Arminianism was coined by Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609 ... his followers wrote out Mr. Arminius's work in 5 main points and handed in the 5 points of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort, to my understanding, in about 1610, within a year of his death, not enough time for his followers to have completely mess up his writings and teachings. John Calvin was dead for more than fifty years before the 5 points of Calvinism were actually drawn up at the Synod of Dort by hard core/hyper Calvinists who were willing to murder anyone opposing Calvinism just like the Catholics had done. There is a good reason that John Calvin is known as a pope. The only reason they drew up the 5 points of Arminianism was because Arminius's teaching went in the face of Calvin's teachings.
Nowadays Calvinists try real hard to down play John Calvin's role in Servetus's death. But here it is clear as a bell that John Calvin was out for Servetus's blood. I looked up John Calvin on Wikipedia. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) .... Following the execution of Servetus, a close associate of Calvin, Sebastian Castellio, broke with him on the issue of the treatment of heretics.
Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1546 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive." If I were a juror in the court deciding John Calvin's guilt, I'd definitely vote "guilty" 100%. (Cottret 2000, pp. 216–217; Parker 2006, pp. 147–148; Levy, Leonard W. (1995), Blasphemy: Verbal offense Against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie, p. 65, ISBN 978-0-8078-4515-8.)
With the approval of Calvin, the other plotters who remained in the city were found and executed. The opposition to Calvin's church polity came to an end.
(Cottret 2000, pp. 198–200; Parker 2006, pp. 156–157; Manetsch 2013, p. 187)
State and church are separate, though they have to cooperate to the benefit of the people. Christian magistrates have to make sure that the church can fulfill its duties in freedom. In extreme cases the magistrates have to expel or execute dangerous heretics. But nobody can be forced to become a Protestant.
(Jan Weerda, Calvin, in Evangelisches Soziallexikon, col. 212 ... Otto Weber, Calvin, Johannes, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band I (1957), col. 1598)
Scholars agree that it is important to distinguish between Calvin's views toward the biblical Jews and his attitude toward contemporary Jews. In his theology, Calvin does not differentiate between God's covenant with Israel and the New Covenant. He stated, "all the children of the promise, reborn of God, who have obeyed the commands by faith working through love, have belonged to the New Covenant since the world began." [112] Nevertheless, he was a covenant theologian and argued that the Jews are a rejected people who must embrace Jesus to re-enter the covenant. [113] ([112] Lange van Ravenswaay 2009, p. 144 quoting from Calvin, Institutes II.11.10 … [113] Pak, G. Sojin. John Calvin and the Jews: His Exegetical Legacy. Reformed Institute of Metropolitan Washington, 2009, p. 25.)
Most of Calvin's statements on the Jewry of his era were polemical. For example, Calvin once wrote, "I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness – nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew." (Calvin's commentary of Daniel 2:44–45 translated by Myers, Thomas. Calvin's Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948, quoted in Lange van Ravenswaay 2009, p. 146)
No comments:
Post a Comment