By Rick Patrick
According to The History and Character of Calvinism by J. T. McNeil, in 1553 John Calvin requested that Michael Servetus be decapitated as a traitor rather than burned as a heretic. In light of this merciful request, Calvin’s friend William Farel chided him for his undue lenience. However, it did no good and Servetus was burned at the stake.
Who among us cannot sympathize with Farel’s concern? Frankly, Calvin’s softness in proposing merely to cut off the head of a man who so clearly deserved to be set on fire is puzzling. What kind of girlyman allows a heretic who denies both the Trinity and infant baptism to get away with the mere wrist slap of head removal?
Clearly, Calvin hoped in this matter that cooler heads would prevail–except, of course, for that of Servetus. When rebuffed by the Geneva Council, Calvin undoubtedly felt he had been burned, ironically the very same sensation that the heretic felt last.
In order to fully comprehend Calvin’s view of God’s love for sinners like Servetus, it is helpful to explore the advantages and disadvantages of incineration and decapitation.
One could argue that decapitation better illustrates God’s grace, a major concern of Calvin’s, for we all must die in one manner or another, and the immediate separation of the brain from the pain receptors in one’s nerve endings ensures a quick and painless death. The traitor certainly bleeds, but at least he will never know it. Unfortunately, this method requires extensive postmortem labor in dealing with the corpse and blood loss.
On the other hand, incineration better illustrates the glory Calvin believed God received by pouring out His wrath upon sinners in hell. Although it is a more painful form of execution, it conveniently dispatched of the remains through a marvelous efficiency–the very form of execution accomplished the cremation of the body simultaneously. One would be hard pressed to find a better illustration of the concept “ashes to ashes.”
Perhaps Calvin’s preference for traitorous decapitation over heretical incineration had less to do with the form of execution and more to do with the rationale. If Servetus was killed for being a traitor, the blame could be placed on civil authorities rather than religious ones. Was Calvin trying to deny his own responsibility in the matter? In fact, did his theology not tend to deny human responsibility more generally?
While I fully realize that the culture of the day allowed for the execution of both traitors and heretics, it is difficult for me to overlook the theologian’s role in this matter. Calvin’s actions speak louder than his words. How does a Calvinist today so easily absolve his conscience while taking his theological cues on the nature of God’s love from a heart and mind so blind to the immorality of governmental or ecclesiastical homicide?
Why does Calvin get a free pass on this matter? The argument that nobody is perfect is certainly one Servetus might wish we could have stumbled upon a little sooner. Surely if Calvin was indeed such a genius, his mind was capable of recognizing this as sin. Conversely, since he evidently did not view this as sin, can we not infer that perhaps there are a great many other things his brilliant mind failed to grasp as well?
Whatever else God’s plan of salvation addresses, it clearly speaks of His love for sinners–a love that does not seek to kill them but to die in their place. Personally, the formulation of salvation doctrine I embrace was reduced to writing by a Twentieth Century born Southern Baptist theologian who would have favored the pardoning of Servetus rather than sentencing him with either incineration or decapitation.
How Calvinists can take their cue regarding God’s love for sinners from a Sixteenth Century born non-Southern Baptist theologian who approved treating his theological opponents in such a manner is an absolute mystery to me. If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.
BRAVO, Rick. How can Calvinists defend a murderer? Well, I will tell you how. My former pastor, a Calvinist (thus the reason he is my former pastor) kept nudging me toward Calvinism. When I told him I could never be such b/c I couldn’t condemn babies and the mentally challenged to hell, and neither could I burn anyone at the stake, his reply was: “Servetus had to go.” He went on to explain that the ‘heretic’ was trying to revert to the hellish Catholicism that Calvin and others in Geneva had subversed. He said that Servetus had been warned several times not to return to the city, and when he made his final return, that was the last straw.
Brilliant writing, Rick, and your point that Calvin’s murderous activity evokes credible suspicion of his other conclusions is exceedingly well-taken.
Keep typing, Brother! — Norm
Rick,
I am interested as to why you believe it is imperative that people who are convictionally baptistic and cooperate in missions through the CP must centrally learn from other “Southern Baptists”. There are very few rules as to what a Church must do to identify as Southern Baptist. Some SBC Churches are healthy, some are not. I want to be shaped by men and women who treasure Christ and be a learner from Churches who are making a Kingdom impact in the city and to the nations. Because the SBC is so far behind in urban Church planting, many of these great Churches are not SBC. I may not plant a Church with their leaders, but I don’t discount their ideas just because they don’t give to CP. The days of the SBC as a 99% white, southern, mono-cultural machine are hopeully behind us. You can walk into SBC Churches all across this country and have radically different experiences. I am praying that the Gospel and the faithful exposition of scripture will unite them all.
I am not a Calvinist, but really struggle to see what would motivate the writing of such an article. Calvin, just like all men, had a wicked heart. Most theologians don’t follow him as a man, they follow a theological system he contributed to that has been derived from the Scriptures. An article against a man won’t sway others away from Calvinism, because he, for most, isn’t at the center of the system.
I just wish the tone of the discussion wouldn’t be like a political ad with heightened rhetoric and very closed minds. The SBC has an opportunity to unite under the tent together..will we?
Sincerely,
Robert
RobertSC,
If this is your position why not go to every conference that TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, Jimmy Swaggart, TBN, and others like that put on? I mean, if the rule of thumb is the number of people that are being touched then SB are missing it bad.
Robert,
Since you made a special appeal in a comment below for me to interact here, I will oblige.
I do not believe that Southern Baptists must centrally learn from other Southern Baptists as an imperative. Perhaps I gave that impression when contrasting Hankins and Calvin, who are different denominationally, theologically, historically and in their view of the punishment of heretics.
Your desire for a diverse yet united SBC is one I share, provided that we can safeguard the convention’s churches from a situation in which we use Traditionalist resources to build a more Calvinistic future. It is becoming readily apparent that this dog will not hunt.
It would also contribute to a greater sense of unity if our more Reformed churches would report all their statistics on the Annual Church Profile. We deserve to know, for example, if they are devoting their energies almost entirely toward Reformed church planting and missionary work. If so, an equal and opposite approach on the Traditional side of the equation is clearly justified.
As to the writing of the article, I certainly did not envision any Calvinists changing their minds. I find it odd that so many of them assumed that motive. It makes me wonder when they write if it is not their intention to persuade Traditionalists toward Calvinism, since they assumed such a motive from me in the other direction.
No, I thought Farel’s view of decapitation as undue lenience was preposterous on the face of it, and viewed the anecdote as fertile ground for a little light hearted satire.
If we are to unite under the same tent, it must be as equals. We do not have one view, Calvinism, and a bunch of opponents tearing it down. We have two views, Calvinism and Traditionalism, with convictions that are themselves in conflict with one another. No one is a villain here. We simply have irreconcilable theological convictions, and an adversarial relationship that can be better managed when we stop calling other people names for merely expressing their convictions.
I have often said if my salvation depended on whether Calvin was truly saved I would be worried. His actions speak louder than his words. There is no love for humanity in Calvinism only love for the “elect”. I have watched as my former pastor nudged my former church toward Calvinism all the while denying it. Finally his hand was forced and he had to admit his change of beliefs to the church. Of course this has caused a split since he did not possess enough integrity to resign. The problem with the “reformation” is that it didn’t go far enough away from the Catholic Church. I understand some Calvinist are actually moving back into the Catholic Church. Thank you so much for exposing the errors of this false doctrine.
You know, Rick, you really have a great gift of sarcasm. It’s seems to be a great tool to edify the brethren and build up the Kingdom. You will win many through its use. Keep up the good work!
Welcome back, Ben. You mean to tell us all that you have no opinion of the murderous Calvin? Rather, you would commit the ‘sin’ of sarcasm as you chide Rick for being sarcastic? Shouldn’t the physician heal himself? Why not deal with the content of the post rather than passing judgement on Rick? — Norm
Norm,
“Welcome back.” Where’d I go?
If Calvin is a “murderer” as you characterize him, then so is every judge, jury, and prosecutor who ever issed the death penalty. That’s an absurd label, as it is with Calvin.
If you guys want want to play to the flesh by posting articles that seek rip, tear, & mock people as sarcasm is meant to do, you will win nobody. In fact, you’ll only play to your base and repel others. Furthermore, you’ll invite negativity to your blog.
The whole episode with Servetus is sickening and grievous and is certainly a black eye on Christianity, which to a lesser extent so is the case of the Anabaptists in Munster that you guys gladly name as your heritage. If you all would be driven by reason instead of polemics, you would see that the Servetus case & the Munster case point us to the evil of state church religion. But, that’s not nearly as fun to lambast or as easily demonized, now is it?
Ben:
My characterization of Calvin as a murderer doesn’t make him a murderer. His part in the murder of Servetus makes him a murderer, my characterization notwithstanding. So, you missed that one.
I categorically reject your equating what Calvin and his magisterial reformers did to Servetus and scores of others is on par with a biblical understanding of the death penalty. You missed that one, too.
I reject your characterization of “you guys … playing to the flesh.” If what is posted on this blog irritates others’ flesh, then it seems the problem is with the others’ flesh. Missed again. (And, BTW: You impugn our motives with such an accusation.)
Invite negativity? Nope, we don’t; but others offer plenty of it. Again, not our problem.
Driven by reason? Indeed we are. Have you read Dr. Harwood’s most recent essays? Though our metrics show that his and many others of our posts are read by residents whose IP addresses track back to significant cities in our SBC Zion, it is also deafeningly apparent that when we do offer reason (e.g., Harwood, Allen, et al) that such reason is ignored by those who show the discretion not to engage such sound reasoning. Nothing but crickets: “chirp, chirp.”
Unlike Calvinists, who champion Calvin, I am no champion of any personality involved in the Munster debacle. I stand ready to reject Hoffman, et al. Are you ready to reject Calvin? — Norm
“If Calvin is a “murderer” as you characterize him, then so is every judge, jury, and prosecutor who ever issed the death penalty. That’s an absurd label, as it is with Calvin.”
That statement puts you on the road to the Nuremburg defense.
“The whole episode with Servetus is sickening and grievous and is certainly a black eye on Christianity, which to a lesser extent so is the case of the Anabaptists in Munster that you guys gladly name as your heritage. If you all would be driven by reason instead of polemics, you would see that the Servetus case & the Munster case point us to the evil of state church religion. But, that’s not nearly as fun to lambast or as easily demonized, now is it?”
Munster, the 18 month evil state church that came as a result of the peasants war in which Luther sided with the princes? As you know, Ana Baptists were never monolithic and most were pacifists. Even on the run with few printers who dared defy the Reformers some were able to publicly denounce the Munster group.
So comparing Munster to Geneva is like trying to paint Prague as Berlin before WW2.
You are not the first Reformer who drags out Munster as a defense for Calvin’s tyranny in Geneva and his premeditated and sanctioned murder of Servetus.
But I would be interested in any resources you could share of Calvin’s Reformed leader contemporaries who spoke out against his tyranny and concerning Servetus.
Ben,
What is it that Rick has put in this post is sarcasm? What is it that Rick as placed in this historical review that is exaggerated or false? Did Calvin not contemplate being merciful to Servetus by the use of a guillotine instead of gasoline?
Tim,
I’m afraid I cannot help a blind man to see.
Whoa..category shift of all time. I am speaking of Kingdom impact through the Gospel. I would deny following these and others because of their undertanding of the Gospel, their understanding of the Church, and the way they go about making convets instead of disciples. Kingdom impact does not just mean big Churches or flashy programs. I don’t ever want to be connected with making converts rather than disciples. Numbers matter becasue people are image bearers, however a ministries impact and health is not centrally measured by attendence and membership.
Excellent Rick!
There are some other conumdrums when looking at Calvinist Theo/political thinking that need to be pondered when so many want to make his name great among the nations:
-Can we really separate his ST from his behavior (not just the Servetus scandal, btw)? Wouldn’t his ST drive his behavior. If it boils down to the “man of his time” or “no one is perfect” defense then shouldn’t we question the ST?
-Church attendance was mandatory in Geneva at the time. Servetus was recognized and arrested when he went to hear Calvin preach passing through Geneva from France while fleeing to Italy. Seems a bit unfair to me. And how did they know there wern’t other secret heretics attending church because it was mandatory but what they deemed heresy was punishable by death if you admitted it?
-If God controls all molecules and therefore our actions, etc, then what about the fact that Servetus was one of the first to recognize a circulatory blood system? Didn’t God give him that insight even though he was a heretic, according to the Cavlin paradigm?
What I am seeing is that tyrants and benevolent dictators are becoming more and more fashionable in many Theo/political areas of our lives these days. It is indeed, chilling.
Perhaps the “Servetus deserved it” guy from SBCVoices will comment on your blog post. Sheesh!!!
Ben, Trying to wrap my head around your cognitive dissonance. You use sarcasm to rebuke sarcasm?
Not a rebuke as much as an illustration. Sarcasm wins nobody & only galvinizes opponents
Thanks Ben. I will start reading your comments as illustrations of what not to say. :-)
Don’t look to me for things not to say. You seem to have mastered that a long time ago.
Don’t look to me for things not to say. You seem to have mastered that a long time ago.”
But you are so much better at it than me. :o)
ey Lydia were you around back in the day when the great Tom Ascol used to regularly link to a site, I think it was called Tom in a Box? It was a site for the sole purpose of mocking “Arminians” and Tom Ascol loved it! Goood times those! Let me do a little searching an let’s see Benny boy apply the same standard to his own.
Mary, I used to read Tom in the Box. Is it still around? I was safe, though, because I am not an Arminian.:o)
Rick, this whole article is a “to the man” logical fallacy. Also, you think Calvin was responsible for Servetus’ death even though he couldn’t control the form of execution? He wasn’t even a citizen of Geneva at this time. BTW: If I find out that your 20th Century theologian had any hidden sins, does that invalidate your beliefs? Nope. We affirm “The Scripture alone.” Southern Baptist Calvinists are Calvinists because they believe that’s what the Bible teaches, not because Calvin taught it. After all, they reject Calvin’s form of church/state government, infant baptism, elder rule, etc. In other words, Southern Baptist Calvinists believe what Calvin taught concerning the T.U.L.I.P. because the prophets, apostles, and Christ taught it prior to Calvin and his followers.
Jared: Rick can respond directly to your post. Mine is an indirect one, of sorts. If Calvinists believe as you say, then they should quit invoking his name and call themselves biblicists. Also, my former pastor attended a seminary where “studiously working through the ‘Institutes’” twice was required. But was doing the same required of the Bible? Nope. At least some Calvinists, and at least one seminary, seems to put the Institutes on par or even above the Bible. That is the apparent priority in the case I have cited. — Norm
Rick, just for the record, I don’t affirm Limited Atonement, but my point is that the reason some Southern Baptist Calvinists do affirm Limited Atonement is because they believe this is what the Bible teaches.
Jared,
We are in perfect agreement concerning the extent of the atonement. Also, neither of us has ever encouraged beheading someone.
(I think.)
Jared,
I know that I am not as well read as you but I fail to know of any 20th Century theologian that was affirming of the death of a fellow believer because he disagreed with him on infant baptism. When one is affirming of murder based on his interpretation of scripture it certainly makes the rest of one’s theology to be seriously questioned.
I agree Jared that theological formulations need to be considered on their own merits, and it is ad homenim to claim they are false because the people who formulated them were wretched people.
That said, it is proper to examine their teachings in light of Scripture. In that light, it is fairly easy to demonstrate Calvinism is mistaken doctrine on many points.
Now, having said that also, it goes without saying that orthodoxy leads to orthopraxis.
Hence, it also is prudent to examine their theological formulations in light of their behavior to see what connection, if any, does their version of orthodoxy lead to their version of practice. If the practices are found to be faulty, then chances are high that the theological formulations that led to that kind of praxis are also faulty.
It is also worth noting that Rick never argued “Calvin was a jerk, therefore Calvinism is false.”
You need to understand the meaning and proper usage of ad hominem.
Indeed, simply making fun of people isn’t ad hominem like people think. In fact, if you are arguing against the position AND hurling insults at the opponent and making fun of him while doing so, EVEN THAT ISN’T ad hominem.
Jonathan, I missed where Rick argued against Calvinism based on its own merits. The above article is a “to the man” logical fallacy. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
Precisely because he wasn’t arguing against Calvinism there is no fallacy here….
Duh.. ;-)
The above article is ABOUT A MAN and what to make of him, not an argument “to the man” as a means to argue against some theological construct on the merits of that construct taken in isolation.
Seriously man, get a grip.
Jonathan, Rick clearly moves from the man to his theology, and argues that we should reject the theology based on the man. It’s a “to the man” logical fallacy.
Rick’s missive looks like a smoking gun but smells like burning flesh. Further, I am positive that Servetus would love to be alive to debate whether the post is a “logical fallacy.” — Norm
No Jared. I already addresses this above in the discussion of praxis from doctrine.
Rick made that point. He did not reject Calvinism because of Calvin. He said it is fair to question the theological formulations because of the actions of the formulator.
Again, no fallacy here. Hang it up.
Personally, I thought the article rather than employing an “ad hominem” or “to the man” fallacy employed more of a “poisoning the well” fallacy. Eg., Calvin was wrong about Servetus; therefore, any claims Calvin made about theology cannot be relied upon.
Rick said, “If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.”
It isn’t well poisoning at all to recap historical events.
It isn’t well poisoning to talk about Hitler and Holocaust in the same paragraph either. In fact, Hitler’s cause gives us grounds to question his political theory, and to this day, one example is that gun rights advocates make much out of mentioning Hitler’s desire to disarm the populace. This is an example of criticism and lessons learned from such an examination of his political theory.
Calvin was involved in Servetus’ death, so it is fair game. For all intents and purposes, examining a person’s theology in light of his actions is no different than examining a person’s political theory in light of his actions.
Again, it is talking about Calvin, who gets murder wrong, and thus fair to question “his” understanding of other things.
As I stated above:
“..theological formulations need to be considered on their own merits, and it is ad homenim to claim they are false because the people who formulated them were wretched people.
That said, it is proper to examine their teachings in light of Scripture. In that light, it is fairly easy to demonstrate Calvinism is mistaken doctrine on many points.
Now, having said that also, it goes without saying that orthodoxy leads to orthopraxis.
Hence, it also is prudent to examine their theological formulations in light of their behavior to see what connection, if any, does their version of orthodoxy lead to their version of practice. If the practices are found to be faulty, then chances are high that the theological formulations that led to that kind of praxis are also faulty.”
Norm, thanks for letting us know what Baptists can and can’t do. Why stop at nomenclature? Anything else you’d like to impose on fellow Baptists?
Jeff,
You thanked Norm for “letting us know what Baptists can and can’t do.” What did I miss. I looked back over Norm’s comments and have missed completely the place where Norm has imposed any nomenclature on anyone.
“If Calvinists believe as you say, then they should quit invoking his name and call themselves biblicists. ” – Norm
Jeff: If you equate my word “should” with “can and can’t do,” then I suspect you would equivocate about sovereignty v. free will, too. A dictionary would be helpful for you, here. — Norm
Since Baptists — traditional, biblical Baptists — have a free will, I’m not sure I can impose anything on them. — Norm
“If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.”
By this logic we should burn the Pentateuch, the Psalms of David, and Paul’s writings. Were all these theologians not also murderers? The execution of Servetus is indefensible, especially in light of our devotion to religious liberty. A Southern Baptist slave owner is indefensible. A Southern Baptist segregationist is indefensible. But aren’t you glad we don’t worship past Southern Baptist leaders? Aren’t you glad we don’t worship medieval preachers from Geneva? Aren’t you glad we don’t worship Apostles, or murdering shepherds like Moses and David? Aren’t you glad our doctrine is rooted in the Scripture and not the moral fidelity of imperfect men?
Does the truth of our doctrine now depend on what our theologian would have done with Servetus? The fact is that you don’t know what Herschel Hobbs would have done with Servetus if he had been in Calvin’s shoes (I’m assuming Mr. Sunday School is your man, let me know if I’m wrong). Perhaps he would have morally failed as well? Was Hobbs not prone to follow the institutions and culture of his day? Was he not a segregationist? Do we let these men’s sins define their ministry, or do we recognize that the Bible teaches that God can save and use even the vilest offender of the law? Thank God we have a Christ!
1 Cor 10: 12 “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
Rick, I have rebuked you privately before and now I am publicly urging you to take a step back and consider whether what you are doing in writing something like this if of Christ or the flesh.
Call my office if you want to talk and pray about this matter.
Chad A. Edgington
Wake Village, Texas
cedgington@fbcwakevillage.org
Excellent and very well said!
Not so fast, Chad and Ben. Equating the inspired writers of the Scriptures to Calvin is an inequity beyond belief. Surely you are not saying Calvin was inspired by God when he penned the Institutes, are you? Of course, some among the Calvinist ilk seem to hold the Institutes on par or even above the Scriptures, as I noted in a previous post. — Norm
I am still stuck on the idea presented here we can be born again murderers.
Exactly how does that work? All sin is equal? We remain totally depraved instead of new creatures in Christ when saved? Is it only great leaders who get a pass on murder as a believer in the New Covenant?
Wasn’t Calvin supposed to be a long time believer even before the Servetus burning? So we trot David out to excuse Calvin and say God is ok with us being murders as believers in the New Covenant… even after sending us the promised Spirit of Truth?
I do not get this sort of thinking at all. If nothing has changed since David then why the Cross?
All I can say is lock up the children and hide the silver. Murder is no big deal for Born Again believers. After all, we are all sinners.
First of all, to call Calvin a murderer is wrong. Look at the times he lived in. He was doing the right thing by the standards of the day. Today it would be wrong, back in Calvin’s time, it was considered the right thing.
Lydia, you keep skipping scripture unless you are saying Moses, who murdered an Egyptian and David who sent Uriah to his death, were not born again.
So Calvin was capitulating to the standards of the day? Hmmm…you just made the case for abortion, homosexuality …. What about Rom 12.2?
Wonder if Calvin prayed Ps. 51 after murdering Servetus?
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I am one of these nerds who think the US Founders were thinking of Cromwell, Calvin, Puritans etc and others when they drafted:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Making hero’s out of despots is chilling. As to Moses and David, Norm touched on that and both even paid a price
I find it chilling that people trot them out to excuse burning a man at the stake in the 16th Century, so long after the Cross. “Born again” executioners?…. because someone disagreed about God? How does that make Calvin theologically brilliant? I will never understand that one.
Chad and Ben,
Although I will not defend murder by Moses, David or Paul, in Paul’s case it was prior to his conversion, and one could argue that in Moses’ case, it was accidental or manslaughter. Just the same, I’m not really comfortable putting Calvin in the same room with the biblical writers. On the timeline, he’s much closer to our day.
A better analogy, in my view, would be to imagine what would happen to the ministry of a Calvinist today, such as Piper, Dever or Driscoll, if they were involved in taking the life of a theological opponent. Would we look the other way if an influential theologian who did NOT write any part of the Bible was part of a murderous scheme? I think not.
This may get deleted but what if a leader of a body of churches is found to have known about a pedophile ring and the coverup of the crimes. What is SBC leaders like Dever and Mohler know about these issues and still refuse to speak out against the leaders of this body of churches and actully continues to hold up the leader as someone to emulate?
This is what I find so disturbing – Mark Driscoll commits pure blasphame against God by proclaiming that he gets pornographic visions and no one in the SBC Calvinists community will dare to denounce him.
CJ Mahaney is being shown to have known about horrors being committed in his churches (never mind all the physcial evidence of his attempts to blackmail whistleblowers in his church) and yet the man is welcomed warmly in Louisville.
Forget about Servetus – there are a whole of victims stacking up in the here and now that Calvinists refuse to stand up for because of the theology of the leaders involved.
“Just the same, I’m not really comfortable putting Calvin in the same room with the biblical writers. On the timeline, he’s much closer to our day.”
I think there is quite a bit of confusion on this one in those quarters. Could it be they have the same initials?
…”what would happen to the ministry of a Calvinist today, such as Piper, Dever or Driscoll, if they were involved in taking the life of a theological opponent. Would we look the other way if an influential theologian who did NOT write any part of the Bible was part of a murderous scheme? I think not.”
And rightly so and to add just a little we certainly would expect remorse and repentance and admission of guilt. Agreed Rick. And those whose material I use on occasion is looked at through that lens also. Though this may well be a good topic for another article by someone. How well do we forgive and seek to restore those who sin greatly in our day? Though now I am off topic, sorry.
This is one of the most goofy “rebukes” I have ever read, on so many levels. Calvin received the text, he not write any of it.
If anything, the honesty of the texts regarding these men, their highs and lows, sins and successes, etc. should have given Calvin, who certainly read the Scriptures, a full understanding of what is, and is not, right behavior before God.
David’s heart of repentance in the Psalms speaks truth.
Calvin’s reaction to the Servetus speaks truth too:
“Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.”
Big difference.
“Does the truth of our doctrine now depend on what our theologian would have done with Servetus?”
Where did Rick argue this?
You get that from this?: “If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.”
Like Ben, Jared, and the others, this error, which has been repeatedly refuted in these comments, seriously calls into question reading comprehension, understanding of logic, etc.
Feel free to call my office and I will be happy to give you a clue.
“The execution of Servetus is indefensible, especially in light of our devotion to religious liberty. A Southern Baptist slave owner is indefensible. A Southern Baptist segregationist is indefensible.”
I applaud you for writing the above though, if we take it in isolation from what preceded it and what follows it. as it is about the only sense you actually made, even if your error of “by this logic” spectacularly failed and was, quite frankly, asinine.
Cheers!
Many Calvinists try to mimize the Servetus affair through various attempts at spin (e.g. that Calvin was just a child of his time, that everybody else was suggesting it so everybody was doing it so to speak, that Calvin tried to have him killed in a humane way, etc. etc. etc. and even here in this thread that:“He wasn’t even a citizen of Geneva at this time. BTW”) attempting to minimize what this event says about Calvin’s character (or better put, lack of Christian character). Not only can the treatment of Servetus not be justified (i.e. the New Testament does not recommend, endorse, or even suggest that “heretics” be murdered) the problem with Calvin was that while this event makes him look bad: it was ****not an isolated event****. If you read about Calvin you find a man who had a ruthless and extremely harsh personality and way of dealing with people.
There are lots of biographies of Calvin out there. The one I believe to be the best and most accurate biography of Calvin is the one by Bruce Gordon. Read that biography and you will see that while the Servetus affair makes Calvin look bad there are lots of other events that do so as well. Consider a brief excerpt that clearly demonstrates what kind of person Calvin was. It is in the opening to Gordon’s biography (according to some Calvinists seen to be the **definitive** biography of Calvin):
“John Calvin was the greatest Protestant reformer of the sixteenth century, brilliant, visionary, and iconic. The superior force of his mind was evident in all that he did. He was also ruthless, and an outstanding hater. Among those things he hated were the Roman church, Anabaptists and those people who, he believed, only faint-heartedly embraced the Gospel and tainted themselves with idolatry. He saw himself as an instrument of God, and as a prophet of the Church he brooked no rivals. He never felt he had encountered an intellectual equal, and he was probably correct. To achieve what he believed to be right, he would do virtually anything. Although not physically imposing, he dominated others and knew how to manipulate relationships. He intimidated, bullied and humiliated, saving some of his worst conduct for his friends.”(from the preface)
Does that sound like a man of godly Christian character?
By the marks of a Christian (including love of the brethren, love of the lost, the character traits required of elders) he does not fit these things at all. I believe later Calvinists overlook and minimize his lack of character, his hatefulness towards others, his sinful actions towards others and focus on the **content** of his beliefs and theology and writings. But I was taught that a godly person is seen in their character first, not the content of what they teach or promote.
There is no way looking at this person who was “ruthless, and an outstanding hater” that you could conclude that he was an example in character of what a Christian leader ought to be. If any Christian leader today was accurately described as “ruthless, and an outstanding hater” I would consider them to be failures. Ironically some modern Calvinists seem to follow Calvin’s example: like him they tend to be very smart but also very hateful of all others who believe differently.
I don’t accept the veneration of Calvin by modern calvinists as we should honor people worthy of honor (which biblically speaking is godly persons who exhibit godly character). In the world they may esteem someone’s intellect or intellectual accomplishments (Einstein being a perfect example of this) while at the same time overlooking or minimizing their character or immorality. But that is not to be the Christian way. We esteem people who exhibit godly character, who trust the Lord in difficult circumstances even if they are hated by the world. By no stretch of the imagination is Calvin to be seen as a person manifesting godly character that we ought to emulate. If someone doubt’s my assessment, just read Gordon’s book for yourself and see what Calvin actually did (Servetus was not the only example of him severely mistreating other people).
Robert
I find very interesting the Gordon quote stating that Calvin was a hater of Anabaptists. An outstanding recent issue of Southwestern Seminary’s magazine was entirely focused upon the Anabaptists. Perhaps some of the vitriol in the SBC today finds its genesis in this historical conflict.
Jared, You start off claiming the whole article is ad hominem. Then a few sentences later you start off with “Southern Baptist Calvinists…”
Did you mean to do that? :o)
“Also, you think Calvin was responsible for Servetus’ death even though he couldn’t control the form of execution? He wasn’t even a citizen of Geneva at this time.”
Here is another problem. You seem to have read only the sanitized mongeristic history of the Reformation. A history written by those in charge and repeated by their fellow Travellors.
History is much more nuanced. The problem with your assertion is that there is written proof long before Servetus stepped foot in Geneva that Calvin’s involvement was premeditated. There is also written proof AFTER the burning that Calvin was very much involved as he lamented in a letter. There are also lots of historical documents that show Calvin insisted upon postion and influence before he agreed to come back to Geneva for the second time and got it. And no, I am not going to give you sources as my library is packed and ready for a move. I do encourage you to read outside the boundaries of official Reformed history.
One thing I would point out is that conversely we have no evidence that Calvin strove to spare Servetus’ life with a simple bannishment. But we do have evidence that Calvin wrote that if Servetus ever came to Geneva,he would not leave alive.
“BTW: If I find out that your 20th Century theologian had any hidden sins, does that invalidate your beliefs? Nope”
I would at least hope that if Rick finds his 20th Century theologian argued for beheading instead of burning a heretic, he would seek to carefully consider how that theologian’s doctrine could remotely condone such thinking much less the actual event.
I must confess I did not check with Eric first, but went out on a limb assuming he would not condone either method of execution for one who disagrees with him about God. Call it an educated opinion based on a handshake and a few personal conversations.
Rick,
You will catch some flack for this article but I appreciate your use of humor and the questions you raise.
You present a solid historical account of this event, drawing from one of the world’s experts on John Calvin. Then, you follow up by exploring the importance of the execution rather than dismissing as a minor event. Giving approval to a man’s death because of his theological position is an extreme position. And it was Calvin’s deliberate decision.
What I hear our more-Calvinistic brothers saying is, “We follow the Bible, not Calvin.” Of course, we also say, “We follow the Bible.”
I also hear our brothers saying, “Everyone sins.” True. But giving approval to a man’s death is no small matter.
I think your closing comment summarizes nicely your point: “If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.”
Blessings, brothers.
In Him,
Adam
As has been pointed out, if that were true, anyone who has been for the death penalty ought to be called into question.
Debbie,
You certainly have a point here, although a general discussion of the death penalty may be outside the scope of the article.
My argument was not against capital punishment for serial murderers. It was against capital punishment for people who disagree about God.
Amen, Robert!
“Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.” – John Calvin
His desire to soften the penalty does not at all make up for his part in this, nor erase this boast that we all owe him for ridding the Earth of Servetus. “‘Vengence is ours’, says the Magisterium.”
Calvin gets no pass for his “historical context”, since Jesus’ teachings in Scripture were 1600 years before his context. Nowhere is the church, even if tied to the state (and especially if tied to the state) is given this authority to execute people for heresy. All Calvin and his historical context demonstrates is the wickedness of Calvin and his context.
“Total Depravity” is a better description for the behavior of many of the various Reformed magisterial figureheads than it is for the anthropological state of man.
“Come on guys, just lop his head off, we don’t have to burn him” is a conversation no Christian should ever have in any context. Period.
Calvin’s Sovereign Grace…..
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you….. And if that doesn’t work, burn them at the stake with slightly green wood to pro-long the agony.”
It seems to me that Calvin’s understanding of grace was more in line with the teachings of Sun Tzu (the Art of War) than those of Jesus Christ.
Rick,
Attacking their theology is one thing, but now you went and attacked their “hero”. Be on the lookout for pitchforks and torches.
God bless
A “Calvinist”, in the sense that it is normally applied, does not equate to a follower or defender of John Calvin. Rick, I think you surely understand this.
“A “Calvinist”, in the sense that it is normally applied, does not equate to a follower or defender of John Calvin. Rick, I think you surely understand this.”
Would you think the same thing if I said I was a Finnyist? An Augustinian? I think that is one reason Cals love to label non Cals as Arminians. If they are allowed to name our beliefs after a human then it helps the case they are following a man, too..
I knew upon writing this piece that more Calvinists would fault me for my humor than Calvin for his murder, although logically I would have nothing here to lampoon if Calvin had not first endorsed the execution of Servetus.
For what it’s worth, if sarcasm is defined as “a cutting expression, usually conveyed through irony or understatement,” I consider it primarily a rhetorical device, and well within the boundaries of literary expression. Please don’t lose your head over my use of word play and satire.
Rick,
Undoubtedly, the Servetus incident where he was put to death (not “murdered” as Norm wrongly labeled it above) by Geneva for false teaching was a wickedly sinful action. Calvin’s part in it is not defensible, and the whole points to the potential great evil a state church can fall into. I’ll say it a thousand times over, Calvin was wrong.
You were not just giving is a history lesson here. The point of your sarcasm-laden, vinegary article is clear: don’t believe what Calvin believed because he was sinful in his action with Servetus. That’s why people have not focused on Calvin’s sin. That wasn’t your goal anyway.
The part that you miss is that his wrongfulness with Servetus does absolutely nothing to negate the truth he taught in other areas. Even if Calvin awaits Hell now, any truth that he taught was still truth. Certainly, his character may cause us to not swallow his teaching so readily, but at the end of the day, any truth that he taught wasn’t his but God’s and remains true despite his sinfulness.
As for your sarcasm, use it all you want, but you will win nobody with it. You’ll only have your base clapping and saying “BRAVO” while galvinizing your opponent against you and repelling those who’ve not made up their mind because of your fleshly approach.
Fleshly approach? Careful. I’m merely following in the tradition of One who chastised religious leaders for straining gnats and swallowing camels, for cleaning the outside of a bowl but not the inside, and for tithing on spices while neglecting more important spiritual truths.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, sarcasm is a neutral literary device used by the God-man Himself. You are free to disagree with the content of my remarks, but the manner in which they were stated cannot possibly be categorized as sinful, since the Sinless One did the very same thing.
Your attempt at hanging sarcasm around Jesus’ neck falls short. The instances that you gave from Jesus are not sarcasm. Any others to point me to?
Sarcasm very well might not be sinful on its face, but it’s heavy-handed use of it (and you seem to like to use both hands) edifies no one. You simply come away looking like a smart aleck.
What a joy to be schooled in sarcasm by one of the Simpsons!
Biblical sarcasm abounds, from Elijah at Mount Carmel to God asking Job where he was when the world was established to Paul suggesting the Athenians were extremely religious in every respect to Paul suggesting the Galatians should not stop at circumcision but go all the way and emasculate themselves!
Often this takes the form of overstatement and hyperbolic exaggeration for effect. Frankly, for Jesus to suggest that the Pharisees were not only blind but were straining at gnats while swallowing camels is the type of cutting expression that is the very definition of sarcasm. Another example is when he told them they would travel over land and sea to make a proselyte, and when the man became one, he was twice as fit for hell as the Pharisees! He said their ministry made people worse!
Though they used sarcasm, and quite heavily, I don’t believe Jesus or Paul or Job were smart alecks. I think they simply employed language colorfully in a way that was often perceived as biting or scathing by those who opposed them.
Although I consider it pejorative for you to call me a smart aleck, I see nothing wrong with the use of sarcasm or satire. It’s a well established literary device found often in Scripture.
Just the same, Rick, I just don’t think that Rick and I are really comfortable putting you in the same room as the writers of scripture…
I meant, “Ben and I”
I would rather follow their acceptable use of ironic humor than their unacceptable practice of murder.
Rick,
Am I back in elementary school with the Simpsons reference? Bart would have told you to eat his shorts, but I would never do that.
Your sarcasm builds you up (“Rick is so witty and smart! Look at how he can say one thing and mean something totally different. He really gave it to them!”) and tears your opponent down. When you get on the spiritual level of Jesus and Paul, use all the sarcasm you want. Then you will use it righteously. Until then, I encourage you to back off.
Ben, you are not exactly a benevolent commenter. And you use sarcasm and vitriol all the time from the comments I have read from you on several blogs. You probably disagree with that analysis and that is ok. Perception, you know
I do, too. So what? Why does it bother you so much that Rick used sarcasm. You are not exactly modeling what you expect from others…the “building up” thing, you know?
We seem to have this ‘do as I say not as I do’ thing going on in a lot of YRR circles as if they are the arbiters of correct communication for everyone else but their own movement.
Why not be the model? Show us how it is done.
I will never get to the spiritual level of Jesus. At least I have a shot at Paul.
But do I really understand you to say that Christians should not use ironic humor or write satire until their level of spiritual maturity matches that of the Apostle Paul? Tim Hawkins would have to cancel his concerts.
Ben, I read your responses, and all I can think is:
Awwwhhh, someone’s tushy hurts.
Seriously man, hang it up.
So a mechanic performed a tune-up on my car’s V-8 engine, but it didn’t sound just right. I asked him if he replaced all the spark plugs. He said sure. Then he counted them aloud: “One, two, three, five, seven, eight.”
Do you think I would let him change the oil in my engine that holds five quarts? (Was that sarcastic?) — Norm
Sarcastic? You or the mechanic??? Was the mechanic dumb or being a smart aleck? I didn’t detect any sarcasm on your part. Did I pass, Mr Miller?
Ben, my brother. You cannot have it both ways. Let’s look at how you defend against Calvin as not being a murderer. You stated in an earlier comment:
“If Calvin is a ‘murderer’ as you characterize him, then so is every judge, jury, and prosecutor who ever issued the death penalty.”
You must have Rom. 13 as a basis for your claim. But later in the same comment you wrote:
“The whole episode with Servetus is sickening and grievous and is certainly a black eye on Christianity …”
And then in a later comment you said, “Calvin was wrong.”
How could he have been wrong to have “put Servetus to death” (your words) and not murdered him (as I say.)? If Calvin was wrong, then, according to you, so are judges, juries and prosecutors. Again, you can’t have it both ways. And your apparent appeal to Rom 13 points up another glaring inconsistency in your argument. If Calvin was wrong, apparently God in his sovereignty made a mistake in ordaining the quasi-theocracy of Calvin’s Geneva. — Norm
If a judge, jury, and prosecutor wrongly sentence a person to do death, does that make them murderers? No. They were wielding the sword of the state and struck amiss.
Servetus was proven to have broken the laws of Geneva. The council sentenced him to the stated consequence for breaking the laws, namely death. They struck amiss.
They were wrong morally to have done so but legally did not murder him.
“If a judge, jury, and prosecutor wrongly sentence a person to do death, does that make them murderers? No. They were wielding the sword of the state and struck amiss. ”
There was a jury in Geneva for Servetus? Anyway, the above made me think of Judge Freisler. He would agree with you.
Your position is that the laws of the land render such murders benign and therefore they are not murderers.
Have we learned nothing from history? And the fact that John Calvin is the darling of so many young men as a guru is chilling. If anything his behavior in this matter and others should render him a tyrant of history. Not someone to name your beliefs about Jesus Christ after.
Great answer, Ben. “They were wrong morally to have done so (kill Servetus) but legally did not murder him.”
That would apply to abortion. Surely you are pro-life, right? So, do you consider abortion morally wrong but legally OK since it’s protected by the law?
That would mean the parents of the child and the abortionist bear no guilt in the MURDER of the innocent child. Oh, wait, I’ll have to ask Dr. Harwood about the Spiritual Condition of a Fetus, I guess.
You just keep digging your hole deeper, Ben. You said Calvin was wrong, but Servetus’ death was legal. Flawed thinking, bro. You said Calvin was wrong. So then, tell me, for what is Calvin culpable? – or the Council, for that matter.
Tell you what, Mr Defender of Calvin — since you admitted he was wrong, it sounds like you are trying to plea bargain. I suppose, then, that I could see my way clear to drop the charge from premeditated murder to voluntary manslaughter.
BTW: Did you read Ron Hale’s historical account of the matter. The Council, it seems, intentionally charged Servetus with something he didn’t do. I’d call that judicial murder. And, Calvin, who wanted to decapitate Servetus, gets no pass. Honestly, I cannot believe you continue in this debate given all the flaws of yours I have pinpointed. — Norm
Norm,
You said, “That would apply to abortion. Surely you are pro-life, right? So, do you consider abortion morally wrong but legally OK since it’s protected by the law?”
I do. Do you not?
Norm, I’m not here to defend Calvin. He was wrong. Call him a “murderer” if you want. I will not.
Ben: You missed the point. In defending Calvin you appealed implicitly to Rom. 13. But later decried the evil of a church/state govt. Ron Hale showed that Servetus’ murder was an intentional miscarriage of justice. There is no other term for that than murder. And Calvin was apart of it. So, I rather suspect you don’t want to call a murderer a man whose theology you embrace. I get that.
Setting aside the Servetus issue for a moment, let it be known that a good theologian must be logical.
Rick, the poster, concludes his post not by biblically challenging so-called Calvinism (i.e., soteriology), but by making the logical deduction as follows:
Since Calvin was wrong on Servetus (Rick’s first premise), THEREFORE Calvin must be wrong on his view of Soteriology.
That’s of course, illogical.
Terry, would you pull that quote down where Rick declares Calvin’s teachings on salvation are wrong?
That is, of course, illogical.
But that is NOT, what Rick in fact said. What he did say was, ” If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.”
This is like the millionth time this error has been pointed out.
(How’s that for hyperbole Ben?)
Rick,
It never fails!
You can preach about Peter denying Jesus three times – no one takes up for the Apostle Peter.
You can preach about David’s terrible sins concerning the murder of Bathsheba’s husband and affair with this woman – no one takes up for David.
This list can continue …
Yet, bring up this dark side of Calvin and he will be defended until the Second Coming.
When it comes to the great men and women of the Scriptures, we seem to show their good and bad – warts and all!
It is not being anti-Calvin to show his dark side – warts and all. He was not a “child of the times” as some like to say. He was a sinner (just like me – and you).
His great sin teaches us lessons. We need to hear them. Thanks for sharing.
Yea. The part about highlighting the fact that Calvin was a non “southern baptist” made me laugh. I guess the only credible theologians have existed since 1845 and have been Southern Baptist. Wow.
Btw, “the formulation of salvation doctrine I embrace was reduced to writing by a Twentieth Century born Southern Baptist theologian…”
Might want to watch out on that one. It took someone 1900 years to formulate what you believe about salvation? Geez. Ad fonte! Sola Scriptura!
Glad to have made you laugh. I intended the piece to be light hearted and a bit funny.
I did not say that no credible theologians existed before 1845 or that all credible theologians were Southern Baptist.
I was merely pointing out that the Traditional Plan of Salvation described by Dr. Eric Hankins was drafted by a Southern Baptist who has never conspired to take a life, while the basic formulation of the Calvinist system was developed by John Calvin, whose views inspired Presbyterianism, and who did in fact conspire to take a man’s life.
I think it’s a contrast worthy of our consideration.
So, it would be just as fair to call you and Hankinsist right? Of course you’d never go for that but that’s who communicated in written form your view of salvation right? So, would it be fair to point out his fallenness to break down your view? I think you’d say “My view isn’t based in Hankins, it’s based on Scripture.” And that’s what I’m saying. So what about your blog post. Personally I am thankful for Calvin and his heart for the Gospel. But if you we’re able to prove something even more atrocious in his life than being complicit in an execution would it disprove Calvinism? Of course not. Wouldn’t even phase it because its a doctrine based on Scripture. Just like the Hankinsites don’t rise or fall based on Dr. Hankins life. You believe your view is backed by the Bible.
Thus, I think your post is pointless. Honestly, it’s not helpful to the debate of Calvinism v. Non-Calvisism, not helpful to the SBC, or the Kingdom. I’m sure your a man who does desire the spread of the Gospel, so this certainly isn’t a slight on you. Just a poor post.
Well, ASN, whoever you are, you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But I can assure you, if Eric were involved in a murder, it would change the way I interpret his life, his work and his theology.
It’s not just simple fallenness. Every theologian except Jesus fits in that category. But the way Calvin treated his opponents, and his role in this sordid affair, should not be ignored.
Im a nobody. Simply a bivocational pastor of worship ans education at a small church in central arkansas. @cuatronelson is my twitter…
If your theology can be broken down because its based on the life of one man, and not the Holy Scriptures, it’s not a very good theology. If the way you attack Calvinism is to attack John Calvin, Lydia then you must not be a very good exegete. I’m Calvinist because Paul was. And Moses too! ;) Not because of John Calvin. It would be better to try and show how those men didnt believe in God’s gracious election, and sovereign hand in all things- but that’s an impossibility. So, attack Calvin to break the system. I just don’t get it.
If Dr. Hankins commited a heinous public sin and you had to reconsider where u stand on that “Traditional Statement” then I’m not sure how solid you are in your convictions of it. Ad fonte brothers/sisters! Sola Scriptura!
“Hankinism” does make for a nice word to contrast “Calvinism” and is much more accurate than “Traditionalist.”
Thus, I think your post is pointless. Honestly, it’s not helpful to the debate of Calvinism v. Non-Calvisism, not helpful to the SBC, or the Kingdom.”
Oh, it is VERY helpful. For those who are flirting with Calvinism and don’t anything about it except what some YRR has told them, I encourage them to read about the man himself. Several were turned off after that. The man was a despot. And arrogant. And since he taught a determinst God paradigm then murdering Servetus was ordained by God and that is why it was not wrong. (Even though he did try to work some PR before and after the event)
Perhaps he did practice what he preached. :o)
Truly spoken, Ben.
I’ve actually discussed this previously, but ruled out Hankinsists for sounding like a country singer with a temper tantrum, as in “Hank insists.”
No term is perfect, but Traditionalist points to a document describing our salvation view, and works for me in that context.
Ron, it’s funny because there are probably more posts and comments on this blog about the evils and/or wrongs of Calvin(ism) than about: 1) Peter denying Jesus three times and 2) David’s murder of Uriah. Therefore, it is difficult to test your hypothesis.
However, let’s see similar posts about Peter and David with conclusions along the lines of – If a biblical character can be dishonest and get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.
as Rick said above, to Chad and Ben, “I’m not really comfortable putting Calvin in the same room with the biblical writers”
Mark, are you equating Calvin’s teachings with Scripture and he inspired as David and Peter? It is clear Ron is saying the followers of Calvin want to revise history to clear Calvin from his dealings with Servetus. The same can accept David is a murderer but can’t Calvin.
Now Dean, why didn’t you ask brother Ron the same question about whom he is equating with whom? I’m simply questioning him on his own grounds.
And I think he likes it. ;)
Careful Mark you sound like Servetus now – give him what I’m getting. :)
Well, if Servetus had his way Calvin would have been tried and put to death. I don’t want to take part in either side.
Well, if Servetus had his way Calvin would have been tried and put to death”
What exactly are you basing that on? If anything, Servetus might have wanted to debate him to death. He was into that and as arrogant as Calvin.
People forget that Servetus had the nerve to mark up the summary of the Institutes and sent it to him. This absolutely infuriated Calvin. And it was after this, Calvin wrote to a friend that if Servetus . ever came to Geneva, he would not leave alive.
Servetus came to hear him preach. Not assassinate Calvin.
Please give us something to go on for your assertion. A letter?
Bro. Mark,
I appeal to “Poena talionis” ….:)
David slept with another man’s wife and then had that man murdered to cover it up. Better not read the Psalms anymore.
as Rick said above, to Chad and Ben, “I’m not really comfortable putting Calvin in the same room with the biblical writers”
If Calvin was a believer he is in the same room. The Scriptures declare that those biblical characters were men of like passions as we are and that God is no respecter of persons. Their sins were no less and no more then Calvins in weight. if murder disqualifies one (given equal circumstances and responses) then it disquailifies the other. However we know that God qualifies and uses and from what little I have read Calvin never had a repentant heart about the murder so that certainly changes the ball game on his influence at leats somewhat. As to those who happen to hold some views he held, they have no need to justify his sin because they share a view of the gospel in some ways. But I believe Rick was being humerous (not about murder) and I would hope he doesn’t believe those who hold Calvinistc views in some way must first justify Calvin in order to hold them. Or I would hope so.
Well, at least we can all rest assured that SBC Today, the writer of this post, and the brothers who are defending it and the plethora of other anti-Calvinist/-ism post which have become standard fare here, are most certainly not antagonistic to their Calvinistic SBC brothers. And please don’t respond with, ‘Well, the so-and-so Calvinist have done it to “us” in the past.’ Step up your game and be better than that straw man…& the straw man you have proffered through the dissemination of this post.
I think “antagonistic” is too strong a word and is simply untrue. I would describe my own feelings this way: “Love the Calvinist, Disagree with the Calvinism.”
Rick,
I’m just not buying it. The level of pugilism propagated here toward Calvinism and many Calvinists is tantamount to cyber-stake burning. To echo what other defenders have stated in reference to comments in this thread, I think that you & others are guilty of what you accuse another, namely Calvin. You guys are on your own ‘heresy’ hunt attempting to burn the good names of many in our convention by calling them guilty by association (to a topic which does not impact the theology you attempt to denigrate). Again, I think you guys can be better than this.
The level of pugilism propagated here toward Calvinism and many Calvinists is tantamount to cyber-stake burning. ”
To dare to make this blog in the same vein as burning a real person at the stake….. smelling and watching a man burn to death….. just shows the immaturity of the YRR movement. And the thinking that is invading our churches.
Scott, is it?
No, I’m really not into pugilism, boxing or fist fighting. I’m more into humor. Lighten up. Does no one else see a kind of dark irony in the fact that this theologian was accused of lenience for wanting to behead a man instead of setting him on fire?
As Dave Barry might say, “I am not making this up!”
Perhaps Jesus would have called all that anti-Christian brother talk that has been posted at this site “murder that has already taken place in the heart”. Perhaps many posting here are already guilty of murder against their brothers and need to repent.
Mary, Calvinists always make a sin out of what they cannot not control or censor. That is why, in their view, it is a worse sin to discuss Servetus than it was to burn him.
Rick,
I did not get what “Calvinistic” (I use the term for lack of a more conveniant word other than maybe Spurgeonists) bent I have from Calvin. I got it from actually taking the Scriptures and reading them and attempting to discern through prayer the many passages on election, predestination etc. I did this as very young deacon in a Baptist Church and really had never heard of Calvin till several years later. I still have not studied greatly much of or from Calvin. My influences from history would be Spurgeon, then a short list of a few of our earlier Baptist preachers with an even shorter list of preachers outside the Baptist. So I for one do not feel any need to defend the sin of Calvin (even though pegged by many as a Calvinist) and it surely was a great sin, I agree with you fully brother on that.
After reading a few of your responses in this list I am going to assume there was much satire at work. But I really don’t think anyone holding to Calvinistic beliefs is going to read this and suddenly drop their view of the gospel because John Calvin committed a capital crime. I would tend to think that there are a few skeletons in our (I said our) SB history that could be used in the same way.
Who said anything about convincing Calvinists to read this and suddenly drop their entire view of the gospel? I would never have expected that response either.
This began as a light hearted piece when I realized Calvin’s friend considered him “lenient” for suggesting one form of execution over another. I realize the humor is dark, but the notion that beheading a man might be viewed as “lenient” was a bit much!
From there, I wondered if this story does not tell us something about Calvin himself. Finally, I reasoned that if it does tell us something about the man, that might help inform us about some of his beliefs, or at least challenge us to view them in a different light or from a different perspective.
Jay, the SBC pro slavery “Founders” were Calvinist, remember?
Lydia: I daresay that those who throw the slavery issue around so carelessly can even name the man who owned them. And I daresay they are aware that the man freed his slaves to answer the call to missions. — Norm
LOL…
Why was Jay’s post, to which Lydia replied, removed?
If sarcasm were a sin, comedians would have to repent after every show. People like Mark Twain or Will Rogers or Dave Barry or Jerry Seinfeld or Tim Hawkins would never be allowed to make any humorous observations or poke any fun at anyone at all.
To claim my word play regarding the execution of Servetus was not only sin, but sin on the same level as those who condoned the execution of Servetus is a preposterous equivocation. Do you really believe my jokes are as sinful as Calvin’s murder?
“Do you really believe my jokes are as sinful as Calvin’s murder?”
I think they do. They couch it as disunity, make excuses for it, trot out Moses and David from the Old Covenant, etc.
I think this gets to the heart of the doctrine itself especially the view on total inability and the Augustinian Neo Platonic inspired definition of God’s Sovereignty. And I hope some are being confronted with this cognitive dissonance when they venture from the Reformed bubble.
When discussing Calvin’s role in the Servetus burning is considered as hateful as the real event of burning a man alive, we are in big trouble. And we should take notice and take it seriously.
I am thankful that as of now, I live in a free country founded by “Deists” where disagreeing is considered a right and not a heinous sin on par with murder.
Seriously, given their responses on this one, who cares what they think. While they contribute to engaging discussions on other topics, here, they are just acting like clowns.
We aren’t in big trouble, and should not take it seriously when they whine about our discussion. The opposite actually. Just let them whine like babies about it until the next post at SBC Today.
I am not trying to be disagreeable with you Lydia, I am just suggesting that your heart need not be troubled by grown adults acting like petulant brats because someone was being sarcastic about their hero. .
I mean, the defenses like “he tried to get him beheaded instead or burned at the stake”…
Doesn’t your heart just warm at the compassion of Calvin? :D
In all seriousness, don’t take the seriously at all on their reactions to this issue.
Maybe next, someone at SBC Today will rant about Luther’s approval of Anabaptist persecution and his Jew-hating bigotry, in which the printed words stretched all the way to the Holocaust and we can relive all this silly whining about that all over again.
Everyone,
I would like to pull together the stream mockery and name calling that Johnathan has spewed toward me throughout this thread.
Johnathan to me: “Ben, I read your responses, and all I can think is: Awwwhhh, someone’s tushy hurts. Seriously man, hang it up.”
Johnathan to me: “‘And the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Drama goes too…’ Seriously dude, would you like a tissue?”
Johnathan indirectly to me: “The replies here from … Ben… has made this one of the goofiest threads on SBC Today ever. I like it for the entertainment value, but despite the attempts to gentlemanly responses to them, their comments deserve little more than ridicule.”
Johnathan about me: “acting like clowns,” “acting like whiny weenie babies,” “acting like petulant brats.”
Given the character Johnathan has shown, I’m sure he’ll mock this as well.
It would deserve it, but I am too busy at the moment, so this will have to suffice for now.
In the mean time, go put your big boy pants on. You were called out by me and others repeatedly here, and your hypocritical postgame boo-hooing about it fools no one.
Oh, and what about my character shown here today? That I don’t suffer hypocritical and wimpish posts after one get’s called out?
Fine by me.
Given all your replies, what have I said in any of the above that is either false or uncalled for, given the content of the responses and rhetoric towards Rick and others by you and your allies on this thread?
None, so stop acting like a weenie.
Johnathan,
Brother, your “tough-guy” shtick is wearing a little thin.
This is not the place to display your insecurities.
No emoticon forthcoming…
What “tough guy” shtick? What insecurities?
List them please, or stop bearing false witness.
No emoticon indeed.
How ugly you come across in your recent entries Johnathan Pritchett. I’m baffled why Norm has allowed them all to stand and has not deleted them.
I’m baffled by your rough and unseemly comments too Mary, of which they are a huge number. I know why Norm allows them to stand. It serves his agenda for the moment. That will soon change when the issue becomes women in the church. And it will be the next thing on their agenda.
Debbie, there are two “Mary’s” posting here: 1. A Traditionalist. I “think” your comment was meant for her? But perhaps it was meant for me. 2. Me. I am far from a Traditionalist; it is fair to lump me in with the Calvinists though I don’t wear that title. I suppose I should start going by “Mary S.” to distinguish myself from our other sister, Mary.
I don’t know about that Debbie. I am a fairly egalitarian Southern Baptist. This isn’t a simple issue revolving around can women be senior pastors or not, and I would probably say no on that (in most cases, anyway, as a church of women and children may be an exception, theoretically speaking or actually speaking in some third world nations), but am still to the “left” of Piper, Grudem, and Patterson’s boundaries for women and the church.
We agree on something, brother Johnathan!
Yes I do, As I do Lydia’s contrary slavery comment. If you knew how many non Calvinists owned slaves we could make the same charge against. you. It wasn’t just Calvinists who owned slaves and not all Calvinists did. I could name many non who owned slaves and the very ones who Lydia and Mary are so buddy buddy with, on this very site, have the opposite view of women in ministry that Lydia does. So Lydia is really their enemy. They are using her now, but that will change with their next agenda.
Debbie: The number of unfounded accusations and character assassinations you have made do not dignify response. That others can’t see what ALL you have written in the wee hours of this Sunday morning is b/c those comments I removed. I simply will not stand for the kind of remarks you made. And, for the record, my ‘agenda’ as you put it, is that I am for Christian women engaging in any viable ministry that the Bible supports. One notable one that seems lacking in all churches is that the older women should teach the younger women.
“I could name many non who owned slaves and the very ones who Lydia and Mary are so buddy buddy with…”
Huh? First of all which Mary are you referring to? Secondly, I might be old but I can assure you I am not old enough to know any non-Calvinist slave owners. :o)
”…. on this very site, have the opposite view of women in ministry that Lydia does. So Lydia is really their enemy. They are using her now, but that will change with their next agenda.”
Not sure how anyone here is “using” me. I come here of my own free will. (oops, Sorry!)
I am not sure how all that is supposed to work. If I am a mutualist and Rick, et al, are comps, we are to be instant enemies? I don’t really do “sides”, my focus is more on tyranny and the making of little popes in the SBC. No King but Jesus. I just do not equate the despot Calvin with Jesus or even Paul and it concerns me that so many do.
Now you have me wondering if Rick allows women to read scripture aloud in his church if men are present? We know that one of your heroes’s, Piper, does not even allow that. You seem to give him a pass for that even if you disagree with it. Why not give me the same consideration?
Debbie,
What is Lydia’s view on women in ministry?
Rick,
Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563) was a reformed French preacher and one-time supporter of John Calvin until the execution of Servetus.
Castellio was different – he believed in religious liberty and freedom of thought. He also came to see the need for a limited government or separation of Church and State.
Castellio was a different man of the times, but these are the things he said of Calvin, “To kill a man is to kill a man. It is not to defend a doctrine. It is to kill a man. When the Genevans killed Servetus, they did not defend a doctrine. They killed a man…What has the sword to do with doctrine?”
Castellio regarded Calvin as a blatant murderer and Calvin’s hands were …”dripping with the blood of Servetus.”
Castellio vowed, “I shall so expose the false doctrines of Calvin that everyone shall see as plain as noonday that he thirsted for blood.” “Castellio likens [Calvin] to the wicked Haman in the Biblical book of Esther, for just as the latter would have killed the whole Jewish people, Calvin makes heretics of all who don’t think as he does, and would have been killed for differing from him.”
This conflict with Calvin cost Castellio greatly for he was persecuted and lived in poverty for many years. He spoke up, while many feared the reprisals from Geneva.
Read of the life of Sebastian Castellio … histories mysteries reveal the good, bad, and surprising!
Ron,
Thanks for that brief biographical sketch of Sebastian Castellio. I’m often fascinated by the perspective one gains when considering the views held by contemporaries of historical figures.
As in this case, they shed new light on historical figures that become almost canonized with the passing of time. Thanks again for adding to the discussion.
“In 1543, after the plague struck Geneva, Sebastian Castellio was the only divine in Geneva to visit the sick and console the dying; the Geneva Consistory and Calvin himself refused to visit the sick, Calvin directing his servants to declare him “indispensable” and later writing in his own defense that “it would not do to weaken the whole Church in order to help a part of it.”
Zweig, Stefan (1951). Erasmus; The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin. London: Cassell. p. 234.
Zwieg is an interesting and thorough historian. I have read quite a few of his books.
Norm,
Dr Thom Rainer recently wrote a short but insightful article about lessons he’s learned from blogging. The most relevant to today’s post and perhaps SBC Today at large is his #7: “Tone matters. The tone of the blog sets the tone for the comments. Sarcastic, angry, and controversial blogs attract sarcastic, angry, and controversial readers and commenters. My strong desire is to provide a place of Christlike and civil discourse. Such a tone must begin with me,” [http://thomrainer.com/2013/01/16/seven-lessons-on-blogging-from-the-last-three-years/#.UPohkGf1bOc].
I pray the leadership of SBC Today would consider Dr Rainer’s insight.
Again, I say, Ben: “Physician, heal thyself.” You commit the same offense for which you chide SBCT. Get real, bro. — Norm
At this risk of using irony again, you do realize that the people who literally burned others were doing so on the authority of Calvin and his friends who held similar views, right?
For merely calling them on it, we who are the theological descendants of the Anabaptists and those who were persecuted by Geneva are now being charged with burning “anything of Calvinism at the stake” and told that our objections do not “come across as Christlike.”
To argue in this way is to confuse the persecutor with the victim. Calvin was not being burned at the stake. He was among those doing the burning.
I am often intrigued by the reaction of Calvinists when confronting those whose theology differs from theirs. So often, they characterize us as being ANTI-them, which is unfortunate, since they rarely view their own convictions as being ANTI-us.
I contend that as I promote what I call Traditionalist theology, while they simultaneously promote Calvinist theology, it is unnecessary for either side to characterize the other as an enemy or opponent or breeder of disunity or anything else.
Our convictions are themselves in conflict with one another. As you express yours and I express mine, neither of us can be faulted for disunity or lack of charity or attacking the other. Promoting your view is no less an attack upon mine than promoting my view is an attack upon yours.
I tell you, I do not hate Calvinists at all. But I reserve the right to critique their views, their leaders and their history–without charges of hatred or disunity.
Ben,
I will admit to sarcasm or satire or a tongue in cheek writing style, which I defended earlier. However, I do not admit to the “angry” or “controversial” part.
I may chide and poke a little fun, but where is the anger expressed here? Irony? Yes. A man opposed to burning someone merely wanted to chop off his head. His friend considered that leniency. I’m not angry about that, but astonished and a bit amused, as if anyone could really believe that changing the form of execution would make it right.
And what is controversial? The notion that a man’s beliefs can be discerned most accurately by his actions? A call to reexamine the man behind the theological system? The insinuation that the only acceptable Christian view was to let Servetus live?
I agree with Dr. Rainer that tone matters. The tone of this article, however, was gentle satire. It was certainly not written in anger.
Rick,
I’m glad that you’re not admitting to being angry or controversy-inflaming because I didn’t accuse you of either (although you did choose to blog on the controversial topic of Calvinism, again, which you surely knew would be controversial). Sarcasm will beget sarcasm.
So any time someone chooses to write about Calvinism they are being controversial? The only way to avoid being accused of muckraking is to avoid the topic altogether?
This would, of course, mean that the only people allowed to write about Calvinism are its proponents. Anyone questioning it would themselves be guilty of stirring up controversy.
Sorry. Free speech. Free press. Freedom of religion. I can talk about whatever I want. And you are free to change the channel.
Yes, Ben, so true. Sarcasm begets sarcasm. And evil begets evil. What about returning good for evil? Your sarcastic complaints about sarcasm is a self-defeating argument. Do you not get that, or do you not care, or do you simply wish for your adage to be true, so you offer sarcasm to what you perceive to be sarcastic? Even seen a cat chase its tail, Ben?
You are right, Norm. I should have returned good for evil here as you suggested.
You mean as evidenced in your reply?
Am I part of the leadership of SBC Today? No. You set the tone. Sarcastic, angry, and controversial blogs attract sarcastic, angry, and controversial readers and commenters. As the Bible says, you reap what you sow (Gal 6:7). Get real, indeed!
So it’s MY fault YOU cannot control YOUR sarcasm? Is that real? I think your penchant for sarcasm developed years ago, bro. — Norm
Dear Moderator Norm, you are responsible, or whoever is behind you pulling your strings, for setting the tone of this blog. That responsibility begins before an article is posted. You be responsible, sir, for what you can control, and I’ll be responsible for what I can control.
Amen Ben.
Dear Moderator Norm, you are responsible, or whoever is behind you pulling your strings, for setting the tone of this blog. That responsibility begins before an article is posted. You be responsible, sir, for what you can control, and I’ll be responsible for what I can control.”
You gotta get with the program, Norm. This is how they control and censor folks. Power. They get to decide who and what is sarcasm. They just don’t apply the same rules to themselves. They are charged with pointing the sins of others out to them. They decide what is sin and they have decided this blog post is a sin. So you are responsible for allowing free sin speech. :o)
They always define. And he who defines, rules.
And we wonder why churches were splitting when these guys came in. All they know to do is control and censor.It is what they have been taught. They are special and only they know the real truth. The pewsitters are ignorant. They do not do well with interaction where they are challenged so they resort to “it is a sin” on par with burning Servetus.
If you want to see the results of Ben’s way of thinking, read the SGM lawsuit and survivors site from the last 5 years. It was all done with control and censoring which gave the “ruling” powers divine powers. They were the Holy Spirit for their followers. And that is where this YRR movement is taking the SBC. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
“And the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Drama goes too…”
Seriously dude, would you like a tissue?
But Ben, per your usual, you didn’t answer my question. Your reap what you sow comment makes it sound as an unavoidable consequence, but if YOU would control YOUR sarcasm (as if), then the seeds sown would prove to be sterile. Now I ask, who made you the one to bundle the sheaves? (Sorry about the reference to “Bringing in the Sheaves.”) — Norm
Norm,
I’m responsible for my actions, no matter the tone you set here. As I said, “You be responsible, sir, for what you can control, and I’ll be responsible for what I can control.” What you are going to do about the sarcastic tone set here?
You said, “Now I ask, who made you the one to bundle the sheaves? (Sorry about the reference to “Bringing in the Sheaves.”)” I’m familiar with the song but have no idea what in the world you mean by your question. Sorry, I was born in the 80s and have a limited church background before the Lord saved me in 1997. Your question is lost on me.
How can I be. According to you, puppeteers control. I am at the mercy of those who pull my strings. — Norm
Well, for starters, I could place your comments in moderation until I have read them for sarcasm.But if I do that, I suspect we’ll never hear from you again.
Apparently, Ben, everything else I’ve said is also lost on you. Numerous inconsistencies in your comments I have highlighted, and you cannot respond with anything but snide sarcasm. Most often, here, you employ the lawyers’ m.o.:
‘If the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; if neither is on your side, attack your opponent.’
Whenever you are unable to controvert a comment, you attack. I have actually begun to believe you prefer to extend the arguing rather than attempt to come to an understanding. I have begun to pity you for what appears to be a narcissistic need. — Norm
Norm,
I’m not sure how moderating my comments will change the tone that you guys set here with your article. That’s what I asked you about. Again, what you are going to do about the sarcastic tone set here?
If my comments are out of bounds and more out of bounds than what’s been said here especially by Johnathan Pritchett, then correct me. Certainly, I’ve challenged the tone of the article (which needed to be challenged) and the wisdom of posting an article with such a tone.
I wasn’t extending the argument for argument’s sake. I was simply trying to respond to your comments directed at me that seemed to expect a response.
As you suggested earlier, I won’t return in like to you what you gave to me in calling me a pitiable narcissist.
Ben: You can’t see how moderating your sarcasm would reduce sarcasm here? And, just wondering: is sarcasm ever used at NewCalvinists’ sites?
Per Johnathan. I agree, he doesn’t mince words. Maybe he should strive to be more statesmanlike ala Rick. However, on principle, I find myself agreeing with J many more times than not. And, judging from these threads, many of us — myself included — need to learn better how to disagree w/o being so disagreeable.
It is your opinion that the tone of Rick’s article “needed to challenged.” You are certainly welcome to believe that, and do that. But your belief that it ‘needed to be challenged’ does not mean, in fact, that the challenge was needed. Fact is, you needed to challenge it. That is not the same as the article having an inherent need to be challenged. Rick made an unassailable point about sarcasm in the Scriptures, including coming from Jesus’ own mouth. Do you feel the need to challenge that sarcasm? Of course, Rick is not an ‘inspired’ writer in the biblical sense (though his writing inspires me); but his point was well taken that the Bible uses sarcasm as a literary device. I don’t need to defend Rick’s use of sarcasm as a literary device. It’s in the B-I-B-L-E, that’s good enough for me.
Per your responding to comments … I made several points that cut the stilts from under some of your observations. I am still awaiting those responses.
Well, Bro Ben, you did it again. You stepped in your own trap. If this blog has attracted “sarcastic, angry, and controversial readers and commenters” then why are you here? Further, you have broad-brushed everyone at this blog. And that is an inaccurate and unfair comment for which you should apologize. — Norm
I’ll not apologize for quoting Dr Thom Rainer who was speaking generalities. I’ve only labeled Rick sarcastic, a label which he gladly wears with honor. I called nobody angry or controversial, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
I didn’t expect you would apologize for hiding behind someone else’s words.
Our VBS director is causing a big stir pushing her doctrine of Preregistration. Rev. N0 Respect
Well, this article has helped me make a decision. I came to faith at an SBC church at the age of 19 and have been very active ever since. I have been ordained as a deacon and as a minister and served on staff as an associate pastor in a SBC church for 9 years. I was dismissed because I considered myself ‘Calvinistic’ in my understanding of salvation. I did not push ‘Calvinism’ on anyone – it was used against me when the newly hired Sr Pastor did not think I was ‘on board’ with his way. That happened almost 2 years ago. That being said, my decision is this – I’m tired of such sarcastic blogging and silliness as is present in the initial post by Rick Patrick. Not that anyone cares, but I’m leaving the Southern Baptist Convention – it’s just too much drama. I hope you enjoy picking at each other.
Sorry you’re leaving, but I’m sure the Presbyterians will welcome you. Maybe that’s where you fit better to begin with, though. In any case, God bless you.
David
Wow…..
Jeff,
If an article discussing the manner of execution of a traitor and heretic 500 years ago and exploring what it might tell us about the architect of Calvinist theology is so unbearable that you would change denominations over it, then perhaps you would have felt more comfortable in a different denominational home anyway.
I don’t really think it’s worth switching denominations over, but that’s a decision between you and God–one which I believe should be prayerfully considered for quite some time and not made as some kind of knee jerk reaction to anyone’s satirical blog.
For what it’s worth, the butt of my original joke is clearly William Farel, for suggesting that Calvin’s beheading idea was a form of leniency.
Jeff, on the matter of authorial intent here, I am clearly the expert. I wrote this as a light hearted piece, a lark, a funny historical anecdote that might secondarily be significant in better understanding Calvin the man. Do whatever you feel led by God to do, but this is like changing denominations over a comic strip.
Out of curiosity, what is your intended denominational destination?
…and…
Want to know the “authorial intent” of this blog?
There it is in black and white, folks.
“Decapitation” indeed….
Randall,
Sorry, but on this one, you are just wrong. I know the authorial intent better than you do…because I am the author.
Here it is again:
“Jeff, on the matter of authorial intent here, I am clearly the expert. I wrote this as a light hearted piece, a lark, a funny historical anecdote that might secondarily be significant in better understanding Calvin the man. Do whatever you feel led by God to do, but this is like changing denominations over a comic strip.”
Randall, the quote you highlighted does not speak to authorial intent, but provides an alternative explanation consistent with Jeff’s story about his termination at the church for his Calvinistic views.
If a brief work of satire is enough to drive someone from the convention, it was probably a very short drive, meaning that other more substantial matters are truly responsible.
Well, Randall is actually wrong about all of things, so we can cut him some slack. ;)
How does a comment like this not get moderated? Oh yeah, I forgot he’s bashing Calvinism. Why would anyone write and post an article like this for any other reason but to cause controversy. So many hateful things here.
Because it was obviously a joke to Randall, emoticon added per his request to boot.
That’s why.
Rick Patrick wrote an article expressing our views. It isn’t controversial once one realizes that Calvin was kind of a scumbag, if one honestly assesses his second tenure at Geneva.
Jer 17:9 “The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
Yeah, and your post isn’t dramatic at all.
Well, you will be missed.
^^^^ That too was sarcasm.
Religious folk harp on Calvin and the Servetus affair. Atheists harp on Moses executing a man for merely picking up sticks. So, who’s winning the war and Why? It appears to me that the atheists are winning.
We have a President who says he is a Christian and uses all the resources of government to advocate and promote abortion and homosexuality. Southern Baptists do nothing noticeable to oppose this. Fifty years ago, a different breed of baptist would have labeled such as blasphemous. Not today.
The resources of government provide a public education to teach evolution and a humanist philosophy that denies God. Southern Baptists children come out of high school renouncing their faith in droves (or are easy targets for atheist college professors) and Southern Baptists are the strongest advocates of public education. Offer a meaningful resolution to encourage private Christian schools at the SBC convention and see what happens.
Southern Baptists, once known to study the Scriptures, seem to be as ignorant of those Scriptures as the non church goer.
The real sarcasm here is that we are even discussing Calvin and Servetus as if it means anything.
“Southern Baptists, once known to study the Scriptures, seem to be as ignorant of those Scriptures as the non church goer.”
Um…no. This is your conclusion because the Convention doesn’t advocate private school enough.
Uh huh.
On the other hand, I find you quite ignorant on quite a few things quite often on display at quite a few websites (theologyweb, here, etc.). This is made comical when I see your arguments get obliterated at one site, and you still trot the same bad arguments at others in hopes for a different result (which never happens).
Logs and specks brother, logs and specks.
Anyway, high school kids come out of all denominations or non-denominational churches, to the tune of somewhere around 80% according to Barna, so this is not a specifically SBC problem.
The ignorance of the Southern Baptists has nothing to do with private schools and everything to do with public schools since the public schools teach them that the Bible is not relevant. Of course, it could be that they learn this from their parents. Any other suggestions.
You are always welcome to teach me otherwise wherever you see me comment here or elsewhere. So, anything constructive to offer here?
It the problem with kids is as universal as you say, then that would seem to support my conclusion that public schools are at fault (unless you want to argue that it is the parents).
Well, here is some constructive criticism.
Organize your posts a little better. After making a case about the SBC and private school resolutions, you claim Southern Baptists are ignorant of the Scriptures unlike they used to be.
Surely you can see how that would leave some scratching their heads…or not.
Rick,
I am interested to know your thoughts on my comment at the very top if you have time. It is what concerns me most about the commentary often on the site. I do get frustrated, but am not advocating you and I or others chat back and forth as Ben does above.
Have a good weekend.
-RobertSC
Mr. Patrick – If I offended you with assumptions, I apologize. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I read this blog frequently because I think it expresses the opinions of most Southern Baptists. Please know my leaving the SBC is not a knee-jerk reaction to your blog. After thinking more about it, your article was not the deciding factor. The deciding factor(s) would be several things – like attending state convention meetings, the annual meetings of the SBC, state-sponsored seminars on evanglism, church growth, etc. The SBC church I recently joined told me that my family would be welcome and the Sr. Pastor took me to lunch to welcome me but then decided to “pick” at Calvinism negatively from the pulpit during a Lord’s supper service (still haven’t figured that one out). I’ve never promoted Calvinism other than when someone asked me about it and yet it seems to be pretty ‘non-Baptist’ according to the majority of people who care enough to learn about it. That being said, please accept my apologies for publicly chastising you and this article for my denominational switch. I see now that I was blowing off steam and using this format for it. I honestly just don’t think I fit anymore in the SBC. Most likely, I will attend an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the area to see if I truly affirm Reformed Theology. My best to you and your church (assuming you are a pastor) and the denomination that I still have fond feelings for but find myself more and more out of place in. Hope the rest of your day goes well.
Jeff,
Thank you and may God bless your spiritual journey wherever it leads. I am the first to admit that this matter of balancing Calvinism and Traditionalism in the SBC involves a great many casualties. As an active blogger on the issue, I hear of them almost daily. My heart grieves for the pain you have born, and I apologize for any part of that pain that my words may have inadvertently caused.
It is my belief that if we demonstrate the courage to address concerns forthrightly, we can find ways to work together under the same SBC umbrella while still preserving our consciences with regard to promoting our beliefs fairly through church planting and missions. I do not believe it is as simple a matter as just telling both sides to be quiet.
My own mother was born a Catholic, lived much of her life as an Episcopalian, but died as a Presbyterian. Her remains are encrypted in a Columbarium at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Although I disagree with Reformed theology itself, I have Presbyterian friends, and Calvinistic Southern Baptist friends.
My wish for you and yours is nothing other than God’s richest blessings.
Thank you volfan007 – I’m guessing the Presbyterians won’t like me either.
Randal, what does that passage say about Calvin’s dealings with Servetus? I will be glad to read your application of that verse to the contributors of this thread but please discuss Calvin and this verse.
The replies here from Chad, rhutchin, Ben, Jared, and even Randall has made this one of the goofiest threads on SBC Today ever.
I like it for the entertainment value, but despite the attempts to gentlemanly responses to them, their comments deserve little more than ridicule.
It is just a Proverbs 26:5 kind of thread, not a Proverbs 2:4 one.
Again, what is your problem. Do you read your own posts before you write them? Arrogant, prideful, hateful, bickering, etc.
“Arrogant, prideful, hateful, bickering, etc.”
Not even close, mate. I don’t have a problem, but would you like a tissue?
From the Michael Servetus Institute: http://www.miguelservet.org:
“On October 26 of 1553, the Council issued its judgement against Servetus ordering him to be burnt alive in the hill of Champel. The judgment stated that Servetus was guilty for having printed “twenty-three or twenty-four” years ago a book (“De Trinitatis Erroribus”) that contained blasphemies against the Trinity and for having corrupted Christians and spread his antitrinitarian heresy in a later work (“Christianismi Restitutio”). Furthermore, the judgment condemned Servetus for opposing the baptism of infants. It must be noted that the Genevan judges appear to have intentionally erred in the qualification of the charges against Servetus. From the records of the trial and the reasoning of the judgment it cannot be inferred that the crime of which Servetus was being accused had been committed in the territory of Geneva.
Applying the most elementary principles of Criminal Law, the judges should have acquitted Servetus, or simply found him guilty of attempting to commit that crime and, consequently, they should have applied a less rigorous penalty such as banishment. Finally, it is also surprising that Servetus’ request to have his case brought before the Council of the Two Hundred (a body in charge of legislating in Geneva and of electing the 25 members of the Small Council) was ignored by the Genevan magistrates. This decision of the judges, along with their refusal to allow Servetus to be assisted by a lawyer, is another example of the irregularities that vitiated the process against Servetus and demonstrate the scarce legal rigor of the Genevan court, most likely due to the strong influence that Calvin exerted upon the judges.
On October 27, 1553 Servetus was led to the hill of Champel. His body was tied up to a stake with an iron chain and his neck held with a heavy cord. The executioners placed on his head a straw crown sprinkled with sulfur. As usual in these types of executions, a copy of his “Christianismi Restitutio” was placed underneath his feet.
The execution lasted more than two hours because of the green firewood used by the executioners. Until the very last moment, the Genevan reformers tried to convince Servetus to abjure his doctrines. But all was in vain, Servetus, in spite of the severe and cruel imprisonment he had been subject to remained faithful to his doctrines, not because of stubbornness but because of conviction. Calvin condemned him, but History, sometimes the most effective court of appeal, soon acquitted him. His moral integrity during the process and finally before the pyre was not overlooked in his time. The heroic death of Servetus led other humanists to raise their voices against Calvin and in favor of the freedom of thought. But the example of Servetus was felt beyond his time. It seeded the germ of an intense and deep debate on freedom of religion and conscience that was further developed by some philosophers of the XVIII century and which would finally inspire the democratization processes that took place in Western societies during the XIX and XX centuries.”
Ron,
Thank you for elevating the tone of the conversation and for opening the windows of history with this relevant passage.
Friends, and indeed brothers, need to, on occasion, tell each other to stop acting like whiny weenie babies.
Seriously, reading some of the responses, my dear Calvinist friends and brothers, you all are acting like whiny, weenie babies. Suck it up, quit whining about sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., with your hero and your ill-conceived responses being the target, and just get on with it.
Still friends? Okay then…
;-)
To categorically state that all Calvinists “..take their cue regarding God’s love for sinners from a Sixteenth Century born non-Southern Baptist theologian…” says worlds about you, Rick. Frankly, I’m much more ashamed of you as a Baptist pastor than I am that my theological position .. which takes its cues from the Bible .. carries the name “Calvinist”.
Ashamed of me as a Baptist Pastor for claiming the theological roots of Calvinism (my term: “take their cue…”) was John Calvin?
I don’t know why this would say worlds about me. I think many people believe that Calvin is pretty much the formulator of Calvinism. If he’s not, maybe you guys are the ones who need a new name, not us.
Anyway, I’m not ashamed of you, Bob. You actually made sense at a microphone at the SBC, which is not all that easy to do.
Blessings,
Rick
You’re above such shots at Calvinists, Rick. There’s just no need to smear us all with what Calvin did.
And thanks for the kind words re: the convention. Especially since I expressed major disagreement….
And while thinking about it, I wrote in the heat of the moment. I’m not ashamed of you .. and I apologize for saying that. I should have said I’m ashamed of what you wrote having come from an SBC pastor.
My sincerest thanks for that distinction. I cannot tell you how much better that makes me feel.
Well, many of the conflicts from the Sixteenth Century are still around in the Twenty-first. We remain very passionate about our convictions. If there is a bright side to a comment stream in which roughly half of the comments were fairly intense, it is this–at least today, when we disagree, we use words. Not a single person recommended any form of execution, proving that we have come a long way in 450 years.
Rick Patrick, Norm Miller, Johnathan Pritchett, et. al.
Back up. Read this post and comments objectively from beginning to end.
Question: Do you see anything here on your respective parts that gives you the slightest pause?
Randall. On this thread responding to the responses given here?
Not one bit. Nor should. The discussion yields in kind to what is given. Even one of the Calvinists used that above to defend his rhetoric and tone.
I am cool with that, but the crying about it later…not so much.
But if it will keep you up all night if someone doesn’t apologize for something…then…
I’m…
Nah, try Tylenol PM.
Johnathan,
Sad, brother.
Rick’s post indeed set a tone…with girlyman reference and all.
Then the bellyaching and pot shots at Rick came.
This post and subsequent thread is a basketball court. It is not some lofty, highfaluting conversation here, and the trash talk didn’t start with us. Do well to remember that, son.
As such, while I care for you all, I will not trash talk the trashtalkers here less than I do with people I care a great deal more for while playing basketball.
Get a grip, man. Quit being a girlyman.
Johnathan,
Good grief.
“Girlyman,” “trash talk,” “they did it first, Mrs. Smith.”?!
Is this an SBC discussion forum or a kindergarten playground?
And, by the way, I ain’t your “son,” Sport.
It is what it becomes, tiger.
Nope.
It became what it was in the original post.
Look sister, in the beginning I tried to politely correct the flaws in many of the responses, and did so repeatedly.
Since no one was having it, and just continued to bellyache and called people’s character into question because precious Calvin was made for sport, given his reprehensible actions, I decided to return fire.
I ain’t having it, and I do not care if someone’s gonna get all crybaby about it, especially when they won’t own up to their own rubbish posts.
Perhaps I should have spent a few more words in the original post making the case that Calvin should have pleaded for the pardon of Servetus instead of pleading for a different form of execution. I thought that was understood but few people talked about it.
Maybe I could have made my joking tone a little clearer from the start with a topic sentence like: “Sometimes history’s darkest hours reveal opinions both startling and worthy of ridicule, like William Farel’s understanding of the term ‘lenience.’”
Generally, my humorous satire was misread as anger. People took this far more seriously than I had imagined. They answered my laughter with insults and, in many cases, assumed I said things I simply did not say.
Rick,
Perhaps….Maybe….
Well, perhaps this (chosen from among many absurdities) will move you off the fence of undecidedness. You state:
Then:
You express discomfort with “putting Calvin in the same room with the biblical writers,” yet seem quite comfortable putting yourself “in the same room” with Elijah, Jehovah, Paul, and Lord Jesus….
Unbelievable.
Brother, for the sake of Lord Jesus, think about what you are doing and what you have spawned here…
I have no problem using ironic humor like the biblical writers.
I have a big problem justifying murder because of theirs.
I have only spawned two fine sons.
Nice try, Rick, but you know full-well it was not murder was not being justified in that context.
And if you think you have a firm enough grip on your carnality to effectively use “ironic humor” as Christ did….well….what can I say…
I’m going to let this go now, but I do pray that you will think at least twice before posting something like this again.
This kind of mocking rhetoric is unacceptable and should not be practiced by those naming Christ– regardless of which side of the isle it is coming from.
Sorry. Should read “…you know full-well it was not murder which was being justified in that context.”
Rick,
One other thing that should be considered.
Brother, Christ reserved his cutting sarcasm for those who had utterly rejected Him as Messiah and were seeking His life.
I trust you don’t believe Calvinists have rejected Christ as Messiah and are seeking your life….
Perhaps a separate post in defense of satire is needed. Much of this conversation shifts the blame from Calvin’s murder to my humor.
Here’s a partial list of history’s great satirists, those who used irony and humor to make a point and express an opinion:
Plato, Chaucer, Erasmus, Swift, Paine, Orwell, Twain, Bradbury and Rogers.
There is simply no biblical reason to deny any writer the use of this literary device.
Come now, Johnathan. We both know it’s not my demeanor that is unwelcome here. If I behaved as unpleasantly as some “Hankinsists” have here I’d get banned in a heart-beat.
BTW: You’re tearin’ it up on the threads here. Why is it you don’t do likewise at SBC Voices?
Well Randall,
1. I don’t spend all my time on the internet. I choose to hang out here.
2. Yes, your demeanor too. The amount of sarcasm I tolerated from you as opposed to genuine dialog on the issues raised from the conversation on election is evidence of that.
You aren’t above it as the evidence shows, and here, you are no ones pastor. So, no lectures on tone and civility please, you aren’t the one who can teach it honestly.
Okay, so Calvin didn’t try to stop the execution of Servetus, appears to have been susceptible to a tendency toward despotism toward the end of his life, and double-dipped with his potato chip at Reform parties (such as they were). He got some things wrong.
But I still believe the words of John 6:44. Calvin got some things right. Just sayin’.
Parts of the post were funny, though. Hey, if SBC Calvinists agreed with Calvin on everything, we wouldn’t be in the SBC, would we?
Sorry if this posts twice. I went through the gravatar account the first time but want the comment to show my first and last name so here goes again:
Okay, so Calvin didn’t try to stop the execution of Servetus, appears to have been susceptible to a tendency toward despotism toward the end of his life, and double-dipped with his potato chip at Reform parties (such as they were). He got some things wrong.
But I still believe the words of John 6:44. Calvin got some things right. Just sayin’.
Parts of the post were funny, though. Hey, if SBC Calvinists agreed with Calvin on everything, we wouldn’t be in the SBC, would we?
It’s interesting to me that Calvinists really get upset when Servetus is discussed as if Servetus was the only person murdered by “Reformers.” There is abundant documentation of Baptist martyrs who died at the behest of the Reformers, in addition to John Calvin. One may begin with the “Martyrs Mirror,” if one truly wishes to see how Baptists have historically suffered. If you wish to read additional material just google “baptist martyrs.” You will find plenty of material on the topic. This is why I do not celebrate “Reformation Day.” I choose not to celebrate the leaders who persecuted so many Baptists.
Servetus was not an isolated incident. What happened to Servetus was repeated hundreds of times by the leaders of the Reformation.
Indeed lesliepuryearPuryeyar, and, as people such as even Spurgeon and MacArthur point out, the Baptist tradition preceded the Reformation and has always existed somewhere since the time of the Apostles. That Reformed Baptists groan about these sorts of claims, even from folks within their own soteriological camp, is irrelevant.
The Reformation, like most things, is a mixed bag of good and evil, but the scale would have to tip towards the evil side more than the good, since the Reformers were imitating the worst parts of their Roman Catholic opponents.
I don’t celebrate it either, and am happy to pour the cold water on any of my Protestant friends heralding it as some sort of great thing while ignoring the real history of it.
Semper reformanda was the most bogus claim made by the Reformers. They’ll have none of it.
My Fellow Calvinists
We are being baited here. Recognize it for what it is.
Again, if you really looked at this without bias, and look at the time stamps of each post, you will see that it is your fellow Calvinists that made it personal towards Rick first.
Talking like THEY did, what did you expect?
Hmm?
Look, it don’t bother me, but what does bother me is when those who dish it can’t take it start acting like babies and pointing fingers and getting all lofty about it despite the fact they weren’t above it previously.
Sorry, but I ain’t ever above it if there is no reason to be. I play to the level of the competition.
“We are being baited here. Recognize it for what it is.”
Yep.
Jonathan, a good rule of thumb I try to follow when posting is to determine whether I would speak to someone face to face the same way I am typing at them. Please consider the way you are speaking about Ben and others here. The whole thing stinks. We aren’t upset with Rick for using satire. We are upset with Rick for his hateful tone. I regret posting on this article, but it just seemed so outrageous and flawed that I couldn’t resist. I suppose that this article has demonstrated that there is such a thing as a “cage stage Hankinist.”
Eric Hankins has an “s” at the end of his last name. It can’t be “Hankinist.” That would be like “Calviist.”
Could you please point out a specific quote from my article illustrating what you consider to be my “hateful tone?” Since I did not write out of hatred, there must be something you are perceiving as hateful that I did not intend. Which sentence has hateful overtones in your opinion?
Chad, indeed I follow that rule. I got a lot of friends. many of them Calvinists even, so depending on the context, my face to face same way as I type will be adjusted to the conversation taking place. When it is like this, my demeanor is likewise.
Again, it started with the pot shots at Rick, needless ones at that, and while he may have set a tone in his article, it was elevated in the responses to him (and not just his article._
I will sleep fine tonight, I suggest you all do the same.
I have nothing against you, Ben, Jared, Randall, etc., You all can take my comments as personal as you like, or not at all.
If you have regrets, that’s on you, but you spoke your mind. To use a silly phrase, “own it”. There is no shame in it. And let tomorrow be a new day for all of us.
Challenge/riposte is alive and well, and every round elevates. That’s how it goes.
What should be left out of it is bait and switch, when one participant wants to later back off, then act all hurt and offended even though he contributed to the escalation.
I’ll have none of it, because in my experience the following holds true:
1. Its phony contempt brought in after the fact.
2. Its hypocritical contempt brought in after the fact.
The best thing to do is shake it all off. People will still love one another tomorrow, so it is best to just walk away and come back later, and everyone saves face.
If you and your personal friends never let it get heated, then you don’t have any.
You know what I’m saying.
I’m a Calvinist (though I don’t care to use that term or to wave it like a flag), and my thought as I scroll through the replies is, “I wonder how many of these guys (regardless of he or she’s theological leaning) have been as passionate about sharing the gospel with lost people this week as they have sitting in front of a computer or phone responding to this post of nerds talking to other nerds. (I’m a nerd, too. Breathe.)
I know, it’s crazy, right? A reformed guy that’s concerned for lost people. But alas, it’s true.
For every minute you spend responding to me or anyone else for that matter, I want to challenge you (as I am challenging myself, seriously) to spend equal time begging the Lord to soften your heart towards the lost that are around you. Then pray for the boldness to live out the gospel that we all believe will take dead people and bring them to life.
Why? Because Christ alone and His glory being made known is worth more than giving more attention to guys with bad haircuts and pleats in their pants. (One of those are often true for me, so I’m speaking of myself here.)
Jesus’ last prayer is that we would be ONE. Ask God to help us get there in our lifetime. Let’s leave an example for our children to admire. Please.
Oh, so I am the only one here who has said ugly things.
Nah, I don’t think so. All I did was drop the pretension, and take up for a friend being treated with undue disrespect and contempt. I don’t care about the intentions behind it. He wrote a piece, and people responded with trashtalk, so I returned the favor.
All this false hurt and phony, hypocritical “above the fray” stuff is as thin as it is transparent. I just don’t fall for it, and let people act all high and mighty when they weren’t just a day or a few hours ago.
Not a chance. You, Ben, Chad, can whine all day long about my behavior, but none of that whining will take THOSE posts made by them towards Rick away, and people can read all of it and come to their own conclusions.
What y’all think of me, given the nonsense said by all, is irrelevant to me. Think what you like. .
I love you Mary, you don’t have to love me back.
Mary, I responded to this above, for some reason it didn’t format correctly.
I will add though, that Norm probably didn’t delete anything I wrote because I’ve said nothing worse (not by a long shot) than what was said by the people to whom I responded. I just said things without bogus pretension.
So…
It’s okay to disparage Rick Patrick, Eric Hankins, call their character into question, to say nothing for it being okay for Calvin to call Servetus a “pernicious monster”, but if I call some trashtalkers weenies for not handling trash talk back at ‘em, I am the one whom is disapproved by the hypocrites?
Eh, Whatever. I’ll take it.
Good night peeps. Love you all, and sorry about your glass jaw.
Servetus’ second letter from prison (emphasis mine).
The Anabaptist Ban vs. Decapitation: What To Do With Those Pesky Calvinists
According to European-Heritage.org, in 1534 Anabaptist John Bockelson formed a regime of despotism and terror in Munster. People of all “other faiths” were banished from the city, and their property was confiscated and distributed among the Anabaptists. Proclaiming himself king of this “New Jerusalem,” Bockelson introduced polygamy, took to himself 17 wives, and announced he would conquer the whole earth and usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mustering a decadent coronation, Bockelson paraded through the streets of the city, surrounded by adoring throngs of Anabaptists who knelt and praised “the righteous King John in the Chair of David.” In the market square, Bockelson delivered a visionary sermon. When the “Anabaptist Spirit” came upon him, he seized a perceived traitor from the crowd and personally beheaded him. The crowd of Anabaptists danced with joy.
In order to fully comprehend Bockelson’s view of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is helpful to explore the advantages and disadvantages of despotism.
One could argue that the Anabaptist Ban of Calvinists from the city of Munster…um…I mean the SBC…best achieves the ends and purposes of the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, we know that the Traditionalist/Anabaptist “ban” would be the most efficient means of ridding the SBC of the scourge of Calvinism. Unfortunately, this method would leave a bad taste in the mouths of the “majority” of the SBC membership, despite their unswerving loyalty to the Traditionalists.
On the other hand, Bockelson’s example of decapitation might better serve as a means of severing the monstrous head of the Calvinist plot to subvert the SBC. Although this would be a rather brutal approach, it would be marvelously efficient and would eliminate much collateral damage and no small amount of caterwauling; and the Kingdom of Heaven would be much benefited.
While I fully realize the culture of the day allowed for execution of both traitors and heretics, it is difficult for me to overlook Bockelson’s “role” in the Munster uprising. His actions do speak louder than the Anabaptist theology embraced by “Traditionalists.” How does a Traditionalist today so easily absolve his conscience while taking his theological cues from a man whose heart and mind were so blind to the immorality of governmental or ecclesiastical homicide?
Why does Bockelson get a free pass from the Traditionalists on this matter? The argument that nobody is perfect is certainly one the hapless bystander might have wished Anabaptist-Traditionalists could have stumbled upon a little sooner. Surely if Bockelson is so representative of Traditionalism his mind was capable of recognizing his actions as sin.
Conversely, since he evidently did not view this as sin, can we not infer that perhaps there are a great many other things this forebear of Traditionalism failed to grasp as well? Personally, I’m sure my fellow Calvinists would have rejected the confiscation of the property of people of “other faiths,” and would certainly have objected to Bockelson’s decapitation of a hapless bystander at his “inauguration.” Yea, I dare say we would have objected to the inauguration itself; but then we would probably have been decapitated by this fore-father of Traditionalism. We absolutely would not have “danced with joy” as seemingly did the “Trad-Ana’s.” And the Anabaptist polygamy? No way.
How can Traditionalists take their cue regarding the Kingdom of the SBC (I mean “Heaven”) from a Sixteenth-Century-born Anabaptist who personally decapitated a perceived “traitor” to preserve his own personal “New Jerusalem”?! This is an absolute mystery to me. If Bockelson can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other “truths” as well.
Soli Deo Traditio
Randy,
You are correct. I denounce Bockelson and will never look to him for theology. As a matter of fact, i will never, ever, give his theology another thought, much less credibility. Of course, that is nothing new as Anabaptist and their theological children (Baptist) have always denounced Munster.
Now, if you want to call me a Hubmarian, then perhaps you’d be on to something there. Too bad Reformers and Catholics both had it in for him. If any of them would have read his tract “Concerning Heretics and Those Who Burn Them” perhaps they would have embraced a more Christian approach to those troublesome re-baptizers.. But, alas, their choice was torture and burning men alive. At least they were merciful with his wife Elizabeth, whom they drowned – joking about it being her third baptism. Good times!
Donald,
So you’ll “denounce” and “never, ever” give believer’s baptism another though, eh?
;-)
“thought”
Just in the nick of time for you, it seems. :)
Randall,
Well done. I denounce Bockelson. I will never be a Bockelsonist.
And you’re getting the hang of this satire thing. This was an entertaining and enlightening parody.
It’s worth mentioning (as Calvin’s apologist declare he was merely a man of the times) that the truth of Scripture was available to him as was the Holy Spirit. Others did not make his mistake. Consider Balthasar Hubmaier and his tract “Concerning Heretics and Those Who Burn Them”. Being born in a certain age is no excuse for murder.
And, yes, it is OK to consider the witness of a man’s life when determining his credibility.
These comments show that a split in the SBC is needed. The differences in the theology of the Traditionals and the Neo-Calvinists are just too much. Not to mention theology but also the government of the church, invitations, view of saintification and justification, etc. Dear Lord please show us your will and intervene in this mess. Heavenly Father please give our leaders wisdom in this matter. Agreeing to disagree is not really unity. Amen and amen.