Calvin bragged that he saw to the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus...whose crime was to hold unapproved theological opinions.
Calvin is of the "elect"????? Nah. Let's have a church trial.
John Calivn Should Be De-Elected For The Murder of Servetus
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I guess John Calvin never read Exodus 20:13 (Thou shalt not kill).
Futhermore, I charge that Calvin himself is guilty of the crime of heresy. The doctrine of election is one of the most cruel and nonsensical doctrines I've ever heard of.
Futhermore, I charge that Calvin himself is guilty of the crime of heresy. The doctrine of election is one of the most cruel and nonsensical doctrines I've ever heard of.
"Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." - Thomas Paine
Post #3
Of course in Calvinism election is unconditional. The elect do not, and in fact cannot, earn or deserve election. The point of unconditional election is that God chooses who he will solely based upon his mercy rather than the virtue of the individual. So whatever Calvin may have said or done, if he was correct in his theology elect and if he was elect then he's good to go. Of course those are a couple of big ifs.
-
scottlittlefield17
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:55 pm
- Location: Maine USA
Post #4
I guess John Calvin never read Exodus 20:13 (Thou shalt not kill).
Futhermore, I charge that Calvin himself is guilty of the crime of heresy. The doctrine of election is one of the most cruel and nonsensical doctrines I've ever heard of.
I agree. I feel that John Calvin has caused countless people to go to hell because he taught that after you say a prayer when you are three you go to heaven no matter what you do or believe.Calvin bragged that he saw to the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus...whose crime was to hold unapproved theological opinions.
Calvin is of the "elect"????? Nah. Let's have a church trial.
Post #5
From what I can tell this statement could simply be written as, "I am not a Calvinist."scottlittlefield17 wrote: I agree. I feel that John Calvin has caused countless people to go to hell because he taught that after you say a prayer when you are three you go to heaven no matter what you do or believe.
Assuming Calvin was correct, however, what you say or do is independent of whether or not you go to heaven. Since we're all Totally Depraved by Calvin's theology it takes God's Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace to save us and the Perseverance of Saints to keep us saved. Unfortunately for the rest of mankind it is a Limited Atonement he offers.
If we're going to critique Calvinism, let's talk about the theology behind it. Let's look at the core beliefs of Calvinism and where Calvin draws from the Bible to support them. If we look and it seems he is right, then no matter what we may think, his is the correct way. If, however we take an honest look at where he derives his theology and it is critically flawed, then we may say that he was wrong and his theology is incorrect.
As far as the OP goes, the whole "Elect" thing is Calvinist in origin, so if we're assuming that's correct there isn't any way to de-elect him. Even if we are assuming Arminianism is correct, we do not have the authority to de-elect anyone, only God may do that based upon a loss of faith. The theologies that have election in them place that ability beyond you and I. If we are not assuming that election is correct then there is no reason to de-elect anyone.
Post #6
Well. What I mean by "church trial" is "put the Church of the Elect on trial."
Clearly. All this is utterly, on its face, obscene.
Luther goes to trial with Calvin & Co.
Murder is Murder. Murder in the name of divine election is Evil on steroids. It takes on a life of its own and it's what empires go to genocidal war on or enslave whole peoples by. Christian election is a perverse misinterpretation of Jewish election. The latter being an evolutionary sense of responsbility that took Jewish culture away from genocide in contrast to the Christian devolutionary spiral away from responsibility toward greater use of genocide....so now. We have a Christian Blackwater carrying out US foreign policy...and it's just accepted. They're elected.
Clearly. All this is utterly, on its face, obscene.
Luther goes to trial with Calvin & Co.
Murder is Murder. Murder in the name of divine election is Evil on steroids. It takes on a life of its own and it's what empires go to genocidal war on or enslave whole peoples by. Christian election is a perverse misinterpretation of Jewish election. The latter being an evolutionary sense of responsbility that took Jewish culture away from genocide in contrast to the Christian devolutionary spiral away from responsibility toward greater use of genocide....so now. We have a Christian Blackwater carrying out US foreign policy...and it's just accepted. They're elected.
Post #7
So is this an argument that the ides of "election", conditional or otherwise is immoral (or leads to immoral conduct) or is this the argument that it is not scripturally correct and thus leads to immorality? Or is your argument something else? You're making statements, but I am having a hard time locating what it is exactly you want to debate.Jonah wrote:Well. What I mean by "church trial" is "put the Church of the Elect on trial."
Clearly. All this is utterly, on its face, obscene.
Luther goes to trial with Calvin & Co.
Post #8
solon,
You have good questions. I will start that the sub-forum is Right and Wrong, so on that basis, I am not concerned with the internal mechanics of Christian election. So, I suppose I could have been more formal in stating that body of Christian election theory is immoral by standards of value systems outside of that...assuming that Calvinism represents the bulk of what would fall under "Christian election" thinking.
To use the vernacular, the op is just a plain ol' sucker punch on the street. Whether it be John Calivn or Adolf Hitler...what would it matter? If they come out into the "street" and claim that their election inoculates them from judgement, no matter what they do, those who are wholly outside their twisted system will, quite naturally if only out of self defense, de-elect them....street style.
"Just Say No". And, of course this was Servetus's "crime" in Calvin's world view. At that time, the new Protestant State turned out to be as ruthless as the Catholic it so piously countered. Blackwater is the descendant and in need of de-election.
I think a positive step toward the dismantling of the election idea is to take down the icons, whether they be Calvin or Luther. Luther, while of a different theological stripe, in effect, illustrates the same moral problem...and on a personality basis even more than Calvin. For some reason many Lutherans are able to compartmentalize Luther's utterly destructive policies toward the underclass he politically used in his revolution and the Jews from what they imagine to be his positive contribution to Christendom and western civilization...and nonetheless, revere the person Martin Luther. But when one considers, in absolute value, the utter stench of blood Luther has on his hands in terms of atrocities against peasants in his own day and the long march from his attack on the Jews to Hitler....the question as to why any human being on the planet today would want to call themselves a "Lutheran" is begged. The man was a criminal fraud. He spoke of a "theology of the cross" but all he did was weenie out and hide behind the protection of princes who profited off his revolution...while making millions of others suffer and die for his "reformation"...which just had to be, in his claim...can't stop "the Word"...etc. These people are psychotics. Look at how Luther died. An utter psychological wreck. Even the most defensive Lutherans try to defend Luther's anti-semitism by saying he was "sick".
Luther's final solution to the Jews was to say "away with them". The response of the sane, in a world of Right and Wrong, is to say "away with them...the murderous theologions self-elected in their own alternative warped universe...we will no longer tolerate them....away with them."
You have good questions. I will start that the sub-forum is Right and Wrong, so on that basis, I am not concerned with the internal mechanics of Christian election. So, I suppose I could have been more formal in stating that body of Christian election theory is immoral by standards of value systems outside of that...assuming that Calvinism represents the bulk of what would fall under "Christian election" thinking.
To use the vernacular, the op is just a plain ol' sucker punch on the street. Whether it be John Calivn or Adolf Hitler...what would it matter? If they come out into the "street" and claim that their election inoculates them from judgement, no matter what they do, those who are wholly outside their twisted system will, quite naturally if only out of self defense, de-elect them....street style.
"Just Say No". And, of course this was Servetus's "crime" in Calvin's world view. At that time, the new Protestant State turned out to be as ruthless as the Catholic it so piously countered. Blackwater is the descendant and in need of de-election.
I think a positive step toward the dismantling of the election idea is to take down the icons, whether they be Calvin or Luther. Luther, while of a different theological stripe, in effect, illustrates the same moral problem...and on a personality basis even more than Calvin. For some reason many Lutherans are able to compartmentalize Luther's utterly destructive policies toward the underclass he politically used in his revolution and the Jews from what they imagine to be his positive contribution to Christendom and western civilization...and nonetheless, revere the person Martin Luther. But when one considers, in absolute value, the utter stench of blood Luther has on his hands in terms of atrocities against peasants in his own day and the long march from his attack on the Jews to Hitler....the question as to why any human being on the planet today would want to call themselves a "Lutheran" is begged. The man was a criminal fraud. He spoke of a "theology of the cross" but all he did was weenie out and hide behind the protection of princes who profited off his revolution...while making millions of others suffer and die for his "reformation"...which just had to be, in his claim...can't stop "the Word"...etc. These people are psychotics. Look at how Luther died. An utter psychological wreck. Even the most defensive Lutherans try to defend Luther's anti-semitism by saying he was "sick".
Luther's final solution to the Jews was to say "away with them". The response of the sane, in a world of Right and Wrong, is to say "away with them...the murderous theologions self-elected in their own alternative warped universe...we will no longer tolerate them....away with them."
Post #9
So we are to debate your position? Ok, if that is so then let me see if I can restate it.
Calvin's and subsequently all moral systems that use "election" (and perhaps exceptionalism?) are morally bankrupt and lead to abuse and tragedy.
Is that an accurate way to describe your position?
If this is then your next step would be to prove that this is necessarily so. An example that it has happened does not prove that it must inevitably do so.
Calvin's and subsequently all moral systems that use "election" (and perhaps exceptionalism?) are morally bankrupt and lead to abuse and tragedy.
Is that an accurate way to describe your position?
If this is then your next step would be to prove that this is necessarily so. An example that it has happened does not prove that it must inevitably do so.
Post #10
Solon,
Again, a helpful question. Broadly, no, I am not concerned with all moral systems that use election, since, as a Jew, we have our own, and it is much different than Christian election tradition.
As a Jew, I am targeting specific ideology which has historically resulted in specific horrors. This is the Jewish tendency, to deal in the concrete thing first.
Now. Is it possible that there might be some form of Christian election that doesn't result in harm? Of course. But, this is why I, the Jew, name a specific name. Specifically, John Calvin's position created an ideological tradition that resulted in not only the murder of Servetus, but in the acceptance of subsequent horrors.
With Calvinism, you have double predestination. With Lutheranism, you have single predestination. While there is an attempted significant theological difference there, the Jew is going to point to the reality of how each worked out...to the same anger...and the same violence. So, my analysis is that the two main Christian election ideologies, Calvinist and Lutheran, while a bit different theologically, have functioned the same psychologically and politically with terrible results including their bleeding into general western imperialism. So. Today, George W. Bush and Erik Prince may not go to Reformed/Presbyterian or Lutheran churches, but they are quite convinced that they were elected by God to punish the non-elect. And it is this violence that is at the heart of both the Calvinist and Lutheran election ideas. Their slight theological difference aside, they are quite in agreement on what type of violence can be brought down on the non-elect. How they are non-elect, is quite beside the point.
So. How was it possible for Christendom to accept genocide against Jews...Blacks...Gypsies...Native Americans...rebels against the state (unlawful combatants)? Flush the Korans down the toilet and strip the non-elect naked. Blindfold them and tell them that their children are being shot in the next room. Waterboard them hundreds of times. Etc.
Non-elect status is a rationale for dehumanization. I am a Jew. But, my mother was Roma (Gypsy). Can you imagine? Can you imagine on what basis Christian government came up with the idea to have "Gypsy Hunts"? They literally went out on horse back with guns and hunted human beings like animals (and Jews won't do that even to animals)...men, women, children...no difference...and gave prizes for whoever bagged the most. America's Original Sin of Slavery is the next substantive exemplar. The title of the book: Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine By Peter J. Thuesen, is a very good way to put it.
Again, a helpful question. Broadly, no, I am not concerned with all moral systems that use election, since, as a Jew, we have our own, and it is much different than Christian election tradition.
As a Jew, I am targeting specific ideology which has historically resulted in specific horrors. This is the Jewish tendency, to deal in the concrete thing first.
Now. Is it possible that there might be some form of Christian election that doesn't result in harm? Of course. But, this is why I, the Jew, name a specific name. Specifically, John Calvin's position created an ideological tradition that resulted in not only the murder of Servetus, but in the acceptance of subsequent horrors.
With Calvinism, you have double predestination. With Lutheranism, you have single predestination. While there is an attempted significant theological difference there, the Jew is going to point to the reality of how each worked out...to the same anger...and the same violence. So, my analysis is that the two main Christian election ideologies, Calvinist and Lutheran, while a bit different theologically, have functioned the same psychologically and politically with terrible results including their bleeding into general western imperialism. So. Today, George W. Bush and Erik Prince may not go to Reformed/Presbyterian or Lutheran churches, but they are quite convinced that they were elected by God to punish the non-elect. And it is this violence that is at the heart of both the Calvinist and Lutheran election ideas. Their slight theological difference aside, they are quite in agreement on what type of violence can be brought down on the non-elect. How they are non-elect, is quite beside the point.
So. How was it possible for Christendom to accept genocide against Jews...Blacks...Gypsies...Native Americans...rebels against the state (unlawful combatants)? Flush the Korans down the toilet and strip the non-elect naked. Blindfold them and tell them that their children are being shot in the next room. Waterboard them hundreds of times. Etc.
Non-elect status is a rationale for dehumanization. I am a Jew. But, my mother was Roma (Gypsy). Can you imagine? Can you imagine on what basis Christian government came up with the idea to have "Gypsy Hunts"? They literally went out on horse back with guns and hunted human beings like animals (and Jews won't do that even to animals)...men, women, children...no difference...and gave prizes for whoever bagged the most. America's Original Sin of Slavery is the next substantive exemplar. The title of the book: Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine By Peter J. Thuesen, is a very good way to put it.
