Zwingli was also a murderer

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Nazaroo, Jul 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Zwingli and Zurich - 1523

    Zwingli apparently worked out his doctrinal view independently of Luther.

    Both Zwingli and Luther wanted reform by realignment with the Bible, and held that the church had no authority other than the Bible. But Zwingli was closer to Erasmus in his ideas of education and moral reform. Zwingli claimed the Bible could interpret itself in all important matters. But like Erasmus, he insisted on appeal to the original languages and the assistance of knowledge of grammar, literary forms, dictionaries etc.

    Zwingli and Luther parted ways over the interpretation of the Eucharist (the meaning of the bread-sharing ritual). Luther, although distancing himself from Roman Catholic doctrine on other things, continued to believe in the bodily presence of Jesus at the "mass", retaining its magical, almost superstitious content.
    Luther was crudely literal: although rejecting medieval 'transustantiation' as Aristotelian, he believed Christ was indeed 'present' in the Eucharist. He believed that Christ's words at the Last Supper must be interpreted literally: "this is my body" (Matt. 26:26). For if not, according to Luther, then the Bible could not be interpreted reliably.

    Zwingli allowed other interpretations: The Bible was full of statements that superficially suggested one thing, but on closer inspection meant another. For him "this is my body" did not mean the bread was identical with Christ, rather it pointed to Christ's sacrifice, as a symbol, a remembrance.

    The question was, did the Protestant position have the means to resolve the problem of Biblical interpretation?

    If the Bible was the ultimate authority, who had the right to interpret it? Some rule or principle had to stand above the printed word itself (a paradox repugnant to simple Biblical authority).
    Who would interpret the Bible for all? The Pope? An ecumenical council?
    Zwingli's and Zurich's solution was the city council.
    They decided first that the city was bound to be obedient to the "word of God". Now the council, duly elected representatives of Zurich's Christians, claimed the right of interpretation. Authority was transfered from Pope and bishops to elected representatives.
    The danger of interpretation based on politics rather than its own merits was ignored by Zwingli.

    Luther tolerated images and icons, while Zwingli held that the O.T. ban on images was binding on all Christians. In 1524 Zurich city banned all religious imagery, and iconoclastic riots spread throughout the region.

    Inevitably power corrupts, and when confruntoed with a growing threat from more radical reformers, Zwingli got personally involved in their suppression and execution, including the 1527 public execution of Felix Manz, formerly an ally, but who held there was no warrant for infant baptism. Refusing to recant his views, he was tied up and drowned in the river Limmat.

    Shortly afterward, internal threats to Zwingli's platform were rendered insignificant by external threats. The five Catholic cantons of Switzerland, alarmed at the rise of Protestantism, declared war on Zurich in Oct. 1531. The other Protestant cantons acted like cowards, or were frozen by divisions over doctrine, and in the unfortunate battle of Kappel, Zwingli was mortally wounded.

    Zurich's experiment abruptly collapsed into confusion and obscurity.

    Thus in the history, a correlation has apparently been maintained between stepping way over the line in terms of arrogant authority, and turning the Gospel inside out, persecuting others and approving of murder and torture, and ultimate humiliating downfall.

    Luther was not in the Spirit of Christ when he ultimately denigrated the authority of Holy Scripture, and began to maliciously persecute the Jewish people, publishing nasty tracts and pamphlets, and contributing hugely in fanning the flames of bigotry, ignorance and anti-Semitism. Nor was Luther able ultimately to shake of Roman errors. Finally, Luther's philosophy of taking sin lightly, even embracing it so that grace and salvation might abound and be more certain, was directly opposed to Paul's real teaching in Romans.

    Zwingli was not in the Spirit of Christ when he hounded and persecuted his theological opponents, right or wrong, and ended up murdering them. Nor was he right in the idea that a council could dictate the meaning of Holy Scripture for men. Nor was it right that a city council should impose death and torture on opponents and conscientious dissenters. Nor was Zwingli right in opposing the simple Baptist Felix Manz, and having him murdered.

    Calvin was not in the Spirit of Christ when he too angrily pursued his opponent Servetus over the Trinity, and was instrumental in his being horribly burned alive. Nor was he teaching sound doctrine when he embraced a philosophy of predestination which ultimately turned the true Gospel upside down and made it a cartoon caricature of itself.

    Each of these Religious leaders had some points, and may have started out sincerely enough, but each, through corrupting power and human arrogance went wildly astray, abandoning the simple Gospel of Christ.

    None of these Religious leaders was guided by the Holy Spirit
    , but instead they were guided by what Paul calls "the natural man", and were incapable of truly grasping the Spiritual truth of the simple Gospel.
     
  2. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    94
    And then, how would you categorize Saul of Tarsus?
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Moses was a murderer.
     
  4. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saul was most certainly a murderer.

    Saul was forcibly taken out of the battle by the Lord,
    and put to work on the right side.

    Because of his former behaviour,
    God planned an especially difficult time for him as a repentant Christian,
    and he had to endure quite a lot of hardship without complaint.

    Saul was born again as Paul, but this did not get him off the hook.
    As the Torah states, a thief must payback 2fold, or 4fold, if he confesses and comes forward.
    Proverbs discusses a rule of 7fold for those who don't.

    Paul's walk as Christian witness and preacher did not involve him accumulating wealth and comfort.
    Rather he paid his own way to avoid being a burden,
    established a work-rule in all the churches he founded, even for widows and orphans,
    and made journeys for the relief of the poor in distant lands.

    Paul understood that God is not mocked, and what a man sows he reaps.
    Paul understood that it was not time to "build bigger barns".

    When all is said and done, Paul stepped up to the plate and became the greatest of the Apostles.

    While Calvin and Zwingli were also murderers like Saul, that obviously doesn't automatically make them Apostles, great teachers, wise interpreters, or even good Christians.

    Christ advised us that "by their fruits ye shall know them".

    Calvin had no encounter with Christ, or he would have said so,
    for Christ would not have done a miracle without giving glory to God the Father.

    Zwingli had no encounter with Christ, or he would have witnessed to God's miracle,
    and abandoned ruling a city for the life of wandering preacher like Paul.

    Luther had no encounter with Christ, or he would not have fanatically pursued
    a course of persecuting Jews in Europe.
    He simply did not follow the example of Jesus, or that of any disciple.

    All of these were blind men, still awaiting sight.

    Luther interpreted the Gospel in his own image: that of an unrepentant sinner still living in sin, and dying in it. Rightly did Jesus characterize people like Luther: "For if they do not believe Moses, nor will they believe though one rose from the dead."

    Calvin built his own system around assuring himself of salvation through predestination. But he had no authority to do so. Jesus did not preach that men were predestined to damnation, but that they were destined to damnation by their choices. The Bible teaches that some things are predestined, not all things. Rightly did Jesus say of men like Calvin, "Ye search the scriptures: for in them you THINK you have eternal life - but they are the things that testify of ME."

    Zwingli imposed his own will and opinion upon others, and even persecuted and killed them for disagreeing with him. Thus he began by lording it over others instead of heeding Christ, and ended dying in violence, which he had reaped upon himself. As it happens, he also was wrong about the very doctrine he had killed someone for. Jesus had said, "The Gentiles lord it over one another: but not so you. He who would be greatest should be least." Zwingli did not follow Jesus.

    None of these carnal fools living in darkness and error resembles Paul in any way,
    nor should they be honored or accepted as teachers or guides in Bible truth.

    We are better off just admitting they were sinners groping blindly about like King Saul,
    used by God but not ever coming to the knowledge of God in this life.
     
    #4 Nazaroo, Jul 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2011
  5. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, what makes both Paul and Moses different than other murderers and sinners, is that THE LORD chose them for big purposes, and ACCOMPANIED THEIR MESSAGE WITH SIGNS AND WONDERS to affirm God's backing.

    No credible signs accompanied Calvin, Zwingli, Luther.
     
  6. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    94
    Brother, you got this thing about murder, well Ive killed so I'm a murderer too. however God is more merciful than we are & Ive repented of it so do me a favor and tone it down, alright.
     
  7. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words God extends Grace to sinners. He's also done the same with Calvin, and all who are His. And there are no signs accompanying you, either.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Calvin was justly angry that the doctrines such as the Dininity of Christ and the Trinity were abused. plus Michael S. sent him about 30 letters containing vile things.

    Again,why you persist in telling falsehoods is a concern. John Calvin was against the burning of Servetus. The Geneva Council was not composed of one member --John Calvin.

    On the contrary,you and others here have painted a cartoon caricature of the doctrine of predestination that Calvin taught. It would actually help if you really read his works insteead of taking potshots at him and others from a distance.

    The Gospel as taught by Calvin was as biblical as could be. Whereas the gospel of Naz is a bit on the deficient side.

    You are the essence of arrogance Mr.Naz. I would like you to demonstrate how John Calvin abandoned the Gospel of Christ in his works. and is it possible for you to do so without getting in the gutter and swinging wildly by brininging up the Servetus affair?


    I'm sticking to one of these men in particular --John Calvin. You make the absurd claim that he was not guided by the Holy Spirit and that he did not understand the Gospel. Please demonstrate your assertion by citing Calvin sources.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    The great all-knowing Naz has made his pronouncement --Luther,Zwingli and Calvin were all unsaved and we have no busines reading their works --they are disqualified as men who can help us in our understanding of Scripture.

    And yet you have it altogether.Let's see, your British-Israelitism,your fanatic KJVOism (which you deny,yet suport),your foul language,your pride in being under no church authority and no need to even attend church regularly,your 9/11 American government conspiracy theories etc. are all okay and perfectly spiritual I suppose?
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Slightly modified

    Naz is unwilling to cite Calvin sources which indicate that he got the Gospel wrong. The following is but a sample to prove him wrong.

    This is from Book 2,page 456 of The Institutes[When we preach we must tell people that they are]"alienated from God by sin,heirs of wrath,liable to the punishment of eternal death,excluded from all hope of salvation, total strangers to the blessing of God,slaves of Satan,captives under the yoke of sin,and,in a word,condemned to and already involved in,a horrible destruction;that,in this situation,Christ interposed as an intercessor; that he has taken upon Himself and suffered the punishment which by the righteous judgment of God impended over all sinners;that by His blood He has expiated those crimes which make them odious to God;that by this expiation God the Father has been duly satisfied and atoned;that by this intercessor His wrath has been appeased;that this is the foundation of peace between God and mortals;and that this is the bone of His benevolence toward them."

    Naz,do you disagree with anything in the above quote? Do you see how wrong you have been in making such allegations against Calvin's character by saying that John Calvin never came to a knowledge of God and that he abandoned and could not even grasp the Gospel of Christ? You need to actually read his works instead of going to anti-Calvinist sites which specialize in grave distortions.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Portrait of Calvin by T.H.L. Parker

    On page 71 he shares an insight.

    "Calvin's gospel,like that of the Scriptures,is concerned with Jesus Christ. It is concerned with Him as the Son of God and the suffering Servant;as the one who has died for our sins and risen again for our justification;as the eternal Lord. He emphasizes the place he gives to Christ and makes it explicit by working it out in regard to the whole of theology (with,as we have seen,some inconsistencies0and of the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. This is the meaning of those famous battle cries of the Reformation :Sola gratia! Sola fide! --By grace alone! By faith alone! We are saved by the grace of God alone,and not by anything that we could contribute;but the grace of God is His love towards us in Jeus Christ."
     
  12. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. Just about the whole second half. Also, "blood" here is a literary device which stands for Jesus' Godly and pleasing life of obediance, His suffering for righteousness' sake, and His death. His actual blood is worthless: "The flesh profits nothing: it is the Spirit that enlivens."
    This over-literalness and crude misunderstanding of literary expression is unworthy of Spiritual wisdom, and represents the carnal mind confusing metaphors for literal absurdities. Nicodemus did the same thing, talking foolishly of a man entering his mother's [XXX] a second time, instead of listening to the Spiritual insight in Jesus' teaching.
    Such nonsense is just more Romanist magical thinking, leading to superstitious absurdities.

    Calvin's theory doesn't apply to all listeners who hear a preacher. It only applies to those who take up Jesus' offer of amnesty, and actually repent. The work of belief, repentance, and a lifelong commitment is required, before any salvation is attained.

    If this is typical of "the Institutes", I'd say you're wasting your time reading it,
    and should go back to the pure Gospel in the form of the New Testament alone,
    which is a fresh pure spring of the Holy word of God.

    Rippoff: "Naz is unwilling to cite Calvin..."

    Why should I waste time doing that when I can cite the New Testament?
     
    #12 Nazaroo, Jul 4, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2011
  13. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't enough about Mr. Calvin to state that he got the "gospel wrong", although I most certainly do not find myself lining up with his doctrinal positions. So it is "possible" that this is an unfair criticism. The Servetus affair is indeed a reasonable criticism of Mr. Calvin without a doubt. (but of course that is just my anti -calvinism)
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Wait a minute. You constantly denigrate John Calvin,but yet you don't even take the time to see what he actually says? That is willful stubborness on your part mixed with arrogance and inconsistency.
     
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well meaning Christians down through the years have done heinous deeds in the name of Christ.

    Must remember Calvin's political status during his life, and the relative importance of political stance. The same was true of Martin Luther and even the English leaders.

    Calvin's writings, however, managed to overlook his politics, and spent their time on his theological thought.

    I think we are remiss to involve political actions, under given circumstances, in their writings.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    When you go off you certainly go off way into left field. The blood simply means Christ's death.

    Your feeble attempt to discredit my Calvin quote regarding the Gospel is rather lame there Naz. "Romanist magical thinking"?! Say what? How you come up with this unfounded conclusion?

    "Attained"? How can you say salvation is attained unless you belive in works righteousness? Don't you think a child can be saved for instance? A child of 9 would not have a lifelong commitment. God gives repentance and the very belief which saves.
     
  17. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot remember reading in the bible that God panned a particularly difficult time for Paul because of Paul's former behaviour; could you help me with a reference or two please? Thanks! (My mind goes to what Jesus said about those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, and the eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell).

    And Saul was not born again as Paul; he continued to be called Saul right up to Acts 13.9. That's some time after his conversion. There is no indication either that God implimented a change of name, as He had with Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, and so on.
     
  18. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Children are not in need of salvation.
    They are God's creation.

    Only adults who commit mortal sins need salvation.
    Forget Calvinism and a dozen other nonsense theologies.

    Common sense tells you that innocent children are not under God's wrath or a death sentence.

    Only murderers like Calvin, Zwingli, other adults who knowingly disobey God's commandments.

    You don't owe the time if you didn't commit the crime.
     
    #18 Nazaroo, Jul 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2011
  19. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    My mind goes right to God's word, given to Ananias:
    "Carry on: for I have chosen him for Myself,
    to bear My name to the nations and kings, and the descendants of Israel:
    - for I will show him how greatly he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:15-16)
    If I had just discovered I had been murdering God's saints,
    by being struck blind by Jesus Himself,
    and was left cowering and fasting in somebody's basement,
    contemplating my heinous sins in the darkness,
    and a man of God arrived with the above message after 3 days of abandonment,
    I'd need a change of pants.

    Because when God says you are going to suffer bigtime in His service,
    obviously as a fitting reward for your previous murderous evil,
    I can't imagine being able to minimize it, especially knowing:
    "God is not mocked: What a man sows he reaps."​



    Not really meaningful, so I haven't anything to say about name changes.

    People usually change their name to hide their past lives.
     
    #19 Nazaroo, Jul 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2011
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Nobody is born innocent. We are all born under the wrath of God. Children are in need of salvation as much as any adult. Salvation is deliverance from sin. Don't you pray for the salvation of young ones?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...