Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 189

Thread: Why John Calvin was not a murderer

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If so, then God is an anarchist. The Law of Moses set up no central authority. No king, no prophet, not even the High Priest rules over Israel. Each tribe responded to the call for hep from the other tribes as they willed. There was not organized civil authority, merely a system tribal social authority which varied from tribe to tribe. The Book of Judges shows us all this clearly. In fact the introduction of such a centralized civil authority, with their "civil magistrates" that enforced the central authorities will, was denounced by none less than God Himself in 1 Samuel 8. So if the Law of Moses is a blueprint for civil government, its message is that there should be no civil government. Every city, town, family, and person is responsible to God for their conduct, not a civil magistrate or central government.
    I think its more like a decentralized minarchy, but yeah, there's tons of liberty in the Law of Moses
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    It is? So if I shoot dead someone who is trying to kill me, I'm a murderer? Uh, no. "Murder" and "kill" have very different meanings, even though both imply at least one person's death.
    Uh yeah, your attacker already broke the commandment, so that releases you from responsibility for his death if you end up having to use deadly force to stop him. Normally dwelling upon the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law is a trademark of the Jews, but you seem to have fallen into the same trap.

    "Thou shalt Not Kill" is worded thus because the commandment has broader applications than just the most serious infraction. All killing, nay death itself is a product of sin, so even lawful modes of execution that don't carry a punishment still reflect the cursed and fallen state of the world. That wording is a reminder that sin is pervasive in all things, as well as an admonition specifically not to kill as a beast in the wild, which is ultimately what murder is, a surrender of human reason as imbued to us by our creator.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    That was more of an "I told you so" moment that was 500+ years in the making.
    Not to be rude, but if the Byzantine Empire and the EOC had taken a harder line on the issue of heresy, Islam may not be an issue today and Communism probably would not have overrun Eastern Europe. When you allow a disease to spread, sickness and death is the result, and that goes as much for nations and churches as it does individual people.

    P.S. - I view capitol punishment as a last resort, and I don't necessarily see it being necessary for all cases of heresy, but when a bold, destructive heresiarch wants to destroy you from within, reasoning with them doesn't always cut it.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Actually, the justification for execution for murder comes from the Noahide Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. So that nullifies your argument about the 10 Commandments.
    Nope, it doesn't, it simply proves my point that the moral law is eternal, and that parts of the Mosaic covenant that reflect it don't terminate simply because modern American pagans want to perform sodomy on each other and still pretend to be Christians. Technically speaking, the concept of execution for murder goes back to Cain and Abel given that while God spared Cain, he did not spare any of his children.

    Romans 13 honestly sounds pretty anarchist to me.
    I don't really care what it sounds like to you, I care about what's written in it.

    The only leaders I am under authority to are those that "do good," a term which Paul never defines,
    Uh, yeah he does, he defines it as "a terror unto those who do evil" and specifically lays out all the infractions of the 2nd half of the 10 commandments in verse 9. Like most modern Americans, you have reading comprehension issues.

    and which I bound to interpret as a state which respects the God given liberties of man.
    Liberty to do what? Liberty to sin? Check Romans 13:9 again on that one.

    You show me a government upon the Earth that does that and I'll show you one I am bound to follow.
    Given that you haven't defined what a "good government who respects human liberty" would be by your own standards, I assume this a rhetorical means of saying that you are free to defy any and all government. American Antinomianism, on full display.

    I doubt you'll find any though. This message is only heightened by reading the verses you suggested. Worldly governments rule through violence and terror, making you obey them through fear.
    If you are living under a tyrannical government, God is probably angry with the people in your country. People get the governments they deserve, no exceptions.

    But if I am not to fear them why should I obey them? Fear them not is tantamount to a command to obey them not.
    This is rhetorical nonsense. People whom are outwardly obedient to the law do so out of either fear and love of God or fear of punishment (the latter denotes fallen man). You fear the consequences of driving drunk so you'll tend to abstain from excessive alcohol consumption prior to taking a spin. You fear, and so you obey, simple logic.

    As for Calvin, just because he himself didn't swing the sword does not mean the blood is not upon his hands.
    Servetus was executed for unrepentant idolatry and blasphemy, his blood is on himself and no one else.

    If David was condemned because he ordered Uriah abandoned to die, Calvin is condemned for leading the charge to assassinate those who held opposing views than him.
    Conflating capitol punishment of the guilty with assassination betrays a bias, Quaker or Atheist? (not that there is much of a difference) David committed adultery with Uriah's wife and had him killed unjustly, Servetus was little different from any rebellious fool who met an untimely end at God's hands in the OT and NT. Learn your history, then learn your scripture, then get back to me.

    Justifying that by arguing from the Mosaic Law is flawed because the Law of Moses was fulfilled and ended in Jesus Christ.
    The Moral Law is what Servetus broke, it is reflected in key parts of the OT judicial laws, but not in others. Idolatry and heresy are moral offenses, not a typical ceremonial infraction. If the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant abrogated these crimes, then 4 out of the 10 commandments are null and void, which means Christianity and Paganism are essentially interchangeable. Not a terribly good argument.

    Justifying it by saying the person murdered was just as bad is simply anti-Christian.
    According to who? Forgive me that I was not aware of someone as illustrious as you to tell me what is Christian and anti-Christian.

    Jesus called upon us to love our enemies and redeem them through pure love and charity, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, NOT do unto others as they do unto others.
    Ah, so you're a Matthew 5:44 Christian, eh? Nice to meet you, I'm a "I read the whole bible" Christian. Surprise, there's a few of us still out there.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    I really don't have the time to argue against the blatant antinomianism in the thread. I'm just gonna let it speak for itself.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  8. #66
    I actually agree that Romans 13 gives license for resisting wicked governments, but I don't think we can reason from that to say that a government must be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT before we obey. Its undeniable that Rome improved under Constantine though he wasn't perfect, and that the Puritans were good rulers, and so on.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No. That is an antinomian view of God's law that is not Christian. God's law MUST be fulfilled. God's law must be followed perfectly if one is to be in God's presence. God will not allow sin in His presence. This is Romans 2. If you are to be saved, you must actually not sin.

    Christ's perfect law keeping is applied to the elect so that the law is fulfilled on their behalf. This is how a person who is sinful can stand in the presence of a holy God. That man has a perfect law keeping applied to his account.

    God NEVER lowers the standard of His law. If a person is to be saved, he must be without sin.
    That's Catholic Scholasticism, almost to a T. You've been mislead, brother.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Not to be rude, but if the Byzantine Empire and the EOC had taken a harder line on the issue of heresy, Islam may not be an issue today and Communism probably would not have overrun Eastern Europe. When you allow a disease to spread, sickness and death is the result, and that goes as much for nations and churches as it does individual people.

    P.S. - I view capitol punishment as a last resort, and I don't necessarily see it being necessary for all cases of heresy, but when a bold, destructive heresiarch wants to destroy you from within, reasoning with them doesn't always cut it.
    How do you expect them to have accomplished this with the communication methods available at that time? And communism wouldn't have overrun Europe? Zuh? Eastern Europe was one of the friendliest places to Christianity in the world prior to the Revolution.(it was-and now again is-home to one of the greatest Patriarchates in the world) The disease of communism was brought from Germany to Russia by the Revolutionaries, and nothing the Church could do would've prevented that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    That's Catholic Scholasticism, almost to a T. You've been mislead, brother.
    That is in no way shape or form Catholic Scholasticism.

  12. #70
    You're not rude.

    The Pope's push for more power lead to everyone trying to become Pope in the Reformation. The quest for power and to stamp out dissent only creates more dissent. Calvin is a great example of a new pope. So was Servetus.

    For Islam, Western Europe would be Islam without the Byzantine Empire in the past. It may be screwed with this new invasion.

    As for communism. It's attempt to destroy Christianity has been an failure in Eastern Europe it's coming back. Western Europe isn't exactly Christian anymore either. Both have been ravaged by it when considering belief and church attendance.

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Not to be rude, but if the Byzantine Empire and the EOC had taken a harder line on the issue of heresy, Islam may not be an issue today and Communism probably would not have overrun Eastern Europe. When you allow a disease to spread, sickness and death is the result, and that goes as much for nations and churches as it does individual people.

    P.S. - I view capitol punishment as a last resort, and I don't necessarily see it being necessary for all cases of heresy, but when a bold, destructive heresiarch wants to destroy you from within, reasoning with them doesn't always cut it.
    Last edited by RJB; 10-09-2015 at 06:41 AM.

  13. #71
    James 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

    Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

    Judging Others
    37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

    Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    Colossians 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

    Matthew 22:34But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

    2Corinthians 5:16Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

    20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
    Jesus came and did not slaughter those in disobedience to Love, but sacrificed Himself so they may know Truth. Some still think their methods are more appropriate and successful than the Messiah's and seek to justify feeding the flesh rather than living in the Spirit.
    We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota


    Go Forward With Courage

    When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
    when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
    So long as mists envelop you, be still;
    be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
    -- as it surely will.
    Then act with courage.

    Ponca Chief White Eagle

  14. #72
    I would say that the most rigid form of clinging to the OT law is probably incompatible with being an American. In the United States, we have a founding document that forms the basis for all law in the US. Granted we are far away from those principles, but there you go.

    In any case, even if we scrapped every single law on the books and started over again, a Constitutional government is not going to kill people for heresy. A Constitutional government calls for religious freedom and even freedom not to be religious.

    We can't have two different systems of law here. It seems kind of silly to be having this discussion in the first place.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    I actually agree that Romans 13 gives license for resisting wicked governments, but I don't think we can reason from that to say that a government must be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT before we obey. Its undeniable that Rome improved under Constantine though he wasn't perfect, and that the Puritans were good rulers, and so on.
    All governments that have existed so far have been wicked governments. Paul isn't talking about some hypothetical good government that his audience had never seen before in Romans 13. He's talking about all governments that exist, and declaring that there do not exist any powerful people outside of God's providence.

    The consequence of resistance is facing the wrath of the powerful one's sword. The decision to resist has to be weighed agains that consequence.

    But the idea so common among Christians that doing so is immoral, except in cases when God's law already applies regardless of what the state says, as if Paul is saying that powerful people who wield the sword speak for God, and whatever they command he commands, is not at all what Paul is saying.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    I would say that the most rigid form of clinging to the OT law is probably incompatible with being an American. In the United States, we have a founding document that forms the basis for all law in the US. Granted we are far away from those principles, but there you go.

    In any case, even if we scrapped every single law on the books and started over again, a Constitutional government is not going to kill people for heresy. A Constitutional government calls for religious freedom and even freedom not to be religious.

    We can't have two different systems of law here. It seems kind of silly to be having this discussion in the first place.
    I agree we can't have two systems of law.

    There is only one law. That is God's law. Manmade laws aren't really laws.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    That's only one type of slavery - there were several.

    Here's a good discussion of Old Testament slavery:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible
    That's not a good summary at all. It's blatantly designed to put the Bible in the worst possible light.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Does your view here include rape? If not, why not?

    What about swindling? Not a crime?
    Yes, my view includes those. Yes they are crimes, because they have victims. They were crimes according to God's eternal universal moral law already before the covenant at Sinai ever existed.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    That's not a good summary at all. It's blatantly designed to put the Bible in the worst possible light.
    Why do you say that? Did you read the Bible verses it references?

    I don't think it makes the Bible look bad at all. Slavery *was* a big part of life back then. Having a large tribe was very important for survival, and when one tribe defeated another and took their men as slaves, and took their women as handmaids and concubines, you could enlarge the tribe in short order. Especially if you treated the men well enough to where they would fight for you. They were still slaves, however... And some rulers treated slaves better than others.

    They all did it that way - Hebrew or not.
    Last edited by Jamesiv1; 10-09-2015 at 07:04 AM.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Yes, my view includes those. Yes they are crimes, because they have victims. They were crimes according to God's eternal universal moral law already before the covenant at Sinai ever existed.
    SO were homosexuality or adultery as both violate that same moral law. See, where are you getting this "only if it has a victim" concept from? That's not Bblical
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    All governments that have existed so far have been wicked governments. Paul isn't talking about some hypothetical good government that his audience had never seen before in Romans 13. He's talking about all governments that exist, and declaring that there do not exist any powerful people outside of God's providence.

    The consequence of resistance is facing the wrath of the powerful one's sword. The decision to resist has to be weighed agains that consequence.

    But the idea so common among Christians that doing so is immoral, except in cases when God's law already applies regardless of what the state says, as if Paul is saying that powerful people who wield the sword speak for God, and whatever they command he commands, is not at all what Paul is saying.
    King David's government? Josiah?

    This isn't hypothetical...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    Why do you say that? Did you read the Bible verses it references?
    Of course. But the article wasn't just the verses, it was also the tendentious treatment of the topic.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    SO were homosexuality or adultery as both violate that same moral law. See, where are you getting this "only if it has a victim" concept from? That's not Bblical
    Homosexuality and adultery were always immoral, but they do not have victims, and as such are not crimes, by definition.

    The "only if it has a victim" concept is biblical (e.g. Gen 9:6). But more importantly, it accords with God's law, which has been around longer than there has been any Bible, and which would be in force and knowable through general revelation and reason even if there never were a Bible.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    King David's government? Josiah?

    This isn't hypothetical...
    According to the Bible, those were wicked governments. Also, they were long gone when Romans was written. So as far as that audience is concerned, talking about governments like those would have been speaking hypothetically. Paul wasn't speaking hypothetically, he was talking about what existed then and there in the Roman empire. He was talking about the very same governments that punished him as an evil doer for proclaiming the Gospel.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Of course. But the article wasn't just the verses, it was also the tendentious treatment of the topic.
    I don't know why you feel it's controversial.... that's just the way it was.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    I don't know why you feel it's controversial.... that's just the way it was.
    You don't know why I feel what is controversial?

    My comments were about the tendentiousness of the article you posted. I agree, it's not controversial that that was a tendentious article.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    I don't know why you feel it's controversial.... that's just the way it was.
    Probably because of the extensive effort put forth discussing this:

    Moral relativism

    This is probably one of the clearest example of religious moral relativism.
    Providing a link for that sort of subject matter is going to get someone's knickers in a twist because of the different backgrounds of those involved in the discussion and pleasing people here with a single link is harder than herding feral cats.
    We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota


    Go Forward With Courage

    When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
    when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
    So long as mists envelop you, be still;
    be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
    -- as it surely will.
    Then act with courage.

    Ponca Chief White Eagle

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by moostraks View Post
    Probably because of the extensive effort put forth discussing this:
    Yes, among other things. The site rationalwiki is deliberately anti-Christian. Its purpose is not to present fair treatments of issues like this.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    You don't know why I feel what is controversial?

    My comments were about the tendentiousness of the article you posted. I agree, it's not controversial that that was a tendentious article.
    ahh.. gotcha. That's why I linked the word controversial. The google result for 'define tendentious' says "especially if its controversial"

    Quote Originally Posted by google search
    expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one.
    "a tendentious reading of history"
    Nevermind. I still don't think it casts the Old Testament in a bad light. Biblical experts the world over agree with that point of view and for centuries have concluded that's precisely how it was back then. People who believe otherwise are vile calumniators of biblical scholarship.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    ahh.. gotcha. That's why I linked the word controversial. The google result for 'define tendentious' says "especially if its controversial"
    That definition of tendentious perfectly fits the article you posted. It doesn't attempt to give a dispassionate summary of what the Bible says about slavery, instead it promotes a particular controversial point of view, which is that somehow these verses are a mark against the Bible.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    I still don't think it casts the Old Testament in a bad light.
    The truth of the matter doesn't cast the OT in a bad light. But the article you posted certainly tries to. Notice all the snarky remarks throughout it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesiv1 View Post
    Biblical experts the world over agree with that point of view and for centuries have concluded that's precisely how it was back then.
    Biblical experts agree that what was how what was back when?

    If you mean to say that the article you posted is representative of biblical scholarship, you're wrong about that. It was very unscholarly.
    Last edited by erowe1; 10-09-2015 at 08:11 AM.

  35. #90
    I don't think the Bible presents obedience or resistance as an either/or choice. There are times when people were commanded and blessed when they obeyed, and times when they were commanded and blessed with they resisted.

    At the time of Romans 13 and 1 Tim 2, the government was very oppressive. Believers were being killed for their faith. Yet, they were told that government is God's agent to do us good, and that we should lift up holy hands and pray for governing authorities so that we may live quiet and peaceable lives. Government is not there to control people, and people are not free to do what they want. Government is there to protect freedom so that people can do right.

    An example of protecting freedoms to facilitate welldoing would be our economy. When people are perpetually in debt, it facilitates the doing of evil by defaulting on debt or committing crime. When people are in a system where they are trained not to work, then it is easier to take from others in the form of government subsidies, or commit crimes that take from others. The Bible says there will always be poor people, but I do not think the Bible intends for there to be a permanent underclass in poverty. It should be fluid. People fall on hard times, they lean on others for a short time, then come out of poverty.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •