I Reject the Reformers

If you reject them, you reject them. Why does the world have to know? And if you do reject them, what of it?

Don't you suppose there is enough strife, arguments etc on the forums, with inciting more?

What is it in the word of God, that you have read, to make you post this?

It's sad to read this, but hardly surprising or original.

RE: Krispy Krittr wrote
"The Reformers wrote and wrote and wrote... so it's best to actually read their own words, and not bother with modern day historians who often times take things out of context, or have an agenda."

Amen I agree. What disturbes me is not what others write about the reformers since most Christian historians are pro Reformers but What the reformers themselves wrote.

have you read The Jews and their Lies by Martin Luther??
or the treatise against the Anabaptists Against the Libertines by John Calvin??

Bearmaster,

If you don't agree with the quote, why quote it? And, to suggest listening to the series shows you agree.

All I can see is that this will in no was edify any one who reads it.

Krispy Wrote

The Reformers wrote and wrote and wrote... so it's best to actually read their own words

FINALLY something you and I agree on Krispy (i exaggerate... I know we agree on far, far more than we disagree on Krispy. Someday we will meet, I will buy you a huge steak dinner, and we will walk out of the restaurant as good friends. )

That aside, I do agree with Krispy's statement. I also agree with proudpapa that

What disturbes me is not what others write about the reformers since most Christian historians are pro Reformers but What the reformers themselves wrote

If you read their own words it is chilling to the bone! It appears that the perhaps the only real reason Calvin makes a break is to form his own little "Vatican City Swiss Style". He then sets himself up as basically the "Pope" of his Vatican and then squashes all opposition by persecutions, jailings, and old fashioned murder of those who disagree with any of his theology. Not sure how he exactly "reformed" from Rome there... it was just that in his Rome he (Calvin) was the pope.

Calvin stated

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church." John Calvin

So... it wasn't enough that he puts to death folks for anything or any reason he sees fit including disagreeing with him theologically about anything..... he goes on to say that if you do not agree with his tactics YOU should be put to death as well. WHAT?!?!?! The key to remember is that you were a heretic IF JOHN CALVIN SAID YOU WERE. He set himself as the arbitrator of who was and wasn't a heretic.

He executed 57 people, and excommunicated 66. He also jailed a great many more for no reason other than tiny differences in theology. He even surpassed Augustine in severe treatment!! Like Augustine, Calvin quotes Lk 14:23 to support and justify persecuting and punishing heretics.... of course it is again heretics by Calvin's definition only.

Realize that some of these were killed or persecuted simply because they did not agree with infant baptism. Do you get that?!?!? John Calvin would martyr (kill, murder) you if you disagreed with him about infant baptism... or one of a myriad of minor theological issues.

John Calvin became a one man judge, jury, and execution squad of the christians. He even sent out his own form of KGB to spy on and find folks not cow towing to his minute theological rules or leanings so he could jail or kill them. Other times he records his plots to get people into his jurisdiction that disagreed with him so as to jail or murder them.

Then Calvin incredibly attributes his persecution and murder of christians to "God's will". Of these horrible actions Calvin states

It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule

It is not clear at all that many of the reformers did anything with a regard to helping the people. It may have been done at times simply to give them a base to use against Rome in a selfish effort to establish their own little Vatican City in Switzerland.

I agree with proudpapa. It isn't those who write after Calvin, or others, that concern me. It is what Calvin himself, and others, actually wrote themselves. It is further bothersome that many who follow them are either ignorant of their words... or worse, they willingly choose to ignore them.

So yes, as Krispy says, READ THE ACTUAL WORDS OF CALVIN, AND OTHERS.. it is a tale that would be worthy of inclusion in Foxxs Book Of martyrs. It is among other things a story of a man named Calvin who with systematic forethought murdered and persecuted followers of Christ that dared to ever think anything other than exactly what he told them to. Yes, read for yourself... then what will we do with that knowledge?

Hi Krispy you wrote:

"John Calvin never had anyone executed. John Calvins role in Geneva has been greatly exaggerated."

Can you expand on this statement a little.

Thanks, Russ

@ Krispy

I have nothing against you either. If I am in your neck of the woods the dinner is on me!

I have noticed your efforts to be more of a bridge builder and less confrontational over the last month or so. Well done. I applaud you. It is appreciated!

It is with that appreciation for your recent posts that in humbleness and calmness I submit to you the following for your consideration.

In your first post you suggest to people that they not listen to or read the more current histories about the reformers. However, most all of them are written from pro reformer points of view and strongly support the reformers.

Your suggestion was to read the actual words the reformers wrote. I agree with that. Non the less.... If one reads from the reformers then there is no small amount of the blood letting they loosed. Their attacks spilled the blood of christians, and others, that were their targets. It simply is a fact. It is in their own words.

When that point starts to be made in Calvin's own words then your response is that you have to let a lot of that slide as the context of their culture was different. The effect is that it appears that you first tell people to read the reformers in their own words... then if they actually do that you seem to feel a need to tell people not to believe the words they are reading as things were different then.

They did what they did... much of it is in their own words. However, only a foolish person would listen to only one side of that story. In order to be just we also should read the first hand account words of the Anabaptists and others that were under the direct persecution of these "reformers".

I draw an extreme example here simply to make a point.

Reading history from Hitler's or Stalin's point of view is a vastly different thing that reading the Diary of Anne Frank or listening to Corrie Ten Boom.
Sure... we can read Hitler's or Stalin's actual words to see what they said or thought. However, to do justice we must also read eye witness accounts of the Holocaust to get the whole story. Same with the reformers. They are not condemning themselves willingly in their own words... however, they do a lot of condemning by their own words non the less. However, read the others being persecuted by them as well. You don't just read Hitler's words... you read the words of those others who actually saw what happened too.

That same modicum of common sense would need to be applied to reading the reformers it would seem.

Again, no animosity at all. It is just a point that I have engaged as I used to be calvinist/reformed. However, the day came I could no longer abide it nor the (in my mind) faulty foundations that the entire calvinistic/reformed system was built on.

*edited for grammar and clarity*

I agree with the need to seriously study the text and writings of such individuals (rather than modern books about them) if someone wants to know what they believe. There is too much danger of basing an opinion or even pronouncing judgment upon flawed or out-of-context "reporting." There is also a danger in searching through those books simply to find "sound bites" that will be used as an indictment for hellfire.

Why?

All of those men and organizations are flawed. This includes the early "reformers." This includes the modern biographers. This even includes the anabaptists. They were human beings confined to this side of the "glass darkly." While some may have been flawed on more insignificant matters, they were still flawed by their humanity nonetheless. Not all reformers, anabaptists or even earlier believers were pious men.

One thing that is clear from the Epistles is that there was a propensity to "get things wrong" even at such an early stage in Church history. If you notice in the Book of Acts, even Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement so sharp that they split company. Paul rebuked Peter -- a man who walked with Christ, wrote portions of the New Testament and was a focal point of the Gospels and the Book of Acts -- over a gross doctrinal flaw. It seems that even the apostles weren't immune from their flawed humanity.

By the time (~100 A.D.) John was having a revelation of Jesus Christ on the Isle of Patmos, five of the seven churches of Asia were given instructions about various flaws within them. And, of course, the Epistles includes strong words and even rebukes about situations in the churches -- including some that were quite disturbing (remember I Corinthians 5?).

Such flaws shouldn't surprise us. After all, none of us are perfect. We are still confined to this side of that "glass darkly" in which we live in this life. I believe that many marriages end because someone is looking for or expecting a "perfect" spouses (which, of course, is quite interpretive). Oddly enough, I think that many churches and believers split company for the same reason. They are looking for a "perfection" in the church that is either literally "perfect" or at least partially modeled after what they think to be true. Yet, not even the early church was perfect (at least, not when the New Testament was written down).

One thing to remember is that we are perpetually changing. Each of us -- and every other believer -- is changing as we mature to Christ. We should always remember this when we meet with others. We aren't the same people that we were when we first came to Christ (except, hopefully, in our love for Him). We have "grown" in knowledge and understanding through prayer and study of the Word of God.

Now, many believers belonged to other "Church" organizations before they came to Christ. When they met the Lord, their "understanding" was not what it is now...and not what it will be a few years from now. Why? We are continuously maturing during our journey through the "wilderness of this world." Some people, like Martin Luther, were Catholics before coming to Christ. Their doctrinal vision may not have been quite so "20-20" when they first came to the Lord...and it may have taken some time to focus on doctrinal truths as presented by Scripture.

Others have changed in their interpretation of what the Word of God instructs. There were believers a few hundred years ago who believed in or ignored the grotesque concept of slavery. Something that should have been so obvious from Scripture was viewed as acceptable. Many believers, like Martin Luther or the reformers, wrote what they believed at a given moment of time. Like everyone, they may have changed over time. Hindsight (and Eternity) is often the "20-20" that we think that we possess in the present.

For instance, in BEYOND THE CROSS AND THE SWITCHBLADE, David Wilkerson mentioned that he no longer held a "hard line" approach when it came to television. He had spoken about a need to get rid of the TV in the original CROSS AND THE SWITCHBLADE book. Yet, years later, Wilkerson wrote that he and his family would sit down and watch "family westerns" like Bonanza. A decade later (in SET THE TRUMPET TO THY MOUTH), Wilkerson once again wrote about the dangers of having a television in the home.

Now, if a person were to describe David Wilkerson's perspective on the "television" issue, it would be somewhat skewed to assert that he embraced television. It would be more correct to say that, at one point, David Wilkerson believed that it was okay to have a television in the home. And, of course, I don't know what Brother Wilkerson believed when he died last year. My point is simply that his view changed over time.

So, in terms of Martin Luther or the other reformers (or ANYONE else for that matter), it is important to approach the topic with this in mind. Their views may have changed over time as they matured in Christ.

In the past, there have been some heated discussions about Charles Finney. Finney's writings have been analyzed, dissected and criticized many times. Some are willing to embrace much of what he said. Others are unwilling to accept anything that he said. And still, others are quite bold in declaring the man a "heretic." There is little grace offered in terms of how his views may have changed over time. And, of course, we can't seek clarity by speaking to the man himself. This is true of all men who have died. We can't ask them to elucidate on such matters.

So, when it comes to the writings of all men, I suggest that we approach those works with the knowledge that NONE of them are perfect. This includes the reforumers, the anabaptists and every man who have sermons included on this website. We have to simply glean what we can from what they said or wrote. We must test everything and hold on to the good (I Thessalonians 5:21). After all, our faith does not hinge upon the writings or teachings of any of these men or organizations. Our faith is only in Christ Jesus His Word.

With this in mind, it would be beneficial to avoid spreading accusations about others. If we are flawed or even slightly incorrect in what we say (or how we present it), we may end up unwittingly bear false witness against someone else...even if we think it is for a good reason.

Re: Solomon101 wrote to krisspy krittr "I have noticed your efforts to be more of a bridge builder and less confrontational over the last month or so. Well done. I applaud you. It is appreciated!"
"It is with that appreciation for your recent posts that in humbleness and calmness"

I agree, amen to all of those who are keeping there cool on this topic no matter you opinion. We all have things we can learn from each other.

From What I have studied so far of Church History What seems to have seperated the Early Anabaptist from both the Catholics and Reformers was that many of the Early Anabaptist tried to understand scripture by scripture alone. The Catholics always held the Church Fathers such as Augustine as Authoritive the Reformers also interpeted scripture through the Lens of Augustine. When studying Calvins institutes or Luthers Bondage of the Will note How many times they refer to Augustine. When studing the martyrs mirror notice how many times the Early Anabaptist had to argue with scripture against someone quoting Augustine.