I was trading emails with a fellow student this past week. Somehow a question regarding weather turned into an email correspondence of John Calvin and a State run Church. I suppose that it “somehow” turned to the State Church thing when I referred to Calvin as “murderous.” So here’s the question this friend of mine brought up: “Would it be wrong for a government, say, the State of New York, to use the Old Testament civil laws as its own laws?”
My knowledge of John Calvin is somewhat limited. But as I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Calvin helped establish the laws of Geneva during his time there. He believed very strongly that the State and the Church were to work together. Now let me say that I would have no problem with a State run Church just so long as the State was acting in a Biblical manner. However, this will never happen. I’m just being a realist. What were to happen if the State Church decided that water baptism was necessary in order to obtain salvation? In order to follow the Bible, I would have to rebel against the teachings of the State Church. If the State Church then threw its weight around, I might be punished, jailed or even killed by disobeying its mandate (law) to water baptize everyone. One of the great freedoms of America is its separation of Church and State. It must be said that this in no way, shape, or form means that the State has to ban all religious thought from its institutions (as many assume), but rather that it cannot enforce someone to practice a faith or a religion that he/she does not want to participate in.
John Calvin forced his views upon the populous through a State Church that was oppressive and murderous. This cannot be ignored, nor can it be dismissed as “okay.” I have heard it said that this was just the way things were back then, so we must be forgiving of Calvin for the way he dealt with Servetus. (He had him killed for “teaching heresy”) Was murder okay back in the garden when Cain slew Abel? No. Was murder okay when David had Uriah killed in order to marry his wife, Bathsheba? No. Was murder okay when they nailed our precious Savior to the cross? No. Then why would it be okay for Calvin to murder someone just because it was the mandate of the State-run Church? Plain and simple: it is not.
The Church should care for the things of the Church. The State should care for the things of the State. The State SHOULD NOT enforce someone to believe something they do not. Now concerning John Calvin, no Christian I know would ever force another to believe what he believed or be murdered for it. Apparently Calvin is an exception in the eyes of those who idolize him, but he is no exception in my eyes. In fact, I have nowhere read any of Calvin’s words that would even lead me to the conclusion that he was saved. Sorry Calvin idolaters, this is just from what I have read. But please, feel free to post a Calvin quote that would help me change my mind. If he has testified, through the written word, of a Biblical salvation, I have yet to read it…but would love to see it.
As we continued to trade emails, my friend asked me my thoughts concerning Erastus in the Bible. Erastus is mentioned three times in Scripture. He is mentioned in (Acts 19:22) (2 Tim 4:20) and (Rom 16:23). There is no proof that the Erastus mentioned in each verse is the same as the next…but let’s assume that he was. It is mentioned in Romans that Erastus was the Chamberlain of the city. This would mean that he was a public official – perhaps a mayor or governor. The reason I was asked about Erastus was because I had made this comment:
“Here’s my humble opinion, though given time, I think I can back it up Biblically. Role of Govt: Supress Evil. Role of Christians in Govt: Pray for Leaders.”
With that comment, I was asked about Erastus’ position as Chamberlain. The question then is this: Was Erastus the Chamberlain before or after he was saved? The fact alone that Scripture says that he was indeed the Chamberlain does not necessarily mean that Christians should enter politics any more than saying Christians should cut off people’s ears because the Scripture mentions that Peter did it. A statement of fact in the Scripture is not always a command to do – we must understand this if we are to properly interpret Scriptures. The Bible does teach this:
(1Ti 2:1-2) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
This is the role of a Christian in Government according to the Scriptures. This is not just a statement of fact, but is indeed, a God-given command for all Christians.
So to tie this whole thing together, Calvin had no Biblical basis for forcing his beliefs on Geneva (or any other populous) because of his own personal convictions. Even God Almighty does not force a human to believe – though He desires all men to come unto the knowledge of the truth. It is best for the Christian to stay out of politics, but rather to focus his energies on winning others to Christ. If a political leader gets saved, he should not focus his life on changing laws to conform to Old Testament laws – but should spend him time evangelizing the lost and ministering to the saints. After all, why would a government want to adopt the Old Testament Law? It is a curse, Christian…remember? I do not live by the law, but by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. The Government’s role is to protect me from harm. It should protect my right of the freedom of worship from those who would murder me for not believing what they believe. The Government should then have protected a man from being killed by John Calvin, rather than follow Calvin’s orders and do the murdering. Make sense? I sure hope so.
Grace & Peace be unto you all.
My knowledge of John Calvin is somewhat limited. But as I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Calvin helped establish the laws of Geneva during his time there. He believed very strongly that the State and the Church were to work together. Now let me say that I would have no problem with a State run Church just so long as the State was acting in a Biblical manner. However, this will never happen. I’m just being a realist. What were to happen if the State Church decided that water baptism was necessary in order to obtain salvation? In order to follow the Bible, I would have to rebel against the teachings of the State Church. If the State Church then threw its weight around, I might be punished, jailed or even killed by disobeying its mandate (law) to water baptize everyone. One of the great freedoms of America is its separation of Church and State. It must be said that this in no way, shape, or form means that the State has to ban all religious thought from its institutions (as many assume), but rather that it cannot enforce someone to practice a faith or a religion that he/she does not want to participate in.
John Calvin forced his views upon the populous through a State Church that was oppressive and murderous. This cannot be ignored, nor can it be dismissed as “okay.” I have heard it said that this was just the way things were back then, so we must be forgiving of Calvin for the way he dealt with Servetus. (He had him killed for “teaching heresy”) Was murder okay back in the garden when Cain slew Abel? No. Was murder okay when David had Uriah killed in order to marry his wife, Bathsheba? No. Was murder okay when they nailed our precious Savior to the cross? No. Then why would it be okay for Calvin to murder someone just because it was the mandate of the State-run Church? Plain and simple: it is not.
The Church should care for the things of the Church. The State should care for the things of the State. The State SHOULD NOT enforce someone to believe something they do not. Now concerning John Calvin, no Christian I know would ever force another to believe what he believed or be murdered for it. Apparently Calvin is an exception in the eyes of those who idolize him, but he is no exception in my eyes. In fact, I have nowhere read any of Calvin’s words that would even lead me to the conclusion that he was saved. Sorry Calvin idolaters, this is just from what I have read. But please, feel free to post a Calvin quote that would help me change my mind. If he has testified, through the written word, of a Biblical salvation, I have yet to read it…but would love to see it.
As we continued to trade emails, my friend asked me my thoughts concerning Erastus in the Bible. Erastus is mentioned three times in Scripture. He is mentioned in (Acts 19:22) (2 Tim 4:20) and (Rom 16:23). There is no proof that the Erastus mentioned in each verse is the same as the next…but let’s assume that he was. It is mentioned in Romans that Erastus was the Chamberlain of the city. This would mean that he was a public official – perhaps a mayor or governor. The reason I was asked about Erastus was because I had made this comment:
“Here’s my humble opinion, though given time, I think I can back it up Biblically. Role of Govt: Supress Evil. Role of Christians in Govt: Pray for Leaders.”
With that comment, I was asked about Erastus’ position as Chamberlain. The question then is this: Was Erastus the Chamberlain before or after he was saved? The fact alone that Scripture says that he was indeed the Chamberlain does not necessarily mean that Christians should enter politics any more than saying Christians should cut off people’s ears because the Scripture mentions that Peter did it. A statement of fact in the Scripture is not always a command to do – we must understand this if we are to properly interpret Scriptures. The Bible does teach this:
(1Ti 2:1-2) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
This is the role of a Christian in Government according to the Scriptures. This is not just a statement of fact, but is indeed, a God-given command for all Christians.
So to tie this whole thing together, Calvin had no Biblical basis for forcing his beliefs on Geneva (or any other populous) because of his own personal convictions. Even God Almighty does not force a human to believe – though He desires all men to come unto the knowledge of the truth. It is best for the Christian to stay out of politics, but rather to focus his energies on winning others to Christ. If a political leader gets saved, he should not focus his life on changing laws to conform to Old Testament laws – but should spend him time evangelizing the lost and ministering to the saints. After all, why would a government want to adopt the Old Testament Law? It is a curse, Christian…remember? I do not live by the law, but by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. The Government’s role is to protect me from harm. It should protect my right of the freedom of worship from those who would murder me for not believing what they believe. The Government should then have protected a man from being killed by John Calvin, rather than follow Calvin’s orders and do the murdering. Make sense? I sure hope so.
Grace & Peace be unto you all.
.jpg)
2 comments:
Hey, Seth, I have comments on this, but have not had time to work them out. I will be commenting soon, or perhaps even making my own post out of it as well since I think I have much to say :)
Sure...but do me a favor and provide a link to this site so that others might get both sides of our discussion.
Post a Comment