McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part V — Behold Calvin the Kinist in His Own Words

Calvin held similar ecclesiocentric convictions. Calvin was a kind of exile in Geneva, and while in Geneva, he ensured the city accepted religious refugees from countless other European cities and lands. He also trained and commissioned missionaries who traveled to other lands, including South America. His love and concern were not limited to people of the same skin color but extended to all people groups. Yes, Calvin loved his homeland of France. But he left his fatherland precisely because his commitment to the the gospel, the cause of the Reformation, and the Protestant church trumped his love of his native country. In the introductory preface of his Institutes, addressed to King Francs, Calvin shows he embraced the cause of Christ above the cause of his nation:

First notice here that RL is intimating that Kinists would never do what John Calvin did in welcoming in refugees who were being hunted down because they were Biblical Christians. In so doing RL seeks to paint Kinism with the darkest of colors. However, it is just utter tripe to hint that a Kinist would not, like the Kinist John Calvin, not help fellow Christians being persecuted by Christ haters. Love of family does not translate, despite Lusk’s best efforts, to hatred of fellow believers.

Second, Lusk says that Calvin left his homeland because of his commitment to the Gospel. Let’s keep in mind though that if Calvin had not left his homeland there can be little doubt that he would have been roasted on the bonfire of the French vanities. This is not to say that Calvin was not committed to the Gospel. It is to say that commitment to the Gospel is increased several fold when absence commitment to the Gospel means you need to flee your country lest you be killed.

In the quote that Lusk provides notice the phrase, “as things now stand.” Calvin, being a good Kinist, loved his France however “as things stood” during his life he knew that if he wanted to stay living above the ground he could not return to France. Lusk’s quote does not prove that Calvin was not a Kinist. Can anyone doubt that Calvin would not have returned to his homeland and his people if the cause of Christ had not been trampled in his beloved France being utterly forlorn?

RL writes,

Calvin knew he served a greater King than Francis – the Lord Jesus. He knew the church of Jesus Christ was primary home, and this ecclesial allegiance was to be maintained, whatever earthly, temporal loyalties had to be sacrificed. He put kinship with fellow churchmen above his kinship with fellow Frenchmen.

BLM responds,

Well, lets look at some of Calvin’s quotes and see if they can substantiate Lusk’s above claims.

“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have passed their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.”

John Calvin
Calvin’s Comm. on Acts 17:26

At the point where Calvin says, “every people,” he has established that different people groups exist and that Christianity does not destroy the reality of people groups. Calvin implies a good deal more than that but at this point all we are seeking to sustain is that the Historic church, reaching behind the past 200 years understood that Christianity didn’t eliminate the idea of race, ethnicity, clan, and kin.

Again from Calvin the Kinist,

“He then promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. When he speaks of ‘a nation,’ he no doubt means that the offspring of Jacob should become sufficiently numerous to acquire the body and the name of one great people. But what follows concerning “nations” may appear absurd; for if we wish it to refer to the nations which, by gratuitous adoption, are inserted into the race of Abraham, the form of expression is improper: but if it be understood of sons by natural descent, then it would be a curse rather than a blessing, that the Church, the safety of which depends on its unity, should be divided into many distinct nations. But to me it appears that the Lord, in these words, comprehended both these benefits; for when, under Joshua, the people was apportioned into tribes, as if the seed of Abraham was propagated into so many distinct nations; yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished. The language also is not improperly extended to the Gentiles, who, having been before dispersed, are collected into one congregation by the bond of faith; and although they were not born of Jacob according to the flesh; yet, because faith was to them the commencement of a new birth, and the covenant of salvation, which is the seed of spiritual birth, flowed from Jacob, all believers are rightly reckoned among his sons, according to the declaration, “I have constituted thee a father of many nations.”

John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2, Chapter 14 

Here we see Calvin embracing the idea of many nations belonging as nations in the one Church. Abraham remains the Father of many nations as those nations are brought into the Church, nation by nation.

____