moormansilence

ARE CALVINIST'S SILENT

(OR IS JACK MOORMAN DEAF?)

David Cloud obviously wanted us to spend Christmas raking through the sins of John Calvin and then to enter the New Year with a fresh conspiracy theory hanging over our heads i.e. the silence of the dread Calvinists about the persecutions of some with whom Calvin failed to see eye to eye. He reproduces an article in his Way of Life website by his friend, Jack Moorman from London, England, (dated 14-12-06) entitled: Calvin and Persecution: Why the Silence? My first response to seeing this is to ask "What silence?" and then to read the article and look for the blunders which I was sure would be there. Here is the result of my labours in this regard.

Silence? We are not very long into this article with its bold headline when Moorman changes his tune slightly. We move from a "silence" which Moorman (and Cloud too by reproducing this article) feels must be exposed to a breaking of that silence i.e. "Most who call themselves Calvinist say very little about the famous Reformer having a persecuting side." (Emphasis mine) although we do revert to the silence charge again and that of a selective kind. Are we forced to go to the non Calvinists for our information? Or do the Calvinists speak freely, if somewhat embarrassingly of this matter?

[i] Theodore Beza, Calvin's contemporary and later successor at Geneva, speaks freely about it in his short account of Calvin's life. It is true (and sadly, not unsurprising) that Beza justifies the actions of Calvin, but there is no attempt at a cover up as Moorman suggests.

[iv] "Calvin went to his deathbed believing that the execution was just because Servetus was a blasphemer and a heretic – a murderer of souls. I stand with Calvin in believing that the state is charged to uphold the law of God, however, I differ with him as to the best way that the state can do this. I believe that Constantine proved once and for all the negative consequences inherent whenever the state enforces orthodoxy – all you get is fake believers scared to air their dissent openly. Calvin was wrong to suppose that heresy should be punished by the state and by death. Even if Calvin was right that heresy was “spiritual murder”, the proper solution would have been excommunication and no more." (Matthew Gross)

[v] "The one event in Calvin's life that has cast a shadow over his fair name, and which has exposed him to the charge of intolerance and persecution is the burning of the heretic Servetus. Calvin's enemies have played this event to the hilt. Facts have often been withheld or misconstrued so as to put Calvin in a bad light. That the burning of Servetus was a mistake is admitted by all. History knows only one spotless being — Jesus Christ, the savior of sinners. All others have marks of infirmity in their lives." (Dr. Jack Arnold)

Silence? Three hundred and fifty years after the death of Servetus, a "monument of expiation" was erected on the spot where he suffered death at Champel, near Geneva. It bears the date of October 27th, 1903; but the unveiling ceremony was postponed until November 1st. On one side of this monument are recorded the birth and death of Servetus. The inscription reads:

Moorman's quote from Calvin's Prefatory Address to his 1536 Institutes, under the headline:"CALVIN’S STATEMENTS SUPPORTING PERSECUTION" is not speaking about Calvin persecuting any one or justifying it. The "vociferating" for punishment with confiscation and exile etc., comes from the "they" (not the "we") and the "they" are the "certain bad men" and "raging madmen " who "trouble the kingdom" i.e. the Roman Catholics who persecuted the Reformers. Read it for yourself in the very paragraph below, which Moorman inserts or better still, read the whole preface to the 1536 edition here.

Prefatory Address in his Institutes to Francis, King of the French, 1536. “But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea. … This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?” (Moorman's own underlining for emphasis)

If you read the entire article without the benefit of Moorman's editorial scissors, you will discover that the sentence following the three dots (...) do not actually relate to the subject of persecution at all, but to another subject found several paragraphs later.

"And what is it at the present day that the world venerates in its horned bishops, unless that it imagines those who are seen presiding over celebrated cities to be holy prelates of religion? Away, then, with this absurd mode of judging! Let us rather reverently admit, that as God alone knows who are his, so he may sometimes withdraw the external manifestation of his Church from the view of men. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God? It was thus that God, in past ages, punished the ingratitude of men; for after they had refused to obey his truth, and had extinguished his light, he allowed them, when blinded by sense, both to be deluded by lying vanities and plunged in thick darkness, so that no face of a true Church appeared. Meanwhile, however, though his own people were dispersed and concealed amidst errors and darkness, he saved them from destruction. No wonder; for he knew how to preserve them even in the confusion of Babylon and the flame of the fiery furnace."

Calvin's words have actually been doctored to say something other than originally intended. The words after the dots relate to God withdrawing his favour from the wicked who preferred the horned bishops of Rome to the truth of the gospel. Although we openly admit that Calvin (and many other Reformers) were at fault on this matter, yet you can see why we are somewhat sceptical about each and every charge laid at his door. We expect Rome to manufacture some of these and the sceptical crowd. However, to see such come from those who profess the sacred name of the Lord Jesus wounds the people of God more. May God deliver us all from the tactics that are being employed here.

The historians are not agreed on how many people were killed in Geneva - some number them in their dozens, others say that only Servetus was killed. It should be noted that Calvin did not run Geneva. He failed to get his desires on many issues and was expelled from the city by the opposing party. Failure to grasp this may ensure that other matters outside his control are fathered upon him. The moral aspect of blaming a man for something which he is not responsible should lie heavy on us all.

SECOND SECTION TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TIME PERMITS

There is an old saying that they who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Historically, the Calvinists can look back to Calvin's misdeeds and sins. Despite Moorman's somewhat misleading title above, we do so openly and candidly. But the Baptists (named here, only because this is the quarter from whence this fresh attack comes from) can hardly look back either without a few blushes along the way. Let's take SLAVERY, for instance. Need I supply a 3 or 4 frame photograph section immediately below drawn from the image section of Google? Yet there were Baptist slaveholders (just as there were Calvinistic slaveholders too) The Southern Baptist Convention came into being over the issue of slavery in 1845. Black people were segregated in Baptist Churches etc., Answer me this: Does any one run off articles for websites entitled: Baptists and Racism: Why the Silence? Where do we stop? Were children ever beaten in Methodist or Anglican day schools because they were, what we would call today, dyslexic and couldn't keep up with the rest? If so...why the "selective silence?" Why aren't they talking about it? Is there a cover up?

I have no bone to pick with any Christian group over any sinful activity in their past. We are all carrying baggage. It belongs to history. As mentioned below, these things ought to be recorded so that past mistakes and sins may be avoided. Beyond that, we are merely making mischief or wasting time.

Yes, there is. We are naturally embarrassed at the thought of any one being put to death for their beliefs. While there are many claims out there that try to soften Calvin's part in the whole affair, it is not my purpose here and now to try and utilise them. I wish Calvin had've taken another role even than the best which we may attribute to him. It was totally and utterly wrong what he did and totally alien to the gospel of Christ.

What purpose would be served by always talking about these things? Despite Moorman's conspiracy theory, there is no attempt to deny that they happened. We are not active or passive revisionists. The Calvinist historians are candid and honest enough to admit to Calvin's faults. To say that Calvin was a child of his (persecuting age) does not excuse him nor rob him of his responsibility. No one suggests that it does.

Before we leave this point, here is another thought for Moorman and others. If these alternative reports of Calvin's involvement - where (for example) he is said to have sought a less severe death for Servetus are true - then the fact that Moorman and others of his ilk refrain from reporting this (reserving only the harsher accounts) must not go unnoticed either. It almost seems that the nastier this whole sorry affair gets, then the more it suits some people and the agendas which they are determined to pursue by whatever means they think necessary.

Calvin's deeds have been done. They have been placed on open and public record even by those who admire him most. They will not be allowed to be forgotten. However, if they cannot be undone, yet they can be pardoned. It is my belief (and that of millions of others, even by those who reject the doctrines that bear Calvin's name) that they are all under the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son which cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7) While Moorman may snipe that Calvin's "writings do not give a clear testimony of his own salvation experience" yet a little research shows that this is not so. In his preface to his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin tells us:

"My conditions no doubt, is much inferior to his, and it is unnecessary for me to stay to show this. But as he was taken from the sheepfold, and elevated to the rank of supreme authority; so God having taken me from my originally obscure and humble condition, has reckoned me worthy of being invested with the honorable office of a preacher and minister of the gospel. When I was as yet a very little boy, my father had destined me for the study of theology. But afterwards when he considered that the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus it came to pass, that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy, and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself in obedience to the will of my father; but God, by the secret guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off other studies, I yet pursued them with less ardor."

Whether such words will satisfy Calvin's critics is, of course, something which only they can answer. Not that it matters what they think. If Calvin really did belong to the Lord, then these sins are all pardoned.

Another thought. It is one thing to make mention of Servetus and the other cases (assuming they are all true) to keep them on the record, lest they should by default or otherwise slip off and be repeated. Any history of Calvin would be incomplete without making mention (at least) of the Servetus incident. However, it is another thing to drag these things up for any party purposes or to smear a larger body of people. Moorman knows his own heart and the motives that urged him to put pen to paper and God knows them too. It is not for me to judge him and so I will refrain from doing so. But I do think it is worth mentioning here when the metaphorical swords have been drawn and there is little evidence of Calvin getting the benefits of any doubts that may arise as to the depths of his deeds.

5) DO MODERN DAY CALVINISTS ADVOCATE THE PERSECUTION OF THOSE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE?

SIXTH SECTION TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TIME PERMITS

I am not sure what Moorman means when he claims that Geneva became to Protestants what Rome was to Catholics. This is one of those statements that is left lying open and may admit of anything on one hand when unchallenged and yet of nothing on the other when queried. If he means that Protestants (a most general term, far wider than Calvinist) regard Calvin with the same authority as the Pope, then we must deny it to be so. We only agree with Calvin when he agrees with the Scriptures of Truth and no further. I need not give any examples from the commentaries or theological writings of prominent Protestant writers to show where such disagreement arises. Calvin himself urged that "All who mingle their own inventions with the word of God, or who advance anything that does not belong to it, must be rejected, no matter how honourable soever be their rank." (Comments on Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:14-21; Luke 12:1)

Thankfully, many Christians who did not agree with Calvinism have left on record their appreciation of John Calvin. Unless you want to rope them in as some kind of conspirators, I think that they are eminently fair to Calvin, having risen above his many faults and saw the tremendous good that he has done to the Christian cause. (Any emphasis mine)

JOHN WESLEY: "I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man: But I cannot but advise those who love his memory to let Servetus alone. Yet if any one resolves to understand the whole affair, he may see a circumstantial account of it, published some years since, by Dr. Chandler, an eminent Presbyterian Divine in London." (SOME REMARKS ON “A DEFENSE OF THE PREFACE TO THE EDINBURGH EDITION OF ASPASIO VINDICATED.” Wesley's Works Volume 10 page 418)

JACOB ARMINIUS: "Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551-1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination ( cum delectu), like the writings of all men"(History of Christian Church - Ch VIII).

JOHN R. RICE: "God raised up Luther, Calvin and others and turned literally millions of people to personal faith in Christ and to a knowledge of salvation by faith, in Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Scotland and England, and parts of many other countries." ("We can have revival now:" Chapter 7)

HARRY A. IRONSIDE: "Go back to the days of Savonarola in Italy, Wickliffe and Cranmer of England, John Knox in Scotland, Martin Luther in Germany, Zwingle in Switzerland, Calvin in France -- all those mighty reformers whom God raised up throughout the world to call Rome to repent of her iniquity, but "she repented not." (Lectures on Revelation - Chapter 3)

And yet God has unquestionably set His seal in a remarkable manner upon the efforts of some of His honored servants who in their day and generation battled against entrenched wickedness in civic and national affairs. Think of the influence exerted for righteousness by Savonarola in Florence, Calvin in Geneva, Luther in Erfurt, Knox in Edinburgh, Wesley in London and all England, and a host of like-minded men who cried out unflinchingly against the iniquities of the times in which they lived. (Except ye Repent - Page 66)

"Calvin's outward regeneration of Geneva is another marked instance of the power of the Word -- when faithfully proclaimed -- to influence civic life. Unhappily there was a great deal of Old Testament legality about it all, and like most men "who really amount to anything, Calvin made some stupendous blunders, as in the case of Servetus, for which the world has never forgiven him. But his influence throughout was on the side of righteousness and truth, and for this he will be remembered forever and shine as the stars eternally." (Except ye Repent - Page 67)

WARREN W. WIERSBE: "The great theologian John Calvin defined faith as a 'steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promises in Christ, is both revealed in our minds, and confirmed to our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.'..." (With the Word - A devotional Commentary, p820 Oliver Nelson edition 1991)

THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TIME PERMITS

7) WHAT BEARING DOES CALVIN'S PERSECUTING WAYS HAVE UPON THE DOCTRINES THAT BEAR HIS NAME?

None whatsoever. The logic that there is, will run further than intended by those who seek to establish any link. Why link his behaviour to the Doctrines of Grace instead of (say) the Trinity? After all, this was the point of contention between him and Servetus. If it is argued that there are many Trinitarians who have never persecuted people (forgetting Rome) then we may reply that there are many lovers of the Doctrines of Grace who have never persecuted any one either.

Calvin was not the inventor of the teachings that bear his name. The designation "Calvinism" is but a nickname and I only use it for mere convenience sake. These Doctrines are also known as the Doctrines of Grace and they are the doctrines of the whole Bible in both testaments. I am happier debating them with their detractors from the pages of the Bible than on any other ground. They alone give God the glory that is due unto His name. The alternative version, sadly embraced by people like Cloud and Moorman, dilute the gospel and elevate man to a position which is not his to take. God does not share His glory or His sovereignty with any, least of all hell deserving sinners.

THE END

SOME CORRESPONDENCE WITH JACK MOORMAN (AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE ANALYSED ABOVE)
INCLUDED HERE BY HIS EXPRESS PERMISSION

DATE: 18-1-07
FROM: Colin Maxwell
TO: Jack Moorman

Hi, I have answered your article on the supposed silence of Calvinists here: http://www.corkfpc.com/moormansilence.html

Colin Maxwell (Cork Free Presbyterian Church)

******************************
DATE: 19-1-07
FROM: Jack Moorman
TO: Colin Maxwell

Hello Colin,
Thank you for your paper, and let me make just a few points in response.
Yes, we can all have some historical baggage, but before believers call themselves by a man’s name to the extent Calvinists have, they need to look at the considerable evidence that the man in question was indeed a persecutor. Michael Servetus seems only to have been the tip of the iceberg.
There are many citations in the O Timothy article, the one with which you take issue has, I believe, been correctly cited. Calvin is pressing upon the French king that he should destroy those “bad men” from whom God has withdrawn himself, and if he does not, the king would be striving against God.
“Conspiracy” is used throughout your paper. This is your term, I have not used it.
Near the end you speak of the fairness of those “who have risen above Calvin’s many faults”. It is one thing to have and ignore “faults” I Peter 4:8, but with so many at Geneva being on the receiving end of these “faults” then it is another matter.
Yours Sincerely In Christ
Jack Moorman
******************************
DATE: 20-1-07
FROM: Colin Maxwell
TO: Jack Moorman
Hi Jack, Thank you for your letter. I appreciate you taking the time to make a courteous reply.

I used the term "conspiracy" in relation to the charge of Calvinistic silence concerning the persecuting ways of John Calvin. The charge of silence supposes a cover up hence a conspiracy. I have shown that far from covering over Calvin's activities, Calvinists have frankly acknowledged them and condemned them. Even when there has been a recourse to "Such was the spirit of the age" etc., this has not been said in any way to excuse the matter. Where is the silence here? The somewhat general charge against the Calvinists of "Selective Silence" is therefore untrue as my article shows.

The term "Calvinist" is but a nickname that has stuck. Many people who are Calvinist in doctrine are not Calvinist in name. Personally, I care little one way or the other about titles and only use the term "Calvinist" because it is convenient to do so. It is so easy to get a hang up about these things. I am happy to "go with the flow" on this one, since it does not involve me in any compromise of my faith. I have never met a Calvinist yet who gloried in John Calvin. In the Doctrines of Free and Sovereign Grace, yes…but John Calvin…no.

There are claims out there that Servetus was the entire iceberg. I am not a historian and personally see little immediate use of sifting through historical documents etc., so I just don't know. However, if I took upon myself to large charges against anyone, I would make it my business to know. If I was not in a position to so research, I would set my pen down and say nothing, rather than lay any charges. As I say in my article, The moral aspect of blaming a man for something which he is not responsible should lie heavy on us all. How sure are you on this matter? It is noticeable that there is nothing in your article that seeks to give any possible relief to the situation at hand. It seems to be the attitude of the prosecutor who will not mention anything - no matter if true - that will lessen his chances of getting a successful prosecution, rather than someone who is coming objectively to the matter and seeking truth, no matter if welcome or not. Again, if your charges are true and Calvin bears responsibility for the many crimes laid against them, then I must condemn those things without reservation. But only if.

Regarding the other citations, if they are true then they are no more or less culpable than the act of the burning of Servetus, something which we have unreservedly condemned. I queried the quotation from the 1536 Institutes because I believe that Calvin has been misquoted. I still hold to that view. There are several paragraphs between the two quotations and each relate to a different subject. If these two cobbled together quotes are being seen as proof, then anything may be proved. It is a very easy game to play - as old as the hills - but it is not something that I personally would do. Again, there is a responsibility on all men, and particularly Christians, to see that they do not bear false witness against their neighbours.

Perhaps those non Calvinists quoted at the end possess a little of that rare virtue of charity. If so (it might be well argued) that they rose above Calvin in many ways. Some of them were quite vocal in their opposition to the Doctrines that bear Calvin's name, but they could recognise all that was good in Calvin's life and doctrines and that is to be commended. If non Baptists dwelt at length on Baptist slavery or Baptist racism ad nauseum, then there could be no fellowship among professing Christians and the world would have little reason to observe "How these Christians love one another!"

I cannot help sometimes but feeling that there is a recourse to the blots in Calvin's life because of an inability to show where his doctrine of the sovereignty of God in salvation is wrong. Naturally, I don't expect you to agree with his, but when you get beyond the many falsehoods laid to the charge of Calvinists (e.g. that we supposedly don't believe in man's responsibility, evangelism etc.,) then the Calvinists have a strong case from Scripture upon which to state their beliefs. I find that most of my efforts in this field are spent trying to dispossess non Calvinists of their wrong views of what Calvinists do believe.

I must leave it there. Thanks again for writing. I appreciate your friendly spirit and I hope I have reciprocated it.

P/S I would be happy if I could include your correspondence at the bottom of my page answering your article, along with this reply. However, since this is a private correspondence, I will seek your permission first.

In Christ,
Colin Maxwell
(Cork Free Presbyterian Church)
******************************
DATE: 19-1-07
FROM: Jack Moorman
TO: Colin Maxwell

Hello Colin,

Thank you for the full letter. I have read it carefully. Clearly we do not agree on some things here, but I do appreciate the spirit in which it was written. Indeed as you indicate evangelism is to be our main thrust and attempt to be on the streets of London most days with Scripture tracts.

Feel free to use my brief reply in your paper. The Lord bless you in your services tomorrow.

Sincerely In Christ

Jack Moorman