The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Covenantal Succession

Pilgrim,

I have read the document "Was Geneva a Theocracy?" by Dr. Michael Horton. I have observed the following:

1) Dr. Horton is the vice-chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and therefore has impeccable credentials. Dr. John MacArthur is president of The Master's College and Seminary and his credentials are equally impeccable. Do you agree?

2) Dr. Horton wrote this document in 1992 and Dr. MacArthur wrote his book in 1994. I have no knowledge of whether or not Dr. MacArthur knew of the Dr. Horton document, but it is possible he did. It is certain that Dr. Horton did not know of the MacArthur book, since it wasn't written until 2 years after his document. Do you agree?

3) If Dr. MacArthur was aware of Dr. Horton's paper, I can only assume he would take Dr. Horton's testimony into consideration before saying Calvin committed atrocities by sanctioning the burning of Servetes. Do you agree?

4) Both Dr. Horton and Dr. MacArthur are Calvinists. I could have presented testimony from Arminians and Wesleyans as to the character of John Calvin, however, you would have dismissed their testimony as biased. Would you agree that the testimony of Dr. MacArthur is unbiased toward John Calvin?

5) The best way to resolve this conflicting testimony is to ask both Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Horton to give further input, since they wrote their testimony and are fully aware of the sources they used. Do you agree?

Yours in Christ,
George Fitt

Michele,

Thanks for pointing out the bad link. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" /> It has been corrected in the previous post and here it is again just for you! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Was Geneva a Theocracy?, by Dr. Michael Horton.

1saved,

There isn't much in your several questions that I can agree with. But I do agree that, 1) Both Horton and MacArthur are notable men and are Calvinists.

I can't answer why MacArthur wrote what he did and I'm not privy to the context from which you took the quote which he wrote. What I do know is the historical record; the FACTS of what was going on in Geneva at the time that Calvin was pastoring there according to the writings of reliable historians. What Horton wrote is historically accurate according to what I have also read. Now, if one wants to embellish the historical record with a biased opinion of what Calvin's role was in the trial, conviction and execution of Servetus, there isn't much I can do except point out the FACTS.

The FACT is, Calvin had no power and not much more influence on the government or courts in Geneva during his stay there at the time Servetus was brought to trial. It was the established law in Geneva as it was in other provinces that blasphemy and serious heresy were capital crimes and punishable by death. John Calvin didn't write the laws. John Calvin wasn't appointed a Judge in the court. John Calvin wasn't even part of the legislative government. How anyone can accuse him of the "murder" of Michael Servetus is beyond me.

Now, if you have some salient historical records which you can produce to show that John Calvin was directly involved in Servetus' execution or that he had significant influence in his death, I would love to see it. Otherwise, anything contrary I consider to be slanderous and prejudicial against the man. Again.... John Calvin was a sinner. He was more aware of that fact than anyone. He was not therefore perfect and he erred both in doctrine life. But what he was not guilty of was the crime/sin of murder.

Lastly, and I want to challenge you once again on your original statement concerning John Calvin, i.e., that in your estimation, the man did not exhibit "fruit of the Spirit" and is therefore to be considered a reprobate and hardly a source of truth. Either defend your statement or recant it.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Muchos Gracias, merci beaucoup etc etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I will read it as soon as I can.

You know, I have been looking and looking for something that Spurgeon said, but I just cannot find it.. so you all will have to suffer with my own little dopey interpretation for now lol.

For a long time, I thought that anyone that didn't hold 100% to what I thought was true was a heretic. I remember when I read Luther's 95 (or was it 96?)theses, I called him a heretic, and wondered how in the world he became so very famous! Well.. I have since changed my attitude (obviously) and I came across something that spurgeon said about him. It made sense, and I had to reassess my thinking. I was also much more softened in some areas! But he said that while Martin Luther was not correct in a lot of his doctrine, he was so wrapped up in, enamoured with, and happy about the fact that we are saved by grace, through faith. That it was him who was the beginner of these things..the breakaway from the Roman Catholic church.

I know I made absolute mincemeat out of what he said! I am sure I will find it.. it may just take awhile lol. I have a friend too, who thinks everyone is a heretic. Everyone but her that is. It's just a tad scary. She has also never heard of the process of sanctification. I thought that was strange. She is the one who told me of Calvin and how he condemned a man to death, and told them to get the greenest wood possible so that he would die a horrible death. She said that she could never follow a man like that. That he did not have the holy spirit.

After awhile, I found some writings on this. And read for myself that it was not so. So, I thought, "okay, here is this gal, who is my friend, who does not put herself under the authority of any, has lied over and over, slandered people I know, and has given me this information about John Calvin. Who should I believe??" Well.. duh. lol.

So what Pilgrim wrote sort of reminded me of all that. What I am wondering though, are you (saved1.. I am pretty sure!) trying to attack Calvins character and question his salvation in order to prove a point? Like that covenantal succession is true? Or what?

Michele

Michele,

Yes, I'm trying to make a point.

No, I have not slandered John Calvin as Pilgrim would have you believe.

You said here that a friend of yours said something negative about John Calvin. By reporting what your friend said, you didn't slander Calvin, if anyone slandered Calvin, your friend did. Right?

Well, it's the same situation. I reported what Dr. MacArthur said about Calvin. If anyone slandered Calvin, it was Dr. MacArthur, not me.

Pilgrim has already admitted that Dr. MacArthur is a reliable, knowledgeable Christian and a respected follower of John Calvin, who wouldn't say anything bad about Calvin unless he thought it were true.

The question now becomes is it true or is it not true? One man says it is and one man says it isn't and each are equally respected Bible teachers. How can anyone know?

I say ask them, but Pilgrim doesn't want to ask them. Is he afraid of what they might say?

You are having a problem with understanding the English language, perhaps? I never said any such thing. What I said was:

But I do agree that, 1) Both Horton and MacArthur are notable men and are Calvinists.

Where you got that MacArthur or even Horton for that matter, is a "respected follower of John Calvin", is simply amazing. The FACT is that MacArthur is hardly a follower of John Calvin; he's a Reformed Baptist who also holds to "Progressive Dispensationalism"; hardly what Calvin believed and taught. And there are myriad other differences between the two men.

What I also know is that you have hijacked this thread to promote your own agenda. Yes, I will take partially responsibility for allowing you to do that. But at this point it will cease. If you care to further your fallacious accusations of John Calvin and/or the doctrines of sovereign grace, please start a new thread. Any further remarks about this off-topic discussion here will be deleted.

In His Grace,

My first question is: what point are you trying to make?

Because you alluded to it in an earlier post, it sounds to me like you are trying to prove that John Calvin was not born again. Unless you believe that we don't receive the Holy Spirit until AFTER we are born again. I am confused about where this is going. John MacArthur said "Calvin consented." I suppose that is the thing up for dispute?

Either way, I am not sure what this has to do with covenantal succession. And I suppose it's up to you on which history you believe concerning John Calvin.

and as far as Pilgrim goes.. I don't think he's afraid of anything that either of the two men you suggested would say.

Michele

Come back Ron !

Joe comes across as a bit of a "bully" at times , but thats the "cop" in him <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I come across as bit "hard" at times, but thats the "Outlaw biker" in me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

All folk here have these type of characteristics and it helps to have "broard shoulders" when our thoughts and ideas are put out to the world for all to see and challenge.

Chin up Ron ! We love ya man <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Michele,

If I tell you my point now, you will not receive all the information leading up to the point. Sometimes the journey is more rewarding than the final destination.

This discussion Pilgrim and I are having has nothing to do with covenantal succession. From the beginning, we have both agreed covenantal succession is false doctrine.

You are right when you say it is up to each person to determine whether the testimony of Dr. Horton or the testimony of Dr. MacArthur is most believable.

I don't know Pilgrim's reason for not agreeing with me that the best way to help resolve the conflicting testimonies of Drs. Horton and MacArthur is to ask them to elaborate upon their written testimony, because he gave me no reason.

Common sense tells me what I said is true and a long history of legal precedence testifies it's true, but you'd have to ask Pilgrim why he doesn't agree; just as we would have to ask Dr. Horton and Dr. MacArthur to speak for themselves regarding what each man wrote.

The issue is not, "Would they reply?"; the issue is, "Should we ask?". Scripture says, "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you."

Are you on medication of some kind? Do you suffer from Alzheimer's disease? Are you intellectually challenged? Or, perhaps you can offer some valid reason why you have been unable to retain in your memory what I have already given as a reason; more than once in fact. I will give it to you only one more time.... Dr. Horton's article is based upon HISTORICAL RECORD! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> John Calvin had no authority whatsoever in the city of Geneva either in government or in the judiciary. Additionally, his influence was restricted, for the most part, to the ecclesiastical realm. He was thrown out of Geneva at an earlier time due to his unpopularity among the "powers that be". Therefore, there is simply no possibility that Calvin could have anything to do with Servetus' execution, which was prescribed by law. If Calvin were guilty of murder, then he would have been arrested and executed himself. So, once again I challenge YOU, not Horton not MacArthur, but YOU who had posted accusations against the man long deceased who is unable to give a defense himself, to produce HISTORICAL RECORDS which would support your fallacious and unbiblical judgments against the man. If you can't do that, then I would recommend that you keep silent.

I also told you that I would delete any further posts you made in this particular thread concerning this off-topic obsession of yours. One has already been deleted. This one to which I am replying I am not going to delete because it serves to give you public notice that if you insist on hijacking threads and/or continue to make unsubstantiated charges against people, you will be banned from this Board. As it has been said to you before, if you are desirous to discuss Calvin's role in the death of Servetus, start a new thread. I really don't know how to make it any plainer than that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Greetings Eleanor,

I read Rayburn's article a while back, and though I believe that there are some good points to be extracted from it, I also think that it suffers from overextension as he appeals to far too many texts that I don't see as relevant to the point he wants to make.

I do believe that Scripture presents us with a history of God's covenant being established along generational lines in organic fasion (albeit, not head for head), and that faithful covenant nurture is the means ordained alongside of that end.

The pragmatic outworking of such a theology means that when I raise my children faithfully according to the wisdom, love, and discipline of God's Word, that I believe they will respond in expanding levels of obedience commensurate with their capacity to do so. The promise that I believe is beautifully outlined in Psalm 103:17-18:

17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting On those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children, 18 To such as keep His covenant, And to those who remember His commandments to do them.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason

Okay George, (sorry.. I wrote Greg before!)

Duly noted. I suppose answering your private message is not necessary then <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I still do not understand at all what your point is, so I would really suggest that if you want to discuss this, start another thread and lets discuss it.

Pilgrim has more than answered your questions though. Unless there is yet another point you are trying to make. Even though you say one thing, it is responded to, and you turn around and say you didn't say that. Maybe you could slooooowwwlly read the responses Pilgrim wrote? Anyway, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, and i don't think anyone else is either. But you brought this stuff up in a thread that has nothing to do with your point (whatever that is.) Also, you have come to a discussion board that is reformed/calvinist, and try to say that our whole system of theology is heresy. You have to realize you will not be welcomed with open arms.. especially since you won't respond with coherent questions/answers.

If this is that important to you, start another thread, and let this discussion continue okay?

Michele

In my Church library we have a tape series on the history of the Church by a Church historian. At the moment I can't remember this historian’s name, but I do know that he is Arminian in his theology.
I mention this because even though he doesn't agree with Calvin about theology, he never the less said that Calvin got a bad rap. Much of what he said confirms what Dr. Horton said on the subject.

I also must agree with Pilgrim whole heartedly about Calvin being a sinner like anyone of us. Even if it could be proved that Calvin was responsible for the death of Servatus, the only thing that would prove is that he did sin.
Let me ask you this, do you believe that King David is in heaven today?
If you answer "no" you are definitely in the minority because by far the majority of Arminian and Calvinist theologians would answer "yes".
Why is that important? It is important because if you study the life of King David, you will notice that during his life he was a murderer an adulterer, etc...

I hope you get my point.

Tom

I am not absolutely sure why John Mac is being involked in this discussion, but seeing that I personally work for the guy here at his radio ministry, I just wanted to comment upon this statement from his book.
The section is from an appendix on the changing nature of Roman Catholicism. John is establishing how, through out all of church history, there is a history of persecution. I would add, that the persecution of dissenting "heretics" was due to more of a state/church monstrosity of the time, but that is neither here nor there. Suffice it to say, John is simply establishing that even though Protestant Christians, individuals we hold up as heroes of the faith, and rightly so, had their share of doing bad things in the name of Christianity. However, John goes on to say that the persecution carried out by Protestants "pale in comparison to the horrifying waves of tyranny and inhumanity carried out in the name of Roman Catholicism." John is only setting up an historical contrast.
Now, where I am a bit lost is with why John MacArthur mentioning John Calvin sanctioning Servetus's death is relevant. Are you saying, George, that John is implying that Calvin was not a Christian? Or that he has nothing worthy of his rightful honor as a tremendous contributor to Christianity and Christian thought? That would be a difficult point to establish seeing that Dr. MacArthur gave a series of lectures on the importance of preaching at the seminary chapel a few years ago, and he used John Calvin as his primary model and example of how we should preach.

Granted, John is not a Calvinist in the sense that Pilgrim mentioned, but Calvin is one of John's spiritual heroes and he would never tell anyone not to read Calvin just because Calvin partook in the death of Servetus.

By the way, not to excuse Calvin; Servetus's death was a horrific crime, but if you know anything about Servetus and his angry, stalker like personality, especially toward Calvin, he sort of had it coming.

Fred

Just to hijack this thread one step further...

Pilgrim mentioned that John MacArthur was a Progressive Dispensationalist, in contrast to Calvin. I've got "Institutes" on my computer, so I'll have to look up what Calvin's eschatology was like, but where could I find some more info on John MacArthur's in regards to this? I know he's a pre-tribber, but what past this? ("Progessive Dispensatinoalist" can mean a lot of things.)

Thanks!