For the reasons already mentioned. The idea is quite straightforward: all of these pastors claim to believe in "sola scriptura" but what they really believe in is Reformation theology (Calvin, etc). And Reformation theology has been influenced by Roman Catholic non-biblical presuppositions and beliefs. When this is pointed out to them by scholars such as N T Wright people like Piper respond by saying "don't pay any attention to the historical-critical method, it'll lead you astray".
No. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that because the Roman Catholic Church said it therefore its wrong. What I am saying is this: the Reformers were all for "sola scriptura", but as we all know, its impossible to read a text without reading into it certain presuppositions coming from our own intellectual and cultural formation. The Reformers were really taking for granted certain theological presuppositions taken over from the RCC and reading them back into scripture. That's my point.
As is the mother, so are her daughters. Calvinists killed heretics like Rome did. This CAN'T be whitewashed. Calvinists get their theology from a murderer. 1Jn_3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
***** Then why do you call yourself a "Calvinist"? He was Caiaphas incarnate, and the enemy of the God of the Bible. He would have pressured Pilate to crucify Jesus!
I might be wrong about John Piper; but- I repeat- it is an honestly held opinion. It seems to me that we have to use all the tools we can to understand texts that were written 2000 years ago- its the old problem of eisegesis. The Western Tradition has been profoundly influenced by St Augustine; but supposing that he was wrong? Supposing that the Eastern Tradition, which is suspicious of Augustine, is correct? I just think its so important to stand back from tradition... and question!
Yes, I'm aware that they disagree. However, John Piper, et al, are suspicious of historical-critical Biblical exegesis, but I think this is a little odd for someone claiming to be "sola scriptura". The historical-critical method places these texts in their historical context and then attempts to get at the meaning. Piper reads the Bible through the lense of the Reformers who didn't have the tools of modern exegesis. What is NPP? I have no idea.
Its an honestly held position. I do think there is a sense in which John Piper is unconsciously "sola Calvino" than "sola scriptura". I might be wrong, but its an honestly held view. Certainly his suspicion of the historical-critical method takes it for granted that we already know what the NT means; and I think that assumes that the Reformers get it all right. Its almost setting up Calvin as a kind of Pope figure: Calvin, after all, is held to be almost infallible in his Institutes.
No, no, no! You are missing the point. Protestants believe in "sola scriptura" but whenever we read the Bible it is difficult not to read into the text our own culturally determined presuppositions and beliefs. You mentioned Paul and Augustine as influences on Calvin's double predestination doctrine. You're making my point for me! What you really mean is: Calvin was influenced by Augustine's reading of Paul (i.,e, Western tradition). The East disagree; as do scholars such as N T Wright.
For instance: Luther's doctrine of "sola fide" is impossible without the background knowledge of the RC system of the acquired merits of Christ and the Saints which can then be distributed to the faithful penitents. This is not my view; its the consensus of scholars. All I am suggesting is that in every exegesis there is eisegesis: reading a text also means reading INTO a text certain of our own presupposition. This is why Eastern and Western Christians see things so differently.
Because Protestants are working from a set of theological assumptions that are derived from the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, if you read Alister McGrath's book on John Calvin you'll discover that his doctrine of double predestination is impossible without Calvin's knowledge of scholastic theology. There are hidden presuppositions that Protestants have derived from Catholics that they don't share with other Christians, such as Coptics and Eastern Orthodox.
These "sola scriptura" pastors seem completely unaware that the interpretation of scripture that they have which comes down from the Reformers has been influenced by Roman Catholicism; and therefore the battle cry of "sola scriptura" looks somewhat hollow. You cannot read a text as complicated as the Bible without reading it through the prism of your own culturally shaped intellect. These pastors haven't taken that on board yet.
"You seem to know a whole deal about how Piper reads Scripture". Was this sarcasm? I don't know why we have to descend to this?! Piper himself tells us how he reads scripture. Yes, the New Perspective on Paul. Piper is suspicious of the historical-critical method as it might lead one astray; but you cannot understand a text unless you place it within its context. Piper is clearly anxious that his Calvin-derived exegesis of scripture won't be confirmed by exegesis. Sola scriptura or sola calvin?
In summary, my position is this. Let's not make Reformation theology the infallible truth. There might be as many errors as insights in the Reformation Tradition. Indeed, the Reformers disagreed with one another. Think of the differences between Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. And then later thinkers such as Hegel and Schleiermacher. I think Protestantism- if it really believes in "sola scriptura"- should be constantly in search of the truth. We learn more all the time.
OK so Moses the writer of the first 4 books of the Bible and initiate of the law murdered a man in his unsuccessful early attempt to lead Israel. David had a man murdered because he accidentally knocked up his wife. Peter the apostle committed attempted murder during the arrest of Jesus. All of these men penned the scriptures that are the foundation of our very belief systems. Our Father chooses men who fail, so that he may glorify himself when he lifts them above their own wretchedness to accomplish great things. What Calvin did, and at whatever level he was involved was wrong. But it is stupidity to discount a set of doctrinal principles based on the whole sum of a mans actions. I am sure I could follow anyone of you around for a little while and fully discredit your most ardent convictions. If you want to destroy a doctrine d it with logic, evidence, exogesis, and intelligence. Stop this emotionally provocative mud slinging that distract people from the objective facts. It is my assumption that this will not happen because you do not have a solid logical foothold to do so.
don't know where to begin. we have to evangelize a heretic, and since servetus "didn't want to" accept , then let's kill him? And We have to understand at that time, everyone kills heretics, so it's OK? He was a bad man, so let's not be too sympathetic toward him? (even though he is a human life). Thank you for being so edifying. At some point in time, slavery was ok , so we can laugh about it now and justify it? of course not. Old men puffing cigars in a room, talking about a green-wood burning that lasted 30 minutes, and how Calvin was not responsible, but even if he was, it was ok.
As I listen to these men justify Calvin, I am filled with contempt and disgust. They leave no doubt that they would do the same as Calvin did. Calvin never repented for his part in the murder of Servetus. In fact, several times he defended his actions and indicated he would do it again. As just one instance of this, Calvin stated," Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt...Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." The man was proud of what he did and would have people executed just for disagreeing that he was wrong. Calvin was not a Christian in any sense of the term and the men on the stage are as revolting as Calvin himself.
+Jack Palkovic Umm, no, not EVERY SINGLE PERSON ALIVE AT THE TIME. This particular incident caused MANY PEOPLE AT THAT TIME to also be revolted at Calvin's actions. It is considered by many a turning point in the struggle for freedom of conscience. The martyrdom of Servetus brought about many new reforms in religious thought. Sebastian Castellio and many other contemporary scholars were outraged over what they deemed a blatant murder committed by Calvin. If you want quotes, I can provide pages upon pages of them. Before you take to public comments, know your history, don't just parrot something you've heard from another Calvinist. Using your logic leads to overlooking almost everyone who has committed heinous sins like Calvin. Jesus did not use this logic when rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees, nor did the Apostles when they were preaching or writing the New Testament. At no time in history has the excuse "Everybody is doing it" been a valid reason for justifying any sin, much less murder. It's not "modern American" values or any other cultural values that matter. The only thing that matters is Biblical values. If you use any other standard, you are deceiving yourself. And by reading your comments, it appears your self deception is deeply rooted. I only pray that I am never under the authority of someone who thinks as you. Sadly, you seem to be the typical Calvinist, which is to say you are no different than the Catholic system from which you sprang.
+Shane Meredith I repeat, you do realize that Calvin is irrelevant and not the issue. God's sovereign election unto salvation is all through the scriptures. Questions?
+rdftreeman I couldn't find where you or anyone else said this previously, so I don't know why you said "I repeat". It may be in previous comments to/by someone else. Perhaps I didn't look back far enough or I just missed it entirely. Regardless, the title of this video is "Desiring God Conference Discussion On The Life Of John Calvin", so yes, Calvin is a little more than relevant, HE IS THE MAIN ISSUE. How anyone can miss that is beyond me. But more to the point, when an unrepentant murderer ( and all in the name of God, no less ) is praised as a saint and his sins dismissed with the lame discourse given by each of the panel's participants, it demonstrates that their wisdom and spiritual discernment is warped. One can not and should not trust them on anything else. Anyone watching this video and is not appalled needs to do some serious soul searching. The crowd and panel laughter at 0.45 when Servetus is mentioned is just utterly disgusting. How can one laugh so heartily at a man being burned alive!!!!!!! I want no fellowhip with people so vile and callused. I would no more carry the title "Calvinist" than I would the title "Mansonist".
+Jack Palkovic >>>Are all the city councilors murderers? If they voted to put Servetus to death, then the answer is Yes. >>> Was Melanchton? Short Answer : Yes. >>> Were the vast majority of the Genevan elders? Short Answer : Yes. >>> Was Heinrich Bullinger? Short Answer : Yes. >>> Is Calvin an "unrepentant murderer" because he believed what the city council did was right, made the decision, or did not do everything he could to stop the condemnation. Yes to all. If there is any doubt about this, just take Calvin at his own word : "Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." Please explain how any man like this is Christ-like? Please explain why we should give any credence to anything a man like this says? This man is as anti-christ as any Isis member today. Do you agree with Calvin that people such as I should be burned alive? >>>"Because, again, almost everybody alive at that time would probably fall upon your anathema." You are incorrect. You need to study the issue some more. But even if you were correct, please explain how this makes "almost everybody alive at that time" right? If the majority of people believe that you must be able to speak in tongues to be a christian, does that make them right? If right and wrong is determined by the majority, what does that mean? Is this the majority of a city, state, country, or the whole world. Who do we consult now for the majority opinion? Do I just guess at it? Who determines today who we can put to death for heresy? I really would like to know this, because I've got a list mile long of people like Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn that I would like to get rid of. >>> I can get into a discussion about the relatively small group of >>> fringe individuals that had grudges against Calvin on other >>> matters, like you do, and used the Servetus affair as a stick >>> to beat him with. You are incorrect about the size of the group. But even if the size of the group was zero, it changes nothing. Please give at least one example where God has told us view matters like this in terms of what the majority of people think instead of what God has told us? I do not "have a grudge against Calvin in other matters". I do not want to "use the Servetus affair as a stick to beat him with." Calvin died a long time ago. He was what he was and only he will have to answer for that. I do however, "have a grudge" against people holding him as some great theologian and saint of God. He was neither. He was a vile man, not worthy to be held in high esteem by anyone. >>> I am actually writing a bibliographical essay ..... Unless your eyes are opened while you are researching this, it will be a complete waste of your time. There are probably a million other things that would be more profitable to you.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
For the reasons already mentioned.
The idea is quite straightforward: all of these pastors claim to believe in "sola scriptura" but what they really believe in is Reformation theology (Calvin, etc). And Reformation theology has been influenced by Roman Catholic non-biblical presuppositions and beliefs. When this is pointed out to them by scholars such as N T Wright people like Piper respond by saying "don't pay any attention to the historical-critical method, it'll lead you astray".
Word one says it all "Desiring"
No. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that because the Roman Catholic Church said it therefore its wrong. What I am saying is this: the Reformers were all for "sola scriptura", but as we all know, its impossible to read a text without reading into it certain presuppositions coming from our own intellectual and cultural formation. The Reformers were really taking for granted certain theological presuppositions taken over from the RCC and reading them back into scripture. That's my point.
As is the mother, so are her daughters. Calvinists killed heretics like Rome did. This CAN'T be whitewashed.
Calvinists get their theology from a murderer.
1Jn_3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
***** Then why do you call yourself a "Calvinist"? He was Caiaphas incarnate, and the enemy of the God of the Bible.
He would have pressured Pilate to crucify Jesus!
Genetic fallacy alert!
I might be wrong about John Piper; but- I repeat- it is an honestly held opinion. It seems to me that we have to use all the tools we can to understand texts that were written 2000 years ago- its the old problem of eisegesis. The Western Tradition has been profoundly influenced by St Augustine; but supposing that he was wrong? Supposing that the Eastern Tradition, which is suspicious of Augustine, is correct? I just think its so important to stand back from tradition... and question!
Is the discussion topic really 'John Calvin's life'?
Yes, I'm aware that they disagree. However, John Piper, et al, are suspicious of historical-critical Biblical exegesis, but I think this is a little odd for someone claiming to be "sola scriptura". The historical-critical method places these texts in their historical context and then attempts to get at the meaning. Piper reads the Bible through the lense of the Reformers who didn't have the tools of modern exegesis.
What is NPP? I have no idea.
Its an honestly held position. I do think there is a sense in which John Piper is unconsciously "sola Calvino" than "sola scriptura". I might be wrong, but its an honestly held view. Certainly his suspicion of the historical-critical method takes it for granted that we already know what the NT means; and I think that assumes that the Reformers get it all right. Its almost setting up Calvin as a kind of Pope figure: Calvin, after all, is held to be almost infallible in his Institutes.
No, no, no! You are missing the point. Protestants believe in "sola scriptura" but whenever we read the Bible it is difficult not to read into the text our own culturally determined presuppositions and beliefs. You mentioned Paul and Augustine as influences on Calvin's double predestination doctrine. You're making my point for me! What you really mean is: Calvin was influenced by Augustine's reading of Paul (i.,e, Western tradition). The East disagree; as do scholars such as N T Wright.
For instance: Luther's doctrine of "sola fide" is impossible without the background knowledge of the RC system of the acquired merits of Christ and the Saints which can then be distributed to the faithful penitents. This is not my view; its the consensus of scholars. All I am suggesting is that in every exegesis there is eisegesis: reading a text also means reading INTO a text certain of our own presupposition. This is why Eastern and Western Christians see things so differently.
So what you're saying is that we just cannot understand what God wanted to communicate to us through the Bible, right?
www.patreon.com/m/AfricaWithoutBorders
Because Protestants are working from a set of theological assumptions that are derived from the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, if you read Alister McGrath's book on John Calvin you'll discover that his doctrine of double predestination is impossible without Calvin's knowledge of scholastic theology. There are hidden presuppositions that Protestants have derived from Catholics that they don't share with other Christians, such as Coptics and Eastern Orthodox.
These "sola scriptura" pastors seem completely unaware that the interpretation of scripture that they have which comes down from the Reformers has been influenced by Roman Catholicism; and therefore the battle cry of "sola scriptura" looks somewhat hollow. You cannot read a text as complicated as the Bible without reading it through the prism of your own culturally shaped intellect. These pastors haven't taken that on board yet.
"You seem to know a whole deal about how Piper reads Scripture". Was this sarcasm? I don't know why we have to descend to this?! Piper himself tells us how he reads scripture.
Yes, the New Perspective on Paul. Piper is suspicious of the historical-critical method as it might lead one astray; but you cannot understand a text unless you place it within its context. Piper is clearly anxious that his Calvin-derived exegesis of scripture won't be confirmed by exegesis. Sola scriptura or sola calvin?
In summary, my position is this. Let's not make Reformation theology the infallible truth. There might be as many errors as insights in the Reformation Tradition. Indeed, the Reformers disagreed with one another. Think of the differences between Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. And then later thinkers such as Hegel and Schleiermacher. I think Protestantism- if it really believes in "sola scriptura"- should be constantly in search of the truth. We learn more all the time.
Doug Wilson is the man.
OK so Moses the writer of the first 4 books of the Bible and initiate of the law murdered a man in his unsuccessful early attempt to lead Israel. David had a man murdered because he accidentally knocked up his wife. Peter the apostle committed attempted murder during the arrest of Jesus. All of these men penned the scriptures that are the foundation of our very belief systems. Our Father chooses men who fail, so that he may glorify himself when he lifts them above their own wretchedness to accomplish great things. What Calvin did, and at whatever level he was involved was wrong. But it is stupidity to discount a set of doctrinal principles based on the whole sum of a mans actions. I am sure I could follow anyone of you around for a little while and fully discredit your most ardent convictions. If you want to destroy a doctrine d it with logic, evidence, exogesis, and intelligence. Stop this emotionally provocative mud slinging that distract people from the objective facts. It is my assumption that this will not happen because you do not have a solid logical foothold to do so.
don't know where to begin. we have to evangelize a heretic, and since servetus "didn't want to" accept , then let's kill him? And We have to understand at that time, everyone kills heretics, so it's OK? He was a bad man, so let's not be too sympathetic toward him? (even though he is a human life). Thank you for being so edifying. At some point in time, slavery was ok , so we can laugh about it now and justify it? of course not. Old men puffing cigars in a room, talking about a green-wood burning that lasted 30 minutes, and how Calvin was not responsible, but even if he was, it was ok.
As I listen to these men justify Calvin, I am filled with contempt and disgust. They leave no doubt that they would do the same as Calvin did.
Calvin never repented for his part in the murder of Servetus. In fact, several times he defended his actions and indicated he would do it again. As just one instance of this, Calvin stated," Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt...Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
The man was proud of what he did and would have people executed just for disagreeing that he was wrong. Calvin was not a Christian in any sense of the term and the men on the stage are as revolting as Calvin himself.
+Jack Palkovic Umm, no, not EVERY SINGLE PERSON ALIVE AT THE TIME. This particular incident caused MANY PEOPLE AT THAT TIME to also be revolted at Calvin's actions. It is considered by many a turning point in the struggle for freedom of conscience. The martyrdom of Servetus brought about many new reforms in religious thought. Sebastian Castellio and many other contemporary scholars were outraged over what they deemed a blatant murder committed by Calvin. If you want quotes, I can provide pages upon pages of them. Before you take to public comments, know your history, don't just parrot something you've heard from another Calvinist.
Using your logic leads to overlooking almost everyone who has committed heinous sins like Calvin. Jesus did not use this logic when rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees, nor did the Apostles when they were preaching or writing the New Testament. At no time in history has the excuse "Everybody is doing it" been a valid reason for justifying any sin, much less murder.
It's not "modern American" values or any other cultural values that matter. The only thing that matters is Biblical values. If you use any other standard, you are deceiving yourself. And by reading your comments, it appears your self deception is deeply rooted. I only pray that I am never under the authority of someone who thinks as you. Sadly, you seem to be the typical Calvinist, which is to say you are no different than the Catholic system from which you sprang.
+Shane Meredith I repeat, you do realize that Calvin is irrelevant and not the issue.
God's sovereign election unto salvation is all through the scriptures. Questions?
+rdftreeman I couldn't find where you or anyone else said this previously, so I don't know why you said "I repeat". It may be in previous comments to/by someone else. Perhaps I didn't look back far enough or I just missed it entirely.
Regardless, the title of this video is "Desiring God Conference Discussion On The Life Of John Calvin", so yes, Calvin is a little more than relevant, HE IS THE MAIN ISSUE.
How anyone can miss that is beyond me.
But more to the point, when an unrepentant murderer ( and all in the name of God, no less ) is praised as a saint and his sins dismissed with the lame discourse given by each of the panel's participants, it demonstrates that their wisdom and spiritual discernment is warped. One can not and should not trust them on anything else.
Anyone watching this video and is not appalled needs to do some serious soul searching.
The crowd and panel laughter at 0.45 when Servetus is mentioned is just utterly disgusting.
How can one laugh so heartily at a man being burned alive!!!!!!!
I want no fellowhip with people so vile and callused. I would no more carry the title "Calvinist" than I would the title "Mansonist".
+Jack Palkovic
>>>Are all the city councilors murderers?
If they voted to put Servetus to death, then the answer is Yes.
>>> Was Melanchton?
Short Answer : Yes.
>>> Were the vast majority of the Genevan elders?
Short Answer : Yes.
>>> Was Heinrich Bullinger?
Short Answer : Yes.
>>> Is Calvin an "unrepentant murderer" because he believed what the city council did was right, made the decision, or did not do everything he could to stop the condemnation.
Yes to all. If there is any doubt about this, just take Calvin at his own word : "Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
Please explain how any man like this is Christ-like?
Please explain why we should give any credence to anything a man like this says?
This man is as anti-christ as any Isis member today.
Do you agree with Calvin that people such as I should be burned alive?
>>>"Because, again, almost everybody alive at that time would probably fall upon your anathema."
You are incorrect.
You need to study the issue some more.
But even if you were correct, please explain how this makes "almost everybody alive at that time" right? If the majority of people believe that you must be able to speak in tongues to be a christian, does that make them right?
If right and wrong is determined by the majority, what does that mean? Is this the majority of a city, state, country, or the whole world. Who do we consult now for the majority opinion? Do I just guess at it? Who determines today who we can put to death for heresy? I really would like to know this, because I've got a list mile long of people like Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn that I would like to get rid of.
>>> I can get into a discussion about the relatively small group of
>>> fringe individuals that had grudges against Calvin on other
>>> matters, like you do, and used the Servetus affair as a stick
>>> to beat him with.
You are incorrect about the size of the group.
But even if the size of the group was zero, it changes nothing.
Please give at least one example where God has told us view matters like this in terms of what the majority of people think instead of what God has told us?
I do not "have a grudge against Calvin in other matters".
I do not want to "use the Servetus affair as a stick to beat him with."
Calvin died a long time ago. He was what he was and only he will have to answer for that.
I do however, "have a grudge" against people holding him as some great theologian and saint of God. He was neither. He was a vile man, not worthy to be held in high esteem by anyone.
>>> I am actually writing a bibliographical essay .....
Unless your eyes are opened while you are researching this, it will be a complete waste of your time. There are probably a million other things that would be more profitable to you.
+Shane Meredith
Shane, are you a murderer?
lol Doug is post millennial didn't he?
Calvin was the spiritual heir of Caiaphas---full of spiritual pride, and hatred of God and man.
He would have pressured Pilate to crucify Jesus!
You obviously have not read any Calvin books and sermons lol
John Calvin and Martin Luther were amtisemetic
So