Calvin, Ruckman, Cloud...

[Paul1611]

Let me begin by saying that I am not what you would call a "Calvanist", a "Ruckmanite", or an avid follower of Daivid Cloud, or anyone else. I try my best not to be classified into categories or cliques, even though I am not ashamed to be called a baptist. I have read material written by all three men mentioned above and like anyone, find things that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. What I have noticed though is that people seem to want to take a stand against Ruckman and Cloud for their mean spirit, hateful speech, and lack of love and tolerance for the brethren (which I dont always agree with either) yet they will hold John Calvin in the highest regards. For the past month or so I have been reading a number of books. Two has to do with the doctrine of Calvanism, one with Church History, and the other is a devotional by a Calvanist (not to mention I have been surfing the web quite a bit and have seen some things there too). I was very surprised when I came across some quotes from Calvin, that were to say the least not very polite. In a letter to another believer Calvin calls the man a dog and his speech barking.
He also calls another man a "simpleton" and goes on to insult his intelligence by saying "you must be twice or thrice dipped into stupidity.." Then I read that he played a major roll in having a man named Servetus killed, and yet I hear people do nothing but praise John Calvin. How is it that we can condemn Ruckman, Cloud, and who ever else for their "rude speech" and yet ignore it when it comes to Calvin??

 

[Rippon]

The Calvin was a killer diatribes are nothing but character assassinations ( pun intended ) . The Sevetus issue has been dealt with numerous times since I started on the BB about 18 months ago . It's overkill ( intended pun ) if you ask me .

Calvin was a man of his times . He wrote some sharp things but many of his contemporaries were far worse ( Martin Luther comes to mind ) . All in all Calvin was kind of mild when compared with his peers .

John Calvin does not deserve to share any comparison with the likes of Peter Ruckman and David Cloud . Calvin's influence ( even if you haven't availed yourself of his books ) is on a level far beyond those two . It's like comparing B.B. Warfield to Dave Hunt and James Dobson . IOW , there is no comparison , only a stark contrast .

Ruckman takes the cake with rude and unwholesome speech . No one is in his league in that respect . But I am sure some wannabees would like to go for that title .

 

[Paul1611]

The Calvin was a killer diatribes are nothing but character assassinations ( pun intended ) . The Sevetus issue has been dealt with numerous times since I started on the BB about 18 months ago . It's overkill ( intended pun ) if you ask me .

Calvin was a man of his times . He wrote some sharp things but many of his contemporaries were far worse ( Martin Luther comes to mind ) . All in all Calvin was kind of mild when compared with his peers .

John Calvin does not deserve to share any comparison with the likes of Peter Ruckman and David Cloud . Calvin's influence ( even if you haven't availed yourself of his books ) is on a level far beyond those two . It's like comparing B.B. Warfield to Dave Hunt and James Dobson . IOW , there is no comparison , only a stark contrast .

Ruckman takes the cake with rude and unwholesome speech . No one is in his league in that respect . But I am sure some wannabees would like to go for that title .

Why is it that Calvin calls somebody "stupid" and it is referred to as "sharp things", but when Ruckman calls somebody stupid it is referred to as rude, hateful, and ungodly like many say. If you call one out for his use of language, shouldnt the same be done for everybody else, whether it be Calvin or Luther or Ruckman or whoever? I can tell from your post (I may be wrong) that you hold Calvin in high regard, so lets tak about Luther since you mentioned Luther. I know I have read in a number of places where Luther has made some not so polite remarks about the pope, and everone chuckles about it. Yet when Ruckman makes some remarks about the pope, or Cloud makes some remarks about the pope, they are considered to be ungodly, hateful, and mean spirited remarks. It just doesnt make any sense to me why we will criticize one and not the other.

 

[tinytim]

"you must be twice or thrice dipped into stupidity.."

I have to remember that...

I know some people that statement fits!!! :laugh:

It even fits me sometimes!!!

 

[EdSutton]

Ruckman takes the cake with rude and unwholesome speech . No one is in his league in that respect . But I am sure some wannabees would like to go for that title .

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Calvin? Ruckman? Cloud??

Hmmm! Now there's a de-facto tri-fecta if I ever saw one! :tonofbricks:

Can we get a fourth, say, Ol' Martin L. for bridge?? "Only 'slam' bidding allowed, here! And it will be limited to the 'suits' of clubs and spades! If you can't beat 'em, bury 'em!" :thumbs:

In fact, I'd even bet a bid of three clubs would be for hitting someone, not invitational! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Paul1611]

I have to remember that...

I know some people that statement fits!!! :laugh:

It even fits me sometimes!!!

I must say, I got a laugh out of it myself!

 

[npetreley]

Some men are caustic because they do not suffer fools gladly. Others are because they are the fools. We could argue about which is which, but I don't think we'll always agree.

 

[TCGreek]

Let me begin by saying that I am not what you would call a "Calvanist", a "Ruckmanite", or an avid follower of Daivid Cloud, or anyone else. I try my best not to be classified into categories or cliques, even though I am not ashamed to be called a baptist. I have read material written by all three men mentioned above and like anyone, find things that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. What I have noticed though is that people seem to want to take a stand against Ruckman and Cloud for their mean spirit, hateful speech, and lack of love and tolerance for the brethren (which I dont always agree with either) yet they will hold John Calvin in the highest regards. For the past month or so I have been reading a number of books. Two has to do with the doctrine of Calvanism, one with Church History, and the other is a devotional by a Calvanist (not to mention I have been surfing the web quite a bit and have seen some things there too). I was very surprised when I came across some quotes from Calvin, that were to say the least not very polite. In a letter to another believer Calvin calls the man a dog and his speech barking.
He also calls another man a "simpleton" and goes on to insult his intelligence by saying "you must be twice or thrice dipped into stupidity.." Then I read that he played a major roll in having a man named Servetus killed, and yet I hear people do nothing but praise John Calvin. How is it that we can condemn Ruckman, Cloud, and who ever else for their "rude speech" and yet ignore it when it comes to Calvin??

1. The first time I heard of Calvin's connection with Servetus stake-burning, I was taken aback.

2. But I did my research. I do not know how much you have looked into Calvin as a man. You must understand the milieu of his time. Servetus burning was almost inevitable.

3. Calvin never wished for him to be burned at the stake. In fact, Calvin even allowed Servetus to use his personal library. Time and time, again and again, Calvin urged Servetus to recant from his heretical and blasphemous ways.

4. It was the Little Council that had Servetus burned, not Calvin. In fact, Calvin tried to get them to execute Servetus in a less cruel way.

5. Servetus was a man on the run. By the time Servetus got to Geneva, he was already convicted of heresy and blasphemy by a papal tribunal at Vienne, France and had already been condemned to be burned at the stake by slow fire.

6. Calvin was a theologian and exegete of the first rank. He was a man of God. He had a pastor's heart. But he was human like everyone of us.

7. Ruckman and Cloud are men of like passion. They too will sin in ways not even expected. But at issue is theology and what they really teach. Once we can get pass the human frailties, that's the key.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is perhaps the easiest question ever posed here: Calvin is dead and cannot be confronted or repent; Ruckman and Cloud are alive and should be confronted and urged to repent.

We should not confuse all strong language with bad language, however.

 

[mnw]

Plainly and simply it is a double standard.

I am not defending anyone, but this is how it looks.

As for a defense of Calvin's militant behaviour at Geneva and his invovlement in the death and torture of those who disagreed I would be interested to see the other side of the coin. As you can see, it appears I have only been shown one side. I am interested to learn more.

Where can I find the threads that have discussed it previously?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Colossians 3:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
And whatsoeuer yee doe, doe it heartily,
as to the Lord, and not vnto men:

Colossians 3:23 (KJV1769 Edition):
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily,
as to the Lord, and not unto men;

I've found all but one person with '1611'
in their moniker don't know the
difference between '1611 KJV'
and 'KJV1611 Edition'.
'1611 KJV' includes the two readings above
and more.
'KJV1611 Edition' reads as shown above
which is different from the 'KJV1769
Edition' which also is shown.

So most people
with a handle of name1611 use the
KJV1769 Edition

As for the topic:
Calvin didn't use any of the KJVs

 

[Paul1611]

Colossians 3:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
And whatsoeuer yee doe, doe it heartily,
as to the Lord, and not vnto men:

Colossians 3:23 (KJV1769 Edition):
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily,
as to the Lord, and not unto men;

I've found all but one person with '1611'
in their moniker don't know the
difference between '1611 KJV'
and 'KJV1611 Edition'.
'1611 KJV' includes the two readings above
and more.
'KJV1611 Edition' reads as shown above
which is different from the 'KJV1769
Edition' which also is shown.

So most people
with a handle of name1611 use the
KJV1769 Edition

As for the topic:
Calvin didn't use any of the KJVs

Please forgive me if I have missed something somewhere, but how do your remarks have anything to do with the original post? I am not wanting to make this a KJV post, or talk about the differences between.

 

[Martin]

Then I read that he played a major roll in having a man named Servetus killed, and yet I hear people do nothing but praise John Calvin. How is it that we can condemn Ruckman, Cloud, and who ever else for their "rude speech" and yet ignore it when it comes to Calvin??

==You should probably study a bit more of church history before you condemn Calvin. The larger historical context, and the actual events, help understand what actually happened and why Calvin did what he did. Btw, you can't study the life of John Calvin from a person who has as their life mission trying to make Calvin look bad. There are some fine, general, church history books on the market. There are even some good biographies of John Calvin that contain no theological perspective (ie...secular history).

 

[Bro. Williams]

This is a general question in regards to Servetus...

With all the posting and comments, all have in a "round about way" said that he condoned the murder but didn't want him to be murdered. These were written in different ways mind you, but that seems to be the general sense of the theme.

(Now, please understand... I do not know much about Calvin himself or his life other than a few things I have read and I am NOT claiming to know much. That is why I am speaking of this in a curious fashion and not TELLING at the moment.)

If I am mistaken, by all means, let me know. Yet, it seems that all agree he was, at least in part, responsible for the man's death. Is this correct? Once again, that is just how the reading seems, and I do not mean to put words in anyone's mouth.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Ruckman takes the cake with rude and unwholesome speech . No one is in his league in that respect . But I am sure some wannabees would like to go for that title .

Try a certain Aaron Samples in Florida.... let me see, Gainesville Florida I believe. Let me see if I can find the link...

 

[Bro. Williams]

For my previous post...

http://www.thekingjamesbible.us/

NOTE - Disclaimer: This is not a plug for this preacher or his preaching or his style of preaching etc.etc.etc.

 

[Dale-c]

With all the posting and comments, all have in a "round about way" said that he condoned the murder but didn't want him to be murdered. These were written in different ways mind you, but that seems to be the general sense of the theme.

Servetus was tried and convicted as a criminal and then executed.
He was not taken out and shot in an old west fashion.
I don't know that I agree that it was the civil state's duty to punish him in that way, actually I think they were wrong.
BUt he was NOT a christian of another denomination as many believe. He was a true heretic.
He was deserving of death, though I don't know that he should have been executed.

I have heard many times that "Calvin killed baptists and other Christians that didn't agree with him"
I have yet to see any substantiation of that fact.

 

[J.D.]

Ruckman is an aggressor and will turn on anyone that dares to question him. His former associate pastor was as loyal as a man could be, but after Ruckman's second divorce, he couldn't take it any more and left. Ruckman attacked him with every thing he had.

Calvin and Luther et al were fighting to establish essential doctrines in the church. Ruckman attacks over the slightest nuance and outlandish doctrines like salvation by works in every dispensation except this one.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Servetus was tried and convicted as a criminal and then executed.
He was not taken out and shot in an old west fashion.
I don't know that I agree that it was the civil state's duty to punish him in that way, actually I think they were wrong.
BUt he was NOT a christian of another denomination as many believe. He was a true heretic.
He was deserving of death, though I don't know that he should have been executed.

I have heard many times that "Calvin killed baptists and other Christians that didn't agree with him"
I have yet to see any substantiation of that fact.

What was his crime? I have yet to hear or read what it was.