Posted on 07/07/2010 8:01:37 AM PDT by Frumanchu
When I was a kid in Catholic school I was taught that the Jews killed Jesus.. That was a pretty common teaching historically . Today we understand that Jesus was sent here to die and the jews were the tool of God in this ordained death..
But that was the type of teaching that Calvin and Luther and other reformers would have brought with them from the RC church .
We are after all all sinners..Calvin was no exception
I also find it ironic (and slightly humorous) that the first post on this thread by bb was an ad hominem. It was: "Michael Servetus".
“This is why i quit attending a Presbyterian church. “
This is amazing to me. Presbyterian for 25 years; never heard a pro-Palestinian remark.
I wonder if you were in the liberal Presbyterian church(es)? I am in the strictly conservative denominations.
“I and everyone should *not* accept anyone else’s philosophy.”
I disagree. You should accept it, as long as it’s in conformity with Scripture.
I may tell you, you must be born again. That is my philosophy, the doctrine I hold. Search the scriptures. Is that a biblical doctrine? If so, hold it. If not, reject it.
Similarly, read what Calvin or others have to say about Scripture. We are told to listen to the preaching of the word of God. Calvin was a preacher. Then, filter it through God’s word. Keep what is biblical. Reject the rest.
What’s more, the statement is self-defeating as it is itself a philosophy.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Gal 4:22-28 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband." Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Paul was extremely mad with the Jewish Galatians for their belief that non-Jews should live by the Law. Paul's clear point is that they are sons of Abraham by faith. They don't have to be "born" into some rich heritage. They are adopted into His family. And those who reject the Son are cut off.
In my mind those who cannot see this obvious point is simply either not understanding the rich heritage God has bestowed upon them, or they are denying their birthright (no better then Esau). Either way, this is shocking at best.
“Burning someone to death IS horrible, and WAS horrible.”
Actually, Calvin agreed. He thought folks ought to be beheaded.
Remember the times. The Catholics, the Calvinists, Anglicans - just about everyone wanted to burn or kill any who disagreed. The Baptists were the exception, but only because they never had the power of state backing them up. I’m sure most Baptists of the time shed no tears when Catholics died...
Such were 17th and 18th Century developments in the history of Western thought.
The 16th Century is 500 years ago after all, and is the hinge point between the Middle Ages and the Modern world--and yes, ideas of religious liberty were still, for most all of the leaders at the time, medieval!
If you're going to try to discredit Calvin for being a man of his time, so be it....but to be consistent, you must also throw out virtually every other thinker of his era....as they all shared similar views of what we judge today as severe intolerance.
If on the other hand you want to simply dismiss Calvin and his thought....which is wholly unconnected logically to religious intolerance (and in fact is a foundation for the later development of tolerance), then of course trying to make him fit 21st Century assumptions on religious freedom is a cheap and easy way to do it....
"How deep a wound, the death of your wife must have inflicted upon your heart, I judge this from my own feelings, for I remember how difficult it was for me seven years ago to get over a similar sorrow… Our principle source of consolation, consists in this, that by the good, and admirable Providence of God,that things which we consider adverse, somehow contribute to our salvation….We defraud God, unless each of us lives and dies, in utter dependance, upon his sovereign and good will." - John Calvin from a letter to a congregant that lost his wife to the plague
A most important point! And moreover the same can be said of many other historical figures in church history. We are quick to take the measure of the signficance of their theological differences and project them to all aspects of their person and work. Even worse, we have a great tendency to do the same to each other in the impersonal setting of these forums.
Thank you.
This is amazing to me. Presbyterian for 25 years; never heard a pro-Palestinian remark.
PCUSA, probably.
Issues, Etc. talked yesterday or the day before with Parker Williamson, of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, from the floor of the General Assembly.
Per him, among the other bits of sinister silliness, there's a visible and vocal pro-Palestinian contingent there.
(I'm not seeing a direct link to the audio on the IE website yet.)
The term "replacement" theory is a newer term. It is an effort to deny the true Christian/Judeo linkage and heritage.
Do you know what the actual origin of the term "replacement theology" is? I honestly haven't seen anyone but dispensationalists use it, and only as a pejorative.
Thanks, Fru, for the repost. Very good stuff.
Let me heartily second that. It's nice to be in the presence, if now only the virtual presence, of the like-minded, and read things like:
"We defraud God, unless each of us lives and dies, in utter dependence, upon his sovereign and good will."
You were in need of flawed reasoning and mischaracterization of historical doctrines?
Good to “see” you, Lee! I’ll see if I can’t dig up some more of the “good stuff.” :D
We agree on a great deal more than we disagree on, but this is the latter. What's being said is a great example of how controlling the language controls the debate. It should be pointed out that during the Apostolic Era and the century following premillenialism (dispensationalism) was a view held by many and that amillenialism (replacement theology) didn't emerge until Origen and was adopted by Augustine. IOW, these are not new ideas.
As I am sure you are aware in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians he assured them that they had not been left behind (premillenialism).
I prefer to hear someone express their own opinion or application of the scripture, or their interpretation and use the source to back it up.
But I must admit I grow weary, of those who constantly discuss to death and/or defend Calvin, McArthur, Smith(as in Joseph), Osteen,....et al and yet I never understand what a difference this has made in their practical application of the One we should be quoting and discussing, the Author and Finisher, the Eternal God Almighty and His Holy Scripture.
I have no problem with someone backing up their own perspective on an application of scripture with quotes from a noted theologian, but when they cross the line and it all becomes about the ‘noted theologian’, my head says ‘exactly where is this discussion going?’
Now, I know absolutely nothing about you personally Frumanchu, so this scripture I am quoting is just in reference to the response in my soul when I get involved in one of these discussions where someone other than Jesus is being lifted up. You asked me the question, this is my response. I responded to BereanBrain with a thank you because I appreciated the concise, clear expression of his thought, which clearly echoed my own. You are right, I have no need for flawed reasoning and mischaraterization of historical doctrines, my need is to grow in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and when opportunity affords itself, to assist others in their walk on the narrow path. I Timothy Chapter six says that we are to “guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you.”
6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 1 Timothy 1:6.
I with caution and much hesitancy occasionally enter these threads to see if I might glean something for my own learning. And to meet like minded believers.
Thank you for asking me to clarify my response.
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.