Victoria, you crack me up.

Back in comments 92 and 100, you make a big hubub about Jon mixing up dates on Mormonism’s founding and the death of Madison, and how you supposedly caught him red-handed in some web of lies, and how dare anyone think that they could know more than you about the Mormon church.

*Newsflash* – Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ (later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in 1830. Even before the church was officially founded, the movement was hardly unheard of. News of the publishing of the Book of Mormon and Smith’s “gold bible” was hot news in New England throughout the late 1820s and early 1830s, and you can find articles in the New York Times archive. Although this was completely irrelevant to Jon’s point, I found it amusing that you would call him out with such vitriol when in fact you had your own dates wrong.

If you want a good scholarly treatment of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, try Columbia University historian Richard Bushman’s “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” (Knopf, 2005). Probably the most thorough and balanced biography on Joseph Smith to date.

Judging from your comments, I find your claim to any kind of accurate knowledge on Mormonism highly suspect. I would be very wary of the countercult info that you seem to be steeped in. You can read all of the fad diet books you can get your hands on, but that doesn’t make you an expert on nutrition.

Report comment to moderator

Ree, the above statement makes no sense, and it certainly hasn’t anything to do with what we are discussing. Comparing Islamic terrorists to Servetus or anyone like him is nothing more than hysteria – and then you throw me into the mix as an agreement to what you wrote –

Whatever Calvin “thought” he was not referring to the Word of God, he (Calvin) was filled with hate and anger at anyone who disagreed with him. This has nothing to do with “Islamic terrorists” –

Christ didn’t preach, nor did HIS disciples anything that would have led anyone to kill someone like Servetus, – the other point is, Calvin did want Servetus to be “exterminated” he also boasts that he (Calvin) was responsible.

“Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to King Navarre in 1561

It really makes no difference as to who did the sentencing, Calvin states  ”I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard”  so in essence Calvin is triumphant at his accomplishment, believe that he had “exterminated” the man who disagreed with him.

    YOU WRITE: “You can indict Calvin if you like, but you can’t do it without indicting all of Christendom for how they dealt with heresy unless you’re okay with being a hypocrite. I have no problem with that, though.

I don’t indict Calvin, he indicts himself – His letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to King Navarre in 1561 was more than enough to indict him -

Report comment to moderator

I agree that the gospel can only be genuinely understood through the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit. The message of the cross is foolishness to the world because, the worldly man acknowledges neither his own sinful estate, nor the holiness of God. Therefore, he doesn’t understand his desperate need for a Savior. And, yes, that which is necessary for salvation is clearly proclaimed in Scripture, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Scriptures were written during particular times and places in particular languages and that, therefore, a deeper knowledge of those things is helpful for understanding meaning and context.

There are some secular scholars, and even some unregenerate “Christian” scholars, who because of their studies, could teach Christians a lot about the Scriptures, but for whom the message of salvation doesn’t penetrate because they don’t recognize their need for God or for reconciliation with God. That’s where the Holy Spirit comes in. But the Scriptures aren’t some kind of gnostic writings that require some special initiation to decipher their meaning.

Report comment to moderator

I’m not denying any of the writings you’ve cited, and I’ve already explained the context. Now are you claiming that Calvin actually did the sentencing? Or that he had some authority over the tribunal that sentenced him? If you are, then you’re ignoring the historical record.

Calvin, like all of Christendom, thought of the propogators of heresy pretty much the same way you think of Islamic terrorists. Their purpose was to wreak havoc on a society and to turn God’s people away from the truth. His first hope for Servetus was for him to repent, but if he refused, then yes, Calvin wanted him put to death by the state. That was the law of the land at the time, and the weasly Servetus was already under another death sentence from a Roman Catholic tribunal when he disguised himself and escaped to Geneva, presumably hoping for more favorable treatment there. He knew that his main opposition in Geneva, John Calvin, was imprisoned by the authorities at the time, so apparently he hoped that, in all of Christendom, he might be safe there. He was a heretic who wrote a long treatise propogating his heresy, but unlike the men of courage and conviction of the time, he was a coward who assumed a false identity and hoped not to be discovered.

You can indict Calvin if you like, but you can’t do it without indicting all of Christendom for how they dealt with heresy unless you’re okay with being a hypocrite. I have no problem with that, though.

Report comment to moderator

The Bible is different than any other book on earth – God in his infinite knowledge makes possible the truth to those who seek HIM – that includes understanding of HIS Word – He never changes -

      Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8

Lets not forget that Christ picked men who were fishermen, tentmakers and a tax collector as HIS disciples – yet man today believes himself so wise so arrogant that he alone, knowing all the languages, be it Latin, Greek Aramaic, and Hebrew are the only individuals who know the truth of God’s Word – nothing could be further from the truth –

Now we come to culture, as if anyone today actually understands the heart of culture in the day of our LORD, over 2,000 years ago – it is with false intellectual pride, that anyone can truly say they know the pulse of those days so long ago.

Report comment to moderator

In regard “the Bible taken at face value,” keep in mind that the Bible can’t be rightfully understood apart from its correct religious and cultural context. The various books of Scripture were written within a particular cultural milieu, and the better understanding one has of Hebraic culture, the better one’s exegesis is likely to be.

Report comment to moderator

YOU WRITE: “The error “which was that of his century.” That’s precisely my point. It was a given in his time that propagators of heresy must be put to death by the state. To single him out as some kind of false Christian for holding that belief is not only unfair, but it’s hypocritical. And to hold him primarily responsible for the death of Servetus is outrageous since he wasn’t the one doing the sentencing. If a defendant is sentenced to death for something you don’t agree should be a capital crime in any other instance, I’m sure you wouldn’t hold an expert witness primarily responsible for the defendant’s death, even if the expert witness agreed that the person’s act was worthy of death. ”

John Calvin made very clear his anger towards Servetus. As Calvin stated:       “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.” This in a letter to William Farel on February 13, 1546

Then Calvin further BOASTS:     “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to King Navarre in 1561

Ree the remark John Calvin writes in his letter to Marquis Paet is undeniably making CRYSTAL CLEAR that Calvin has exterminated Servetus, he gives NO ONE ELSE the honor – Calvin takes the responsibility with great aplomb -

Report comment to moderator

No Ree I didn’t say there are countless others like him, what I did say was:

    “You mentioned Dave Hunt (on Whirled Views) as being a source, but obviously there are hundreds of sources, which you either aren’t aware of, OR you hoped no one else had studied.”

Ree if you are going to quote me, then use exact quotes, not reworded to suit your purpose – Those who have studied Calvin and the death of Servetus have documented many of Calvin’s writings, this might be distasteful to many, but it doesn’t change the truth -

Report comment to moderator

YOU WRITE: “The standard by which you’re judging is what’s anachronistic.”

No it isn’t chronologically wrong, do you understand the definition of anachronistic?

anachronistic

Definition:

1. chronologically wrong: belonging to a time other than the one being represented, especially in fiction or drama

2. not appropriate to times: out-of-date or inappropriate at the time in question

Report comment to moderator

The standard by which you’re judging is what’s anachronistic.

You mentioned Dave Hunt (on Whirled Views) as being a source, but obviously there are hundreds of sources, which you either aren’t aware of, OR you hoped no one else had studied.

Dave Hunt was mentioned as an example of a specific type of person–a rabidly anti-Calvinistic Christian who has no scruples about boldly misrepresenting that which he criticizes. You’re right that there are countless others like him, though.

Even John Calvin’s descendents and those in Geneva -1903 put up an expiatory monument which excused the error of John Calvin — as they referred to him “our great Reformer” which was guilty of error “which was that of his century” -

The error “which was that of his century.” That’s precisely my point. It was a given in his time that propagators of heresy must be put to death by the state. To single him out as some kind of false Christian for holding that belief is not only unfair, but it’s hypocritical. And to hold him primarily responsible for the death of Servetus is outrageous since he wasn’t the one doing the sentencing. If a defendant is sentenced to death for something you don’t agree should be a capital crime in any other instance, I’m sure you wouldn’t hold an expert witness primarily responsible for the defendant’s death, even if the expert witness agreed that the person’s act was worthy of death.

John Calvin was very different, he was unable to contain his anger against Servetus

If this were true, it would be hard to explain his tearful prayers for the condemned heretic’s repentance and his visit with him in which he pleaded for him to repent.

Report comment to moderator