There is still much to admire about John Calvin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
People that attack Calvinism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
There is still much to admire about John Calvin.
saturneptune
New Member
No, thug and murderer are kind terms. This speaker can dress up how many sermons he preached, how he was a preacher/teacher all he wants, the fact is one does not have people burned at the stake over a difference of theological opinion. He would have done better in Iran than the United States. He writes of the seperation of church and state, yet, he rules a government that is fused as one between the two. He was a brutal dictator that had people executed without cause other than not agreeing with his warped mind. His roots are in infant baptism, and RCC tradition. Aside from all of that, a child of God just does not act in this manner. A child of God cares about others, not his own self serving interests.
One thing for sure, the likes of him would not be allowed anywhere near our local church.
saturneptune
New Member
Yes, I admire that I did not live during his reign of terror.
I see there's no letting up. You're entitled to that, my friend.
That would be the RCC legacy....BTW, have you ever read Institutes or any other of Calvin's works..... please tell me you have had some depth of study of the man before you slander him .... slander you know is a sin.
saturneptune
New Member
Other than watching you tube videos, have you read his positions on infant baptism, RCC tradition, and creeds? Repeating historical facts is not slander. As a Christian, how do you defend such actions as Michael Servetus' murder, and his actions as ruler of Geneva?
To answer your question, I have spent a good amount of time reading his writings, the "Institutes" I believe they are referred as, but not all. If you have done any reading at all, how do you justify his views on seperation of church and state and his rule of Geneva? Even while in office, did he rule in a Chrisitan manner?
From what I can see, the only thing he did get correct was God's sovereignty. So after all of your in depth reading of the man, how do you justify his actions? How can a Christian have high regard for someone with such disregard of human life? Actions speak much louder than "writings."
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed, is he? What then is your position on Luthers treatment of the Jews, the RCC treatment of avoud Protestants including Luther Jan Huss, Wyclif, The Hugonauts. How bout Bloody Mary Tudors treatment of non catholics in Britain, Henry VIII with Thomas More & his wives etc. The Anabaptist's hands are not clean either you know, or must I elaborate on those bloody times.
Are we to throw stones without understanding the times that all these people lived in.... I sincerely hope not!
Fair enough. Yes, we cannot rewrite history. I'm aware of that. But we need to move on.
Yes, no major denomination is without its flaws and so on.
saturneptune
New Member
Yes, you and I were not in Geneva in the 1500s, and neither were the speakers in the video. If the culture, tradition and laws of that time made burning people at the stake an acceptable practice for having a different theological opinion, all I can say is that I want no part of it.
And yes, our ancestors hands are not without blood. That is not the issue. The issue is the worthiness of an individual to have an entire belief system named after him.
And yes, our ancestors hands are not without blood. That is not the issue. The issue is the worthiness of an individual to have an entire belief system named after him.
But it is what it is, long before you and I got here and long after we're gone, barring the Parousia.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I really doubt it. It really comes down to letting God be God! And I still vote for Sovereign Grace. I will forever praise God because in His Sovereign He saved me.
I would ask you to explain in detail "What rule of Geneva"? He never ruled Geneva. Calvin's 1st encounter with the place in July 1536 was forced...he, along with his sister & brother were traveling to Strasbourg & detained in Geneva / the capital of French Switzerland because war barred the road. At the time, Geneva was under both secular & spiritual rule of its RCC Bishop. That town, under the rule of the RCC had morally & ecomomically deterated , RCC Clergy had concubines, led the army, minted coinage & licensed prostitutes.
At that time the Genevese leaders were mostly businessmen & their city was considered a commercial city & these leaders (burgers I think they are called) got pissed off at the RCC & went into open rebellion & threw out the bishop & his ilk, declaring the Reformed faith two months before Calvin arrived.
This guy William Farel was one of the guys to convince the burgers to flip(play on words: Burger/Flip) to the Reformed faith. He was also the character who actively perused Calvin to become the pastor & preacher for Geneva. Note that Calvin was apprehensive... he wanted & planned for a life of soliditude, quiet & study with authorships to sustain him ( In Strasbourg)...he never planned on Geneva.
OK so Calvin, bolstered by Will Farel went to work to clean up the town. They closed the brothels, kicked out any vestige of catholicism, developed a reformed catechism that they taught, clamped down on gambling, adultery & drinking to intoxication. What they asked the people to do is swear off the morally depraved ways & rededicate Geneva to God. (These Guys must of been Nazi's LOL)
This goes on & on, but the bottom line is the people & the government of Geneva wanted him to institute changes to the community. Yes there was overreaching by Calvin & Farel in monitoring the moral conduct of every inhabitant....like it could summon any person before them for examination & it could publically reprove or excommunicate offenders that could lead to banishment of both city & church (but those were the times & they had a job to do in cleaning up a once morally depraved place. And Calvin drove himself to preach some 3 to 4 times a week & it was a requirement (generally) to be in attendance.
Yes Calvin was strict on everyone including himself. I dont like those tactics he employed, but I am also a proud Marine & both he and I would share the belief in discipline as the backbone of personality, enabling it to rise out of the baseness of human nature to the erect stature of the self conquered human being. And then there is obedience.....nuff said!
Now while Calvin was being a disciplinarian, he was also establishing schools & an academy, searched through Europe for good teachers of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and theology & trained pastors to carry the gospel to France, Scotland, the Netherlands, Britain , Germany etc. Do you think the Catholics liked that.......no, no, no & so many suffered martyrdom for their reformed faith, but that was to be expected during those bloody times.
Well then there is "Michael Servetus". Ah yes our young hero spent much of his time reading & studying the literature of the Jews & the Moslem's & even read the Koran and was impressed by the Semitic criticism of Christianity. OK so MS writes a book, "De Trrinitatis Erroribus" claiming that Christ was a man into whom God the Father had breathed the Logos, the Divine Wisdom..... in this sense Jesus Christ became the Son Of God, but he was not equal or co-eternal with the Father. He further implied that the Son was sent from the Father in no other way than one of the prophets. Yes, our young hero MS flew pretty close to Mohammed's concept of Christ. To really add insult to injury our young hero theologian made the statement (now this is the 14th century, right) that "All those who believe in a trinity in the essence of God are "tritheists" and added, they are "true atheists" as deniers of the One God. :laugh: And I can go on & on about our young hero, how he made commentary & commentary (very self controlled guy).... bottom line, MS had the RCC's after him, the Lutherans after him & he runs to Geneva where Calvin has to deal with him. I suppose he could have run to the Ottomans in Turkey or perhaps sailed for the New World, but in Western Europe, he wore out his welcome. Too bad! I'm sure God was merciful & he is in the arms of Christ (one of Gods many Prophets). LOL!
Last edited by a moderator:
psalms109:31
Active Member
Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Acts 5 :
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
Can we really wash our hands off of the blood of the innocent and be God to decide who lives and dies when as a Christian we know the sword Christ sent us out with. Peter didn't have to use anything but words to bring justice for Ananias and Sapphira sins, there was no blood on his hands.
There is those who murdered in the name of Jesus casting out demons they thought. Do you really think Jesus knew them or them Him. They are the evil doers to me.
I am not going to bring judgment on John Calvin I don't know him or his heart God does.
If someone doesn't know what the sword of a Christian is are they going to understand the rest of the scriptures correctly?
I do know what Jesus said about the Jews and their murdering ways?
Luke 11 :
50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Acts 5 :
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
Can we really wash our hands off of the blood of the innocent and be God to decide who lives and dies when as a Christian we know the sword Christ sent us out with. Peter didn't have to use anything but words to bring justice for Ananias and Sapphira sins, there was no blood on his hands.
There is those who murdered in the name of Jesus casting out demons they thought. Do you really think Jesus knew them or them Him. They are the evil doers to me.
I am not going to bring judgment on John Calvin I don't know him or his heart God does.
If someone doesn't know what the sword of a Christian is are they going to understand the rest of the scriptures correctly?
I do know what Jesus said about the Jews and their murdering ways?
Luke 11 :
50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Calvin did not rule Geneva? I beg to differ
History of Geneva
Geneva was a Prince-Bishopric of the Holy Roman Empire from 1154, but from 1290, secular authority over the citizens was divided from the bishop's authority, at first only lower jurisdiction, the office of vidame given to François de Candie in 1314, but from 1387 the bishops granted the citizens of Geneva full communal self-government. As from 1416, the Dukes of Savoy attempted to annex the city, both by claiming secular authority and by installing members of the Savoy dynasty as bishops, the city sought assistance in allying itself with the Old Swiss Confederacy. The Republic of Geneva was proclaimed in 1541, under John Calvin, and given a constitution (Édits civils) in 1543. The Republic of Geneva reinforced its alliance to the Protestant cantons of the Swiss Confederacy, becoming an "everlasting ally" in 1584.
The French Revolution reached Geneva in 1792, and in February 1794, the Republic gave itself a new, revolutionary constitution which proclaimed the equality of all citizens. After the death of Robbespierre in July of the same year, there was a counter-revolution, which gained the upper hand by 1796. This prompted the French invasion of 1798, and the annexation of Geneva as part of the French département du Léman. Geneva finally joined the Swiss Confederation in 1815 as the 22nd canton, having been enlarged by French and Savoyard territories at the Vienna Congress (see Restoration and Regeneration).
I asked how you justify as a Christian in your mind the execution of Michael Servetus, the brutality during his reign in Geneva, and his belief in infant baptism along with RCC tradition and creeds.
saturneptune
New Member
In fairness to Earth, Wind, and Fire, and to Greek, I should not have commented on the character of John Calvin, and apologize if I offended either. It is one of those issues that I tend to get carried away with. Like was pointed out, none of us were there in the 1500s, and do not understand the culture. One thing is that we tend to look at events like Michael Servetus and Calvin's methods in Geneva by the standard of the Constitution and the Untied States, which is a totally different world. Of course we would not tolerate any such actions here for theological differences.
I guess my problem is that I see that the concept of sovereignty seems hard enough to accept for some without it being named after Calvin.
As Greek said, what is in the past is gone, and we are here, now and in the future, to carry on the work of the Lord. Although my feelings for Calvin will not change, I do apologize if I offeneded anyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saturn my brother, I will Agree with you that the person we should be conforming to is Jesus the Christ who unlike all the others aforementioned did not show the mercy & grace that He would have ...and not even a reed would He bruse. I conclude that the approprate name for correct usage is Christian ...not Calvinism, not Lutheran not Presbyterian not Roman Catholic etc etc etc. Those names only serve to seperate...not unify ...not what the Lord had in mind.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
It is interisting to me that the reformed covenant crowd bristles at the notion that Calvin might have had a few warts. They make the plea that we look at his writings and not his reported personal failings as a flawed man. Those same individuals do not give C. I. Scofield the same consideration. Why?
John Calvin was a gifted teacher and writer, but was NOT an Apsotle of Christ, so respect him and his teachings, but were NOT inspired and infallible!