I had a Calvinst(4 point or what ever, I dunno) on another forum stick up for John Calvin and state his actions were a product of the times.
I think he reacted out of fear. Over a discrepancy of the Godhead and beliefs. I don't know where Jesus gave the command to kill people who disagree with you.
His actions were not reflective of the character of God. Has nothing to do with the times.
hypothetical: You are behind the iron curtain 2 decades ago. You come to the conclusion Jesus is Lord. It's illegal to be a bible believing Christian let alone own one...
you A) obey the law of the day
B) disobey because a real christian obeys God not man
And your point being?
the hypothetical has nothing to do with the basic idea I put forth. That being that one cannot properly judge a historical figure without first knowing the culture and theology of the time and that we should be open to evaluating our beliefs for the possiblity of being held captive to our times. Was Calvin wrong by committing "murder." Sure. He should not have done it. But did he see it as "murder." No way.
Example, The history of how white OP in the south excluded the oneness blacks of the north has been well documented and even written about on this forum. But to say they were just racist is only part truth. Travel was not as easy then as now, blacks could not easily come south and could not stay in Hotels. Many whites did not have funds to travel to the north. Unity between blacks and whites was hard to maintain when the whole culture of America was about seperation. Could they have tried harder? Possibly. But if that history were being written about all these factors would have to be considered.
I thought it was rather clear....but let me just offer a verse first
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The point being that either it was obedience to man or God in luring Servetus to Geneva, digging up the evidence against him, turning him over to the authorities, being the chief prosecutor or it was obedience to man.
Same goes for the other Christians that were complicit in this. Who should they have obeyed? God or man? IF you say man then either you approve of disobdience to God OR you approve of putting a man to death in the worse possible way (burning alive) for having a doctrine not sanctioned by the state.
The point is, if it is wrong to put a man to death for heresy the those Christians chose to obey man rather than God.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I had a Calvinst(4 point or what ever, I dunno) on another forum stick up for John Calvin and state his actions were a product of the times.
I think he reacted out of fear. Over a discrepancy of the Godhead and beliefs. I don't know where Jesus gave the command to kill people who disagree with you.
His actions were not reflective of the character of God. Has nothing to do with the times.
Product of their times... that is so weak.
The Catholic Church killed many, but the "Great Reformers" Luther and Zwingli were responsible for the torture and death of thousands of my forefathers.
So cutting out tongues, tongue screws, dismemberment and other torture was "acceptable"?
Anyway you slice it - it was contrary to the spirit of Christ and Christianity.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I thought it was rather clear....but let me just offer a verse first
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The point being that either it was obedience to man or God in luring Servetus to Geneva, digging up the evidence against him, turning him over to the authorities, being the chief prosecutor or it was obedience to man.
Same goes for the other Christians that were complicit in this. Who should they have obeyed? God or man? IF you say man then either you approve of disobdience to God OR you approve of putting a man to death in the worse possible way (burning alive) for having a doctrine not sanctioned by the state.
The point is, if it is wrong to put a man to death for heresy the those Christians chose to obey man rather than God.
How do you know which it was? When exactly did God stop telling people to kill people?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
How do you know which it was? When exactly did God stop telling people to kill people?
read the New Testament Timmy. Jesus told them to PUT UP their swords. The church was said to be the PERSECUTED church not the persecuting church. It was the ones called heretics and under fire not the other way around.
Show me Timmy, where in the NT under the New Covenant the death of Heretics is taught? Timmy...do you think we are supposed to keep the law of moses and all it's penalties?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
read the New Testament Timmy. Jesus told them to PUT UP their swords. The church was said to be the PERSECUTED church not the persecuting church. It was the ones called heretics and under fire not the other way around.
Show me Timmy, where in the NT under the New Covenant the death of Heretics is taught? Timmy...do you think we are supposed to keep the law of moses and all it's penalties?
No. And some of the OT laws and commands from God never should have been obeyed, even back then. Kill rebellious children? Slaughter entire populations?
OK, since Jesus once told someone to put up their sword, and since there aren't any recorded commands to kill in the NT, that proves that He will never give such orders again?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
