The Real John Calvin

I would like some straight answers from you, LadyEagle. Do you believe, then, that Satan is literally a great red dragon? Do you believe, then that Jesus literally has a sword coming out of his mouth?

 

Straight answers, Ken!

People who are greater Biblical scholars than I have a "Golden Rule of Interpretation" for discernment as to whether or not Scripture has a literal or figurative interpretation:


"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."



Any other interpretation is nonsense.

 

I see you won't answer my questions directly, LadyEagle. I am not surprised.

 

That IS my answer, Ken.

However, if one doesn't choose to "rightly divide" or compare Scripture with Scripture, or has preconceived notions of what they want the Bible to say and not say, and pluck verses out of context to support erroneous beliefs, then there is no basis for discussion. This reminds me of the "how many angels can fit on a head of a pin" scenario of the absurd, and we really don't want to go there, do we?

 

PS: My suggestion is to take this thought up to the Fundamentalist Forum and see how far it goes, LOL.

Can we please get back to Calvin now? (lest Monergist strangle both of us!)

 

Can you just answer my two questions with a simple yes or no, LadyEagle?

 

You know, on some boards I've seen there are discussions on how "evil" Lottie Moon was. I'm not sure that taking individuals out of their historical context and placing them in the light of our judgement is a fair exercise sometimes. Again, anything you say about Calvin has to be viewed in the light of his times. I'm sure we could find others that we could point to as equally hideous "crimes" but we do not talk about it because they happen to agree with our theological slant. Go for it if you like but I think future generations will look back at us and wonder why we did so little to stop abortion in our time and judge us equally as harsh.

 

I don't see why. We have based whole doctrines on the studies and words of Calvin. But wouldn't it be more wise to inspect and search for the truth in the light of the whole of God's Word?

If God's Word hasn't changed, then why, oh why, should our viewpoint change with the times?

Was Calvin wrong back then in his treatment of Servetus? Yes, I believe so, just as much as he would be wrong if living in 2004, in my opinion.

But, if Servetus was a true heretic and it was right to burn him at the stake, then why is it wrong to burn someone at the stake today? Is there no consistency? Is Christianity progressing or regressing? What is the truth? Why, if Calvin was wrong, does he get a pass? And if he was wrong on his treatment of Servetus, and if he was wrong on being against the Jews, then why is he right (according to some) on TULIP or eternal security (according to some)? Wondering out loud.

But why not? If a person is wrong, no matter what their theological slant and are guilty of hideous crimes, why turn our heads away?

And they should - they really should and would be justified in doing so.

 

Speaking of Martin Luther, here is a link to his work titled "The Jews and Their Lies."

For the record, I don't care much for Martin Luther or John Calvin.

Here's the link:

Marin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies

 

I wonder what posters on the Baptist Board will be saying about current day theologians five hundred years from now.

 

Well, after looking around his web site, I think it's also probably fair to say he not only hates Christianity, but he hates where he lives, and just about everything else, too, LOL!

But he did have a few great links and links from links.

Didn't realize you live where you do (never paid any attention) - it's beautiful there.

 

"When we've been there, ten thousand years...."

Oops, sorry, Ken, couldn't resist.

 

LadyEagle, just curious, do you believe that everyone who doesn't buy into your particular theological theory about Israel is anti-Semitic? </font>[/QUOTE]I've never understood why Dispensationalists like to refer to Covenant Theology as Replacement Theology. We don't insult Dispensationalists by naming you something different.

I hold to Covenant Theology. Read Romans 11:16-17

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,


This is not replacement theology. It's Adoption Theology. You have 3 groups in this passage. Beleiving jews, unbelieving jews, and believing gentiles. Unbelieving jews were cut out and beleiving gentiles were grafted in---but you still had the original believing jews still there.

The church is the same today---- one people of God made up of believing jews and gentiles----there is no longer jew or greek---how does your hermenuitic refute that LadyEagle?? What Covenant Theology teaches is simply that there has ever only been One people of God, and now through Christ in the New Covenant, God has broadened the people of God to include gentiles as well as jews. When the church first started---it was mostly jewish. Today God is still saving Jews.

There has been antisemitism throughout church history, and that of course is sin but lets not blame covenant theology which truly teaches that there is no difference---if anything...covenant theology truly teaches that there should be no discrimination because jews and gentiles are no longer any different. It's Dispensationalists today that try to teach that there is a difference between the two groups---it's dispensationism that teaches a discrimanation against gentile believers.


Also something else, Luther also said that jews if the accepted Christ should be treated well. Luthers big problem wasn't with a people who were jewish, Luther had a passionate zeal that everyone accept Jesus Christ and if you didn't, you should be excommunicated. The problem wasn't anti-semitism as it was more to do with no seperation of church and state----when the church and government were one---and if you didn't beleive in Jesus Christ---you should have your rights terminated.

I believe that Luther, Calvin and all the reformers would have persecuted muslims, budhism and every other heretical teaching as passionately as they persecuted the Jews. This was not right, but I think it's wise to address the real problem instead of this redherring.


I'm not asking you to agree with me LadyEagle. Many of my best friends are dispensational, and we get along great. We have more in common in the faith than what we disagree with, and though we discuss it and should try to teach biblical truth where we see error, we never start flinging insults or calling each other racist. That is not what the body of Christ is to do. We are both members of one body and should respect each other even as we disagree with each other on some minor doctrinal issues. We should always keep this in the forfront of our hearts when we deal with each other----and fight a common front against true heresy---like those that would tear down our God and King.

 

WallDoctor, those who say the Church is Israel believe in Replacement Theology - the Church replaced Israel. Is that what you believe?

 

To understand the truth about Servetus and Calvin, it is important to actually see what it was that Calvin said...

Seven years before Servetus' death, Calvin wrote: "Servetus lately wrote to me, and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies, with the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety; for if he does come, and my authority be of any avail, I shall never suffer him to depart alive."

Nine years after Servetus' death, Calvin wrote: "Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster." - Responsio ad Balduini Convicia, Opera, IX. 575

-- Both of these come from "History of the Christian Church" by Philip Schaff

To his credit, Fox's Book of Martyrs says that Calvin attempted to have Servetus put to death by beheading instead of fire, so I suppose that is something.

Anyone who wishes to tackle, "Defensio orthodoxae fidei, contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani (Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus)", can easily see that Calvin justified the death of Servetus. He argues that to preserve the soul of Servetus would be to endanger the souls of many others.

 

Actually, he wasn't really unitaraian (though the Unitarian-Universalists take him up as sort of a hero), but rather more of the pre-Nicene orthodox view of economic trinitarianism, held in slightly different variations by Tertullian, Ireneaus and especially Hippolytus. (even many who signed the Nicene creed still thought this way, but went with the creed because it was better than the opposing Arianism) This is what makes Calvin's (and the others') reactions so hideous! They didn't even give it a chance. The fourth century Catholic creedal expression was the only right one to them (just as the Catholic state Church, infant baptism, and to different extents, Eucharist, Mary, etc). Calvin justified himself by claiming to be good natured toward Servetus in "only trying to save his soul", but that presumes that he was so wrong, and the traditional doctrines and practices (including state church and infant basptism, which Servetus also opposed) were not only infallible,but necessary for salvation! But Sevetus' problem was not only mixing in some of the more mystical teachings of the fathers, but also not having tact as to how to present this radical view to the authorities. If they (Protestant and Catholic alike) were burning people at the stake for such clearly unbiblical positions as state Churches and infant baptism, then how do you think they would react to messing with the Trinity they all universally agreed on? That is not something you just come out all boistrously against them on like he did.

 

As I have already stated and obviously you did not read, there is only one people of God, And Gentiles have been adopted into the Nation of Israel. The nation of Israel which was destroyed will be reconstituted again and will be made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Jews (who confess Christ) who are the original blood children of Abraham and Gentile beleivers who are the spiritual sons of abraham --- made sons through the adoption of Jesus Christ. There is no longer jew or gentile but one nation of Israel. The church has not replaced Israel, the Church has been added to Israel.

And that is not replacement theology. I believe God is going to save a remnant of the current nation of Israel (the 144,000) and the Antichrist will destroy the rest of the physical nation of Israel that exists today. That in the millenium Kingdom, the Nation of Israel will be re-instituted and be made of all believing Jews and all beleiving Gentiles. You can disagree with my position which I believe best balances all the passages in scripture but you can not call it replacement theology or antisemetic.

 

So, you support the current nation of Israel? If so, you do not believe in Replacement Theology.

 

Covenant Theology---or what you call Replacement Theology at its core teaches that there is only one true people of God and that throughout time there has ever only been one people of God. Dispensationism teaches that there are two peoples of God---the NATION of Israel (Jews) and The Church.

So you are using Dispensational terminology and dispensational theology to define Covenant Theology. You can't do that because your definitions are different. Using your term replacement theology implies that we believe that the Church has replaced Israel as the People of God and that God has abandoned Israel.

That's not what Covenant Theology(Replacement Theology) teaches----it teaches that God has ever only had one people of God and that in the OT it was revealed through the physical nation of Israel and the Jews, and in the New Covenant, Christ opened the doors to the Gentiles to also be adopted into that one people of God. How can that be replacement theology when gentiles have been added to the Jewish fold?

What I said concerning the 144,000 is that I believe that God is still going to save some Jews as He continues to save some Gentiles. As a sign of the end times to come, we will see a revival amongst the Jews as a sign of the end coming. But I do believe their is nothing blessed or holy about present Israel which is full of a bunch of God hating Agnostics. It's only by the Grace of God and the His Spirit opening the hearts of a small remnant of Jews that there will be some to confess Jesus Christ as Saviour and when we enter the Millenium Kingdom, you will have one nation established made up of both Jews and Gentiles---and I will walk the streets with Abraham David, Moses, Mary, Joseph, Peter, Paul as my equal brothers and sisters in the faith and will have exactly the same blessing, citizenship and nationality.

But again---this is adoption theology not replacement theology----and except that most Covenant theology people are Ammillenial---they believe the same thing I do concerning their only being one people of God and that the Church has been added to the Jews---not Israel(Jews) and Church being two seperate institutions---they are not---there is only ONE.