| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1609 Registered: 4-2000  |
The Calvin Quincentenary (1509-2009) is an international, interdenominational, and interdisciplinary commemoration of the life and work of John Calvin to be celebrated this coming July 5-9 in Geneva, Switzerland. Notice this week's Time magazine article entitled "The Ten Ideas Changing the World Right Now." The "New Calvinism" is number 3 on the list. Soli Deo Gloria! Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 415 Registered: 1-2006  |
Thank you, Dennis. The link to this article is http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html Bob | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2007 |
I was just goin to ask for a link to the article then when i scrolled down i saw it.Thanx i will surely read it and share with my friends. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1612 Registered: 4-2000 |
Whether one likes or dislikes John Calvin, it is appropriate to note how culture was irrevocably transformed by the influence of Calvin and his band of brothers and sisters. For example, his contribution of creating a separation of church and state. This led to the free church movement in Europe. A church free from external, hierarchical, political, and civil control was a radical and lasting contribution that Calvin made to the modern world. Source: Hall, David W., Modern Reformation magazine; March-April, 2009 issue. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 249 Registered: 8-2008 |
Didn't the Anabaptists pre-date Jean Chauvin in this regard? I am not a Calvinist per se, but I find it far favorable to Arminianism, which I believe is intrinsically based on works-righteousness and is basically Roman Catholic. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1782 Registered: 10-2002  |
I like a lot of the faith in Calvin's writing, the trust in God's sovereignty, even when he went through hard times. I don't always agree with Calvin's "system", but I know the brother had faith. That said, while he helped his country (and other countries) become free from external Roman Catholic control, in Geneva he helped create a church that legalistically controlled almost every aspect of life, regulating and banning dancing and other things, and even putting to death some of his relatives for sins of adultery. It was a separation from the Vatican state, but not a separation of church and state. Not that I or any of us are "better", mind you. We all mix things up at times. But Calvin is a good example of how we can have "doctrines of grace" but yet live in an almost grace-less society, and force that upon others as well. We can proclaim "grace" but still be living by the law of death and condemnation. I can't wait for all of this to be over! (>_<) In Jesus! Ramone P.S. The Calvin-Geneva incidents I referenced were posted awhile ago here: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/5371/4379.html#POST57482 (Message edited by agapetos on March 17, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1613 Registered: 4-2000 |
Ramone, John Calvin labored extensively to permit the church to be the church--the culture was impacted by a robust, vibrant church. One of Calvin's demands before returning to Geneva in September 1541 was that a collegial governing body be established of pastors and church elders from the area. When it became time to replace ineffective centralized authority, lodging it with many officers. He also insisted that the church be free from political interference--separation of jurisdictions, not a yearning for theocratic oppressiveness, helped also to solidify the integrity of the church--and his 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances specifically required such a separation. The sovereignty of the ministerial council (Consistory) to monitor the faith and practice of the church was codified in these 1541 Ordinances. They were later revised in 1561, just prior to Calvin's death, and provided enduring procedures for a free church. The current denomination, Evangelical Free Church of America (www.efca.org), has its roots in the European Free Church Movement as well. That is why the word "Free" appears in their official name. Indeed, it was a big deal to be "free" from the often oppressive state churches. In nations or regions where the civil government has ever or often sought to influence the church to change its views, this Calvinistic signature is greatly appreciated. By the way, please cite a credible, historical source that verifies Calvin having killed some of his relatives for any reason. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on March 17, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1614 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Anabaptism (meaning being baptized again) had its grassroot beginnings with the common, uneducated, agrarian classes of people. Since they didn't have a notable figure who was well educated to effectively articulate their views, their voices were often suppressed, ignored, or greatly disliked. It certainly didn't help their cause or image when various factions of Anabaptists stormed various cities to overtake their government offices. Also, Anabaptists often believed in some unorthodox and unbiblical teachings in addition to their correct biblical view of believer's baptism. In their worship style, it is safe to say that they were the "holy rollers" of their day. Without effective and trained leadership, even their good points (i.e., separation of church and state) required the ingenuity of John Calvin to bring to reality. Oh yes, here is an excellent link about Calvin's Geneva--was it really a theocracy? http://www.the-highway.com/theocracy_Horton.html Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on March 17, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1616 Registered: 4-2000 |
I just finished reading some posts on the Spectrum forum from students on SDA college/university campuses who are increasingly perplexed why their church doesn't sanction their gay or lesbian lifestyle. After all, they cite their church's popular, semi-Pelagian teachings that Jesus died for everyone and loves everyone in the same way so why the big deal about opposing homosexuals? They further wonder how long they must languish in an underground atmosphere. In reading their emotional pleas, I couldn't help but be reminded that if these students had a Calvinistic perspective on salvation, they would think differently and ask different questions. Indeed, salvation is from the Lord. Of course, I also noticed their citing a well-known SDA New Testament theologian, Ivan Blazen, who agrees with them that homosexuality is not a sin, but merely a mistranslation in English Bibles. This also seemed to be the consensus of a recent AAF forum meeting in San Diego. In summary, there are at least five factors worth noting about these frustrated students: (1) their church's popular salvific belief that ultimately leads to universalism, (2) their belief that God loves everyone equally and gives everyone an equal opportunity for salvation and that everyone has a so-called "island of righteousness" (a "nothingness" that is "something") to enable them to cooperate with God's grace, (3) God helps them to save themselves (thereby making them the captains of their eternal destiny), (4) a low view of Scripture and of God, and (5) removing the sovereignty of God to the extent of putting Him merely at the mercy of the fallen human will. All of these theological problems and/or weaknesses would be different with a Calvinistic perspective--notably by embracing the doctrines of grace. Our theology really does make all the difference in the world in our doxology. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1783 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Dennis, Here is the reference I linked to earlier, taken from "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancey (who I think has Presbyterian roots), published by Zondervan: I take the source as credible, but really, if you disagree, you'll have to take it up with Philip Yancey, William Manchester, and Zondervan. This Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalization) also contains some information about the state church's control in Geneva: I wouldn't call this (or the earlier quotation) the hallmarks of a "robust, vibrant" church. It would seem rather that the subjects & "members" had little choice in the matter. If the church thrived, it could likely have been because attendance was compulsory. Hey, again, I don't mean to beat up on Calvin. I'm a big fan of Luther, but I don't like everything the guy did or endorsed. One of the freedoms that I have been granted upon leaving Adventism is that I realize I can admire someone historically without having to endorse or stand up for everything they did. The folks I look up to in history don't have to be perfect. When I believed in Ellen White, I thought she had to be perfect. In the same way, most countries' people often base their love of their country & its history on the idea that its actions/leaders were always correct. But that's not how we love our families, you know? Because we love our families even when they do stupid or wrong things. Our love for them isn't based on their correctness or good deeds. Having been set free from Adventism, I think we don't have to "religiously" defend anyone in history anymore, you know? We can admire what is good (just like Paul said to hold onto the good), and the bad we can recognize and learn from. The problematic paradigm we came from in Adventism said that someone either had to be "ALL right" or "ALL wrong". And it's just not reality. Humans are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. It's easy to say this, of course, but when it's my own personal hero having something negative exposed, well, I know it's not comfortable. But if the "good" that they did was truly good, then it will continue to stand up by itself in spite of the bad that they did. The "good" that they did is not based on everything else they did being "good" as well. I think Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Augustine, and others all saw some very great and true things. I can find things that I admire in each of them. I think like Scripture says, "each person" receives a portion of God's grace. Each one receives something to share, and the Body is strengthened when what is received is shared. But nobody had it all. Calvin saw a lot of truths, but he missed others and the society he helped establish was not one that was truly filled with grace. It taught about grace, but did not live it well. In the same way, the United States proclaimed "freedom" for "all men", but gave it only to white males. These things don't discount the good ideas. But they do show that all of us are human, that the only "man" we ever need to religiously adhere to is the Son of Man --who is quite a bit 'more' than a mere "man", hallelu Yah! Bless you in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1618 Registered: 4-2000 |
Ramone, John Calvin has been blamed for almost everything under the sun by his Arminian critics that has created a very rich tradition of anti-Calvinism in itself. These sources are very easy to find. Yancey is also a devout Arminian pastor in Texas. Those intent upon objectivity will choose the most credible sources on Reformation history. A popular notion in our culture is the comforting syllogism: "God likes to forgive, I like to sin: what a great relationship!" As you already know, Calvinism is very "bad" word in Adventist circles. Paradoxically, however, Adventists are Calvinists when they pray and anti-Calvinists when they rise from their knees. To be fair to our SDA friends, it is important to note that such a twisted stance is common in contemporary Christianity as well. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1868 Registered: 8-2004  |
So are you saying that the information Ramone has is wrong? Care to explain what is and is not true, and reference it? The response you wrote seems to me like a 'he only says that because he is an Arminian' type of argument. The question is not who said it. The question is what the facts are. You appeal to 'the most credible sources on Reformation history'. What do you consider those to be? On what basis? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 513 Registered: 7-2005 |
In order to get a more accurate picture of Calvin it is useful to realize that there are some historical undisputed facts that send light on his life, and hardly match the image of a tyrant as many think of him today. 1. He became a pastor in Geneva in 1537, and died in 1564, but he was a foreigner to the city of Geneva until late in his life, only in 1559 he was granted citizenship. This means that he was not allowed to vote. That means that for 22 years he was a foreigner in Geneva. 2. After 2 years of being a pastor he was fired and sent packing unceremoniously. When the cardinal Sadolete wanted to reclaim Geneva for catholicism the rulers came to Calvin (who was at Strasbourg) and pleaded with him to come back. 3. His influence in Geneva grew in years, but not to the the degree of absolute authority people usually think. He was not able to persuade the city council to allow him to observe the Lord's Supper weekly and to include an absolution or a declaration of pardon in the liturgy. 4. Calvin did not murdered Servetus. He did "rat him out" but only after the former showed up in Geneva, despite Calvin's warning of what the civil authorities would do to him and then Servetus appeared in church. 5. He was able to get the city to punish one fellow who attacked his office publicly. But the council of the city had the last word and in the 16th century it was the general rule which predated Calvin, that the punishment of heresy was the business of the state. Heresy was a violation of the civil code in the majority of the cities of Europe, including Geneva. The Roman authorities would have accused protestants of giving hospitality to heretics if they had not classified heresy as a civil crime. Calvin agreed with this state of affairs, but he was not able to put to death anyone, the council had the civil power over the church. They were able at any time to overrule even what he wanted to do in the worship service of his church. All these being said, it becomes clear that much which is attributed to Calvin is based on the untrue assumption that Calvin was the tyrant of Geneva, the man who ruled the city with an iron fist and who had the city council submitted to his will. Gabriel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9570 Registered: 12-2003  |
That's helpful historical information, Gabriel. Systems of theology cannot be proven "wrong" or "right" on the basis of the personal lives of their founders. The proof of the pudding is always in comparing systems with the Scriptures. And there are disputable matters about which the Bible is not specific, and we cannot justifiably make statements of HOW or WHY things are if they're not revealed. We really do miss the mark if we evaluate our beliefs on the basis of extra-biblical sources. To be sure, God sent us His teachers, preachers, apostles, evangelists, etc to help us become built up into unity in Christ and to share in the fullness of Jesus (Ephesians 4). But to protect our favorite Christian heroes and systems against other people's favorites is to fall into the problem Paul identified at Corinth in 1 Cor 3: the problem of divisions. It is mandatory that we expose false gospels and heretical teachings. But we have to be humble about details not clearly stated in Scripture. We have no business dividing the body of Christ over issues of leaders, teachers, and disputable matters. I've long thought that Calvin and Luther and Spurgeon and Wesley and CS Lewis and Yancey, et al, have received both valid and invalid criticism. And sometimes these men of God receive the greatest blow to their legacy not from those whose views differ but from those who uphold them. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1619 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mary, To prevent the pooling of ignorance, it would be ideal to choose a Reformation historian who has actually immersed himself in the works of Calvin (i.e., Institutes, etc.). In his early twenties, Calvin devoted his first literary work, the Psychopannychia, to debunk the heresy of soul sleep. He couldn't be a total monster for doing that, could he? (smile) On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses may think so. Remember how Ellen White foolishly utilized the wrong historical sources for her Great Controversy book? We can never be too careful as to whom we place our confidence and trust. To this very day, European Adventists (who often know alot about Reformation history) lack confidence in the writings of Ellen White. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1869 Registered: 8-2004 |
Last I checked no one was claiming he was a 'total monster'. Let's not awful-ize the discussion. I was asking for what sources you consider authoritative and on what basis you decide what is fact and fiction. So, what do you consider authoritative historical sources? How do you determine which you trust? | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1871 Registered: 8-2004 |
(For what its worth, I have spent time in Calvin's Institutes and plan to spend more time there, along with Luther's books, and many others) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1621 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mary, Don't "total monsters" kill people? It was stated repeatedly, on this thread of all places, that Calvin did many very, very bad things. I am delighted that you didn't succumb to the novel notion of taking such cheap shots against a giant in Protestant history. May your tribe increase! Regarding excellent, credible sources on Reformation history, I heartily recommend your logging unto: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/History/ (this link gives many trustworthy sources to choose from). Happy reading! Dennis Fischer | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1872 Registered: 8-2004 |
 Dennis, with all due respect, you usually need to find 'disinterested parties' when seeking evidence that will be accepted by both sides of a dispute. The very name of the website states a clear theological position. This is rather like asking researchers to go to www.adventist.org to see what is really true about Adventism. Yes, of course it's good to go there, but www.monergism.com is not likely to be assumed to be without bias, and needs to be carefully balanced by wider research - hopefully of good original sources as well as more recent scholarly works. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1873 Registered: 8-2004 |
So far as Calvin doing 'very, very bad things,' most of us have, and all of us could. This is what being born 'dead in sin' is all about. So far as I've been able to ascertain (and I think God agrees) all have sinned, none are worthy. We are Christians because of Who Jesus is and What He has done. Calvin was a sinner like the rest of us. Be careful that, in defending him against 'cheap shots,' you don't fall into using cheap shots against your fellow Christians in the discussion. |
