The Calvin / Servertus controvercy

[Locoponydirtman]

There is a good book about this by Noll called "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind"

What you have written here is quite sad, there is one thing I do respect about the Reformed tradition is that they tend to respect the utility of the intellect and rigorous thought.

Saddly University respects neither, only conformity of thought to a prevalent idea.
Lack of respect for University is certainly not opposition to "rigorous thought". In fact I salute those who seek and find education via their own endeavor outside of the confines of would be intellectual elitists.
Plato, founder of the Academy, condemned sophists in his dialogues.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Yes well, you can choose to miss a lot and make that claim.
Did I miss your posting the transcripts of the Servetus trial? Talk is cheap.

No you did not miss anything, maybe someday I may actually take the time to do it, it will depend on how much I really care, if I bother to take the time it will be on behalf of one deceased person Servetus who died a horrible death at the stake, a man who was denied counsel and was made sick by the rats feasting on him day and night while he awaited trial.

Calvin by information to the authorities at Vienne through dictated letters, he (Calvin) succeeded in having Servetus thrown into prison there, from whence he escaped, and became an outcast for months.

The malignant and inhuman manner in which this Christian leader followed his innocent victim, could scarcely have occurred upon any other question, but a religious one, and his murderous intent, from the first, is shown by a letter from Calvin to a friend in which he says “Servetus wrote to me lately, and besides his letter sent me a great volume of his ravings, telling me, with audacious arrogance, that I should find there things stupendous and unheard of until now. He offers to come thither if I approve; but I will not pledge my faith to him; for, did he come, if I have any authority here, “I SHOULD NEVER SUFFER HIM TO GO AWAY ALIVE.”

And he proved himself, in this instance, true to his word.
William Simpson[/QUOTE]
So, William Simpson wrote a thing and it is indisputable?
Is this William Simpson who wrote, "hell blazer" or the one who wrote , "the man from Mars" ?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Here is the Wikipedia article on that issue. Refute it please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

In 1553 Michael Servetus published yet another religious work with further anti-trinitarian views. It was entitled Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), a work that sharply rejected the idea of predestination as the idea that God condemned souls to Hell regardless of worth or merit. God, insisted Servetus, condemns no one who does not condemn himself through thought, word or deed. This work also includes the first published description of the pulmonary circulation.

To Calvin, who had written his summary of Christian doctrine Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion), Servetus' latest book was an attack on historical Nicene Christian doctrine and a misinterpretation of the biblical canon. Calvin sent a copy of his own book as his reply. Servetus promptly returned it, thoroughly annotated with critical observations. Calvin wrote to Servetus, "I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity." In time their correspondence grew more heated until Calvin ended it. Servetus sent Calvin several more letters, to which Calvin took offense. Thus, Calvin's frustrations with Servetus seem to have been based mainly on Servetus's departure from biblically-rooted Christian doctrine, but also on his tone, which Calvin considered inappropriate. Calvin revealed these frustrations with Servetus when writing to his friend William Farel on 13 February 1546:

“ Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive (Latin: Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar).”
Imprisonment and execution
On 16 February 1553, Michael Servetus while in Vienne, France, was denounced as a heretic by Guillaume de Trie, a rich merchant who had taken refuge in Geneva, and who was a good friend of Calvin, in a letter sent to a cousin, Antoine Arneys, who was living in Lyon. On behalf of the French inquisitor Matthieu Ory, Michael Servetus and Balthasard Arnollet, the printer of Christianismi Restitutio, were questioned, but they denied all charges and were released for lack of evidence. Ory asked Arneys to write back to De Trie, demanding proof. On 26 March 1553, the letters sent by Michel to Calvin and some manuscript pages of Christianismi Restitutio were forwarded to Lyon by De Trie. On 4 April 1553 Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities, and imprisoned in Vienne. He escaped from prison three days later. On 17 June, he was convicted of heresy, "thanks to the 17 letters sent by John Calvin, preacher in Geneva" and sentenced to be burned with his books. In his absence, he and his books were burned in effigy (blank paper for the books).

I thinknw

Here is the Wikipedia article on that issue. Refute it please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

In 1553 Michael Servetus published yet another religious work with further anti-trinitarian views. It was entitled Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), a work that sharply rejected the idea of predestination as the idea that God condemned souls to Hell regardless of worth or merit. God, insisted Servetus, condemns no one who does not condemn himself through thought, word or deed. This work also includes the first published description of the pulmonary circulation.

To Calvin, who had written his summary of Christian doctrine Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion), Servetus' latest book was an attack on historical Nicene Christian doctrine and a misinterpretation of the biblical canon. Calvin sent a copy of his own book as his reply. Servetus promptly returned it, thoroughly annotated with critical observations. Calvin wrote to Servetus, "I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity." In time their correspondence grew more heated until Calvin ended it. Servetus sent Calvin several more letters, to which Calvin took offense. Thus, Calvin's frustrations with Servetus seem to have been based mainly on Servetus's departure from biblically-rooted Christian doctrine, but also on his tone, which Calvin considered inappropriate. Calvin revealed these frustrations with Servetus when writing to his friend William Farel on 13 February 1546:

“ Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive (Latin: Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar).”
Imprisonment and execution
On 16 February 1553, Michael Servetus while in Vienne, France, was denounced as a heretic by Guillaume de Trie, a rich merchant who had taken refuge in Geneva, and who was a good friend of Calvin, in a letter sent to a cousin, Antoine Arneys, who was living in Lyon. On behalf of the French inquisitor Matthieu Ory, Michael Servetus and Balthasard Arnollet, the printer of Christianismi Restitutio, were questioned, but they denied all charges and were released for lack of evidence. Ory asked Arneys to write back to De Trie, demanding proof. On 26 March 1553, the letters sent by Michel to Calvin and some manuscript pages of Christianismi Restitutio were forwarded to Lyon by De Trie. On 4 April 1553 Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities, and imprisoned in Vienne. He escaped from prison three days later. On 17 June, he was convicted of heresy, "thanks to the 17 letters sent by John Calvin, preacher in Geneva" and sentenced to be burned with his books. In his absence, he and his books were burned in effigy (blank paper for the books).

Why do you want me to refute this?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Having read the history of the incident I would like you to explain how Calvin did the murder by just referring the issue about Servetus to the government. This during those times when government was very tied to religion and also used the court for religious issues. Servetus had written a paper disavowing Jesus. He gave a copy to Calvin who made notes on it about his errors in rejecting Jesus. Servetus redid his notes and returned it to Calvin. At that point Calvin reffered the issue to the government. The government tried him and executed him by burning him at the stake. Calvin tried to have him mercifully killed but that was rejected.

So please explain how Calvin murdered Servetus.

I think that you think that I think that Calvin is guilty here. In this case I think you have the wrong guy. I don't blame Calvin for Servetus at all. I think we are on the same side of the fence.

 

[Endoscopy]

I thinknw
Why do you want me to refute this?

Forget it. I misread your post.

 

[preacher4truth]

Ahhh, yes. The University. Because the sophist philosophy has served us well thus far.
Oral Roberts had a University, and that fellow Penley, is a professor at a University.
All those guys who wrote the articles that refute the, Calvin is a dastardly murderer, also studied at and teach at Universities. They have such titles as Dr preceeding their names, Like Dr. RC Sproul, everyone of the guys on the panel in the video that Lilly Wolf posted had Dr. Titles.
I can think of nothing that has brought more mediocrity to the development of intellect than the University.
Perhaps you should read a little about the Frankfort school of though that brought us such characters as Saul Alinsky.
The University has brought us minds like Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson, who brought us post modern philosophy.

Never had I dreamed of a place where information and ideas and knowledge come together in mass quantity and produced such mass stupidity.

Very good post brother.

It is refreshing to see reason employed instead of the mindless accusations and slander that go on. I used to expect people to think things through before they make a judgment, or accuse, or offer support to what others post, or reject what they post. How wrong were my expectations.

But no, it is typically a rush in with emotion, accusations without warrant, using adjectives without knowledge of their meaning and then type out their reaction.

 

[Hevosmies]

I got a serious question in a meme:

So with the total deprativy doctrine: Why does the devil need to try to steal the word from people who should automatiaclly reject it anyway?

 

[preacher4truth]

I got a serious question in a meme:

So with the total deprativy doctrine: Why does the devil need to try to steal the word from people who should automatiaclly reject it anyway?

That's a good question! Wonder if he knows who the elect are? Probably not. Notice also in the parable not all automatically reject it, and he wasn't busy stealing it from everyone's heart as it is only said of some, yet in the elect it was effectual.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I got a serious question in a meme:

So with the total deprativy doctrine: Why does the devil need to try to steal the word from people who should automatiaclly reject it anyway?

Lol, Satan only tries to steal the word away from those who have received it. Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert?
If Satan can derail one who has received the word he can cause that person to live a defeated life and defame the word.
Not a Calvinist but wanted to answer.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

There is a good book about this by Noll called "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind"

What you have written here is quite sad, there is one thing I do respect about the Reformed tradition is that they tend to respect the utility of the intellect and rigorous thought.

Dr. Noll is correct in his accessment of the lack of any real intellectual teaching in the evangelical church at large. However is attempt to diagnose the cause is I think missing the mark. It's not because evangelical pastors and ministry staff don't attend college and get degrees in " church". If you look at the pastoral teams of every successful evangelical church they all have degrees from a theological seminary of a sort. To me that is the problem. What I see is that these well intentioned and good hearted lovers of the Lord do go to seminary and do get degrees, they really on professors to teach and point the way to learning the knowledge that they need to be successful in the ministry, and they do, and they become successful, and they answer average Joe's typical questions with answers. Typical cookie cutter answers. This is why I say the sophist philosophy of education has created such mediocrity. In order to provide a uniform education and systemized of conveyance of the uniformed information and maximize profit they have stream lined the information leveling deeper question and thought with vapid quick rhetoric that glosses over and obfuscates the matter leaving a sense of satisfaction but no real answer.
It's not then evangelical student who has failed. Its the institutions of mundane learning.
The student can not fail the teacher. It is the teacher who fails the student.

 

[UnderGrace]

The student can not fail the teacher. It is the teacher who fails the student.

Seriously??

 

[preacher4truth]

Dr. Noll is correct in his accessment of the lack of any real intellectual teaching in the evangelical church at large. However is attempt to diagnose the cause is I think missing the mark. It's not because evangelical pastors and ministry staff don't attend college and get degrees in " church". If you look at the pastoral teams of every successful evangelical church they all have degrees from a theological seminary of a sort. To me that is the problem. What I see is that these well intentioned and good hearted lovers of the Lord do go to seminary and do get degrees, they really on professors to teach and point the way to learning the knowledge that they need to be successful in the ministry, and they do, and they become successful, and they answer average Joe's typical questions with answers. Typical cookie cutter answers. This is why I say the sophist philosophy of education has created such mediocrity. In order to provide a uniform education and systemized of conveyance of the uniformed information and maximize profit they have stream lined the information leveling deeper question and thought with vapid quick rhetoric that glosses over and obfuscates the matter leaving a sense of satisfaction but no real answer.
It's not then evangelical student who has failed. Its the institutions of mundane learning.
The student can not fail the teacher. It is the teacher who fails the student.

The problem is multifaceted imho.

One is there is the belief that spirituality means ignorance. IOW people glory in their ignorance as if being ignorant equates to spirituality. It doesn't which is why many Scriptures tell us to study, grow in knowledge coupled with dissuasion of ignorance.

I still recall a preacher friend of mine at a preaching fellowship. The preacher who was speaking at the time went on about being ignorant. He was proud of his ignorance. He preached "I pray God makes me more "ignoranter" and more "ignoranter!!!!" and he was getting many "Amen's!!!!" for his effort. My friend summed it up succinctly by saying God had already answered his prayer.

There is also the truncating and dumbing down of the gospel to antinomianism, easy-believe-isms and free will simpleton choosing ones self into heaven. These latter are then "guaranteed heaven" and the proponents wonder why they can't get someone they just guaranteed heaven to in a few easy steps into Church.

There is also the issue of "careful" preachers.

 

[Hevosmies]

The problem is multifaceted imho.

One is there is the belied that spirituality means ignorance. IOW people glory in their ignorance as if being ignorant equates to spirituality. It doesn't which is why many Scriptures tell us to study, grow in knowledge coupled with dissuasion of ignorance.

I still recall a preacher friend of mine at a preaching fellowship. The preacher who was speaking at the time went on about being ignorant. He was proud of his ignorance. He preached "I pray God makes me more "ignoranter" and more "ignoranter!!!!" and he was getting many "Amen's!!!!" for his effort. My friend summed it up succinctly by saying God had already answered his prayer.

There is also the truncating and dumbing down of the gospel to antinomianism, easy-believe-isms and free will simpleton choosing ones self into heaven. These latter are then "guaranteed heaven" and the proponents wonder why they can't get someone they just guaranteed heaven to in a few easy steps into Church.

There is also the issue of "careful" preachers.

I've heard preachers from all the 'camps'.

From the pentecostal camp i have listened to David Pawson mostly.
From the calvinist camp i have listened to R.C. Sproul mostly.
From the fundamentalist baptist camp I have listened to Charles Lawson mostly.

I find it amazing they all disagree on big issues, and still there are many sermons you couldnt tell the difference. Pawson believes you have to speak in tongues to be saved for example, i challenge anyone to find a verse that says that.
But other than that, often times he delivers ok sermons.

I bet you could listen to a jehovah's witness and they'd give a good sermon once in a while (Ive never listened to any, but im just guessing). That is why its so hard to DETECT deception sometimes.

I go by 'birds of a feather'... Can two walk together unless they agree?

 

[UnderGrace]

Saddly University respects neither, only conformity of thought to a prevalent idea.
Lack of respect for University is certainly not opposition to "rigorous thought". In fact I salute those who seek and find education via their own endeavor outside of the confines of would be intellectual elitists.
Plato, founder of the Academy, condemned sophists in his dialogues.

Well then yes, rather than try to remedy the problem and return Universities to a place of intellectual rigour and freedom of speech, thought and conscience lets just put them aside and we can self train ourselves to be engineers, doctors, teachers, speech and language pathologists, occuptional therapists, physiotherapists, lawyers, urban planners, business administrators, economists, hospital administrators, paramedics, nurses etc.,

My point was not actually to discuss Universities, but the access to reliable information through publications and original source material.

It seems that unbiased, scholarly research is disparaged when it does not fit the narrative.
How convenient, something the left likes to do a lot.

It really is quite bizarre to me that even when a man of integrity like John Piper from the Reformed tradition admits Calvin's involvement and people are still in denial informs me quite clearly it is an emotional stance and not one based on reason and facts.

 

[UnderGrace]

proof of Calvins intent and denial has been provided many times

anyway, the circular posting has become tiresome so I'm done with the thread

Yup I am with you on this. Reminds me so much of the leftist tactics....so yes time to get out.
The historical record is so clear on this from the laws on the books, to the very words recorded and verified, even the words he wrote himself.
The irony is no one even needs to know anything about Calvinism to be in Christ and learn from Him.
baffling.

 

[preacher4truth]

I've heard preachers from all the 'camps'.

From the pentecostal camp i have listened to David Pawson mostly.
From the calvinist camp i have listened to R.C. Sproul mostly.
From the fundamentalist baptist camp I have listened to Charles Lawson mostly.

I find it amazing they all disagree on big issues, and still there are many sermons you couldnt tell the difference. Pawson believes you have to speak in tongues to be saved for example, i challenge anyone to find a verse that says that.
But other than that, often times he delivers ok sermons.

I bet you could listen to a jehovah's witness and they'd give a good sermon once in a while (Ive never listened to any, but im just guessing). That is why its so hard to DETECT deception sometimes.

I go by 'birds of a feather'... Can two walk together unless they agree?

Many here would be deceived by a JW apologist, they're pretty slick.

These "self-taughters" on here are weak in theology, perfect prey for the enemy.

Why do I say that? You see them on here all day dissing the church and fighting against truth. Then we have some who coddle them and protect them with "luv" and those who refute them are allegedly always doing so "in the flesh."

But I digress, if you want another good preacher to listen to try Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Excellent expositor of Scripture!!! Highly recommended. and I've listened to him over and over.

Another is Dr. Steven J. Lawson. Excellent expositor as well!

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Well then yes, rather than try to remedy the problem and return Universities to a place of intellectual rigour and freedom of speech, thought and conscience lets just put them aside and we can self train ourselves to be engineers, doctors, teachers, speech and language pathologists, occuptional therapists, physiotherapists, lawyers, urban planners, business administrators, economists, hospital administrators, paramedics, nurses etc.,

My point was not actually to discuss Universities, but the access to reliable information through publications and original source material.

It seems that unbiased, scholarly research is disparaged when it does not fit the narrative.
How convenient, something the left likes to do a lot.

It really is quite bizarre to me that even when a man of integrity like John Piper from the Reformed tradition admits Calvin's involvement and people are still in denial informs me quite clearly it is an emotional stance and not one based on reason and facts.

Oh, come on don't be so dramatic.
No one has said that there is no use for the University, but one must be wise enough to know what a tools effective use is. The University and the sophist philosophy are so inextractably linked that its usefulness is limited to two purposes.
One would be the effective dissemination of massive amounts of technical and procedural information.
For example nurses; there's not really any other way of producing the number of nurses that we need in our society.
The other use for University is disciplines in which the achievements of the predecessor becomes the stepping stones upon which future achievement stands, such as the sciences.
The university is useless in the propagation of unbiased research and information concerning art, morality, philosophy, theology, or any of the other lofty realms of thought.

now all of the criticism of the University aside; I must address one more subject that has been brought up in this forum concerning education.
I have little to no tolerance for willful ignorance. If a man has no greater use for his mind than that of the beast of burden then let him be relegated to such purpose as the ox who is stabled that night and then brought out to plow during the day.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Many here would be deceived by a JW apologist, they're pretty slick.

These "self-taughters" on here are weak in theology, perfect prey for the enemy.

Why do I say that? You see them on here all day dissing the church and fighting against truth. Then we have some who coddle them and protect them with "luv" and those who refute them are allegedly always doing so "in the flesh."

But I digress, if you want another good preacher to listen to try Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Excellent expositor of Scripture!!! Highly recommended. and I've listened to him over and over.

Another is Dr. Steven J. Lawson. Excellent expositor as well!

"Self taughters" like me. Lol. I think as you get to know me, you will find that I have no stomach for Mormonism or JWs.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

 

[preacher4truth]

"Self taughters" like me. Lol. I think as you get to know me, you will find that I have no stomach for Mormonism or JWs.

I'm not against individual study, just the theory of some that all they learned they learned on their own.

Um. No.