I sort-of wonder whether the fullness of Israel being saved upon the fullness of the Gentiles coming into the ecclesia, has ot do with (1) the spreading of Hebrew blood through all the world; and (2) (and more likely) the concept that (as in Rom 11) we Gentiles are being saved into the promises of Israel and thus into Israel itself. (The vine grafting analogy being a key thing there; also very much related to that ‘kolasis’ idea which got brought up for debate again recently. Mental note to get back to the kolasis discussion sometime before winter… )
So in regard to (2), ‘all Israel’ cannot be saved until all Gentiles are brought into the vine of Israel; because God potentially (and ‘actually’ from His eternal standpoint) sees us as Israel, too.
(As JohnBapt remonstrated the Pharisees and Sadducees who had come down to be baptized for repentance: “And don’t be saying to yourselves, ‘Well, we have Abraham for our father!’ For God can raise up sons of Abraham from these very stones!” Aside from being literally true, whether immediately or through a billion-year process, there is almost certainly a Hebrew pun going on in the background, where ‘stone’ means ‘son’; and an Aramaic colloquialism where ‘stones’ refer to the pagan nations; thus was interpreted the OT saying that the stones would cry out praise to God. Put those ideas together, and we get a powerful image of the scope of God’s intentions.)
James: I try to remember that the Calvs would say many people have been created for no other purpose than eternal damnation and total depravity for the greater glory of God.
Which doesn’t really make it any better. But to be fair that’s how Calvinists consider it. (And Arminians, too, in their own way.)
Jason’s done a fine job of summing up the historical data concerning Calvin’s involvement in Servetus’ execution. Another person who does a fine job is Cathlic Apologist Dave Armstrong. He has composed some well researched posts on Luther and Calvin’s self-centered religious doctrines, hypocrisies and moral failures.
John Calvin’s Sanction of Torture (of the Libertines) and Belief that the Extra Torment Caused by an Inept Executioner Was the “Special Will of God” socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/ … re-of.html
I’d like to add that after Servetus’ death both Calvin and Beza wrote on why public administrators ought to punish heretics. And after Servetus’ death Calvin sent letters to cities both near and far (Poland!) advocating public administrators arrest Socians (kind of like Unitarians) and punish them.
Calvin also helped draft the town’s Christian laws. Anybody missing church without a damned good reason was fined a day’s wages. Laughing in church was forbidden. Catholic practices were outlawed. After Servetus’ execution even questioning predestination was outlawed as was naming your dog “Calvin.” Calvin set up the Consistory that was able to look into every matter of a person’s life. Wearing split-breeches was outlawed along with dancing. People were executed for witchcraft and also adultery. A few people even went so far as to commit suicide rather than face the Consistory.
Calvin spotted Servetus in the church that day, but had his servant (Calvin’s servant) be the one to make the formal accusation against Servetus as a heretic. That way Calvin could also be a chief prosecutor in the case that followed. Calvin also strove to accuse Servetus of every possible infringement against God, including citing Servetus’ translation of Ptolemy’s geography that said Palestine was a relatively barren land. Calvin said, “What a lie! He denies the Holy Spirit’s message that it was a land flowing with milk and honey!”
Calvin’s laws also led to one young child being beheaded for striking their parents. Other young children were strung up by their armpits in gallows to show that they deserved the death penalty. A few years after Calvin died some children were spotted playing outside during church and threatened with death. Women accused of various improprieties, not necessarily adultery, but even less improper activities had their heads put in cages and links of chain kept them stationed just outside the church so passersby could revile them.
One man who said a word against Calvin had to carry some heavy object round the whole city repenting on his knees, or maybe he was dragged, or maybe I’m recalling two different people and punishments. Another person was found to have composed some early atheistic form of blasphemy that spoke against the Bible, Jesus, etc. His home was searched (without a warrant of course back then) and his writings were found and he was subjected to some horrible tortures and death.
Geneva itself is interesting. Before it became Protestant it was Catholic, and the Catholics threw the Jews out. Then the Protestants threw the Catholics out. Calvin also forbade organ music, allowing only human voices to sing, not even in chorus fashion. He had the organ pipes melted down for communion cups. Geneva under Calvin’s later years threw out not only Catholics but any other Protestant sectarians who dared to dispute Calvin’s views including predestination. So only Calvinists were left.
Calvin turned the town into one of Europe’s greatest center of publishing books, especially his own books first and foremost. And they sold, they sold well, gaining the town wealth and prestige. He set up a university in Geneva too before he died. But 200 years later Geneva had undergone changes. It became a haven for some Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, who had a home on Lake Geneva. Voltaire’s deism had even invaded Calvin’s college, the president admitting doubt concerning even the existence of Satan! I’ve read that Geneva even became a leading publisher of the works of the Marquis de Sade! Well, a publishing house must stay in business and publish was sells, even if it is Voltaire and de Sade and other non-Calvinists.
Today Geneva is nearly 50% Catholic, and over the centuries they erected not one but THREE statues to Servetus, along with engraved messages asking for forgiveness for his execution in their fair town. They even went so far as to name a soccer team after Servetus.
Geneva also became home to the Red Cross, which is today known as the Red Cross and Red Crescent since Islamic charity is also involved. The Red Cross was founded by Andre Dunant, a gay man whose love letters to his male partner were burned by his family after Dunant died. Interestingly, the American branch of the Red Cross was founded by a Universalist Christian, Clara Barton.
Hyper-calvinism is the logical conclusion of calvinism. Calvin was inconsistent. If you read how he handles Ezek 18 it becomes clear that he cannot bring election and the sincere offer together but refuses to abondon either. The Arminian abandon’s predestination for the sincere offer and the hyper-calvinist relinquishes the sincere offer for predestination.Calvin, like Van Til held to both but could not reconcile them. Calvin, Van Til and Packer are of the school that says these things cannot be reconciled by the human mind. They are antinomies , mysteries or apparent contradictions.
The truth is that they can be reconciled. All you need to do is jetison the error of eternal damnation and it all fits together. Talbot’s discussion of Calvinism and Arminians shows that both are holding to one truth but rejecting the other equally scriptural truth. Why? Because if ET is true the other two cannot be.
The Arminaian’s starting point is not really free will, it is the love of God. Free will is their way of coping with how God could torment people forever. Calvinism does not deny man the ability to make free choices if by free we mean apart from external coercion. What Calvinist’s deny is that man will ever choose to convert unless God does something to a man’s nature first. Man’s will is in bondage to his nature which scripture says is evil. Like the leopard we cannot change our spots. But God can change them for us. How? Not by changing our wills but by changing our natures. Once the nature is regnerate the will chooses the good. In defending a “free will” which is disconnected with man’s fallen nature, which the bible does not teach anywhere, the Arminian must deny the binding power of man’s fallen nature on our free choices which the bible clearly sets forth everywhere. Rom 8, Jer 23, etc.
They mean well but arminianism is misguided. Incidentally I find it incredible that anyone could believe that God, whose knowledge is infinite could not convince us to do what he wants when even a good car salesman can do this. We’re talking about God here not man. How silly to say he could not convince a man to do what he wants. That makes no sense at all.
wmb2003 I laughed out loud when I read that line - excellent! God hasn’t got the persuasory skills of a car salesman (and it’s not like he’s peddling a dodgy product either is it )
Funnily enough with all the talk around here about the Jubilee your other comments concerning Calvinism and Arminianism regarding free will struck a chord. One is free to reject a kinsman redeemer with one’s free will (wide path to destruction) only until the great Jubilee when one is set free. The earlier one switches master (narrow path to life) the sooner the benefits are gained.
I agree, wmb. It seems like the crux of the argument from the other side is not that He can’t convince, but He won’t. (The, “God is too much of a gentleman” argument.)
Yep - he’s not going to force anyone to not to suffer forever, if that’s what they really really want. Way to kind for those sort of strong-arming tactics.
It’s amazing too how God had changed since the last century when He gleefully tossed the wicked into the eternal fire! Now He’s evolved into a perfect gentleman who steps aside and simply lets people fall in there.
)
)