An Anti - Calvinist Parody - Circa 74 B. C. (Yes, You Read Rightly)

[teddyaware]

Kindly read what I wrote, volgadon.  I wrote the concept of double-predestination originated in Calvin's Institutes.  If you can provide a quote that expresses the idea at an earlier date (no, Alma 31 doesn't count--because I think that's a 19th century creation) I'll gladly take correction.  And if you can provide a verse in the Old Testament that contains the words "predestined" and/or "election" as they appear in the New--I'll gladly take that correction as well. 

 

It seems we've a trend of LDS defenders who would prefer to argue with what they wish I'd written--rather than what I actually wrote...

 

--Erik

Second thought. I've just looked up double predestination and it is a doctrine of the devil. The devil could have just as easily "inspired" the Zoramites with such an horrific "doctrinal" concept as he could anyone else. What kind of a God of perfect love could do such a thing? I know, it's a mystery...

Edited January 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[Five Solas]

the only similarity I can see between Zoramism and Calvanism is the belief in election.

And the only similarity I have argued is double-predestination.  Yes, there's lots of other stuff in there too.  Certainly not going to argue it's all similar...

;0)

 

--Erik

[Five Solas]

Kindly explain what you mean by double predestination.

The citation I provided in my OP from Institutes gives you the quick idea (as does the passage from Alma 31).  If you want to go deeper, Wikipedia has a useful entry. 

 

Thanks for all the posts, teddyaware,

 

--Erik

[Five Solas]

I agree that Alma 31 reads like an anti-Calvinist parody in places. But I don't discount the possibility that there were ancient subcultures that paralleled in some respects various religious groups in Joseph Smith's environment.

 

Terryl Givens has noted that cumulative weight of evidences in favor of Book of Mormon historicity seems to be "counterbalanced by what appear to be striking intrusions into the Book of Mormon text of anachronisms, nineteenth-century parallels, and elements that appear to many scholars to be historically implausible and inconsistent with what is known about ancient American cultures" (Givens, The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction,122). But he also observes that "nineteenth-century parallels . . . are part and parcel of the self-proclaimed prophetic texture of the work" (Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, 166).

 

Within a Mormon world view, bluebell's comment is perfectly sound: "There is no issue with the BOM describing religions that share some aspects with Calvinism, long before Calvinism was created.  False doctrine in all its varieties has been around since the world began."

Glad to see I'm not the only one--now that even Vance is walking back his comments that prompted this thread.  Still like to see someone who thinks double-predestination pre-dates Calvin provide an actual quote to back themselves up. Not optimistic we'll see it happen, though.

 

--Erik 

[thesometimesaint]

Kindly read what I wrote, volgadon.  I wrote the concept of double-predestination originated in Calvin's Institutes.  If you can provide a quote that expresses the idea at an earlier date (no, Alma 31 doesn't count--because I think that's a 19th century creation) I'll gladly take correction.  And if you can provide a verse in the Old Testament that contains the words "predestined" and/or "election" as they appear in the New--I'll gladly take that correction as well. 

 

It seems we've a trend of LDS defenders who would prefer to argue with what they wish I'd written--rather than what I actually wrote...

 

--Erik

 

Circular logic.

[teddyaware]

Glad to see I'm not the only one--now that even Vance is walking back his comments that prompted this thread.  Still like to see someone who thinks double-predestination pre-dates Calvin provide an actual quote to back themselves up. Not optimistic we'll see it happen, though.

 

--Erik

It's interesting how the human mind works. We get a thought in our heads we think is absolutely devastating to someone else's cause or ideas, only to find that very something we were so sure about is about as effectual as a pop gun. The simple fact is you're not going to score any points against the Book of Mormon with this polemical salvo of yours. The human mind is a very fertile field, and to think John Calvin was the first and only human being to come up with the idea that God chooses beforehand some to be saved and others to be damned is presumptuous. The mere fact that Calvin came up with such an idea demonstrates the human mind is capable of conjuring up the concept and, as I've heard it said, "if it's been done once it can likely happen again." In this case, the Zoramites beat Calvin to the punch. Calvin took the Biblical doctrine of election and took it one step further (double predestination). So why is it so hard to believe some people prior to his day thought of the same thing?

Edited January 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

Kindly read what I wrote, volgadon.  I wrote the concept of double-predestination originated in Calvin's Institutes.  If you can provide a quote that expresses the idea at an earlier date (no, Alma 31 doesn't count--because I think that's a 19th century creation) I'll gladly take correction.  And if you can provide a verse in the Old Testament that contains the words "predestined" and/or "election" as they appear in the New--I'll gladly take that correction as well. 

 

It seems we've a trend of LDS defenders who would prefer to argue with what they wish I'd written--rather than what I actually wrote...

 

--Erik

 

Where does the word "predestined" appear in Alma 31? Hint: it doesn't.

 

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 is but a single example of the word bahar, the Hebrew equivalent of "election." As David Novak wrote in his book, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People, "the election of Israel by God... is certainly the leitmotif in the Bible," and reading the Hebrew Bible without this concept cuts the unifying thread to most of the narratives. In other words, the idea of being elected into a covenant is all over the Bible. E. P. Sanders has an extremely important and influential work entitled Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, which explores the concept of election amongst the Jewish groups of Paul's day. Well worth a read.

 

Ironically, you are arguing with what you think is written in the BoM, not with what is actually written.

[teddyaware]

Where does the word "predestined" appear in Alma 31? Hint: it doesn't.

 

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 is but a single example of the word bahar, the Hebrew equivalent of "election." As David Novak wrote in his book, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People, "the election of Israel by God... is certainly the leitmotif in the Bible," and reading the Hebrew Bible without this concept cuts the unifying thread to most of the narratives. In other words, the idea of being elected into a covenant is all over the Bible. E. P. Sanders has an extremely important and influential work entitled Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, which explores the concept of election amongst the Jewish groups of Paul's day. Well worth a read.

 

Ironically, you are arguing with what you think is written in the BoM, not with what is actually written.

This is a truly excellent post. The idea that Israel was a chosen covenant people permeated their scriptures and the very soul of their culture and daily lives. So it wouldn't be at all strange that the Zoramites, who sprang from and perverted the religion of Israel, would have a doctrinal remnant of that principle.

Also excellent is your pointing out that the word predestination does not appear in Alma 31. And even though the word "election" is used it can mean several different things. The Zoramites aren't here to tell us precisely what that word meant to them. From the context, it seems in their minds they believed they were worshiping the true God and the Nephite Christians weren't; so as a natural consequence of their choosing to worship the "true God," they were chosen, or elected, by God to be saved, while Nephites would be damned as a consequence of their unbelief in the "true God." Beside this, there's precious little information provided in Alma 31 to come to a definitive answer as to what they meant when they used the word election.

It's nonsense to believe there's enough information in Alma 31 to precisely and definitively define what the Zoramites believed the word election to mean. But it sounds superficially similar enough to Calvin's fully fleshed-out ideas for an eager critic of the Book of Mormon to shout, "Eureka, I can score points with this one!"

Edited January 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

Where does the word "predestined" appear in Alma 31? Hint: it doesn't.

 

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 is but a single example of the word bahar, the Hebrew equivalent of "election." As David Novak wrote in his book, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People, "the election of Israel by God... is certainly the leitmotif in the Bible," and reading the Hebrew Bible without this concept cuts the unifying thread to most of the narratives. In other words, the idea of being elected into a covenant is all over the Bible. E. P. Sanders has an extremely important and influential work entitled Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, which explores the concept of election amongst the Jewish groups of Paul's day. Well worth a read.

 

Ironically, you are arguing with what you think is written in the BoM, not with what is actually written.

 

Hey volgadon. I'm glad to see you here. I would be mildly surprised if Calvin's particular teaching was without any precedent. I wouldn't want to discuss my theory, but as I understand the history of thought, totally new ideas were becoming rare by the time of Christ. I'll let Five Solas reply to your assertion about the Jewish groups of the day.   

 

There is this passage in the Book of Mormon that discusses infant baptism. It is condemnable because it would have meant that unbaptized babies would endure hellfire. You are probably familiar.

 

Being non-LDS, it should come as a surprise to no one that I think this passage comes from a 19th Century misunderstanding of the true doctrine, at least as far as the Catholic understanding. Because only those who commit actual sins can with justice be punished by sense pain, the Church has always taught that there must be some other alternative for the unbaptized babies than just plain Hell. Enter limbo.

 

So anyway, when this passage is discussed in connection with infant baptism, rather than blast into the Book of Mormon as a misunderstanding of the doctrine as practised by Catholics, I suggest that for those who believe that the Book of Mormon as an ancient document, there needs to be a recognition that there are some doctrinal differences between pedobaptism as condemned in the Book of Mormon, and pedobaptism as practised in the Old World. If the Book of Mormon is true, it is historically plausible that people baptized babies in the New World because they thought they would otherwise burn in Hell.

 

I think the same allowance must be made for the doctrine of double predestination. Who before Calvin taught this doctrine explicitly? Presumably (for sake of argument) no one in the Old World. But why would we restrict our search to the Old World when we are discussing what is claimed to be a New World document? Since the Book of Mormon provides by far the most thorough account of what purports to be New World beliefs, LDS are not going to be disconcerted by the fact that New World teachings have certain parallels as well as distinctions from their Old World counterparts.

 

I will discuss apostasy theories with anybody. I don't have any silver bullet to disprove the Book of Mormon as it stands. My satisfaction that I need not read or pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon lies in my confidence that the Catholic Church is true. The "BoM Test", if you will, becomes a plausible option only so soon as you accept Protestant beliefs about the alleged faults and failures of the Catholic Church.

 

I confess that I am a little surprised that Five Solas concedes that Calvin's Institutes contains theological novelties. Most Reformed thinkers are careful to try to trace their teachings through history, with appeals to Fathers of the Church. St. Augustine is a particular favorite when it comes to election and predestination. They usually hold to some kind of remnant theory. This would be where a plausble case is made that the true teaching, though mostly hidden, was retained continuously somewhere from Apostolic times to the present. Otherwise, there is a need for something more drastic than what the Reformers did. A new church needs to be started from scratch. No one until Joseph Smith took the Reformation to this logical conclusion. And no wonder. Unless you had dreams, visions, or interior locutions explaining how a new church was to be begun, there is no explanation in the Bible as to who might have the authority do it, or how to proceed. 

 

That is why I retain interest in Restoration movements. Of course I wish that people weren't so convinced that the Catholic Church is apostate. But I certainly admire the fortitude to take that belief to its logical conclusion. That is why if I were not Catholic or Orthodox, I would be a Restorationist. If I were not a Restorationist, I would be a Restorationist-in-waiting. Someone close to me made a wild claim the other day saying that if they weren't Catholic they would be a "mean atheist". Nonsense. I convinced him that there is no good reason to presume that you happen to live in a location and time where the true faith has been fully revealed. It is all only academic, but I convinced my friend to stop saying they would be atheistic in the event the Catholic Church was false. I believe in religion because I believe in the good God. It is a horribly precarious "theism" that depends on religion for support.

 

3DOP

Edited January 11, 2014 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

Glad to see I'm not the only one--now that even Vance is walking back his comments that prompted this thread.  Still like to see someone who thinks double-predestination pre-dates Calvin provide an actual quote to back themselves up. Not optimistic we'll see it happen, though.

 

--Erik 

 

All hail Calvin who invented something that had never entered the mind of anyone ever before. Jesus, Paul, and even God Himself did not understand salvation until Calvin finally figured it out!

 

That is basically what you are saying.......

[Coreyb]

didn't the Essenes believe in a form of predestination? 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

All hail Calvin who invented something that had never entered the mind of anyone ever before. Jesus, Paul, and even God Himself did not understand salvation until Calvin finally figured it out!

 

That is basically what you are saying.......

And they only had to wait about 1539 years to figure it out. Man were they behind the curve...I hate when that happens. They must have been really shocked when he had anabaptist downed in the sea...and here we though we could covert through discussion.

[3DOP]

And they only had to wait about 1539 years to figure it out. Man were they behind the curve...I hate when that happens. They must have been really shocked when he had anabaptist downed in the sea...and here we though we could covert through discussion.

 

Not very fair Pa Pa. Don't single out the Calvinists for whipping boy here. Its real easy for a two hundred year old religion to criticise things that happened when they didn't exist.

 

Everybody knew the rules in the 16th Century. Calvin wasn't sending agents into other places to assassinate every non-Calvinist. Today you have to be careful in certain countries about what you preach too.

 

Condemn this Catholic with the Calvinists of Geneva because I don't mourn for the nincompoop who goes around preaching a hated doctrine in a location where the sanctions against that activity are well advertised.

 

Like the Catholics, the Anabaptists should have stayed out of Geneva to preach their beliefs, especially if they were going to gripe about it when they ended up going to heaven too soon (according to their beliefs?).

 

For the record, in a more prudent fashion, the gentle bishop of Geneva, St. Francis deSales (ca. 1600-1620), prudently shared his Catholic faith in and around Geneva without arousing the wrath of the locals.

Edited January 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Glad to see I'm not the only one--now that even Vance is walking back his comments that prompted this thread.

LOL!!!

I have not walked back anything. It is you that attempted to make what I said more than it was.

I also note that you have not addressed the responses given other than saying, uh uha.

But it is nice that you again admit that Calvin fabricated the doctrine, thus making it non sola scriptura compliant.

LOL!!!

[Vance]

Circular logic.

And that is not the only logical fallacy he is using.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not very fair Pa Pa. Don't single out the Calvinists for whipping boy here. Its real easy for a two hundred year old religion to criticise things that happened when they didn't exist.

 .

You misunderstand, I fear for their salvation, and I don not understand the age of our faith to disqualify and false concept of limited atonement. If Christ did not die for all, then he died for none, as Christ himself taught, "I was lifted up that I might draw all men unto me". So my dear brother, you have me wrong...I grew up Baptist and now Mormon that he will accept all that come unto him. I am sorry if this offends, but I was always taught from my youth to bear witness to the truth. You have known my in cyber-space for some time,,have you ever known me to be cruel?

[3DOP]

You misunderstand, I fear for their salvation, and I don not understand the age of our faith to disqualify and false concept of limited atonement. If Christ did not die for all, then he died for none, as Christ himself taught, "I was lifted up that I might draw all men unto me". So my dear brother, you have me wrong...I grew up Baptist and now Mormon that he will accept all that come unto him. I am sorry if this offends, but I was always taught from my youth to bear witness to the truth. You have known my in cyber-space for some time,,have you ever known me to be cruel?

 

Pa Pa, hi.

 

I didn't say anything about who Christ died for.

 

Nor did I suggest that you were cruel. "Not very fair", is what I said. That is what I will defend. I measured my words carefully and meant no more. I have seen far worse by others. I am sure there have been times when I have been "not very fair" too. If you disagree with me after reading my attempt at "fraternal correction", I am sure my esteem for you will remain where it was before. Anyway, read on for why I am in doubt about whether you have made an objective attempt to see Calvinism in the full light of history.   

 

Limited atonement has nothing to do with whether governments have the authority to exclude certain despised teachings from within their boundaries. My comments were directed toward an apparent connection you were trying to draw that made Calvin, and his hated doctrine unique. In regards to how they reserved the right to punish people who preached publicly against their faith, they had plenty of company. Singling out the Calvinists for this was only unfair, not cruel, in my opinion. Anabaptists succeeded in getting lots of people besides those horrible "limited atoners" to want to kill them. You Mormons don't go places where you are unwanted. Right? You have respect, or at least a prudential fear for the laws of people who don't want you preaching your message. You seem to recognize something that the drowned Anabaptist didn't get. You observe the law of Muslims and Red Chinese who to want to limit the liberty to publicly preach every doctrine today. I don't see why Calvinistic law should have been ignored yesterday. 

 

It still seems like you should consider that everywhere 16th Century norms allowed for punishment, even unto death for those who were incorrigible about attacking the official religion of the people. This policy can not in any way be limited to the Christians whose doctrine you find the most despicable. Nobody put up with strangers preaching what they perceived to be "cancer" in the 16th Century. Calvinism is a cancer? Okay. I agree. What do you do with cancer? I find cancer intolerable. But the citizens of Geneva thought Anabaptist doctrine was cancer and it seemed reasonable to them that they should be allowed to exclude it from their boundaries. That is why I have sympathy for peoples of by-gone days who whether they were right or wrong, knew that cancer has no rights. Whatever other problems I might have with 16th Century sects that misunderstood, hated, despised, and occasionally persecuted my faith, I agree with them about cancer. You don't see the Catholic martyrs crying about how the governments had no right to punish them. They understood the consequences of preaching what others perceived to be cancer.

 

So of course Pa Pa, you are all in the clear as far as cruelty is concerned. If anything, I would probably think you are merciful to a fault. I am suggesting that you were being unfair with Calvin, and by association, unfair to Five Solas, who has given no indication that he has intentions of drowning anybody. Heh. For what it is worth, Pa Pa. 

 

Regards,

 

Rory 

Edited January 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa, hi.

I didn't say anything about who Christ died for.

Nor did I suggest that you were cruel. "Not very fair", is what I said. That is what I will defend. I measured my words carefully and meant no more. I have seen far worse by others. I am sure there have been times when I have been "not very fair" too. If you disagree with me after reading my attempt at "fraternal correction", I am sure my esteem for you will remain where it was before. Anyway, read on for why I am in doubt about whether you have made an objective attempt to see Calvinism in the full light of history.

Limited atonement has nothing to do with whether governments have the authority to exclude certain despised teachings from within their boundaries. My comments were directed toward an apparent connection you were trying to draw that made Calvin, and his hated doctrine unique. In regards to how they reserved the right to punish people who preached publicly against their faith, they had plenty of company. Singling out the Calvinists for this was only unfair, not cruel, in my opinion. Anabaptists succeeded in getting lots of people besides those horrible "limited atoners" to want to kill them. You Mormons don't go places where you are unwanted. Right? You have respect, or at least a prudential fear for the laws of people who don't want you preaching your message. You seem to recognize something that the drowned Anabaptist didn't get. You observe the law of Muslims and Red Chinese who to want to limit the liberty to publicly preach every doctrine today. I don't see why Calvinistic law should have been ignored yesterday.

It still seems like you should consider that everywhere 16th Century norms allowed for punishment, even unto death for those who were incorrigible about attacking the official religion of the people. This policy can not in any way be limited to the Christians whose doctrine you find the most despicable. Nobody put up with strangers preaching what they perceived to be "cancer" in the 16th Century. Calvinism is a cancer? Okay. I agree. What do you do with cancer? I find cancer intolerable. But the citizens of Geneva thought Anabaptist doctrine was cancer and it seemed reasonable to them that they should be allowed to exclude it from their boundaries. That is why I have sympathy for peoples of by-gone days who whether they were right or wrong, knew that cancer has no rights. Whatever other problems I might have with 16th Century sects that misunderstood, hated, despised, and occasionally persecuted my faith, I agree with them about cancer. You don't see the Catholic martyrs crying about how the governments had no right to punish them. They understood the consequences of preaching what others perceived to be cancer.

So of course Pa Pa, you are all in the clear as far as cruelty is concerned. If anything, I would probably think you are merciful to a fault. I am suggesting that you were being unfair with Calvin, and by association, unfair to Five Solas, who has given no indication that he has intentions of drowning anybody. Heh. For what it is worth, Pa Pa.

Regards,

Rory

Imwas responding to your idea I was "picking on Calvinism" and pointing out that Calvinism believes in limit atonement, this is where I was speaking of Christ dying for all. Also pointing out that Calvin was a murderer and ordered the murder of those who disagreed with his doctrine. Each think I Sid seemed at least in my mind germain to the thread and you comments to my post. IfmI misread you or the thread, I most humbly apologize.,I mean this is truly. Edited January 15, 2014 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[3DOP]

PaPa

Imwas responding to your idea I was "picking on Calvinism" and pointing out that Calvinism believes in limit atonement, this is where I was speaking of Christ dying for all. Also pointing out that Calvin was a murderer and ordered the murder of those who disagreed with his doctrine. Each think I Sid seemed at least in my mind germain to the thread and you comments to my post. IfmI misread you or the thread, I most humbly apologize.,I mean this is truly.

 

3DOP

Oh PaPa. Please read what I say. This is not a personal attack.

 

"Not very fair", is how I described your observation about John Calvin and what you now call murder. That still allows that your description is somewhat fair! That is what my words should convey. There is nothing about "not very fair" that means cruel. I am not saying that your facts are untrue. I acknowledge that the facts don't look good in this case at a quick glance. However, when we judge someone in a modern day courtroom, do we give it just a quick glance? No. And correctly so. We examine everything to try to exonerate the person charged. I am in favor of this principle without exception. So why do we modern people feel the liberty to judge people of yesterday with a mere glance? With regards to John Calvin and Anabaptists, I am pointing out that the circumstances allow us moderns to evaluate the facts in such a way that we might be less harsh and judgmental than the bare facts might require, according to modern day social norms.    

 

Furthermore, there is no connection between religious intolerance and the doctrine of limited atonement. Its fine if you disagree with limited atonement. I disagree with it too. But I cannot make a case that this makes the holder of that doctrine prone to murder. 

 

John Calvin wasn't a murderer. You could as well call Harry Truman a murder because it was during His presidency that the Rosenburgs were executed. Calvin lived in a day when the faith was far more important than theories of economics. Not knowing of the atom, Genevans thought that false doctrine was more serious than the biggest bombs of which they could conceive and they didn't allow foreign agents to undermine what was most precious to them. I don't think many of us appreciate the environment under which propagating despised religious doctrines was a punishable crime.

 

I honestly don't understand the rest of your post. ifml? What is that? Maybe it explains why you "most humbly apologize" for saying what you believe?

 

If you are interested, I have some quotes ready from John Stuart Mill, no particular friend of Catholicism or Calvinism, that I think show why you and others who take events out of their historical context, might find more sympathy for past generations when it was the rule that you couldn't publicly oppose the religion of the people. I am not trying to make you grovel. I am trying to bring historical perspective to events far removed from our own day and age. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory

Edited January 15, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

PaPa

Imwas responding to your idea I was "picking on Calvinism" and pointing out that Calvinism believes in limit atonement, this is where I was speaking of Christ dying for all. Also pointing out that Calvin was a murderer and ordered the murder of those who disagreed with his doctrine. Each think I Sid seemed at least in my mind germain to the thread and you comments to my post. IfmI misread you or the thread, I most humbly apologize.,I mean this is truly.

 

3DOP

Oh PaPa. Please read what I say. This is not a personal attack.

 

"Not very fair", is how I described your observation about John Calvin and what you now call murder. That still allows that your description is somewhat fair! That is what my words should convey. There is nothing about "not very fair" that means cruel. I am not saying that your facts are untrue. I acknowledge that the facts don't look good in this case at a quick glance. However, when we judge someone in a modern day courtroom, do we give it just a quick glance? No. And correctly so. We examine everything to try to exonerate the person charged. I am in favor of this principle without exception. So why do we modern people feel the liberty to judge people of yesterday with a mere glance? With regards to John Calvin and Anabaptists, I am pointing out that the circumstances allow us moderns to evaluate the facts in such a way that we might be less harsh and judgmental than the bare facts might require, according to modern day social norms.    

 

Furthermore, there is no connection between religious intolerance and the doctrine of limited atonement. Its fine if you disagree with limited atonement. I disagree with it too. But I cannot make a case that this makes the holder of that doctrine prone to murder. 

 

John Calvin wasn't a murderer. You could as well call Harry Truman a murder because it was during His presidency that the Rosenburgs were executed. Calvin lived in a day when the faith was far more important than theories of economics. Not knowing of the atom, Genevans thought that false doctrine was more serious than the biggest bombs of which they could conceive and they didn't allow foreign agents to undermine what was most precious to them. I don't think many of us appreciate the environment under which propagating despised religious doctrines was a punishable crime.

 

I honestly don't understand the rest of your post. ifml? What is that? Maybe it explains why you "most humbly apologize" for saying what you believe?

 

If you are interested, I have some quotes ready from John Stuart Mill, no particular friend of Catholicism or Calvinism, that I think show why you and others who take events out of their historical context, might find more sympathy for past generations when it was the rule that you couldn't publicly oppose the religion of the people. I am not trying to make you grovel. I am trying to bring historical perspective to events far removed from our own day and age. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory

I hate when my IPAD auto-corrects and I don't, makes me feel like a fool. I am not trying to be unfair, nor am I suggesting Calvin's murder means that any Calvinist believes in doing so today...that is silly. But murder in any age can be judged in any age. The issue is still believing the evils that he taught of "limited atonement", and the elitism that comes out of that belief. So we seem to be speaking the same language to a degree, but you spelling is much better than my own.

For instance I can say without reservation that the MMM, was cold blooded murder regardless of anything ever done to Mormons, and it sickens me when some try to make excuses for it.

[Vance]

John Calvin wasn't a murderer. You could as well call Harry Truman a murder because it was during His presidency that the Rosenburgs were executed. Calvin lived in a day when the faith was far more important than theories of economics. Not knowing of the atom, Genevans thought that false doctrine was more serious than the biggest bombs of which they could conceive and they didn't allow foreign agents to undermine what was most precious to them. I don't think many of us appreciate the environment under which propagating despised religious doctrines was a punishable crime.

Apples and oranges there 3DOP and I am disappointed that you would even try to compare the two. The Rosenburgs were guilty of espionage and treason and were punished accordingly. Michael Servertus (sp?) was only guilty of promoting an unpopular idea/belief of the area, and Calvin saw to it that he was executed for it.

[volgadon]

Apples and oranges there 3DOP and I am disappointed that you would even try to compare the two. The Rosenburgs were guilty of espionage and treason and were punished accordingly. Michael Servertus (sp?) was only guilty of promoting an unpopular idea/belief of the area, and Calvin saw to it that he was executed for it.

 

First, she wasn't guilty of espionage, only her husband was. Second, Rory has it right about Servetus.

[Vance]

First, she wasn't guilty of espionage, only her husband was. Second, Rory has it right about Servetus.

So then why was she executed? For lack of evidence?

And regardless of the times, it is ALWAYS wrong to execute someone for their beliefs. It was wrong for Calvin to have Servetus executed because Calvin disagreed with what he was preaching. Different times don't change that fact.

[3DOP]

Hi Vance...I am sorry you are disappointed with my way of thinking about this. I don't expect I can persuade you to change your mind about your interpretation of the facts, but maybe I can at least try to show you why I take the direction I do. I have highlighted an objection that I would ask you to re-evaluate. I know you wouldn't want to exaggerate about the reason Servetus was charged with a crime. I have also highlighted a couple of my own observations that explain why I can't consider the execution of Servetus to be a simple murder. It is much more complicated than that. Anyway, maybe you can see why it seems complicated to me. 

 

Was Servetus quiet about his beliefs? It appears to me that he propagated his novel doctrines in municipalities that didn't permit the freedom to do so. If he had kept his beliefs to himself he would have been within his rights to believe whatever he wanted. It does not seem accurate to say that Servetus was executed for his beliefs. He was executed for trying to spread his beliefs. The laws did not allow for coercion of those who did not share the faith common to the community, but it did punish those who publicly opposed the common faith. Genevans didn't believe in the liberty to spread what they perceived to be harmful to souls. You could believe contrary to the common faith in Geneva. You could not preach contrary to the common faith.

 

A lot of people, myself included, recognize the morality of making laws against attacking a common faith, as occurs in the Muslim countries for instance. What is so unreasonable about permitting private opposition to the common faith while protecting the commonwealth against that which is almost unanimously agreed to be dangerous error? I don't know of any state that had laws against holding contrary beliefs, so long as there wasn't preaching or publishing going on. Beliefs alone were not punishable by law. In opposition to the citizens of Geneva, most people today are indifferent about religion. Even if Christians today think they are in the right church they don't think false doctrine is harmful. Additionally, most of us live in a society where there is a multiplicity of religions with none being in a predominant position. Its pretty easy to be judgmental when you don't care much about false doctrine, and you aren't in a position to enforce your beliefs if you wanted.

 

Should we not have some sympathy with the idea that Geneva and her sister cities were truly fearful of their pure doctrine (as they saw it), being corrupted and confused by false teaching? When a faith community of people band together in one place, as happened at Geneva, do they not have the right to exclude those who will preach against their faith? They weren't kidnapping false teachers from foreign lands. But they were understandably vigilant within their own boundaries. They had established a holy land as many others had before, including the Israelite patriarchs and kings. Geneva admired their Old Testament heritage enough to try to imitate it politically. Maybe we have discovered something better today. But how were the Genevans supposed to have figured out a Jeffersonian model of government, with freedoms to preach anything, when all they had for reference was a shortened Bible and the history of the world up the 1500's?

 

Maybe it will help to explain how I appreciate why Mormons feel abused to have people stand outside their temples publicly opposing and mocking their beliefs. I understand. Mormons don't have the authority to do anything about it. Maybe they think they wouldn't do anything about it if they did have the authority? I wonder. In any case, the Genevans had the authority. I am not familiar in the history of the world where there was virtual unanimity for one religion and yet the community allowed freedom to oppose that religion publicly. The next time it happens will be the first time. I am not holding my breath.

 

Whatever you might think you would do in an LDS holy land in 2014, in the 1550's, the citizens of Geneva were outraged that someone would violate their holy land. Calvin merely agreed and thought the penalty of death was just. But it appears that Calvin mercifully tried to prevent the slow and tortuous burning of Michael Servetus in favor of a swift death. He was unsuccessful. Servetus was almost certainly a dead man in Geneva with or without John Calvin's influence. As it played out, Calvin's influence was so slight that he could not even get Servetus' sentence reduced to beheading.

 

The "crime" committed by Michael Servetus against the Genevans was effectively espionage. The Rosenburgs were charged with treason because they were perceived as enemy agents who posed an extreme threat to the well-being of the state. It is unreasonable to fail to realize how the community of believers at Geneva lived in an atmosphere that caused them to see in Michael Servetus, an alien and enemy agent who for violating their holy land was responsible for his own death. In respect to their perception by the community whose laws they violated, I see a parallel between the deaths of the Rosenburgs and Michael Servetus. In another parallel, the United States executed the Rosenburgs while Geneva executed Servetus. It would be unreasonable to accuse Calvin or Truman or any other individual of murder simply because they approved of the death penalty for the enemy agents.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited January 17, 2014 by 3DOP

[Five Solas]

I confess that I am a little surprised that Five Solas concedes that Calvin's Institutes contains theological novelties. Most Reformed thinkers are careful to try to trace their teachings through history, with appeals to Fathers of the Church. St. Augustine is a particular favorite when it comes to election and predestination.

Hey Rory--

 

Guess I ought to explain myself.  There's a reason I didn't want to debate double predestination on the thread, and that is because I'm not fully persuaded it's Biblical.  The closest support I find for the doctrine is Romans 9:22-23--

 

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy...

(ESV)

 

But Paul starts the passage with the words, "What if."  Paul's point (as I read it) isn't necessarily that God created "vessels of wrath" as an object lesson for "vessels of mercy"--but instead as a reinforcement to his previous point that whatever God's purpose herein, we are in no position to "answer back to God" (v. 20). 

 

So yes, I'm okay that Calvin may have introduced "theological novelty."  Institutes, brilliant and useful as it is, is not on par with the Bible, of course.  No Calvinist would argue otherwise. 

:0)

 

And if someone would like to quote Augustine (or anyone else) and thereby demonstrate the idea precedes Calvin--I'll gladly take correction.  For those who just want to keep asserting the idea must predate Calvin (because of fictional Zoramites) and that I'm a fool for suggesting otherwise--how about you back yourselves with a little evidence?  Bring it on!

 

--Erik