I do not believe we have to take cultural context into account as much as you desire. Calvin, Luther, many failed to follow the Gospels and Christ in order to stay in political/theological power. Christ warned against this - telling us we were to follow Christ and Christ alone. We are to have courage to stand up and be counted. All of us fail in our courage at times, but to participate in the savage death of someone is so clearly NOT in line with Scripture.
@revjwh38 this is an easy thing to say looking back from a time of so much light to a time when the light had just started to shine again....again, I would have you consider exactly what role Calvin had in the death of Servetus who walked into Geneva already condemned and fled from executioners at Lyons...Calvin or not, the man was already a condemned criminal elsewhere and a fugitve on the run. Servetus attempted to accuse Calvin of blasphemy in the middle of a church service apparently...
@revjwh38 recall the facts that Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this time and didn't have much sway or opinion in the town council that he was able to enjoy much later after becoming a citizen...I'm not sure on the timeline, but I think CAlvin was kicked out of Geneva by the Council and then brought back later after realizing his teaching was much appreciated....
@revjwh38 Consider also that the Scripture do acknowledge capital crimes and punishment fit for capital crimes....in the OT blasphemy was a capital crime (its the same crime Jesus was put to death for by the Pharisees!)....during those times they were "Biblical" in the sense that they applied the laws of the Bible to their time....not excusing Calvin, or anybody, but we cannot judge them by what we have and what they didn't
@prchdaword They had the same New Testament we have and the same Jesus who told us to love our neighbor as ourself, love your enemy, do good to them that do evil to you. Did those who condoned the execution of 'heretics', often preceded by brutal torture, miss the import of the death and resurrection of Jesus or that Mosaic law was given to the children of Israel only and not to gentiles? Jesus never preached for the execution of those we disagreed with; at most, we are to shun them.
@BondiHarry hey, man I'm with you...but Calvin was in a different time when the Church wielded its power through the state and the state through the Church...we have the luxury of "separation of Church and state." Servetus was not the first to die for heresy either my friend. My position here is to let God judge him. Are we less sinners than Calvin? If he can't be saved by grace what hope do you and I have? Did not David also commit murder? Can't God's grace in Christ forgive?
@prchdaword God's grace in Christ can and does forgive. On the other hand Jesus has posed the question "why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?" and in Matthew 7:21-23 He speaks of those who firmly believed they served the Lord and were themselves saved only to be told "I never knew you". There is no little irony that many 'heretics' were killed for daring to challenge heresies that had worked their way into certain churches with the true word of God.
@BondiHarry well, again my friend, I would be careful about putting yourself in God's judgment seat here or with anyone....you should not overlook the work that Calvin did for God's kingdom. How you judge others is the same way that you will also be judged my friend, so says our Lord in Matthew 7.
If you have the opportunity, Phillip Schaff's volume 8 of his Church history set has over 100 pages devoted to this topic that are well worth reading on this.
@prchdaword There is a huge difference between putting oneself in God's judgment seat and reminding people that God does indeed have a judgment seat and the basis by which He determines who may enter His kingdom (those who keep His commandments) and who is cast into the lake of fire (workers of iniquity). It is a fool's gambit to engage in the practice of sin and believe that God will still save them. Justifying the murder of others by saying it was an honest zeal will not suffice before God.
@BondiHarry so help me understand your position here, youre saying that salvation is not based on what Christ did for us on the Cross but on what we do with God' s commandments? Curious, but how many of his commandments are you keeping or breaking?
@prchdaword Curious? Not at all. The evidence that we are saved, that God's Holy Spirit is indeed dwelling within us and conforming us into a likenes of Jesus Christ is the change in us from sinner to one who desires the holiness of God. "And hereby we do know that we know him, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:3-4 Our keeping God's commandments are the fruit of our salvation
@BondiHarry oh ok, I see what you are saying....well don't you think you are focusing a bit too much on one aspect of Calvin's sin and over looking his other work for the kingdom if that is your standard? Calvin was not a murderer, in any sense of the word in this event. Servetus was tried and condemned by a city council, not Calvin (Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva to have such powers at that time)...again, I think Calvin is in a tight spot here, but not condemned...
@BondiHarry If we look at the completeness of Calvin's life and ministry, i think you will see the evidence of his regeneration and his love for God and the Church....his works that the Church has clearly benefitted from and even the secular world is undeniable. Preaching up to 2 sermons a day (2 different sermons!), training pastors, even hiding refugee pastors for the Reformation, etc.is quit a bit of evidence in Calvin's life. Again, God alone is the judgments and we cannot say with certainty
@prchdaword It is not my intent to pick on Calvin. There is a huge difference between those who practice sin and a Christian who stumbles. King David is a prime example of this and although I think Calvin erred in some of the things he did, he none-the-less was a great preacher of God's word. Jesus didn't give up on Peter even though Peter denied Him three times. However, killing heretics is not Christian; excommunicating and shunning them is.
@BondiHarry Calvin didn't kill him though....the town council, through due process, had him put to death for blasphemy, which was a capital crime during that time. Calvin made the accusation and identified Servetus when Servetus walked in to Geneva and sat in Calvins sermon and stood up to be recognized...besides if your beef is just that it aint Christian, neither are the sins that we as Christians still commit day by day constantly in need of forgiveness and the Cross =/
@prchdaword There is a difference between simply stumbling and practicing an evil like murder in the name of the purity of the church. John 16:1-3 addresses this very thing. One cannot reconcile putting 'heretics' to death with what Jesus preached. You say we need wisdom and discernment .... what we need is to study to show ourselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed. Otherwise we murder in the name of Jesus which IS heresy.
@prchdaword Scripture is very clear on what evil is, what love is and that professing Christ but practicing what God hates will only land one in hell. Today we see 'Christians' supporting abortion, supporting gay marriage and the ordination of homosexual leaders and supporting institutionalized theft using the government as the proxy to take what belongs to others for themselves. If you think pointing out that God will punish evil doers is casting stones, so be it. God will not be mocked.
@BondiHarry my point here is John Calvin will stand before God, not you and me....God knows much more about this than you and I ever will...God also calls our "hate" equally murder. I personally think your initial assessment, as well as that of others, is misinformed to call John CAlvin a "murderer" when the policy was not his, but the town councils as well as the policy of the empire of time. Calvin pleaded for mercy but they granted none and Servetus wanted none in not wanting to recant.
@prchdaword My point is the committed Christian will follow God's counsel to us. There is no excuse for anyone professing Jesus to be their Lord to execute 'heretics', to wage wars for power, land or riches or to practice perpetrating evil to their fellow man yet professing Christians have done these things; we go by the Bible. Knowing what the Bible says about how we handle heretics, Calvin should have denounced the practice of executing them and pointed out how God tells us to handle them
@BondiHarry He probably should have knowing what we know now....but remember Calvin was coming out of a period of darkness and the Reformers were just starting to Reform the church and it took time for most of society including governement to be Reformed. Again, I have to point out that it was not the Church that put Servetus to Death but the Civil Government. This is where I am saying we have to be fair to Calvin and the time he was in and what they were just starting to do.
@prchdaword I thought Servetus was executed for heresy. Heresy is a religous concept, not a secular one. I wonder how many members of that 'civil government' were church goers and considered themselves Christians. And again, Calvin and those in civil government who claimed Christ had the same books of scripture we do today. Scripture calls for the excommunication and shunning of heretics, not their execution. Execution for heresy was an invention of men contrary to God's word.
@BondiHarry he was tried and condemned for Blasphemy. Remember at that time, there was no "separation of Church and state" like we know today. The Church had her hands in the state. Remember Luther was tried, not before a theological council but before a civil magistrate of the Holy roman empire. The Church and the state were nearly inseparable....it was later after the English Reformation that that the Church began to want the state out of its affairs
@BondiHarry separation of Church and state is more of an American idea as people sought freedom from the Church of England (so closely tied to the Crown!) that they sought a new place to practice their religion apart from the dictates of the state. Things were different in Calvin's time is my point and we cannot judge him by todays standards as they were still Reforming....but we owe plenty of our ideas that we are applying to Calvin here to Calvin and his theology.
@prchdaword Church as state is a concept of men ... it is found no where in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, throughout the Bible, what it does teach about 'government' is that leaders (kings and princes) are to be themselves righteous and sober and they are to ensure that justice is done. We are NEVER told to look to government for anything but to look to the kingdom of heaven. Things were different in Calvin's time? The gospel was the same then as now so in that you are wrong.
@BondiHarry....ok, not sure you got what I said...I didn't say that the Church WAS the state...what I said was that the Church had her hands in the state....remember that the emperors of the Holy Roman empire were so by Papal delegation....I am also not arguing that the Gospel was different so don't represent my argument that way. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that gov't is ordained by God to wield the sword so Calvin, in a sense at the time was submitting to the government of the time.
@BondiHarry....my friend, all I'm point out is things were different then.....I know you want to be as hard as you can on Calvin, but our times are not his...we have more Gospel influence than he had because Rome had been ruling in darkness for so long....yes, a great light came from the Reformation, but it took time for that light to spread out and for many, including Calvin, to comprehend all that it entailed; that is, the application of the Gospel to all life. It doesn't happen overnight
@BondiHarry my point here, is education on some facts about this incident that do not get mentioned because people choose to be uninformed about what happened with Michael Servetus.....murder this cannot be called by Calvin in any sense. That would be like saying any who execute criminals for a capitol crime also become murderers and must be executed themselves. Then where does the cycle end? The town council of Geneva had all the say in the sentence; prior to them, Lyons had already....
@BondiHarry condemned Servetus to the death penalty and he escaped and went straight to Geneva. Had Servetus not escaped, he would have been executed for the same charge in Lyons.
A well balanced video. Yes, Calvin and other reformers wanted to Reform the church and not host a libertarian movement, so the reformers would be interested in stopping obvious heresy as issued from the lips of Servetus. And it is true that Calvin wished to show some mercy toward Servetus. Calvin was under pressure in several respects. As for Servetus, he fled from the catholic authorities but evidently wanted attention in Geneva and had plenty on his last day there.
Sir with all respect, your teaching is too much "calvinistic" and too little Christian. How can you accuse...Abraham (of all people!), to be adulterous!! (did you get that from Calvin?! I beg you, refer to the REAL teacher, JESUS!!) In all humility, but for your scriptural knowledge & infos, poligamy was NOT a sin in the Old Test. As God told David: 2Sam 12:8: "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives...And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
@joshuaspring7 so is it your position that Abraham, when married to Sarah, did not commit adultery in going into Hagar to produce an heir? Scripture seems pretty clear that having sex outside of marriage is a sin....maybe I'm not listening to your Jesus or something....In Genesis 2, marriage is clearly defined with one man and one woman.....perhaps tolerated culturally, but clearly not God's original intention but the result of sin
Sir with all respect, your teaching is too much "calvinistic" and too little Christian. How can you acFor your information...Abraham (of all people!), to be an adulterous!! (did Calvin also taught you that?! Pls refer to the real teacher, JESUS!!) In all humility, but for your scriptural knowledge, poligamy was NOT a sin in the Old Test. As God told David.2Sam 12:8: "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives...And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
1Co 1:19-27 "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE..the world, through wisdom did not know God (so)God through the foolishness of the preach(ing) save(s)...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..(26)not many wise according to the flesh..are called.(27)God has chosen the foolish things ..to put to shame the wise..!"-- Sir, I personally dont know Monica, but I can see that you are full of books of MAN's wisdom(& that you preach), but she preaches only the Word, JESUS! You judge.
Funny how you dont want to accuse Calvin, but justify that Calvin accused servetus, causing him to be burned!! Again you are more a calvinist than a Christian. Instead of defending a murder such as Calving, may I suggest, if you are a true Christian doctor, preacher, theologian and teacher..., Sir, why dont you get busy defending the OTHER leader? Jesus. Certainly you must have read that He taught exactly the opposite of what Calvin practiced..."Love your enemies..."
Sorry Sir, but your teaching is ... a bit strange. You say 'Calvin didnt 'execute' Servetetus; he was 'only' the accuser"?! Excuse me, but dont you know that calvin WELL knew the punishment of the age? Dont you know that the Pharisees 'only' acused Jesus? But they, as your calvin, used the (puppet) authorities, to do their dirty work? --just as Calvin??!! Dont you know that the Devil des not usually kill people, but he (as Calvin & the Pharisees) hides behind his puppets to do it for him?!?
Dear Mr White, pls dont twist other people words. Monica NEVER advocated "heresy"! As you seem to be implying. Neither she, in any way, is in favor of Servetus' wrong teaching against the Trinity. She simply says that Calvinism , as all other isms, is UNSCRIPTURAL. For you to say you are a "calvinist", is as saying that is ok, to be "Apollo-ist", "Cepha-ist" or "Paul-ist". I'd dare to humbly counsel you, to study more the Bible (such 1Cor 1:10-13) & forget man's teaching!
Sir, Your teaching is deceive. You distort Monica's words to uplift your teacher Calvin (instead of being just concerned about the real teacher, Jesus). Monica does not seem to "love the J-Witnesses to hell'! (Where you seem to assume they are all going!). She just seems to love all people--Incuding you! The J-Wit. dont HAVE to go to hell Sir! They can be saved just like anyone else! (Yes! You appear to be more like condemning Calving than Our loving Jesus!
Do you think the people that did the inquisition were true Christians? Clergymen are not necessarily Christian - to some it is just a job. And Jesus said it was okay to torture...wake up.
First of all, Arianism is not a "Christian" doctrine.....
Secondly, Calvin didn't "kill" or "murder" Michael Servetus...Servetus walked into Geneva already condemned by the Catholic Church for capitol crime of blasphemy....he was tried and condemned first in Lyons and then again in Geneva...Calvin made the accusations of the crime and pleaded for leniency of punishment with the city council but he was not even a citizen of Geneva then so he didn't have that much weight in request
The law to burn people to death for believing that there was no trinity did not come from natural philosophy, nor did it come from atheist. It was by christians for christians. many people at the time felt it wasn't a good idea to kill anyone. Christians may have had a difficult time getting that, along with muslims.... but many other people did not. So lets judge them by the good people at the time.
the law was actually an application of the laws of Israel concerning the fate of a blasphemer....they were not allowed to live...the Church was applying (and wrongly so) the laws of the OT to their own dispensation....that was society then and to a point they were "Biblical" in their thought but misapplied in their thinking no doubt...but to judge them by the "good people" of their time seems a bit out of place...
I believe that the problem here is not so much the knowing or lack thereof that we all fall short of the glory of God, but that there is a worshiping & following of the teachings of a house divided against itself, & the holding of such teachings to be equal to that of the WOG. You have a choice between a book via God Himself, who sacrificed His Life for the sinner, verses one written by a confessed unrepentant murderer.
this is such an ignorant statement....obviously you've never read Calvin or what he taught and how Biblical he was...Calvin followed God's word and sought to be submitted to it...you should read what he said some times...
As would agree those who believe in the teachings of WOF, JW's, SDA's, and so on. Thing is, I don't desire to read anything other than scripture, & that's what I choose to make my stand on & for. When I hear teachings that claim to be Biblical but are not, such as that which I've heard out of the mouths of Calvinists, I've no other choice then to confront their error when the door is wide open to do such.
so is it your position that the doctrine of predestination is not taught in Scripture? Is it your position that the Sciptures do not teach election in any manner? Is it your position that the God of the Bible is not sovereign?
(so is it your position that the doctrine of predestination is not taught in Scripture?)
Of course it is in scripture. The JW's, WOF, & SDA's agree that it's in there, yet all have different interpretations. What do you think is the determ. factor? What scripture means by predest. is described all through the WOG, OT & NT alike because it's the WOG that created it. If the WOG doesn't create it & reveal it, it isn't from God. Calvin's interp is seen in a few scattered verses, ignoring the rest.
So youre saying that the teaching that God alone chooses some according to pleasure of his will alone for salvation is not taught in Scripture?? Its not in Eph. 1:3-5?
Either Christianity permits killing people for religious differences or it doesn't. The right not to be killed for your opinions is hardly trivial. Calvin is either an embarrassment to Christianity or Christianity is an embarrassment.
I think you totally missed the presentation...Calvin did not murder Michael Servetus. Michael Servetus was found guilty of blasphemy, which was then a capitol crime, under two courts. All Calvin did was point him out, make the accusations, and he pleaded with the town council for a less cruel death...Calvin was a man of his times too and certain Christianity doesn't condone killing for religious differences; we leave that to God's providence and final judgment when all opposers will be destroyed
I got the presentation. Calvin didn't kill Servetus he only enabled it. The fact that he pleaded for a less cruel death is moot. After all, Robespierre thought he was a humanitarian for using the guillotine. If Christianity doesn't condone executing people for religious differences Calvin didn't understand Christianity. As being a man of his times isn't that a bit like cultural relativism?
like I said in the video God will/has dealt with Calvin. In Calvin's time period they were just rediscovering many of the great truths and the compassion of Christianity...they engaged culture as best as they could but the Church they came out of was one that used the Inquisition to try to convert the Muslims, etc...also Church and state were not divided like now so crimes against the Church were crimes against the state as it were.
( In Calvin's time period they were just rediscovering many of the great truths and the compassion of Christianity...they engaged culture as best as they could but the Church they came out of was one that used the Inquisition to try to convert the Muslims, etc)
Are you suggesting that the leading of the HS was dependent upon man's understanding of scripture and the times that one lives in? When would the HS have led one to believe beheading as exceptable due to the times that they lived in?
I think he definitely had a role in it as he was Servetus' accuser but he did not decide Servetus' fate; the Geneva town council did. Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this time so when he tried to convince them for less painful death, he was not really heard by them. Now, Servetus walked into Geneva a condemned man already. He had actually escaped a death sentence at Lyons, France...honestly, why he walked into Geneva is arrogance I can't understand!! He should have hid =/
Well if one only takes the OT into account, one could justify the putting to death of heretics and all enemies of God. If I remember correctly, this was the perspective taken into account by the church around those times. However, I think in light of Christ and the command to love our enemies, we should be willing to let them live and fight our battles "spiritually" and "cast down their arguments" (2 Cor 10:5)...Calvin wasn't alone in his view on putting to death heretics, it was the times too
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed.
(Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, John Calvin, 1554)
In a way, I don't disagree in the sense that heretics should not be allowed free reign in the Church....but at the same time, hammering out ethically how we show love to our enemies is a tough one? Which one glorifies God more? Maintaining the purity of his Church and his Gospel or loving your enemies? Should one preclude the other? At whose expense? God's or ours?? These are certainly tough questions....either way, Calvin was not the one directly responsible for his death; he pointed out error
"in light of Christ and the command to love our enemies, we should be willing to let them live..."
A) If you think it is wrong to kill heretics than Calvin thinks you be killed too.
"Calvin was not the one directly responsible..."
B) Calvin disagrees yet again:
"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." (reply to Baudouin, 1562)
"But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail." (Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546)
Above all do not fail to rid the country of all those zealous scoundrels that stir up the people to make head against us. Such monsters should be smothered, as I have done here by Michel Servetus the Spaniard.
(Letter to the Marquis du Poet, Grand Chamberlain of the Queen of Navarre, 30 September 1561
I'm not going to disagree with Calvin as he lived in the times that he did and had his reasons.....my only point is that Calvin was not a "murderer"...Servetus walked into Geneva as already being condemned to death...the town council merely carried out a sentence that had already been pronounced elsewhere.
Don't you wish for the purity of the Church of God? Do you honor more the rights of false teachers over the glory of God?
amen...I don't pray or "believe in" John Calvin....on that you are severely misinformed about the nature of Calvinism.
Theology, however, is assigns names to distinguish between particular belief systems and doctrines to categorize and make things easy to identify. That is the extent of the name "Calvinism" - the teachings taught by those in the Reformed heritage under John Calvin. There is much in common with other systems but the soteriology is what it is most known for.
you might be right, but that only shows that you can't believe what you don't know about....I would not have believed the Gospel either unless someone had told me about it, so I really don't see the significance of responding back to you...I mean if you think it says something then more power to ya....
Also realize that you are making way too many assertions to respond back to them all point by point....don't have that kind of time...sorry but I don't live on here =)
I didn't say you "need" Calvin....however, God in his infinite Wisdom saw fit in his providence to use a man by the name of John Calvin as a vessel and that same vessel continues to point beyond himself to Jesus Christ and his glorious Gospel...just read Calvin's works for yourself and see.
so according to you only men of the past had the HOLY SPIRIT?
I have the HOLY SPIRIT just like any other man that is in CHRIST.....right?....just because I dont agree with calvin doesnt mean I dont have the HOLY SPIRIT
I dont talk about any other man not one
if Im going to quote a man it will be one that wrote in the word of GOD alone
if anyone sounds like a catholic, mormon or jehovah witness its u cause you have john calvin
no...all Christians have the same Holy Spirit (which is a great case for the Deity of the HS). However, not all are called or gifted in the same manner...not all are teachers, agreed? I'm not denying that you have the Spirit, that is missing the point on your part...and we can also say that not all study the same or have the same cognitive ability to study somethings (like the Greek language, or grammatical constructions and their significance, etc...) Not having these things doesn't make....
...anybody less of a Christian, etc...but lets face it, not every true Christian can explain or explicate the doctrine of the Trinity that they profess to believe. Is it for lack of the Spirit? Not at all! Just requires more study!! "Study to show thyself approved" is what the word says....but we are not wrong in quoting what other men have taught from the Word of God in the past...how else do you have the doctrines that you have today? If we do things your way, we have to start from scratch...
with every generation and possibly lose some of the godly teachings from the past. That is how doctrines are slowly lost, when they are not handed down from generation to generation...they slowly pass out just like the gospel eventually vanished from Rome under so much tradition!!!
sure...but of course, that leaves you with your opinion alone...for that matter, don't even bother going to church right? I mean lets face it, you are claiming to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture (just like the Mormons and Roman Catholic Church and the WatchTower Society)...you're totally right in asserting that other men have not had the Holy Spirit to teach them in all ages that the Church has existed! How clumsy of me to deny the Spirit in all history!! So Sorry your highness...
that fact is that God has illuminated the minds of other men with his word and by His Spirit and these men have left that legacy behind...I believe Calvin is one among many whom the Holy Spirit has used in the history of the Church. We are all one body united throughout all time, not just the present and not isolated from one another....writing and teaching is a gift from God FOR THE CHURCH and we would do well to make use of those means of grace. That's why I study "other men" whom God gifts.
Amen, and Calvin said the same thing too. I think you are at a misunderstanding how John CAlvin is actually used in Reformed theological circles....he is not a be all and end all authority....truth be told, many people don't even read Calvin nowadays. But what Calvin taught was that Scripture with the power of the Holy Spirit behind it is the sole infallible authority for faith and doctrine in the Church....you should read what he said about Scripture yourself in the Institutes. Good stuff
In all honesty, I can't imagine you disagreeing with much of what Calvin actually said and taught about Christ and the Gospel or living the Christian life...
Most people object to Calvinism because they THINK that Calvinist "worship" John Calvin rather than Jesus Christ which is a complete caricature and misrepresentation of what we believe and teach!! You'll find that much of what we believe is actually the same and we are able to support our doctrines from Scripture as well.
Do you believe that he rose from the dead for our justification?
Do you believe that Jesus was a ransom payment given to God to effect the release of sinners from God's wrath? Do you believe that Jesus Christ came with a specific mission for salvation ?
nobody "needs" CAlvin....Calvin didn't even name his own system and would be appalled there a system bears his name today. However, the name was given by Calvin's followers to distinguish their doctrine from Lutherans and Anabaptist....and the doctrine of Justification by faith alone or predestination is not something unique to Calvinism as Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did....
and yes, Scripture was "lost" as it were due to "traditions" blinding men from it...
Luthers followers actually toned down Luther's teaching on predestination and the bondage of the will...Luther's original teachings and Calvin's weren't very far apart except on the Lord's supper and the purpose of infant baptism. For all practical purposes though, each of their respective "systems" could have been called Augustinianism as they looked to Augustine's later writings on Grace against the Pelagians and Augustine had already explored predestination
I believe that u just dont have an answer to the questions I asked and therefore u have to blame it on me.....I believe in JESUS CHRIST...not calvanism
but according to the gospel of calvin in anyone refuses his interpretation they are wrong
answer my question buddy
What did yall believe before calvin was born?
and dont throw this ad hominem at me
I guess thats what u call someone who ask questions that u cant answer
I wasn't alive before John CAlvin...the doctrine of predestination was around, justification by faith alone was around through branded heresy by Rome, etc....now, you also have to recognize the anacronisticness of your question...its historically inaccurate to assume there was "Calvinism" BEFORE John Calvin. The doctrines we believe have always been in the Bible though not always taught especially in the middle ages when Scripture was snuffed for the authority of Rome.
and it is ad hominem to attack the character of a person rather than their argument, or in this case, their theology. That is certain that you are attacking what you think is his character (which is your strawman) rather than dealing with his exegesis or that of other Reformed scholars who have clearly and most convincingly exegeted the doctrines of Calvinism from Scripture.
Now, you say you believe in JEsus Christ....what about him do you believe? Fully man? Just man? Fully God? Creator or Creature? God in the flesh? A god, but not the God? Merely a good person but not divine? A different role that God plays? Savior or potential savior? Was he sinless? Did he take the place of sinners on the Cross as a substititurionary atonement?
Saying "I believe in Jesus" is fine and dandy...but what about Him do you believe? That, not mere profession, gains my attention.
thats what I thought....if theres no calvin theres no more arguing.....there was not calvinism......thats why its best to stay away from taking the name of a man's teaching and stick with GOD's word alone with not attachments, no names, no opinions...u cant go wrong just following JESUS : )
the problem is you're not thinking....you have no clue what Calvinism teaches and how entrenched it is in Scripture. I'm sorry that theology is not done according to your personal likings, but the world does not revolve around you or your personal tastes. If youre interested in delving into Scripture I would be happy to demonstrate what Calvinism teaches from Scripture but I refuse to engage your ad hominem and strawman arguments my friend. Thanks so much.
George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124). both sides are wrong taking a name other then CHRIST
sounds like yall have been arguing this for yrs......I am just a christian believer in YESHUA...plain and simple
I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856) a quote from one of ur idols
uhh...not an idol. Pretty arrogant aren't you thinking you know me? =/
And what Spurgeon meant is that Calvinism has and maintains the strongest and most Biblical view of the death of Christ on the Cross as actually accomplishing what He set out to do...Christ, according to Calvinism, ACTUALLY redeems, ACTUALLY reconciles, ACTUALLY propitiates and ACTUALLY took the place of sinners ont he Cross....you can only say, he POTENTIALLY did and you need to add your faith in order to be saved.
ok, you came looking for me I didn't go looking for you...and these are VIDEO RESPONSES to Monica Dennington's attacks on Calvinism, not a Calvinist Offensive on her....
Friends, Romans...Countrymen...lend me your ears!!! We didn't land on Sherwood forest....Sherwood forest landed on us!!!
I dont waste mine time all into men.....u guys and the armenians are wasting ur time over mere men....even piper himself is honoring calvin by doing a conference in his name........
Calvin was with Jesus too my friend. Ever read any of his works? Probably not...like most rhetoricians....its easy to tear down.
Also, get your facts straight...cause you're pretty much coming off as a liar with your ignorance (which doesn't make you do ao good job of "staying with Jesus")...we are not trusting in John Calvin for salvation. We are trusting in Jesus Christ even as John Calvin did.
and calvins good buddy hated the jews.....so one wants jews dead the other wants to murder anyone who disagrees with his doctrine......good ol christian boys huh
Calvin was not "good buddy" with Luther...they knew of each other and respected each other as fellow Reformers, but there were not in that kind of fellowship with each other...they even disagreed over the purpose of infant baptism and the Lord's supper....but of course, from all the historical research you've done your surely knew that....which makes you a liar in your presentation of facts.....good thing were not on good ole J. Smith, huh???
actually CAtholics believe in baptismal regeneration which Calvinist do not hold to. Goodness!! I would expect better from the way you run your mouth...at least put your brain behind it my friend!!
I guess you dont know that JESUS gets the credit for justification by faith not the murderer john calvin......and what does the massacre have to do with john calvins murderers
If you are not familiar with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is what makes one Christian, then you are not in the place to critique Calvin's life. The doctrine of Justification teaches us that we are saved, not on the basis of our righteousness or good works, but on the basis of the free righteousness of Jesus Christ by whom God counts us as "not guilty" before Him. We are accepted because of Christ, not our own works.
and that does not make a person a murder to hope for a severe punishment my friend! Goodness, the juries and judges who have dealt out the death penalty for capitol crimes do not become murderers themselves....families who have wanted the death penalty on the ones who have taken the lives of their loved ones do not become murders ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS THROUGH LAW AND DUE PROCESS.....not like the mountain meadow massacre
actually I have read a few books on it, including "The Reformation" by Diarmaid McCulloch, "Church history" by Phillip Schaff (8 volume set), "The Reformation" by Stephen J. Nichols and a few other papers....again, nobody agrees with how it went down BUT that was the times that they lived in. But Calvin did not "murder" Michael Servetus. I suggest you take your own advice and read what happened and how far Calvin was involved and even how he pleaded against a burning with the town council
no matter how much you read or study it doesn't change the facts...calvin was a murder......sorry that he did that...if he was lead by the Holy Spirit...that would've never happened.....open your eyes to the facts
Servetus was not tried for "going against Calvin" but for Blasphemy, which was a capitol crime of the state back then (And no, Calvin did n't make it a capitol crime). Servetus was condemned to death by the town council of Geneva for errors against the Trinity, and he was already awaiting a death sentence in Lyons before he walked into Geneva. All Calvin did was point out the man who was already wanted by the law elsewhere
say what you want but you follow a man that murdered another man
I cant believe how sucked into this false doctrine people get
no one who reads the bible on their own will ever come to the cunclusion that they need to be calvinist unless theyre taught about it....sorry but face it ur wrong
go ahead make excuses for this murder! this is so stupid...he had the say bible we have today...murder has never been the right thing to do in the church ever since the church of the books of Acts! why do you guys try so hard to make this murder look good....just admit it you and calvin are wrong.....if if Servetus was a heretic he did not need to be murdered!....and I can't believe the other guy actually said a good response...what a nut.....so are you suppose to murder everyone who disagrees
I don't think Calvin could have stopped Servetus' execution even if he wanted to. People think he was the ruler of the land and he could really do something. The truth was he couldn't. The truth is also, he & others requested a more humane way to execute Servetus than burning him at the stake. His request was denied.
well that happened in 1553 and Calvin wasn't even a legitimate citizen of Geneva until 1559...he didn't have the power that most people think he had. He was not "the Pope of Geneva" as some like to caricature.
And very true that he and other wanted a more humane execution
Bottom line is - Servetus was justly tried and condemned as a heretic. He obviously suffered under God's Judgment for heresy. The rest is a bunch of anti-Calvinist propaganda designed to help justify a False Gospel based on something other than Grace ALONE.
I didn't get that what this guy was saying was justifying what happened to Miguel Servetus. The problem is atheists, jws, oneness Pentecostals and those hostile to Calvinists use Miguel Servetus situation to discredit Calvin and other Christians. The problem is though, they never accurately represent the facts. In so doing they just incite emotion and don't engage anybodies' minds.
When David had Uriah the Hittite killed he was guilty of the man's blood. Now he could have said "well my friends were ok with it..." or "this is pretty common in my time so..." or "I really don't think I did anything wrong...". But what God wanted was earnest repentance for his sin. Had David never admitted wrongdoing he would not have been the the great leader that he was.
Calvin, on the other hand, died unrepentant of the death of Servetus. Huge difference...
Michael Servetus was condemned as a criminal for the crime of blasphemy. He was convicted in Lyons BEFORE he even went to Geneva to meet Calvin. Calvin merely pointed him out and charged him, the town Council did with Servetus as they chose. Calvin pleaded for a lesser sentence and even to Servetus to recant but he would not.
Calvin played a part in his death, but his death was not murder...that is certainly a caricature.
To what degree Calvin played a part is semantics. Judas didn't do much but point out Jesus; but I get the feeling God isn't too pleased with him.
All I get out of this defense of Calvin is that you make God out to be a joke. Like somehow if it weren't for Calvin, Michael Servetus would have stopped God dead in his tracks. Like Servetus was about to destroy the entire Christian faith, so good thing Calvin was around. If it wasn't for John Calvin propping God up, he'd just fall right down.
That was actually Servetus' plan if you get a hold of his works and read about what his intentions were my friend....Just curious but have you ever read Servetus' stuff? Read Phillip Schaff's assessment of his works....really interesting...
Now, of course, I am not saying that without Calvin, God would have been stopped. If anything, I would only argue that Calvin was God's instrument as was the town council in handling Servetus and his false teachings.
Are you so hard hearted? Do you really feel the need to excuse horrible acts in order to make your denomination less susceptible to attacks? Why couldn't Calvin just be a bible student who was fallible like the rest of us? Is this really the fruit of Calvinism; trying to find ways that condone the murder of people who don't teach a trinity?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? - 1 Cor 6:7
Now,again,if you listen to the video I am not saying Calvin is "infallible"...again, don't know where you are getting these conclusions...again, Calvin did not "murder" Michael Servetus. He was justly tried and condemned for a capitol crime that no longer exists today, the crime of Blasphemy. Calvinist do not condone "burning heretics at the stake" but we recognize that times were different and we have come a long ways since then.Are you going to fault all Christians for the times they lived in?
As long as John Calvin lived in a time and place that gave him access to a bible, than he was responsible for following Christ's example. It is INCONCEIVABLE that Jesus would ever have taken part in a "blasphemy" trial, to whatever degree you chose, because a person held different views about who God is. Everything Jesus taught condemns that type of treatment of our fellow man. From all accounts, John Calvin owned a bible, so you and I both know he has no excuse before God.
I mean goodness, you have a Bible and still commit sins....therefore, you also have no excuses before God correct??? "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself...for with the same measure that you judge, you also will be judged with" God is a merciful and understanding God too friend...not merely a "standard" who judges without knowledge of each persons own circumstances, etc....God gives grace too ya know...should think about that for a bit
I do not believe we have to take cultural context into account as much as you desire. Calvin, Luther, many failed to follow the Gospels and Christ in order to stay in political/theological power. Christ warned against this - telling us we were to follow Christ and Christ alone. We are to have courage to stand up and be counted. All of us fail in our courage at times, but to participate in the savage death of someone is so clearly NOT in line with Scripture.
revjwh38 1 year ago
@revjwh38 this is an easy thing to say looking back from a time of so much light to a time when the light had just started to shine again....again, I would have you consider exactly what role Calvin had in the death of Servetus who walked into Geneva already condemned and fled from executioners at Lyons...Calvin or not, the man was already a condemned criminal elsewhere and a fugitve on the run. Servetus attempted to accuse Calvin of blasphemy in the middle of a church service apparently...
prchdaword 1 year ago
@revjwh38 recall the facts that Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this time and didn't have much sway or opinion in the town council that he was able to enjoy much later after becoming a citizen...I'm not sure on the timeline, but I think CAlvin was kicked out of Geneva by the Council and then brought back later after realizing his teaching was much appreciated....
prchdaword 1 year ago
@revjwh38 Consider also that the Scripture do acknowledge capital crimes and punishment fit for capital crimes....in the OT blasphemy was a capital crime (its the same crime Jesus was put to death for by the Pharisees!)....during those times they were "Biblical" in the sense that they applied the laws of the Bible to their time....not excusing Calvin, or anybody, but we cannot judge them by what we have and what they didn't
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword They had the same New Testament we have and the same Jesus who told us to love our neighbor as ourself, love your enemy, do good to them that do evil to you. Did those who condoned the execution of 'heretics', often preceded by brutal torture, miss the import of the death and resurrection of Jesus or that Mosaic law was given to the children of Israel only and not to gentiles? Jesus never preached for the execution of those we disagreed with; at most, we are to shun them.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry hey, man I'm with you...but Calvin was in a different time when the Church wielded its power through the state and the state through the Church...we have the luxury of "separation of Church and state." Servetus was not the first to die for heresy either my friend. My position here is to let God judge him. Are we less sinners than Calvin? If he can't be saved by grace what hope do you and I have? Did not David also commit murder? Can't God's grace in Christ forgive?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword God's grace in Christ can and does forgive. On the other hand Jesus has posed the question "why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?" and in Matthew 7:21-23 He speaks of those who firmly believed they served the Lord and were themselves saved only to be told "I never knew you". There is no little irony that many 'heretics' were killed for daring to challenge heresies that had worked their way into certain churches with the true word of God.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry well, again my friend, I would be careful about putting yourself in God's judgment seat here or with anyone....you should not overlook the work that Calvin did for God's kingdom. How you judge others is the same way that you will also be judged my friend, so says our Lord in Matthew 7.
If you have the opportunity, Phillip Schaff's volume 8 of his Church history set has over 100 pages devoted to this topic that are well worth reading on this.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword There is a huge difference between putting oneself in God's judgment seat and reminding people that God does indeed have a judgment seat and the basis by which He determines who may enter His kingdom (those who keep His commandments) and who is cast into the lake of fire (workers of iniquity). It is a fool's gambit to engage in the practice of sin and believe that God will still save them. Justifying the murder of others by saying it was an honest zeal will not suffice before God.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry so help me understand your position here, youre saying that salvation is not based on what Christ did for us on the Cross but on what we do with God' s commandments? Curious, but how many of his commandments are you keeping or breaking?
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Curious? Not at all. The evidence that we are saved, that God's Holy Spirit is indeed dwelling within us and conforming us into a likenes of Jesus Christ is the change in us from sinner to one who desires the holiness of God. "And hereby we do know that we know him, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:3-4 Our keeping God's commandments are the fruit of our salvation
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry oh ok, I see what you are saying....well don't you think you are focusing a bit too much on one aspect of Calvin's sin and over looking his other work for the kingdom if that is your standard? Calvin was not a murderer, in any sense of the word in this event. Servetus was tried and condemned by a city council, not Calvin (Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva to have such powers at that time)...again, I think Calvin is in a tight spot here, but not condemned...
prchdaword 1 year ago
@BondiHarry If we look at the completeness of Calvin's life and ministry, i think you will see the evidence of his regeneration and his love for God and the Church....his works that the Church has clearly benefitted from and even the secular world is undeniable. Preaching up to 2 sermons a day (2 different sermons!), training pastors, even hiding refugee pastors for the Reformation, etc.is quit a bit of evidence in Calvin's life. Again, God alone is the judgments and we cannot say with certainty
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword It is not my intent to pick on Calvin. There is a huge difference between those who practice sin and a Christian who stumbles. King David is a prime example of this and although I think Calvin erred in some of the things he did, he none-the-less was a great preacher of God's word. Jesus didn't give up on Peter even though Peter denied Him three times. However, killing heretics is not Christian; excommunicating and shunning them is.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry Calvin didn't kill him though....the town council, through due process, had him put to death for blasphemy, which was a capital crime during that time. Calvin made the accusation and identified Servetus when Servetus walked in to Geneva and sat in Calvins sermon and stood up to be recognized...besides if your beef is just that it aint Christian, neither are the sins that we as Christians still commit day by day constantly in need of forgiveness and the Cross =/
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword There is a difference between simply stumbling and practicing an evil like murder in the name of the purity of the church. John 16:1-3 addresses this very thing. One cannot reconcile putting 'heretics' to death with what Jesus preached. You say we need wisdom and discernment .... what we need is to study to show ourselves approved, a workman that need not be ashamed. Otherwise we murder in the name of Jesus which IS heresy.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry well then brother, you go ahead and pick up the first stone.....
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Scripture is very clear on what evil is, what love is and that professing Christ but practicing what God hates will only land one in hell. Today we see 'Christians' supporting abortion, supporting gay marriage and the ordination of homosexual leaders and supporting institutionalized theft using the government as the proxy to take what belongs to others for themselves. If you think pointing out that God will punish evil doers is casting stones, so be it. God will not be mocked.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry my point here is John Calvin will stand before God, not you and me....God knows much more about this than you and I ever will...God also calls our "hate" equally murder. I personally think your initial assessment, as well as that of others, is misinformed to call John CAlvin a "murderer" when the policy was not his, but the town councils as well as the policy of the empire of time. Calvin pleaded for mercy but they granted none and Servetus wanted none in not wanting to recant.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword My point is the committed Christian will follow God's counsel to us. There is no excuse for anyone professing Jesus to be their Lord to execute 'heretics', to wage wars for power, land or riches or to practice perpetrating evil to their fellow man yet professing Christians have done these things; we go by the Bible. Knowing what the Bible says about how we handle heretics, Calvin should have denounced the practice of executing them and pointed out how God tells us to handle them
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry He probably should have knowing what we know now....but remember Calvin was coming out of a period of darkness and the Reformers were just starting to Reform the church and it took time for most of society including governement to be Reformed. Again, I have to point out that it was not the Church that put Servetus to Death but the Civil Government. This is where I am saying we have to be fair to Calvin and the time he was in and what they were just starting to do.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword I thought Servetus was executed for heresy. Heresy is a religous concept, not a secular one. I wonder how many members of that 'civil government' were church goers and considered themselves Christians. And again, Calvin and those in civil government who claimed Christ had the same books of scripture we do today. Scripture calls for the excommunication and shunning of heretics, not their execution. Execution for heresy was an invention of men contrary to God's word.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry he was tried and condemned for Blasphemy. Remember at that time, there was no "separation of Church and state" like we know today. The Church had her hands in the state. Remember Luther was tried, not before a theological council but before a civil magistrate of the Holy roman empire. The Church and the state were nearly inseparable....it was later after the English Reformation that that the Church began to want the state out of its affairs
prchdaword 1 year ago
@BondiHarry separation of Church and state is more of an American idea as people sought freedom from the Church of England (so closely tied to the Crown!) that they sought a new place to practice their religion apart from the dictates of the state. Things were different in Calvin's time is my point and we cannot judge him by todays standards as they were still Reforming....but we owe plenty of our ideas that we are applying to Calvin here to Calvin and his theology.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@prchdaword Church as state is a concept of men ... it is found no where in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, throughout the Bible, what it does teach about 'government' is that leaders (kings and princes) are to be themselves righteous and sober and they are to ensure that justice is done. We are NEVER told to look to government for anything but to look to the kingdom of heaven. Things were different in Calvin's time? The gospel was the same then as now so in that you are wrong.
BondiHarry 1 year ago
@BondiHarry....ok, not sure you got what I said...I didn't say that the Church WAS the state...what I said was that the Church had her hands in the state....remember that the emperors of the Holy Roman empire were so by Papal delegation....I am also not arguing that the Gospel was different so don't represent my argument that way. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that gov't is ordained by God to wield the sword so Calvin, in a sense at the time was submitting to the government of the time.
prchdaword 1 year ago
@BondiHarry....my friend, all I'm point out is things were different then.....I know you want to be as hard as you can on Calvin, but our times are not his...we have more Gospel influence than he had because Rome had been ruling in darkness for so long....yes, a great light came from the Reformation, but it took time for that light to spread out and for many, including Calvin, to comprehend all that it entailed; that is, the application of the Gospel to all life. It doesn't happen overnight
prchdaword 1 year ago
@BondiHarry my point here, is education on some facts about this incident that do not get mentioned because people choose to be uninformed about what happened with Michael Servetus.....murder this cannot be called by Calvin in any sense. That would be like saying any who execute criminals for a capitol crime also become murderers and must be executed themselves. Then where does the cycle end? The town council of Geneva had all the say in the sentence; prior to them, Lyons had already....
prchdaword 1 year ago
@BondiHarry condemned Servetus to the death penalty and he escaped and went straight to Geneva. Had Servetus not escaped, he would have been executed for the same charge in Lyons.
prchdaword 1 year ago
A well balanced video. Yes, Calvin and other reformers wanted to Reform the church and not host a libertarian movement, so the reformers would be interested in stopping obvious heresy as issued from the lips of Servetus. And it is true that Calvin wished to show some mercy toward Servetus. Calvin was under pressure in several respects. As for Servetus, he fled from the catholic authorities but evidently wanted attention in Geneva and had plenty on his last day there.
DrStevenz 1 year ago
Sir with all respect, your teaching is too much "calvinistic" and too little Christian. How can you accuse...Abraham (of all people!), to be adulterous!! (did you get that from Calvin?! I beg you, refer to the REAL teacher, JESUS!!) In all humility, but for your scriptural knowledge & infos, poligamy was NOT a sin in the Old Test. As God told David: 2Sam 12:8: "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives...And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
@joshuaspring7 so is it your position that Abraham, when married to Sarah, did not commit adultery in going into Hagar to produce an heir? Scripture seems pretty clear that having sex outside of marriage is a sin....maybe I'm not listening to your Jesus or something....In Genesis 2, marriage is clearly defined with one man and one woman.....perhaps tolerated culturally, but clearly not God's original intention but the result of sin
prchdaword 1 year ago
Sir with all respect, your teaching is too much "calvinistic" and too little Christian. How can you acFor your information...Abraham (of all people!), to be an adulterous!! (did Calvin also taught you that?! Pls refer to the real teacher, JESUS!!) In all humility, but for your scriptural knowledge, poligamy was NOT a sin in the Old Test. As God told David.2Sam 12:8: "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives...And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
1Co 1:19-27 "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE..the world, through wisdom did not know God (so)God through the foolishness of the preach(ing) save(s)...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..(26)not many wise according to the flesh..are called.(27)God has chosen the foolish things ..to put to shame the wise..!"-- Sir, I personally dont know Monica, but I can see that you are full of books of MAN's wisdom(& that you preach), but she preaches only the Word, JESUS! You judge.
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
Funny how you dont want to accuse Calvin, but justify that Calvin accused servetus, causing him to be burned!! Again you are more a calvinist than a Christian. Instead of defending a murder such as Calving, may I suggest, if you are a true Christian doctor, preacher, theologian and teacher..., Sir, why dont you get busy defending the OTHER leader? Jesus. Certainly you must have read that He taught exactly the opposite of what Calvin practiced..."Love your enemies..."
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
Sorry Sir, but your teaching is ... a bit strange. You say 'Calvin didnt 'execute' Servetetus; he was 'only' the accuser"?! Excuse me, but dont you know that calvin WELL knew the punishment of the age? Dont you know that the Pharisees 'only' acused Jesus? But they, as your calvin, used the (puppet) authorities, to do their dirty work? --just as Calvin??!! Dont you know that the Devil des not usually kill people, but he (as Calvin & the Pharisees) hides behind his puppets to do it for him?!?
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
Dear Mr White, pls dont twist other people words. Monica NEVER advocated "heresy"! As you seem to be implying. Neither she, in any way, is in favor of Servetus' wrong teaching against the Trinity. She simply says that Calvinism , as all other isms, is UNSCRIPTURAL. For you to say you are a "calvinist", is as saying that is ok, to be "Apollo-ist", "Cepha-ist" or "Paul-ist". I'd dare to humbly counsel you, to study more the Bible (such 1Cor 1:10-13) & forget man's teaching!
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
Sir, Your teaching is deceive. You distort Monica's words to uplift your teacher Calvin (instead of being just concerned about the real teacher, Jesus). Monica does not seem to "love the J-Witnesses to hell'! (Where you seem to assume they are all going!). She just seems to love all people--Incuding you! The J-Wit. dont HAVE to go to hell Sir! They can be saved just like anyone else! (Yes! You appear to be more like condemning Calving than Our loving Jesus!
joshuaspring7 1 year ago
My husband and I watched these the other night...well done, brother.
rainzion 2 years ago
@rainzion Thank you. I couldn't let her go unanswered on these issues....
prchdaword 2 years ago
I posted these two videos of yours in part of a blog regarding Monica Dennington's Holy Spirit series, which as we know is complete garbage.
rainzion 2 years ago
@rainzion oh wow!! Well I hope that they are able to bless people in some way and to help them understand these issues and how to approach them =)
Thanks and God bless!!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
Indeed.
God bless you as well, brother.
rainzion 2 years ago
Do you think the people that did the inquisition were true Christians? Clergymen are not necessarily Christian - to some it is just a job. And Jesus said it was okay to torture...wake up.
WTU208 2 years ago
LOL. killing people for having the 'wrong' christian beliefs is a product of christianity regardless of the time. try and get around that.
cjunk351 2 years ago
First of all, Arianism is not a "Christian" doctrine.....
Secondly, Calvin didn't "kill" or "murder" Michael Servetus...Servetus walked into Geneva already condemned by the Catholic Church for capitol crime of blasphemy....he was tried and condemned first in Lyons and then again in Geneva...Calvin made the accusations of the crime and pleaded for leniency of punishment with the city council but he was not even a citizen of Geneva then so he didn't have that much weight in request
prchdaword 2 years ago
The law to burn people to death for believing that there was no trinity did not come from natural philosophy, nor did it come from atheist. It was by christians for christians. many people at the time felt it wasn't a good idea to kill anyone. Christians may have had a difficult time getting that, along with muslims.... but many other people did not. So lets judge them by the good people at the time.
cjunk351 2 years ago
the law was actually an application of the laws of Israel concerning the fate of a blasphemer....they were not allowed to live...the Church was applying (and wrongly so) the laws of the OT to their own dispensation....that was society then and to a point they were "Biblical" in their thought but misapplied in their thinking no doubt...but to judge them by the "good people" of their time seems a bit out of place...
prchdaword 2 years ago
I believe that the problem here is not so much the knowing or lack thereof that we all fall short of the glory of God, but that there is a worshiping & following of the teachings of a house divided against itself, & the holding of such teachings to be equal to that of the WOG. You have a choice between a book via God Himself, who sacrificed His Life for the sinner, verses one written by a confessed unrepentant murderer.
AllForYeshua 2 years ago
this is such an ignorant statement....obviously you've never read Calvin or what he taught and how Biblical he was...Calvin followed God's word and sought to be submitted to it...you should read what he said some times...
by the way....you mispelled "versus"
prchdaword 2 years ago
As would agree those who believe in the teachings of WOF, JW's, SDA's, and so on. Thing is, I don't desire to read anything other than scripture, & that's what I choose to make my stand on & for. When I hear teachings that claim to be Biblical but are not, such as that which I've heard out of the mouths of Calvinists, I've no other choice then to confront their error when the door is wide open to do such.
AllForYeshua 2 years ago
so is it your position that the doctrine of predestination is not taught in Scripture? Is it your position that the Sciptures do not teach election in any manner? Is it your position that the God of the Bible is not sovereign?
prchdaword 2 years ago
(so is it your position that the doctrine of predestination is not taught in Scripture?)
Of course it is in scripture. The JW's, WOF, & SDA's agree that it's in there, yet all have different interpretations. What do you think is the determ. factor? What scripture means by predest. is described all through the WOG, OT & NT alike because it's the WOG that created it. If the WOG doesn't create it & reveal it, it isn't from God. Calvin's interp is seen in a few scattered verses, ignoring the rest.
AllForYeshua 2 years ago
So youre saying that the teaching that God alone chooses some according to pleasure of his will alone for salvation is not taught in Scripture?? Its not in Eph. 1:3-5?
prchdaword 2 years ago
(by the way....you mispelled "versus")
Oops, I'm human.
AllForYeshua 2 years ago
And John Calvin wasn't???
prchdaword 2 years ago
Either Christianity permits killing people for religious differences or it doesn't. The right not to be killed for your opinions is hardly trivial. Calvin is either an embarrassment to Christianity or Christianity is an embarrassment.
WilliamJarrell 2 years ago
I think you totally missed the presentation...Calvin did not murder Michael Servetus. Michael Servetus was found guilty of blasphemy, which was then a capitol crime, under two courts. All Calvin did was point him out, make the accusations, and he pleaded with the town council for a less cruel death...Calvin was a man of his times too and certain Christianity doesn't condone killing for religious differences; we leave that to God's providence and final judgment when all opposers will be destroyed
prchdaword 2 years ago
I got the presentation. Calvin didn't kill Servetus he only enabled it. The fact that he pleaded for a less cruel death is moot. After all, Robespierre thought he was a humanitarian for using the guillotine. If Christianity doesn't condone executing people for religious differences Calvin didn't understand Christianity. As being a man of his times isn't that a bit like cultural relativism?
WilliamJarrell 2 years ago
like I said in the video God will/has dealt with Calvin. In Calvin's time period they were just rediscovering many of the great truths and the compassion of Christianity...they engaged culture as best as they could but the Church they came out of was one that used the Inquisition to try to convert the Muslims, etc...also Church and state were not divided like now so crimes against the Church were crimes against the state as it were.
prchdaword 2 years ago
( In Calvin's time period they were just rediscovering many of the great truths and the compassion of Christianity...they engaged culture as best as they could but the Church they came out of was one that used the Inquisition to try to convert the Muslims, etc)
Are you suggesting that the leading of the HS was dependent upon man's understanding of scripture and the times that one lives in? When would the HS have led one to believe beheading as exceptable due to the times that they lived in?
AllForYeshua 2 years ago
Hey prchdaword, do you believe that Calvin was responsible for the death of Servetus?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
I think he definitely had a role in it as he was Servetus' accuser but he did not decide Servetus' fate; the Geneva town council did. Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this time so when he tried to convince them for less painful death, he was not really heard by them. Now, Servetus walked into Geneva a condemned man already. He had actually escaped a death sentence at Lyons, France...honestly, why he walked into Geneva is arrogance I can't understand!! He should have hid =/
prchdaword 2 years ago
From your perspective and understanding of scripture, do you think it is unjust to put heretics to death?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Well if one only takes the OT into account, one could justify the putting to death of heretics and all enemies of God. If I remember correctly, this was the perspective taken into account by the church around those times. However, I think in light of Christ and the command to love our enemies, we should be willing to let them live and fight our battles "spiritually" and "cast down their arguments" (2 Cor 10:5)...Calvin wasn't alone in his view on putting to death heretics, it was the times too
prchdaword 2 years ago
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed.
(Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, John Calvin, 1554)
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
In a way, I don't disagree in the sense that heretics should not be allowed free reign in the Church....but at the same time, hammering out ethically how we show love to our enemies is a tough one? Which one glorifies God more? Maintaining the purity of his Church and his Gospel or loving your enemies? Should one preclude the other? At whose expense? God's or ours?? These are certainly tough questions....either way, Calvin was not the one directly responsible for his death; he pointed out error
prchdaword 2 years ago
"in light of Christ and the command to love our enemies, we should be willing to let them live..."
A) If you think it is wrong to kill heretics than Calvin thinks you be killed too.
"Calvin was not the one directly responsible..."
B) Calvin disagrees yet again:
"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." (reply to Baudouin, 1562)
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
"But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail." (Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546)
Above all do not fail to rid the country of all those zealous scoundrels that stir up the people to make head against us. Such monsters should be smothered, as I have done here by Michel Servetus the Spaniard.
(Letter to the Marquis du Poet, Grand Chamberlain of the Queen of Navarre, 30 September 1561
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
I'm not going to disagree with Calvin as he lived in the times that he did and had his reasons.....my only point is that Calvin was not a "murderer"...Servetus walked into Geneva as already being condemned to death...the town council merely carried out a sentence that had already been pronounced elsewhere.
Don't you wish for the purity of the Church of God? Do you honor more the rights of false teachers over the glory of God?
prchdaword 2 years ago
haha.....my name actually means visionary or dreamer in Hebrew
and I am a missionary as well here in the USA
mormons are heretics too bad joseph smith got deceived by his false doctrine that he got from a supposed angel
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
oh I see....honestly, I thought you were a Mormon referring to yourself as a Missionary for the "first vision" of Joseph Smith LOL....
prchdaword 2 years ago
I dont either
I just had to respond to several emails today and todays starts the Sabbath
I just want u to think about what u believe in a man called calvin
he's nothing at all just like all the rest of us
its all about JESUS and HIM alone
no strings or names attached
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
amen...I don't pray or "believe in" John Calvin....on that you are severely misinformed about the nature of Calvinism.
Theology, however, is assigns names to distinguish between particular belief systems and doctrines to categorize and make things easy to identify. That is the extent of the name "Calvinism" - the teachings taught by those in the Reformed heritage under John Calvin. There is much in common with other systems but the soteriology is what it is most known for.
prchdaword 2 years ago
did u notice that u always avoid answering back when I said
u wouldnt believe what u believe about calvinism except someone told u
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
you might be right, but that only shows that you can't believe what you don't know about....I would not have believed the Gospel either unless someone had told me about it, so I really don't see the significance of responding back to you...I mean if you think it says something then more power to ya....
Also realize that you are making way too many assertions to respond back to them all point by point....don't have that kind of time...sorry but I don't live on here =)
prchdaword 2 years ago
why should I read a man's works
when I have the very words of GOD?
all the words I need are found in the Holy scriptures
mormons need the book of mormons
jw's have their new world translation
and then u guys have the writings of calvin
I have all I need for instruction in this life in the Holy scriptures : )
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
what name?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
your user name....is it a reference to the "first vision" of Joseph Smith?
prchdaword 2 years ago
no te hagas el chistosito!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
the gospel was lost in rome..they were murdered for the gospel
and we dont need someone's doctrines to teach us the word of GOD
the gospel will be preached to the very just like end
JESUS said it would
why do u make it sound like we need calvin?
do we need him or JESUS
do we need his books too?
is the word of GOD not enough
u wouldnt believe what u believe about calvinism except someone told u
its like spreading the teachings of a man instead of sharing the gospel of CHRIST
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
I didn't say you "need" Calvin....however, God in his infinite Wisdom saw fit in his providence to use a man by the name of John Calvin as a vessel and that same vessel continues to point beyond himself to Jesus Christ and his glorious Gospel...just read Calvin's works for yourself and see.
prchdaword 2 years ago
so according to you only men of the past had the HOLY SPIRIT?
I have the HOLY SPIRIT just like any other man that is in CHRIST.....right?....just because I dont agree with calvin doesnt mean I dont have the HOLY SPIRIT
I dont talk about any other man not one
if Im going to quote a man it will be one that wrote in the word of GOD alone
if anyone sounds like a catholic, mormon or jehovah witness its u cause you have john calvin
mormons - joseph smith
jw's - charles russell
catholics - pope
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
no...all Christians have the same Holy Spirit (which is a great case for the Deity of the HS). However, not all are called or gifted in the same manner...not all are teachers, agreed? I'm not denying that you have the Spirit, that is missing the point on your part...and we can also say that not all study the same or have the same cognitive ability to study somethings (like the Greek language, or grammatical constructions and their significance, etc...) Not having these things doesn't make....
prchdaword 2 years ago
...anybody less of a Christian, etc...but lets face it, not every true Christian can explain or explicate the doctrine of the Trinity that they profess to believe. Is it for lack of the Spirit? Not at all! Just requires more study!! "Study to show thyself approved" is what the word says....but we are not wrong in quoting what other men have taught from the Word of God in the past...how else do you have the doctrines that you have today? If we do things your way, we have to start from scratch...
prchdaword 2 years ago
with every generation and possibly lose some of the godly teachings from the past. That is how doctrines are slowly lost, when they are not handed down from generation to generation...they slowly pass out just like the gospel eventually vanished from Rome under so much tradition!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
Now be honest with me....whats with the name?? Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
prchdaword 2 years ago
what if I just read the word of GOD and nobody else's books?
I have never read any other book in my whole life....I prefer it that way.....it keeps me away from other men's opinions : )
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
sure...but of course, that leaves you with your opinion alone...for that matter, don't even bother going to church right? I mean lets face it, you are claiming to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture (just like the Mormons and Roman Catholic Church and the WatchTower Society)...you're totally right in asserting that other men have not had the Holy Spirit to teach them in all ages that the Church has existed! How clumsy of me to deny the Spirit in all history!! So Sorry your highness...
prchdaword 2 years ago
that fact is that God has illuminated the minds of other men with his word and by His Spirit and these men have left that legacy behind...I believe Calvin is one among many whom the Holy Spirit has used in the history of the Church. We are all one body united throughout all time, not just the present and not isolated from one another....writing and teaching is a gift from God FOR THE CHURCH and we would do well to make use of those means of grace. That's why I study "other men" whom God gifts.
prchdaword 2 years ago
I believe everything the word of GOD says
everything
I just don't need calvin to point it out
I need the HOLY SPIRIT to teach me
don't you agree the HOLY SPIRIT is the best teacher?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
Amen, and Calvin said the same thing too. I think you are at a misunderstanding how John CAlvin is actually used in Reformed theological circles....he is not a be all and end all authority....truth be told, many people don't even read Calvin nowadays. But what Calvin taught was that Scripture with the power of the Holy Spirit behind it is the sole infallible authority for faith and doctrine in the Church....you should read what he said about Scripture yourself in the Institutes. Good stuff
prchdaword 2 years ago
In all honesty, I can't imagine you disagreeing with much of what Calvin actually said and taught about Christ and the Gospel or living the Christian life...
Most people object to Calvinism because they THINK that Calvinist "worship" John Calvin rather than Jesus Christ which is a complete caricature and misrepresentation of what we believe and teach!! You'll find that much of what we believe is actually the same and we are able to support our doctrines from Scripture as well.
prchdaword 2 years ago
I believe JESUS is all HE said HE was and all that the word of GOD says HE is
plain and simple
HE is GOD
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
good. Calvinist believe that too.
Do you believe that he rose from the dead for our justification?
Do you believe that Jesus was a ransom payment given to God to effect the release of sinners from God's wrath? Do you believe that Jesus Christ came with a specific mission for salvation ?
prchdaword 2 years ago
who needs calvin if the doctrine of predestination was around, justification by faith alone was already there
why not just preach it without giving calvin the credit for what The HOLY SPIRIT already penned?
and they scripture was never snuffed out
its always been around
thats a excuse so they can further this calvinism
christianity has always been around since the 1st church in the book of Acts
if I had to guess why wasn't it called lurtherism?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
nobody "needs" CAlvin....Calvin didn't even name his own system and would be appalled there a system bears his name today. However, the name was given by Calvin's followers to distinguish their doctrine from Lutherans and Anabaptist....and the doctrine of Justification by faith alone or predestination is not something unique to Calvinism as Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did....
and yes, Scripture was "lost" as it were due to "traditions" blinding men from it...
prchdaword 2 years ago
Luthers followers actually toned down Luther's teaching on predestination and the bondage of the will...Luther's original teachings and Calvin's weren't very far apart except on the Lord's supper and the purpose of infant baptism. For all practical purposes though, each of their respective "systems" could have been called Augustinianism as they looked to Augustine's later writings on Grace against the Pelagians and Augustine had already explored predestination
prchdaword 2 years ago
I believe that u just dont have an answer to the questions I asked and therefore u have to blame it on me.....I believe in JESUS CHRIST...not calvanism
but according to the gospel of calvin in anyone refuses his interpretation they are wrong
answer my question buddy
What did yall believe before calvin was born?
and dont throw this ad hominem at me
I guess thats what u call someone who ask questions that u cant answer
What did yall believe before calvin was born?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
I wasn't alive before John CAlvin...the doctrine of predestination was around, justification by faith alone was around through branded heresy by Rome, etc....now, you also have to recognize the anacronisticness of your question...its historically inaccurate to assume there was "Calvinism" BEFORE John Calvin. The doctrines we believe have always been in the Bible though not always taught especially in the middle ages when Scripture was snuffed for the authority of Rome.
prchdaword 2 years ago
and it is ad hominem to attack the character of a person rather than their argument, or in this case, their theology. That is certain that you are attacking what you think is his character (which is your strawman) rather than dealing with his exegesis or that of other Reformed scholars who have clearly and most convincingly exegeted the doctrines of Calvinism from Scripture.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Now, you say you believe in JEsus Christ....what about him do you believe? Fully man? Just man? Fully God? Creator or Creature? God in the flesh? A god, but not the God? Merely a good person but not divine? A different role that God plays? Savior or potential savior? Was he sinless? Did he take the place of sinners on the Cross as a substititurionary atonement?
Saying "I believe in Jesus" is fine and dandy...but what about Him do you believe? That, not mere profession, gains my attention.
prchdaword 2 years ago
thats what I thought....if theres no calvin theres no more arguing.....there was not calvinism......thats why its best to stay away from taking the name of a man's teaching and stick with GOD's word alone with not attachments, no names, no opinions...u cant go wrong just following JESUS : )
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
the problem is you're not thinking....you have no clue what Calvinism teaches and how entrenched it is in Scripture. I'm sorry that theology is not done according to your personal likings, but the world does not revolve around you or your personal tastes. If youre interested in delving into Scripture I would be happy to demonstrate what Calvinism teaches from Scripture but I refuse to engage your ad hominem and strawman arguments my friend. Thanks so much.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298).
Wow! I've never read anything about it in the word of GOD before....thats a strong statement to make
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124). both sides are wrong taking a name other then CHRIST
sounds like yall have been arguing this for yrs......I am just a christian believer in YESHUA...plain and simple
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
what did yall do before calvin was here? guess yall were in deep trouble huh?
JESUS doesn't need any name attached to HIM or HIS words
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
eh?
prchdaword 2 years ago
I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856) a quote from one of ur idols
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
uhh...not an idol. Pretty arrogant aren't you thinking you know me? =/
And what Spurgeon meant is that Calvinism has and maintains the strongest and most Biblical view of the death of Christ on the Cross as actually accomplishing what He set out to do...Christ, according to Calvinism, ACTUALLY redeems, ACTUALLY reconciles, ACTUALLY propitiates and ACTUALLY took the place of sinners ont he Cross....you can only say, he POTENTIALLY did and you need to add your faith in order to be saved.
prchdaword 2 years ago
i notice how yall go after anyone who does agree with ur calvinism.....but it doesnt surprise me.....it runs in the family of u calvin babies
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
ok, you came looking for me I didn't go looking for you...and these are VIDEO RESPONSES to Monica Dennington's attacks on Calvinism, not a Calvinist Offensive on her....
Friends, Romans...Countrymen...lend me your ears!!! We didn't land on Sherwood forest....Sherwood forest landed on us!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
I dont waste mine time all into men.....u guys and the armenians are wasting ur time over mere men....even piper himself is honoring calvin by doing a conference in his name........
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
I don't even listen to Piper....why don't you talk to him to defend himself and not me....
prchdaword 2 years ago
that is what i notice with everyone that gets into these man made traditions....baptising babies?
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
we sure do baptize babies but not unto salvation, but only for acceptance into the visible covenant community. =)
prchdaword 2 years ago
denial thats the best response.....just deny that u defend a man more than u do JESUS
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
deny deny deny
prchdaword 2 years ago
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
you follow and defend calvy and I will stay with JESUS
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago 2
Calvin was with Jesus too my friend. Ever read any of his works? Probably not...like most rhetoricians....its easy to tear down.
Also, get your facts straight...cause you're pretty much coming off as a liar with your ignorance (which doesn't make you do ao good job of "staying with Jesus")...we are not trusting in John Calvin for salvation. We are trusting in Jesus Christ even as John Calvin did.
What with the Ad Hominem arguments??
prchdaword 2 years ago
and calvins good buddy hated the jews.....so one wants jews dead the other wants to murder anyone who disagrees with his doctrine......good ol christian boys huh
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago 2
Calvin was not "good buddy" with Luther...they knew of each other and respected each other as fellow Reformers, but there were not in that kind of fellowship with each other...they even disagreed over the purpose of infant baptism and the Lord's supper....but of course, from all the historical research you've done your surely knew that....which makes you a liar in your presentation of facts.....good thing were not on good ole J. Smith, huh???
prchdaword 2 years ago
so ur leader calvin also believe in infant baptism......sounds like a catholic to me
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
actually CAtholics believe in baptismal regeneration which Calvinist do not hold to. Goodness!! I would expect better from the way you run your mouth...at least put your brain behind it my friend!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
I guess you dont know that JESUS gets the credit for justification by faith not the murderer john calvin......and what does the massacre have to do with john calvins murderers
that doesnt change anything
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
This is such an ignorant statement that it doesn't merit a response....let the world see it as is
prchdaword 2 years ago
calvin was suppose to be a christian
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
He was and remains a Christian my friend.
If you are not familiar with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is what makes one Christian, then you are not in the place to critique Calvin's life. The doctrine of Justification teaches us that we are saved, not on the basis of our righteousness or good works, but on the basis of the free righteousness of Jesus Christ by whom God counts us as "not guilty" before Him. We are accepted because of Christ, not our own works.
prchdaword 2 years ago
none of them were
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
those people from mountain meadow massacre weren't christians either just like calvin
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
no...the people who committed the mountain meadow massacre were not Christian at all
prchdaword 2 years ago
During Servetus' trial, Calvin wrote:
"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
and that does not make a person a murder to hope for a severe punishment my friend! Goodness, the juries and judges who have dealt out the death penalty for capitol crimes do not become murderers themselves....families who have wanted the death penalty on the ones who have taken the lives of their loved ones do not become murders ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS THROUGH LAW AND DUE PROCESS.....not like the mountain meadow massacre
prchdaword 2 years ago
why don't listen to what piper himself admitted too.....he was a murderer and that all to it
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
I have actually never listened to Piper and probably am gonna go with historical references rather than a pastoral one on this one....
sooo...how 'bout that Mountain Meadow Massacre?
prchdaword 2 years ago
so thats what calvin did....point him out
maybe you should read history...even piper himself regrets this
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
actually I have read a few books on it, including "The Reformation" by Diarmaid McCulloch, "Church history" by Phillip Schaff (8 volume set), "The Reformation" by Stephen J. Nichols and a few other papers....again, nobody agrees with how it went down BUT that was the times that they lived in. But Calvin did not "murder" Michael Servetus. I suggest you take your own advice and read what happened and how far Calvin was involved and even how he pleaded against a burning with the town council
prchdaword 2 years ago
no matter how much you read or study it doesn't change the facts...calvin was a murder......sorry that he did that...if he was lead by the Holy Spirit...that would've never happened.....open your eyes to the facts
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
if Miss Monica was alive during that time she would be burned alive too for going against calvin
and if you agree with calvin you would more than likely be the ones going after the wood
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
Servetus was not tried for "going against Calvin" but for Blasphemy, which was a capitol crime of the state back then (And no, Calvin did n't make it a capitol crime). Servetus was condemned to death by the town council of Geneva for errors against the Trinity, and he was already awaiting a death sentence in Lyons before he walked into Geneva. All Calvin did was point out the man who was already wanted by the law elsewhere
prchdaword 2 years ago
i really don't like to fuss about this stuff but when there's so much evidience against calvin and his followers as murders you have to say the truth
please read up on the history of this murder yourself
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
say what you want but you follow a man that murdered another man
I cant believe how sucked into this false doctrine people get
no one who reads the bible on their own will ever come to the cunclusion that they need to be calvinist unless theyre taught about it....sorry but face it ur wrong
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
reading and studying are two different things my friend
prchdaword 2 years ago
go ahead make excuses for this murder! this is so stupid...he had the say bible we have today...murder has never been the right thing to do in the church ever since the church of the books of Acts! why do you guys try so hard to make this murder look good....just admit it you and calvin are wrong.....if if Servetus was a heretic he did not need to be murdered!....and I can't believe the other guy actually said a good response...what a nut.....so are you suppose to murder everyone who disagrees
1VisionaryMissionary 2 years ago
Calvin's "murder"? This is such an ignorant statement. Calvin was the accuser of heresy but not the judge, jury and execution.
"First Visionary Missionary"...sounds a bit on the LDS side doesn't it?? Mountain Meadow MASSACRE ring a bell?? You should be talking!!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
This is an excellent video and response. Thank you my brother in Christ for this video.
reformedinchrist 2 years ago
A gracious and thoughtful reply. Thank you.
SuperReformer 2 years ago
Thanks
prchdaword 2 years ago
I don't think Calvin could have stopped Servetus' execution even if he wanted to. People think he was the ruler of the land and he could really do something. The truth was he couldn't. The truth is also, he & others requested a more humane way to execute Servetus than burning him at the stake. His request was denied.
oldschoolstinger 2 years ago
well that happened in 1553 and Calvin wasn't even a legitimate citizen of Geneva until 1559...he didn't have the power that most people think he had. He was not "the Pope of Geneva" as some like to caricature.
And very true that he and other wanted a more humane execution
prchdaword 2 years ago
Bottom line is - Servetus was justly tried and condemned as a heretic. He obviously suffered under God's Judgment for heresy. The rest is a bunch of anti-Calvinist propaganda designed to help justify a False Gospel based on something other than Grace ALONE.
ChristianTULIP 2 years ago
Right and wrong don't change; stop trying to justify murder...
bandaidmafia 2 years ago 2
I didn't get that what this guy was saying was justifying what happened to Miguel Servetus. The problem is atheists, jws, oneness Pentecostals and those hostile to Calvinists use Miguel Servetus situation to discredit Calvin and other Christians. The problem is though, they never accurately represent the facts. In so doing they just incite emotion and don't engage anybodies' minds.
oldschoolstinger 2 years ago
Here is my thought friend:
When David had Uriah the Hittite killed he was guilty of the man's blood. Now he could have said "well my friends were ok with it..." or "this is pretty common in my time so..." or "I really don't think I did anything wrong...". But what God wanted was earnest repentance for his sin. Had David never admitted wrongdoing he would not have been the the great leader that he was.
Calvin, on the other hand, died unrepentant of the death of Servetus. Huge difference...
bandaidmafia 2 years ago 2
But this wasn't "murder"
Michael Servetus was condemned as a criminal for the crime of blasphemy. He was convicted in Lyons BEFORE he even went to Geneva to meet Calvin. Calvin merely pointed him out and charged him, the town Council did with Servetus as they chose. Calvin pleaded for a lesser sentence and even to Servetus to recant but he would not.
Calvin played a part in his death, but his death was not murder...that is certainly a caricature.
prchdaword 2 years ago
To what degree Calvin played a part is semantics. Judas didn't do much but point out Jesus; but I get the feeling God isn't too pleased with him.
All I get out of this defense of Calvin is that you make God out to be a joke. Like somehow if it weren't for Calvin, Michael Servetus would have stopped God dead in his tracks. Like Servetus was about to destroy the entire Christian faith, so good thing Calvin was around. If it wasn't for John Calvin propping God up, he'd just fall right down.
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
That was actually Servetus' plan if you get a hold of his works and read about what his intentions were my friend....Just curious but have you ever read Servetus' stuff? Read Phillip Schaff's assessment of his works....really interesting...
Now, of course, I am not saying that without Calvin, God would have been stopped. If anything, I would only argue that Calvin was God's instrument as was the town council in handling Servetus and his false teachings.
That is muddled thinking
prchdaword 2 years ago
Are you so hard hearted? Do you really feel the need to excuse horrible acts in order to make your denomination less susceptible to attacks? Why couldn't Calvin just be a bible student who was fallible like the rest of us? Is this really the fruit of Calvinism; trying to find ways that condone the murder of people who don't teach a trinity?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? - 1 Cor 6:7
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Now,again,if you listen to the video I am not saying Calvin is "infallible"...again, don't know where you are getting these conclusions...again, Calvin did not "murder" Michael Servetus. He was justly tried and condemned for a capitol crime that no longer exists today, the crime of Blasphemy. Calvinist do not condone "burning heretics at the stake" but we recognize that times were different and we have come a long ways since then.Are you going to fault all Christians for the times they lived in?
prchdaword 2 years ago
As long as John Calvin lived in a time and place that gave him access to a bible, than he was responsible for following Christ's example. It is INCONCEIVABLE that Jesus would ever have taken part in a "blasphemy" trial, to whatever degree you chose, because a person held different views about who God is. Everything Jesus taught condemns that type of treatment of our fellow man. From all accounts, John Calvin owned a bible, so you and I both know he has no excuse before God.
bandaidmafia 2 years ago 2
So are you judging him as God then?
I mean goodness, you have a Bible and still commit sins....therefore, you also have no excuses before God correct??? "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself...for with the same measure that you judge, you also will be judged with" God is a merciful and understanding God too friend...not merely a "standard" who judges without knowledge of each persons own circumstances, etc....God gives grace too ya know...should think about that for a bit
prchdaword 2 years ago
Curious...but have you ever read Calvin's teaching in his institutes or Commentaries??
prchdaword 2 years ago