Archive through March 11, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » The Relinquished Life » Archive through March 11, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2

Post Number: 433
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 8:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I am crucified with Christ." Galatians 2:20

"No one is ever united with Jesus Christ until he is willing to relinquish not sin only, but his whole way of looking at things. To be born from above of the Spirit of God means that we must let go before we lay hold, and in the first stages it is the relinquishing of all pretence. What Our Lord wants us to present to Him is not goodness, nor honesty, nor endeavour, but real solid sin; that is all He can take from us. And what does He give in exchange for our sin? Real solid righteousness. But we must relinquish all pretence of being any thing, all claim of being worthy of God's consideration.

"Then the Spirit of God will show us what further there is to relinquish. There will have to be the relinquishing of my claim to my right to myself in every phase. Am I willing to relinquish my hold on all I possess, my hold on my affections, and on everything, and to be identified with the death of Jesus Christ?

"There is always a sharp painful disillusionment to go through before we do relinquish. When a man really sees himself as the Lord sees him, it is not the abominable sins of the flesh that shock him, but the awful nature of the pride of his own heart against Jesus Christ. When he sees himself in the light of the Lord, the shame and the horror and the desperate conviction come home.

"If you are up against the question of relinquishing, go through the crisis, relinquish all, and God will make you fit for all that He requires of you."

- My Utmost for His Highest, by Oswald Chambers

Lisa_boyldavis
Registered user
Username: Lisa_boyldavis

Post Number: 176
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 8:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Iím probably not the best reprehensive for other FAF members, but I pretty much stick to the Scripture and watch out for particularly authoritative sources that speak as if what they are saying is absolute fact. The implications and associations are obvious.... EGW and Adventist Quarterly Withdrawal. I almost always feel guilty reading Oswald Chambers, and yet the scripture never gives me that feeling, even when Christ spoke boldly on pointed challenges. Luther never gives me a sense of foreboding and fear. Not to say Chambers isn't a good source of Christian Challenge, just not for me.

Lisa
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2

Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 9:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I look at commentaries as take the best and leave the rest, even with Luther, if needed. (I do not agree with some of his cultural opinions) I resepct C. S. Lewis and Augustine a great deal, but I do not agree with every word they wrote or every theological way they believed. Not do I with any other human, who writes or speaks. Only with scripture.

I can completely understand any cautiousness, especially, coming out of Adventism. We were scorched by a human 'prophet', speaking as from God himself. Credible sources do not make that claim, but know and say they are fallible as all of us are. Nor do they expect to be taken as for scripture itself. They only write and state what they believe and have learned. Of course, scripture is first, and no Christan will dispute that. Various writings 'speak' to individuals and others do not. That's ok.

In this Chambers quote, I disagree with him that we cannot be united with Christ until... We are with Christ, when we are saved.

But I agree about relinquishing my view of things because I have come to that. I believe the Holy Spirit leads me to that. I have come to the point of saying to God "It's not working, God. Whatever I am thinking, my paradigm, whatever... Change me, my viewpoint, my thoughts, my brain, whatever I need. I don't even know what I need." And he does do it. I have changed so much in the past 5 years in my viewpoints and focuses, my kids have even mentioned it. And I like the change in myself. I was not truly happy or at peace before.

But I know, for sure, I was united with Christ before, too. He just grew me up a little more in himself and will continue to do so as long as I live.

At his feet,
Cathy
Rafael_r
Registered user
Username: Rafael_r

Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 9:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

very good Cathy
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777

Post Number: 433
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the Oswald Chambers quotes and devotionals. I have him on my PDA and often read him. I can remember years ago when reading his comments they didn't do much for me. It was like he was speaking a different language.

I know God has changed me over the years so my heart is open to the thoughts that Oswald Chambers expresses. He brings out ideas and concepts which I had not always thought of before.

In Christ,

Richard

rtruitt@mac.com


Carol_2
Registered user
Username: Carol_2

Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2002


Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As Luther was mentioned above, it reminded me of something.....some time ago I read some quotes by Luther that surprised me greatly (as I've always deeply respected Luther,) about the Jewish people.

Are any of you familiar with some of the strong and violent things he has said about Jews? If so, what is your opinion or thoughts about this? I can't remember exactly where it was, so if you need to know I'll have to dig for it. It's been a while.

Thanks!
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2

Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have a deep resepct for Luther's profound wisdom into scripture. But I see him as a man of his times as well. As much as I do with anyone else, who writes at any one time in their history, not ours.

If one does a study on the life and viewpoints of Luther--which can be done on the Internet--I think one can get a balanced view of the man. If one desires a biased and/or sensational opinion that can be found as well (and I am absolutely *not* assuming that you have that, Carol. I perceive your honest and valid question)

There is a segment of 'Christianity' out there, which desires to dispose of, for good, for everyone, any and all 'organized religion', any 'Institutional' (their word) religion, any 'tradition', any 'Old' anything, including the 'Church Fathers'. That includes our Reformers, who broke the Imperial back of the Roman Catholic power, which was as corrupt as you can imagine in any sin you can imagine, at that time. They are going to pull out anything of 'dirt', out of context, they can about any past Church Father or modern organized religion or denomination, as well. (I would rather not have disorganized religion, myself, although, I can be at home in a home church, too) All of that and 'them' are all the 'enemy'. So check sources.

Luther was the one, who began the avalanche of reformation, along with the printing press.

It was an absolute miracle of God that he was not killed by the Catholic church. The council of Worms is his STAND. I recommend one to read of it or, at least, watch the movie 'Luther'.

Luther was not perfect, and as I told a story about him in another post, he, himself, was the first one to admit what a sinner he was and how many faults he owned. He drank a lot, too. But so did every other German. (The water, probably, would have killed you in those days, in the ciites)

God gave him the Holy Spirit to perceive exactly what he needed for the time it was necessary, the courage to proclaim it and to stand for it, fearlessly. In other things, as a human man, he was fallible and made mistakes in attitude like we all do. But he was not the only one.

Also, as a side point, he did not want anyone to call themselves 'Lutherans' after himself, but the common people did it anyway. Luther did not hold himself up as some famous leader, needing a name for himself. He declared Christ to be exalted, not himself, but you know human nature. They cry for a 'King' like in the OT, for Saul.

We need to balance his rhetoric about the Jews, which was a *common* theological thought of that historical time (not *ours*) against the absolutely new, unthinkable thought and act, which he did about a suicide. The *active* mercy he showed, when something was right in his face, opposed to theological head-talk of the day.

When the rubber hit the road, he did the right thing.

Ric_b or Stan, if I have veered incorrectly here, historically, please, correct me. I am posting by memory and what I have read in the past. I, too, read about the Jewish issue, long ago, from distractors, not balanced historians, which I have read, since. I just cannot recall any links.

My youngest daughter (and former husband, whom I did love) has enough Jewish blood within her to have been murdered in the Holocaust, so if anyone were to be offended by Luther, I could be, if I chose to go around being offended by anything and everything someone said, down throughout history, which doesn't fit PC to today's paradigm. I am not offended.

I appreciate how his writings have brought me closer to a knowledge of Christ's grace and love for me and lifted the burden of my own works off of myself. I appreciate how he writes that we common Christians can just live our ordinary lives and the light of Christ will shine out. We do not have to angst over how well we are doing all the time nor at any time; Christ will be Christ, no matter what.

I've had ugly thoughts about SDA's. Ummmm....today, was the latest, when I found an old letter from my dad, which said I was going to hell and a bunch of other very ugly things in it about my son. God forgive me; I do not want these thoughts. He does forgive, cover by grace, forget; did forgive and will do. That's why me, us, all, and Luther need Christ completely, alone, for good.

That was Luther's point. He realized what a wretch he was on those stone steps.

Luther's words at Worms:

~Here I stand;
I can do no other.
God help me~

Those words became a part of my personal 'creed' to the death.
Cathy
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3512
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 5:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I remember hearing someone say to me several years ago that reading Oswald Chambers felt to them like reading Ellen White. I remember feeling astonished, but I think I understand why he seems to stimulate that visceral reaction sometimes.

If I were not certain of my salvation, Chambers would sound as if he were presenting an impossible list of attitudes and self-disciplines necessary for us to be in relationship with Jesus.

What I'm seeing now, however, is that Chambers is writing to people already committed to Christ. I don't believe he is trying to tell people how to come into relationship with Godóhe's talking about how to live by the Spirit.

Even in the post above where he leads with these words: "No one is ever united with Jesus Christ until he is willing to relinquish not sin only, but his whole way of looking at things," I did not read that to mean "no is can accept Jesus..." As I look back at that statement, I can see that the words certainly can give that impression. I didn't catch that possibility, however, until I read Cathy's comments below.

I understand Chambers to be saying that even when we have accepted Jesus, we can be living our lives out of step with the Spirit. I'm sure we all know people who have accepted Jesus and have been born again, but they live quite shallowly and self-centeredly.

I understood his quote above to be saying that we can't actually experience living our lives in step with Christ's will and in harmony with Him unless we allow Him to convict us to relinquish not only our sin but also our strengths. Until we can give up to Him our ideas of our own supposed spiritual strengths, He can't really reveal to us the depth of our own sin.

For example, I committed my life to Jesus as an Adventist. If I had died before discovering the truth about Adventism, I know now I would have been saved. What I didn't know, however, was how vulnerable to sin and deception I was. Yes, I belonged to Jesusóbut I wasn't sure of that, and I still thought my behavior exmplified my "commitment". God allowed me to go through a divorce that shattered my illusions about my own spirituality. I had not idea how deep my own sinful brokenness was until I found myself divorced and not innocent.

God began to rebuild me, and part of His rebuilding has included showing me at deeper and deeper levels that I have nothing to offer Him except my sinful self. Every single thing in my life is Hisóand my healing is also entirely His work.

That's what I understand Chambers' quote above to be saying: not HOW to BE saved, but HOW Jesus leads us to surrender so our lives can be entirely His AFTER we are savedóand so we can KNOW we are His!

One short observation about Luther et al: God uses each of usóand he doesn't wait for us to be completely "finished" before He glorifies Himself through us. God doesn't fix every misunderstanding of His will at one time. We don't need to dismiss God's revelation of the sufficiency of His grace through Luther just because Luther wasn't "straight" on the Jews. We don't need to dismiss God's sovereign grace and election just because John Calvin had an opponent put to death. We don't need to dismiss the work of God's grace through John Wesley just because he had a pretty bad relationship with his wife and didn't understand the supremacy of God's sovereignty.

In short, God glorifies Himself through all creation, and to the extent we submit ourselves to His will (as Chambers described above), we can experience God's transformation of us. It is the most astonishing thing to be called by God, justified by Jesus, brought to life by the Holy Spirit, and shaped throughout life by the love and grace of the Trinity!

Colleen
Seekr777
Registered user
Username: Seekr777

Post Number: 435
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 6:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen this reminds me of the text:

I Cor. 3:18 (NASB)
18But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

We are transformed from "Glory to Glory".

Richard

rtruitt@mac.com


Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1400
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,
You may be right about what you said about John Calvin having an opponent put to death, but I know there is a lot of controversy over this. I am just curious where you read this and the circumstances?

There is so much animosity out there against the Reformed faith. I know that Dave Hunt who wrote a book saying that the Reformed faith is a false gospel was exposed as making up false stories about John Calvin to discredit him. Just about 2 weeks ago on the Calvary Chapel radio station KWVE 107.9 FM, this same Dave Hunt said that the Reformed faith borders on blasphemy. So, while I will readily acknowledge that John Calvin and Martin Luther were far from perfect, there is also an agenda to discredit those who believe that salvation is entirely by grace--that we have absolutely nothing to do with our salvation, and that God is absolutely sovereign over His creation.

Stan
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3520
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I'm looking for the quote, but now I can't find it. I thought that I read it in John Piper's "the Legacy of Sovereign Joy" in which he examines the lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin in overview sketches stating their significant contributions to Christianity.

I know I did not read it in anything attempting to discredit Calvin. I remember at the time (about four or so years ago) when I read the brief explanation of the situation, I pondered the fact long afteward that a person could actually be committed to God, committed to truth, doing powerful work for the gospel against great opposition, and still have an event in his life as serious as ordering the death of someoneóand not fall out of God's grace!

Far from detracting from Calvin's contribution, wherever I read that incident, it served both in my mind as well as in the book I read it in to point out that God's choice of us does not depend upon our failures or achievements. I remember reading about this situation and grappling with the fact that great people of God can have visible failuresóand still be chosen by God to speak for Him and to honor Him.

It is not our failures that identify us; it is our trust in God and our willingness to place our lives and futures and fortunes in His hands for His purposes. In case there's any lingering doubt about this fact, read Hebrews 11 and check the people's stories in the OT!

Colleen
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1119
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, I don't think it was Calvin's views on salvation and election that caused the problem. It was his Covenant Theology and his post-millenial triumphalism. Calvin's view of the Law and of eschatology led him to create a dictatorial theocracy that stands as a stark reminder to all of the logical results of following this type of reasoning.

I don't think that either you or I would want to live in Calvin's Geneva.

Chris
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1401
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris,
you should read Michael Horton on Calvin's Geneva. You might get a different picture.
Actually one of our FAF Bible class members is actually reading John Calvin's book on the decalogue, and it isn't what you are saying. There looks like to be honest difference of opinion on this topic. And besides, Dave Hunt's motive was to crush Calvin's doctrine of by grace alone we were chosen in eternity past.

Stan

Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1120
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From Bernard Cottret's Volume on Calvin:

A case involving women set off the explosion. On Thursday, June 23, 1547, several women appeared before the consistory for having danced. Among them was Francoise Favre, second wife of Ami Perrin. She had already had dealings with the consistory a year before (April 1546), when, refusing to testify against several friends of hers who were guilty of having danced, she stood up to Calvin, thus incurring several days' incarceration. This time she was determined to resist. She calmly refused to be talked to about it and sharply told the elders that it was not for them to admonish her. This noble task belonged at most to her husband. Her "fierce and rebellious words" and "gross blasphemies" cast a certain chill. The next day the pastor Abel Poupin let his anger break out in turn, and Francoise Perrin was ordered imprisoned under the control of the watchman Jean Blanc. Ami Perrin, the poor husband of this unfortunate pleasure seeker, was in France on assigned service, representing his city before Henry II, who succeeded Francis I that spring. Several relatives, including Pierre Tissot and Louis Bernard, interceded for the wife. But it was no use. Excitement mounted in the town, where various vicious rumors against Calvin circulated; a placard written in Geneva dialect was even posted on the pulpit of Saint-Pierre. There Abel Poupin was described bluntly as a "big lard-belly," while the venerable pastors appeared as "fucking renegade priests" who, barely quit of their "monkeries," intended to "blow smoke in the eyes" of everyone. In the middle of all this Ami Perrin returned from his journey in September; he hurried to the Council "in great anger." He displayed his afflction, and played the grand seigneur, greeting the august assembly nobly. Putting one leg forward, he exclaimed,

Most honored lords!

I understand that you are considering imprisoning my father-in-law and my wife. My father-in-law is old, my wife is ill; by imprisoning them you will shorten their days, to my great regret, which I have not deserved from you and which would be to give me poor recompense for the services I have done you. Therefore I beg you not to imprison them. If they have done wrong I will bring them here to make such amends that you will have reason to be content. I pray you to grant me this, since if you put them in prison God will aid me to avenge myself for it.

But they remained cold to the supplications of poor Perrin. It was a time of repression. The author of the placard posted in Saint-Pierre against Calvin was also arrested. Jacques Gruet admitted his crime under torture. He was immediately executed at the end of July. A strange person, this Gruet, whose materialist arguments could be validly considered a declaration of atheism. His papers reveal original thoughts abounding in denials of Christianity. "If I want to dance, leap, lead a joyful life, what business is it of the law?" Or again, "The world had no beginning and will have no end." "The one who was called Christ, who said he was the son of God, why did he endure his passion?" "I believe that when a man is dead there is no hope of his living." And so on. Calvin tore into Gruet, and his writings were publicly burned in a joyful auto-de-fe in 1550. Was Gruet an atheist? Probably. But he was also Gruet, a companion of the Favres and Perrins, Gruet the Genevan, exasperated by Calvin and the moral order he incarnated, against and opposed to everything. Many Genevan families, including many leading ones, endured more and more restively the supervision of the great man. ... They adopted the revealing title of "Children of Geneva." They were maliciously called "libertines," the title under which they have passed to posterity.

Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1407
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 1:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris,
You seemed to have picked a very unflattering anecdote above, and it is not very edifying. I did a minisearch for Bernard Cottret and could only find that he was a university professor. Apparently he has no problem using the "f" word to quote what some people may have been saying about Calvin's men.

For another view here is Dr. Michael Horton, professor at Westminster Theological seminary. This quotation won't have the salty language of the author you quoted. This is from "Putting Amazing back into Grace" frpm the intro

"The Reformation faith has produced a concern for the physical as well as spiritual welfare of people, convinced that God has called us to live and work in this world. It is not content to save souls alone while homeless bodies huddle around a campfire to keep warm. This has been demonstrated in the incredible model Geneva became, as thousands of refugees daily fleeing persecution were cared for, accommodated, and employed. The deacons served as the city's welfare officers and social workers. Under Calvin's personal supervision a hospital was established, industry thrived, refugees were taught simple trades, and the Genevan reformer himself drew up Europe's most sophistocated and radical sanitation laws to date. Protestants and Catholics alike recognized the remarkable achievements of Geneva in erecting a center of practical godliness, beyond the individualistic piety often associated with contemporary evangelicalism. The affection the city held for Calvin was portrayed in living color in the last moments of his life, as all of Geneva, with much of Europe, mourned the reformer's death.

I agree, Chris, in the 21st century, I don't want a theocracy either. But for that time and place Calvin was God's man. Have you ever read any of Calvin's works? As our FAF Bible class member (who you met at the reunion weekend) said, that when he read John Calvin on the fourth commandment, then he recognized the same spirit that he saw in Dale Ratzlaff's book "Sabbath In Christ", and Calvin stated these truths of Sabbath rest in Christ. But when he ruled Geneva, Sunday was the practical day to enforce church attendance which he admitted doing to keep order. His own personal belief was not Sabbatarian, and the Westminster Confession went way beyond what Calvin himself taught.

Stan
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1123
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 2:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, I had read this piece previously and pasted it here forgetting it contained a quotation of a historical profanity used in Geneva. Had I remembered that I certainly would have edited that particular part of Genvas's history. My apologies.

However, the fact remains. No matter how great a theological genius Calvin was (and he certainly was) his Geneva is a text book example of what happens when faith is enforced by the sword. This is not just my opinion, but a well attested historical fact that is accepted by most Christian theologians and historians.

Stan, you mentioned that Calvin enforced church attendance, but you didn't mention that it was enforced with rather severe penalties. In addition there are historical records of other inccidents were a youth was beheaded according to the Mosiac Law (although stoning was actually called for) for striking a parent and an adulteress was also put to death. These are not the works of critics but of a notable admirer of Calvin, Paul Henery D.D. and greatly respected Christian historian Philip Schaff. Calvin's Geneva may have had many virtues, but being tolerant of varying religous views and being free of legalism were not among them. It was a very repressive, sometimes brutal place to live whatever else it may have been. That's a matter of historical record and I can provide many more quotes to substantiate it.

My point is this, no matter how much we admire any Christian, no matter how brilliant they are, they are still a sinner in a practicle sense. We in the Church need to admit our mistakes, repent of those mistakes and not try to cover them up or gloss them over. We especially need to learn from those sins. What I learn from Calvin's Geneva is that faith enforced by the sword usually results in the most extreme forms of legalism. I also think this is a logical result of the reformed Covenant postion.

As great as both Luther and Calvin were, we should learn from their mistakes and repent of them.

Again, you have my apologies for not editing that particular word out of the historical record. My intent was not to shock you, but to provide the well researched historical proof you requested of Colleen. Calvin's Geneva was anything but a paradise. There is a great abundance of proof of this. I'm only sorry I selected a historical record that included some of the offensive language being used in Genva's religous battles at the time.

Chris
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 2374
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What I like about these great Christians, who did so much to advance the Gospel, is that they did not say, "God inspired me, an Angel companion showed me" or in anyway said or implied they got it from God. We can see where they were in error and still gain the good from what they did/said. I would much rather learn from them, along side my Bible because they do not claim to be above the Bible.
Just my thoughts on this.
Diana
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1124
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree completely Diane! Luther, Calvin, and others are giants of the faith. We do well to stand on their shoulders and see farther than we would without the great minds and writings of these gifted men. Their works are a blessing to us. However, we do the Christian faith a great disservice when we hold these men (or any others) up to be something they were not. The bottom line is they were sinners just like you and me, justified by grace, being sanctified, and awaiting glorification. Like us, they did sinful things, but that does not diminish their contribution to the Faith. All too often I think we as Christians want to sanitize our heroes and gloss over their sins. I think this is a big mistake that is not honest and leads to reverring a person rather than the One who gifted that person.

Chris
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 129
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The man condemned to death was Servetus, for his anti-trinitarianism, burned at the stake. I'll quote from Wylie, the great protestant historian of the 19th century. His view seems to me at this moment to be a very good answer adressed to those who, using the case of Servetus, are trying to discredit Calvin.


quote:

A great historian exclaims that the stake of Servetus caused him greater horror than all the autos-da-fe of Rome. A signal inconsistencyóas the burning of Servetus in a Protestant republic wasómay no doubt strike one more than does a course of crime steadily and persistently pursued; but surely that mind is strangely constituted which is less moved to commiseration by thousands of victims than by one victim.

The same century which witnessed the pile of Servetus saw some thirty or forty thousand fires kindled by the Church of Rome for the burning of Protestants. But we by no means plead the latter fact as a vindication of the former. We deploreówe condemnóthis one pile. It was a violation of the first principles of Protestantism. To say more on this head, writing as we do in the nineteenth century, would be simply to declaim.

But let us not commit the injustice of Gibbon and those who have followed him. Let us not select one of the actors, and make him the scapegoat of his age. We have striven to give an impartial statement of facts, that the reader may know the precise share which Calvin had in this transaction, and the exact amount of condemnation to mete out to him.


Calvin informed the Council of Servetus' arrival in Geneva; he drew up the articles of indictment from the writings of Servetus, the first time at his own instance, and the second time at the Council's order; and he maintained these when face to face with Servetus before the syndics. All this he could not decline to do without neglect of duty as president of the Consistory. All this he was bound to do by the law of the State. If we are to be discriminating in our censure, we must go farther back than the denunciation given in to the Council, and come to the order of things established at Geneva, which rendered this form of procedure in such cases imperative. It was a vicious jurisprudence; but it was the jurisprudence of former ages, and of that age, and the jurisprudence freely adopted by the citizens of Geneva. Those who condemn Calvin for conforming to it in a matter of public duty, are in reality condemning him for not being wiser in judicial matters than all previous ages, his own included, and for not doing what there is no proof he had power to do, namely, changing the law of the State, and the opinions of the age in which he lived. Beyond what we have stated Calvin had no influence, and tried to exert none.


We further grant that Calvin wished a conviction, and that he approved of the sentence as justónay, expressed his satisfaction with it, having respect to the alternative of acquittalónamely, the expulsion of the Reformation from Geneva. We condemn him for these views; but that is to condemn him for living in the sixteenth and not in the nineteenth century, and we condemn not him alone, but his age, for all who lived with him shared these views, and believed it a duty to punish heresy with death; although even already Calvin, as appears from his book of the following year, had separated himself from the Romish idea that heresy is to be punished as heresyóis to be smitten by the sword, though it should exist only in the depth of one's bosom. He would have the heretic punished only when he promulgates his opinions to the disturbance of society. This is to come very nearónearer perhaps than any other man of his day cameóto the modern doctrine of toleration.

But further, it is only Protestants who are entitled to find fault with Calvin. No Romanist can utter a word of condemnation. No Romanist of Calvin's's own age did condemn him, and no more can any Romanist of ours. The law of the Romish world to this day awards death by burning to heresy; and the Romanist who condemns the affair of Servetus, condemns what his Church then accounted, and still accounts, a righteous and holy deed; and so condemns his Church, and himself not less, as a member of it. He virtually declares that he ought to be a Protestant.

To Calvin, above all men, we owe it that we are able to rise above the error that misled his age. And when we think, with profound regret, of this one stake planted by Protestant hands, surely we are bound to reflect, with a gratitude not less profound, on the thousands of stakes which the teaching of Calvin has prevented ever being set up.



Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 130
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I forgot to mention the source. It's "The History of Protestantism" by Rev. James Aitken Wylie, book fourteenth, chapter 22, pages 324, 325, electronic edition of the book which can be free download at this site www.maranathamedia.com.au. An adventist site, but with many good books.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration