who differ from us even in basic doctrine? nowhere? exactly

I have to ask, if Calvin was so extreme and used a verse in Leviticus to excuse his murderous tendencies, then do you suppose he also was misled about TULIP? you cannot accept Christ because you have no free choice? when throughout both testaments we are told to choose...

revisit Moses at the base of Mt Sinai...CHOOSE YE THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE

oopsie...Calvin musta missed that...the entire relationship with God and Israel was CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE

God chose them and wanted them to choose Him

you have to completely ignore that to follow TULIP in its extremes

as for the NT? WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME among many other references to choice

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Tis true.....

As well, Calvin intimated mid-trial that the Justinian Codex of 534 A.D. applied, and Calvin implied it provided a death-penalty for anti-trinitarianism, it did not.

As well Geneva had broken free of the Holy Roman Empire in the 1200's.

As well, many sound historians looking at primary sources have made a reasonable case that it was personal for Calvin, he was upset with Servetus who had heaped many acrimonious insults towards him on many occasions over infant baptism.

that is true

I have read in a number of historical sources that they had been friends ...maybe he had a "Moses' complex...choose whom ye will serve...free choice or me, Calvin the great who alone can interpret the Bible correctly

 

[7seasrekeyed]

This isn't just hypocrisy, it's pure hate.

you seem to judge the same way as your mentor

hate is not of God and no one has said they hated either Calvin or any Calvinist

keep up the rhetoric. it illustrates well the spirit of Calvinism...intolerance and all disagreement must be put down and these people who disagree are full of hate and blah blah blah

not sure, but how many Armenians sought the murder of any who opposed what they believed?

I am neither Armenian and certainly not Tulip. The Bible speaks for itself and in this day and age, when so much study material is available, each person can decide what God is saying to them through His word

heresies do exist even so, but God looks on the heart and is fully able to bring all with a sincere heart to HIS truth and save them to the uttermost

 

[Locoponydirtman]

well I would like to bring to your attention, again, the fact that there are so called heretics not believing in the Trinity right here

shall we haul 'em out and serve them a death sentence?

Calvin PERSECUTED those who did not 'obey' his interpretations

to be sure, I do believe in the Trinity but some here do not and yet they espouse Jesus as their Savior

and infant baptism is not in the Bible anywhere

where does Christ command us to betray and kill believers who differ from us even in basic doctrine? nowhere? exactly

I have to ask, if Calvin was so extreme and used a verse in Leviticus to excuse his murderous tendencies, then do you suppose he also was misled about TULIP? you cannot accept Christ because you have no free choice? when throughout both testaments we are told to choose...

revisit Moses at the base of Mt Sinai...CHOOSE YE THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE

oopsie...Calvin musta missed that...the entire relationship with God and Israel was CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE

God chose them and wanted them to choose Him

you have to completely ignore that to follow TULIP in its extremes

as for the NT? WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME among many other references to choice

Again no one is attempting to justify the execution of Servetus.
I wrote a long answer, but never mind, you don't care about what is said or other research done, you only care about enforcing your belief, and are willing to use an article written by a hack to do so. You go ahead and believe a man who is against individuals reading the scriptures, and decidedly an antiReformationist; I will listen to those who's teachings are grounded in and backed up by scripture.

 

[UnderGrace]

you seem to judge the same way as your mentor

hate is not of God and no one has said they hated either Calvin or any Calvinist

keep up the rhetoric. it illustrates well the spirit of Calvinism...intolerance and all disagreement must be put down and these people who disagree are full of hate and blah blah blah

not sure, but how many Armenians sought the murder of any who opposed what they believed?

I am neither Armenian and certainly not Tulip. The Bible speaks for itself and in this day and age, when so much study material is available, each person can decide what God is saying to them through His word

heresies do exist even so, but God looks on the heart and is fully able to bring all with a sincere heart to HIS truth and save them to the uttermost

So interesting, when people accuse of "hate" it reminds me of the typical left and what SJW's fall back on.."You are being hateful, this is hate speech."

So so silly

As is true for you ( I am thinking) and for me, my emotions are not even engaged, I think the truth always needs to be exposed.

We are speaking to the factual historical account, there is no hiding it now.

 

[UnderGrace]

Again no one is attempting to justify the execution of Servetus.

The murder of Servetus is not justifiable no matter what one believes with regards to Calvin's involvement.

The only part that can be debated is how involved was Calvin in the event, for this one looks at the historical record and the facts.

There are no opinions involved here.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

From the loonacy of so called Dr. Penley to the explaination of John Piper I would say much opinion has been swirling around this subject.
I once though the same way, that Calvin was a murderous monster, and completely rejected Calvin. But I did some research, and find myself squarely in the same camp as John Piper, on the subject. Knowing that the opposition is encamped with Dr. Penley assures me of my position.

Still not a Calvinist.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Again no one is attempting to justify the execution of Servetus.
I wrote a long answer, but never mind, you don't care about what is said or other research done, you only care about enforcing your belief, and are willing to use an article written by a hack to do so. You go ahead and believe a man who is against individuals reading the scriptures, and decidedly an antiReformationist; I will listen to those who's teachings are grounded in and backed up by scripture.

why is it that you assume I have or have not read something? possibly because I don't agree with you?

I must insist that it is rather Calvinists who seem to only care about enforcing their beliefs...much like their mentor

I try to follow Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. that is something I have found that just about NO Calvinist will ever discuss. they seem to just want to discuss how right they are because Calvin, in their eyes, was like Moses...spoke on behalf of God

well, believers now days do have the Holy Spirit.

again...and something else no Calvinist seems to address...Jesus saves...not Calvin or any other human being

why is it Calvinists seem only to be able to understand the Bible through Calvin, whose murderous and judgemental spirit seems to engage what he teaches and produces individuals who will support and defend him rather than discuss what Christ Himself says?

whenever the gospel is mentioned, it must be Calvin's gospel or nothing

go ahead and believe a man who is against individuals reading the scriptures, and decidedly an antiReformationist;

you appear to be the one that does not read. (surprise) I already stated I was neither Armenian and certainly not Calvinist.

Calvin does not save.

Jesus does that.

Jesus saves

 

[7seasrekeyed]

So interesting, when people accuse of "hate" it reminds me of the typical left and what SJW's fall back on.."You are being hateful, this is hate speech."

So so silly

As is true for you ( I am thinking) and for me, my emotions are not even engaged, I think the truth always needs to be exposed.

We are speaking to the factual historical account, there is no hiding it now.

true

further, it seems that the type of judgemental spirit Calvin appears to have had, embellishes his teaching and rubs off on his followers

why listen to reason and facts when you can play judge with everyone and believe you are so secure because you had no choice in your salvation; that you can do anything and you are still good to go

that is not what the NT teaches at all. and then we hear...'easy believism' and that is simply false

for that matter, Calvinism is false

throughout scripture we are told we choose and God does know who will. it is not that scripture says 2 different things; rather one emphasizes the other.

God would never say 'choose' if it were not possible

preaching to the choir now I guess

 

[7seasrekeyed]

From the loonacy of so called Dr. Penley to the explaination of John Piper I would say much opinion has been swirling around this subject.
I once though the same way, that Calvin was a murderous monster, and completely rejected Calvin. But I did some research, and find myself squarely in the same camp as John Piper, on the subject. Knowing that the opposition is encamped with Dr. Penley assures me of my position.

Still not a Calvinist.

absurd

I had never even heard of Penley

you are hurting yourself with your exaggerations, false claims and jumping to conclusions.

typical

I believe Calvin was deceived and the only people mentionning hate and calling names are the Calvinists themselves

you disregard all things spiritual and what is behind Calvin's teaching...yes...it IS murder, intolerance and judgement

God tells us to judge with righteous judgement. not Calvins's judgement

no worries though. Calvin has already been judged. not by me or any other human being. with the judgement he gave, he is himself judged. I would think twice about that alone