The Servetus Card: because debate is hard.
Posted on 07/07/2010 8:01:37 AM PDT by Frumanchu
Reposting of an old classic that Gamecock shared back in 2005. Enjoy! :)
Michael Servetus
John Calvin - what he wrote
A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.
Excerpt from “Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio,” by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.
Who is Michael Servetus?
Michael Servetus was an anti-trinitarian heretic who was burned for heresy in Geneva several hundred years ago. He is also the favorite strawman argument of those who despise John Calvin. It’s a virtual guarantee that his name is brought up any time Calvin’s is in an attempt to discredit the man.
The Servetus Card: because debate is hard.
And how does God view the sinner?
2 Peter 3:9
It is a dangerous business to pretend you understand which people God is “finished” with.
Thus is born the roots of “replacement theology”. Unfortunately, although even John Calvin as against it, today it is far too common in the “Calvinistic” circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
I have met *lots* of true blue Presbyterians - those who are Calvinists first and Christians second almost *always* hate the Jew, and rail against Israel.
Maybe they thing God has forgotten his promises to Israel, or has replaced them. We should love the Jewish nation like we love anyone else - realizing we too - like they, are the prodigal son and only through God’s amazing grace are we reconciled.
The man speaks for himself
John Calvin - what he wrote
A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.
Excerpt from “Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio,” by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.
I do not know how many presbyterians you know..but I know many as I am one.. I have never heard anyone say they hate jews or not to pray for them ..
Calvin was a man of his time.. he was not infallible
Since we're apparently using Wikipedia as a source:
Scholars agree, however, that it is important to distinguish between Calvin's views toward the biblical Jews and his attitude toward contemporary Jews. In his theology, Calvin demonstrates unusual tolerance as he does not differentiate between God's covenant with the Jews and the New Covenant. He states, "all the children of the promise, reborn of God, who have obeyed the commands by faith working through love, have belonged to the New Covenant since the world began." Hence, he broke from the medieval tradition of using exegetical studies of the Old Testament for the purpose of anti-semitic attacks.
the wikipedia article will outline his run-in with John Calvin, who turned him in, and his demise at the stake.
Not defending anti-trinitarism, but defending the ability to be wrong in an argument without being burned at the stake.
I believe in the Trinity, but is *is* a hard concept to arrive at (unless you really believe what Romans 1:20 says)
Exactly. The purpose of the OP was in refutation of the notion that Calvin in particular was opposed to the notion of widespread and indiscriminate evangelism...NOT to demonstrate Calvin as an infallible historical figure.
the qoute you used from wiki is from people who want to backfill on Calvin’s actions......
The quote I supplied was from Calvin’s own works.
Why do Calvinists continually quote Calvin? Did I not get the memo that declared him an oracle or prophet?
Why do I need anything other than the Bible? What happend to Sola Scriptura?
Why do I need Calvin? If Five Point Calvinism is a clearly derived belief from the bible, why do I have to “teach” it?
What teaching of Calvin is “good news”?
Human Fallibility is one thing...Hating Jews *is* the mark of the beast.
Just curious, how do you feel about states that had/have laws on their books that made homosexuality a crime. Thus, punishing people for who they choose to “love”.
(1) do not confuse the state and religion.
All that is legal, is not moral, and what is moral may (or may not) be legal
(2) words mean something. You used the word “love”. Not sex.
Did you mean to say the state was trying to outlaw homosexual love or homosexual sex?
(3) In a perfect world, sin would not exist. It does, that’s why we have laws.
and so, turnabout is fair play, so my question to you..
Do you equate anti-semitism with homophobia?
Do you believe in the Trinity, BB? Michael Servetus didn't.
"....That Jesus, surnamed Christ, was not a Hypostasis but a human being is taught both by the early Fathers and in Scriptures, taken in their literal sense, and is indicated by the miracles he wrought. He, and not the Word, is also the miraculously born Son of God in fleshly form, as the Scriptures teach - not a hypostasis, but an actual Son. The Holy Spirit as a third person of the Godhead is unknown in Scripture. It is not a separate being, but an activity of God himself. The doctrine of the Trinity can be neither established by logic nor proved from Scriptures, and is in fact inconceivable.""....For many, Servetus is the ultimate example of the intolerance and cruelty of Calvin. I have no desire to try to justify the persecution or execution of heretics, but in fairness to Calvin the Servetus episode must be seen in historical context. Servetus denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and that was a capital crime almost everywhere in Europe. When Servetus came to Geneva, he had already been sentenced to death in France. Calvin had warned Servetus by letter not to come to Geneva because of his views. After Servetus was arrested, Calvin and other ministers tried to convince him that his views of the Trinity were unbiblical. Servetus was put on trial before a civil court in Geneva. Calvin was the prosecutor in the trial, but was not one of the judges. Calvin agreed that Servetus should be executed, but unsuccessfully asked that he be beheaded instead of burned alive.
-- Quotation from Michael Servetus, in the thread On the Errors of the Trinity
Almost all Europeans in Calvin's day believed that heresy was as dangerous as the plague and that civil governments had the obligation to eradicate it. Calvin was a man of his time on this matter. He is not to be excused for this reason, but he must be seen as holding views that most others of his time held. The case of Servetus provides no evidence that Calvin was unusually cruel or intolerant. Rather he like most others believed the civil government had a responsibility to protect the public from false religion, even by using its coercive powers."
-- from the thread Man of His Time for All Times: W. Robert Godfrey paints portrait of Calvin as pilgrim and pastor
You appear to be arguing, through your dead-and-unrepentent-means-unelect conclusion that Christ only forgives past sins, and any "commited-but-unrepented-of" sins are capable of severing our salvific relationship with Christ (losing one's salvation)? It's also conceivable that you're asserting that our salvation is actually never granted to us in this lifetime, more specifically the belief that forgiveness/righteousness is not actually imputed to us in this lifetime, so make sure to wipe your feet one last time before kicking the bucket? You know, there are schools of theology that actually believe one (or both) of these positions. Do you? If not, why do you believe they are applicable to Calvin and not you? Or did that page fall out of my Beckett's Clarence Larkin "Plan of the Ages" Plan-of-the-Month Club collectable fact cards with free stickers and free binder?On the Errors of the Trinity [by Michael Servetus]Or, are you arguing for a new interpretation of Mark 3:29, namely that it's actually a prophecy pointing to October 27, 1553, and that the execution of the man Servetus was the one "unforgivable sin" that Jesus spoke of?
If that's not your theology, or to be more specific if that's not the Biblical teaching re forgiveness, death, and judgement, why are you arguing from it against Calvin?
-- Alex Murphy, September 15 2005
Umm...the quote included a quotation directly from Calvin's Institutes. Hence the quotation marks? You did check the footnotes right?
As far as the quote you provided, why don't you link us to the full text of Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio so that we can see the actual context of the quote? Calvin's Institutes are certainly abundantly available, but conveniently the text from which your quote is excerpted is not available anywhere. In fact, the only Google hits you'll get on it are regurgitations of the same quotation...never any presentation of the context. So please don't act as though you have the academic high ground on this one, friend...you don't.
Why do Calvinists continually quote Calvin? Did I not get the memo that declared him an oracle or prophet?
Gee, it sorta seems reasonable to quote a person when you're explaining or defending the writings or teachings of that person. But by logical extension, I suppose we should never quote any Christian theologian, preacher or evangelist because none of them are declared "an oracle or prophet."
As any confessional Calvinist should tell you, John Calvin's words are not in and of themselves binding upon the conscience. I do not worship John Calvin, nor is he the Lord of my life.
Why do I need anything other than the Bible? What happend to Sola Scriptura?
By this argument you demonstrate quite clearly that you have no clue what the historical doctrine of sola scriptura actually is.
Why do I need Calvin? If Five Point Calvinism is a clearly derived belief from the bible, why do I have to “teach” it?
You just got done stating that the doctrine of the trinity is "a hard concept to arrive at" and then you ask questions like this? Friend, your arguments are becoming contradictory.
What teaching of Calvin is “good news”?
Spoken like a person who has clearly not read Calvin's Institutes. I suppose it would surprise you to know that his treatment on predestination comprises only a very small portion of the Institutes. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were not even put forth by Calvin himself. They are a summation of the response to the five points of the Remonstrants submitted by the followers of Arminius.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.