Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dale-c, Aug 2, 2007.
When we seem to care so much about peace, what do you think about this quote by John Calvin?
Would Calvin consider it a blessed necessity to contend with me if I disagreed with him?
I think to often in the name of cooperation of peace we are willing to throw away what is necessary. As Christ is our example, we should conserve what must be conserved, and fight for what is being attacked. God's holieness is worth defending, his power worth protecting (not that He needs us) and his chruch worth keeping a pure bride.
Why do people always use the phrase about Calvin "people who disagreed with him" as if it was all about John Calvin?
He is talking about the things of Christ here, not the opinions on John Calvin.
just to be a stinker
wasnt the calvin camp at the time of him being alive - kinda known for handing over fellow Christians that he disagreed with to get killed? or at the very least punishing them himself?
I agree, anything less is compromise. In the name of unity I've seen too much compromise in christianity.
No, that is a modern invention of arminian calvin haters. it is ad hominem.
There was one man, Servetus that was put to death by the secular state that Calvin supported but he was not a Christian.
I was raised believing the same as you. Those are lies and slanders against a Christian man and people should be ashamed of themselves for propagating them.
See, people who disagreed with Calvin would come up with these stories to kill his reputation.
If you can't refute his arguments with scripture, well then assassinate his character.
That is what people have been doing for years.
The Romans, the Jews, the Moslems, the Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Armininists, Puritans...
they all attempted to "keep the peace" by eliminating the opposition.
Anybody know if the Baptists participated in cleansing the church this way?
I wasn't aware of anyone else using the phrase "people who disagreed with him" to describe Calvin, though I'm sure it's been used in discussions of a great many people.
My point was that the statement itself is rather insignificant -- almost everyone is going to easily agree with it. The difficulty is in determining exactly what things are necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.
Deacon , just for starters who were the people that the Puritans "eliminated " ? Are you talking about the Salem with trials ?
Calvin stated of 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 ("Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar").
It turned out that Calvin had a great deal of authority and Servetus was burned at the stake.
Actually, quite the contrary is true. The primary complaint against Servetus was in Vienna, not Geneva. So Servetus was given the choice to be extradited to Vienna (where he would have been prosecuted and almost certainly put to death), or to stay in Geneva. Servetus chose to stay in Geneva. If he had chosen to go to Vienna, he would have left Geneva alive contrary to Calvin's will and authority. Servetus simply wouldn't have lived for very long in Vienna. Calvin didn't even have the authority to change the method of execution to beheading, which is what Calvin wanted, so that Servetus would not have suffered as much.
That letter To Farel was written about 7 years prior to Servetus' death . And even when Servetus was executed Calvin was not yet a citizen of Geneva . He did not become one until 5 years before his death .
Calvin said that he 'desire[d ] that the severity of the punishment may be mitigated." Farel roundly criticized Calvin for that weakness . Others complained to Calvin about being too sensitive regarding the matter .