You are thinking of "Calvinism, which is neither Biblical nor Godly. The Bible is our example. Whatever it says, we are to do.
IMHO, Rose, IF God would condemn us for our inability to respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to repent, and seek Christ, after He, Himself had programmed that inability into us, He would be a monster, not the loving God that He is.
John Calvin was a young French Catholic law student whose ambitions were dashed when his father and brother had a falling out with Rome, and the entire family lost their favor and influence with church officials.
As a young legal minded convert, he developed the system of belief within the Reformation now known as "Reform" (Presbyterian) Theology, on which his "Institutes of Religion" is composed including his Scripturally twisted beliefs on "Predestination," most of which he borrowed from the writings and Theology of Augustine, as you can’t read five pages of John Calvin’s Institutes without Augustine being quoted.
Augustine, who is both the 5th century founder of modern Roman Catholicism's Theology, and the primary source for many positions of Calvinism, in turn, leaned heavily upon the godless Greek philosophy of Aristotle. John Calvin clearly obtained his understanding and formation of many doctrinal issues such as infant baptism, predestination, and the use of civil authorities and punishments to enforce church policy from the writings of Augustine.
John Calvin was called “the Protestant Pope” and the “Dictator of Geneva” and with good reason. In his sovereignty John Calvin irresistibly imposed and compelled his brand of “righteousness” on all the citizens of Geneva. John Calvin was a harsh man who was the first Protestant in Europe “to impose…a uniform subordination upon an entire populace… With systematic thoroughness, John Calvin set to work for realization of his plan to convert Geneva into the first Kingdom of God on earth… The whole of his life was devoted to the service of this one idea”.
Historian Will Durant wrote:
“To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established…and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives… The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height…
Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents… To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime… Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death… a child was beheaded for striking his parents...”
From the official records of the City Council Stephan Zweig noted:
“There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council, in which we do not find the remark: ‘Better consult Master Calvin about this.‘”
John Calvin was given a “consultant’s chair” in every meeting of the city authorities and “when he was sick the authorities would come to his house for sessions.”
“…the sinister power of this zealot extended far beyond the walls of Geneva. The Swiss federated cities regarded him as their chief political member; throughout the western world the Protestants had appointed this “violentissimus Christianus” their commander-in-chief; kings and princes vied with one another in wooing the favour of a militant ecclesiastic who had established in Europe a Church organization second in power only to that ruled by the Roman pontiff. Nothing could happen in the political world without his knowledge; very little could happen there in defiance of his will. It had become as dangerous to offend the preacher of St.-Pierre as to offend emperor or pope…“
The Geneva Council declared in November of 1552 that Calvin’s Institutes were a “holy doctrine which no man might speak against.”
Clearly there was no separation between civil and religious affairs in Geneva. In addition, criticism of John Calvin’s Institutes was considered heresy for which the sentence was death by burning at the stake. A civil crime with a religious punishment.
To claim a difference between civil and theological governance in Geneva is a device of John Calvin’s defenders to hide his dirty laundry.
John Calvin never showed any evidence of sanctification, he showed no love and mercy to those he didn’t like, he never repented of having other Christians tortured and killed. John Calvin does not remotely emulate Jesus, the Apostles or the first century Christians.
Are we to follow this man's teachings and example?
Permit me one more illustration.
In the movie The Godfather: Part III, Michael Corleone, the Godfather, had been trying for years to get (and stay) out of organized crime and only go into “legitimate” ventures. However, the don had a difficult time doing it. Michael Corleone lamented, “Just when I thought I was out… they pulled me back in.”
Hearing that Cardinal Lamberto in the Vatican is a good and honest man Corleone visits the Cardinal for advice, and to tell him a legitimate business deal involving the Vatican Bank had gone bad because of unscrupulous people with connections to the Vatican. Cardinal Lamberto listens to Michael.
During their discussions Lamberto picks up a stone from a fountain and says, “Look at this stone. It has been lying in the water for a very long time. The water has not penetrated it.” Then Lamberto breaks the stone in two on the edge of the fountain. “Look, perfectly dry. The same thing has happened to people in Europe. For centuries, they have been surrounded by Christianity, but Christ has not penetrated. Christ doesn’t live within them.”
This particular scene reminded me of John Calvin, not because of Michael Corleone, but because of the stone. John Calvin was surrounded by Christianity, but Christ did not live within him, he was unchanged.
They made their hearts as hard as stone, so they could not hear the law or the messages that the LORD Almighty had sent them by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. Zechariah 7:12
By the way, John Calvin was not alone in his persecution of those who challenged or questioned him.
Martin Luther signed a paper in 1536 that agreed that preachers who questioned basic Christian doctrines and continued to do so under penalty of death, ought to be executed by the state. Regarding the Jews, Martin Luther advised that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings were to be taken from them and safe-conduct on the highways was to be abolished. Jewish rabbis were forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.
And don’t think this is not that big a deal today as it transpired nearly 500 years ago. Messianic Christians, Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, will tell you that even today this is one reason why Jews are distrustful of the Gospel and still think today that this is what Christianity represents.
John Knox:
Went to Geneva three times to study with John Calvin claiming John Calvin’s Geneva was “The most perfect school of Christ that ever was on earth since the days of the Apostles.”
In Scotland, John Knox was involved in a successful plot to murder Cardinal Beaton in 1546. The assassination was approved and applauded by Knox, who describes the deed with a gleeful and mocking levity.
Twenty years later when Queen Mary’s counselor was brutally stabbed to death in 1566 Knox stated, “…the act was most just and worthy of all praise.”
Huldrych Zwingli, the founder of the Swiss Reformed Churches, mercilessly persecuted Anabaptists and other followers of Christ who maintained a nonresistant stance with imprisonment, torture, banishment and death. Under Zwingli’s influence, penalties of drowning, burning or beheading were decreed by the (civil) Council.
The guidance of the Holy Spirit and the living water of Christianity appears not to have penetrated the hearts of these men. Yet, in a very lame attempt to excuse them, the following is from a pro-Calvin site:
JOHN CALVIN: FROM SECOND REFORM IN GENEVA TO DEATH (1541-1564)
Reformation Men and Theology, Lesson 8 of 11 by Dr. Jack L. Arnold
Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics (Lev. 24:16).
Calvin also felt himself providentially called to purify the church of all corruptions, and to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct toward Servetus.
We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards.
Sorry Dr. Arnold, John Calvin is not being judged by “our twentieth century standards” as you opine nor should he be judged by “the spirit of the day” as you suggest.
John Calvin, as we all are, is judged by the words of Christ Jesus. Jesus and his Disciples are clear on how we should deal not only with our enemies but also how to handle doctrinal issues.
Nowhere in the New Testament have I found that the use of torture, disemboweling, drowning or burning at the stake were even remotely hinted at much less permitted by Jesus or the early church that, ironically, spread like wildfire with no need of such means.
Dr. Arnold claims “The treatment of heretics was an error of the age.”
That might be a fair statement if John Calvin had not read the words of Christ Jesus. No, John Calvin is regarded by those in the Reformed Theology camp as a great exegete and as such Dr. Arnold cannot use the lame excuse he suggests, that “everyone else was doing it.”
As Dr. Arnold points out, John Calvin “to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct.” I have yet to see any evidence that John Calvin ever repented of his acts, but I have read many times where he boasted of them.
Again, show me where John Calvin ever “changed” as a result of being a true follower of Christ. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
In the Introduction to Chapter I of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), Loraine Boettner wrote that John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Zwingli were, “among the past and present advocates of this doctrine are to be found some of the world’s greatest and wisest men.” Clearly they neither understood nor practiced the very basics of Christianity. I have to question Boettner if he thinks these were among the world’s greatest and wisest men!
Why should I or anyone trust men who don’t grasp or implement the clear teaching by Jesus or his Disciples on how we should deal with others? If supposed great exegetes of the Gospel of Christ like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox or even Augustine before them, can’t be trusted to understand and follow the basics of Christianity why should we accept them on basic, but important, doctrine that they have gotten wrong in numerous instances and then used extreme and violent measures to enforce?
But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable. The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who deal with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. Jeremiah 2:7-8
Great leaders lead by example. In the case of men like John Calvin should we follow their examples and torture, disembowel, drown or burn at the stake those who we disagree with on doctrinal issues? If not, let’s quit ignoring or glossing over their horrible deeds and examples,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Calvinists state: “Finding out who He (Christ) is can be confusing”
As I was coming home from work today I noticed on the marquee of a local Presbyterian church the title of this week’s sermon:
“Curious About Reformed Theology?”
Clearly they don’t believe in predestination, because if they did they’d know it’s a waste of time trying to convince people of something they don’t have a choice in believing or not believing….
When I got home I looked up their mission statement.
It reads:
“We believe that God created us for a relationship with Him and with one another. Today, finding out who He is can be confusing. We want to have a conversation with you about God and His Son, Jesus.”
Confusing? Wait a minute, I thought there was nothing we could do to draw people to Jesus… I thought we have no choice in the matter to accept Him (e.g. have a relationship with Him).
According to Reformed Theology either one is predestined to have a relationship with God or they are predestined not to have a relationship with God. Sounds pretty straight forward to me from their Reformed Theology perspective, they believe that nothing the Presbyterian church can say or do will change anyone if God has already predetermined that He does or doesn’t want a relationship with them…
They’d be better off telling people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ than wasting time on the Gospel of John Calvin.
The interesting thing about Reformed Theology using Augustine to make the case for their doctrine of predestination is that Augustine also espoused many other doctrinal ideas that most of those who profess to be Calvinist today, as well as most “Bible Believing” Protestants reject:
Augustine stated that a person cannot know if they are going to Heaven or Hell. This is a position in both Calvinism and Islam.
Mary is the only hope for sinners and can lead to salvation.
Unbaptized infants are eternally damned. John Calvin and Martin Luther believed this as well and had believers tortured and killed who determined that infant baptism was not scriptural and were later baptized as adults.
All in all, it was not a pretty time, and one wonders at how few actually appear to have had access to, or were reading and absorbing the living Word of God.
I have never found any Scriptural basis to believe our God predestined any of us for an evil result.
We, the human race have proven ourselves to be adapt at choosing evil of our own free will, then seeking desperately someone to blame.
Without the love, sacrifice and acceptance of Jesus Christ, we would be a most pitiful lot indeed.
Rose42 wrote:
Good article! The war is very real. If we are too comfortable or don't have any conflict then something is awry.
I have a question though about the doctrine of predestination. I've not been a Christian as long as many others and am not as well versed. Its my understanding that God has predetermined those who will be saved. That however does not absolve us from any responsibility or decision making on our part. It also doesn't take away our free will or absolve us of the responsibility of witnessing to others.
Is that incorrect?
Good article! The war is very real. If we are to... (
show quote)