Featured Lies About John Calvin Refuted

John Calvin planned on killing Servetus before he even arrived in Geneva. After several heated debates between Calvin and Servetus, John wrote to William Farel on Feb 13, 1546:

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive"

Even if Calvin himself did not "pull the trigger",he was still responsible for setting the death of Servetus in motion.

John Calvin's intent to murder Servetus is still murder in the eyes of God regardless of whether he himself carried out the task. 1 John 3:15. John Calvin's consenting to the death of Servetus is no different than Paul's consenting to the death of Stephen. Acts 8:1, and it was one of the great sins (causing the murder of the church members) for which Paul confessed. Galations 1:13.

 

You may convince yourself of Calvin's innocence all you want, but Calvin disagrees with you. What did Calvin himself say about his own role in the Servetus affair?

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

(John Calvin)

 

Martin Luther was killing anabaptists, so I could see why he would praise Calvin. Neither one of them ever repented of their Catholic sacrament practices and infant baptism. (Luther: “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” [Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285])

Regarding his other atrocities:

The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59

During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.
From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.
During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen.
One burgher smiled while attending a baptism: three days imprisonment.
Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.
Some working men ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water.
Two burghers played skittles: prison.
Two others diced for a quarter bottle of wine: prison.
A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city.
Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.
A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance.
Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: four-and-twenty hours on bread and water.
A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.
A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung around his neck.
Another sang riotously in the street: was told ‘they could go and sing elsewhere,’ this meaning he was banished from the city.
Two bargees had a brawl: executed.
A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.
Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.
Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.”

From Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol. 8:

“The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”
Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’
A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’
Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
A banker was executed for repeated adultery. (Compare this incident with Paul’s handling of the man who committed adultery with his father’s wife – 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 2:1-7)
A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

 

While I completely disagree with you on Calvinism, which should be called doctrines of sovereignty and grace, you are completely correct about the character of John Calvin. I printed these records in other threads, several times. If there ever was a name unworthy of a holy doctrine, it is Calvin. It might as well have been called Hitlerism.

The man was a monster, devoid of any spiritual attributes. The excuse that it was the culture of the time is hogwash. By that century, freedom and liberty were well known values. One can never guess for certain the eternal destiny of another, but I would put this guy on the high end of probability for being in hell as we speak.

For whatever reason deep in his being, Mr. Rippon insists on uplifting and praising this piece of garbage. Whether or not he was directly or indirectly involved in the death of Michael Servetus is a moot point. He murdered and tortured many. Calvin is also a liar and a bearer of false witness. He wrote on the seperation of church and state in the Institutes, and proceeded to create a theocracy. Take that, plus his ideas about infant Baptism and other aspects of worship, it is obvious he never truly broke away from the Catholic Church. He learned well from the RCC executions and tortures.

Of all the disguisting things Calvin participated in was the persecution of the local, autonmous churches of the day that were preserving the true Church that Christ promised to preserve.

I look forward to discussing doctrines of grace with you in a civil manner once we put this individual where he belongs once and for all, the trash heap of history.

 

Why dont you stop embarrassing yourself? You have been crushed by the evidence. Also, stop aiding and abetting the Arminian cause.

 

You just will not quit. The evidence I posted is the same evidence that many other posters posted about the official record of Calvin's reign of terror in Geneva. What you cannot get through your thick skull is that it makes no difference what I said five years ago, the ones you do not make up. You have a good skill of blending truth and false witness.

What does make a difference is what Calvin actually did, and more glaring, why you sing the praises of the man to the level just short of calling him the creator.

The only conclusion one can come to is that you are being paid by the Arminian free willers to make these posts.

If Calvin were here in the United States today, he would be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity and God, and I for one would have no problem throwing the switch.

 

1.) Bolsec would again....be one of those critics of Calvin the existence of whom you deny. You are officially now on record claiming that Calvin had no critics....Glad we cleared that up. BTW: EVERYBODY had/has critics....even good people. however, on to your quote by McGrath:

HE is absolutely RIGHT!!!! Bolsec's accusations are absurd...in fact, in the very quote I posted he goes on to assert that Calvin liked the ladies (no evidence exists that I am aware of) and that he had homosexual tendencies (again, no evidence of which I can find either)

The POINT, Sherlock.......was to demonstrate that he indeed HAD numerous critics which you deny exist and I cite you here:

And yet.....Even though EVERYONE has political enemies, you deny that Calvin had any. Absolutely absurd :BangHead:

 

He isn't aiding the Arminian cause. Any right-thinking person can separate the doctrine which bears Calvin's name from the man himself. It's just a name. The error is his, in that HE (not you or any Arminians) insists that Calvin's name must be cleared in order to protect the docrinal ideas so named.

It is his belief in "Calvinism" which makes him think that protecting Calvin's blighted history is a must. Any right-thinking person can separate the two. As, obviously, you clearly can :thumbs:

 

Too true......Rippon has failed to mention that it was Calvin HIMSELF who caused Servetus to be put on trial by the Catholics in Vienne. Calvin sent private correspondences by Servetus (which he had every right to assume would remain personal and private) by the hand of his (cousin I think) to the Caltholic inquisitors. Calvin outed him to the Papal authorities he himself had previously fled in order to have the Papists do his dirty work for him. Unfortunately the man towards whom he harbored such intense personal hatred escaped so he had to do the job himself.

 

Servetus' hatred???? Now you are being simply ludicrous. You will possibly note that his prosecutor will attest that Servetus prayed for his accusers at his own execution......Is that a fact you are aware of? It impressed his own prosecutor quite a bit.
In regards to your question about Bolsec, I consider him EVERY BIT as much a "churchman" as I do John Calvin. After all, he did not murder anybody to my knowledge. I do not fellowship with murderers, nor do I consider them my brothers in Christ.
His execution
produced a Protestant controversy on imposing the death
penalty for heresy, drew severe criticism on John Calvin. (<----the criticism you deny exists)
(2) Phillip Hughes, A Popular History of the Catholic Church,
pp. 258-259.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Let's cover this as well while we're at it:

Do you even read your OWN SOURCES???? Do you know WHY that is the case?
Did you never stop to question why McGrath doesnt' say that it was common IN GENEVA??

The answer is.........It wasn't LEGAL in Geneva to execute someone for heresy.... The most they should expect is BANISHMENT for that. According to the legal system Calvin himself helped to create.
Here's what your brilliant jurist Calvin imported to justify the legal precedent for executing Servetus:
The EDICT OF JUSTINIAN!!! That's right! folks, our esteemed lawyer Calvin justified the notion of executing Servetus by absurdly importing the notion as supported by Justinian's 6th Century Roman law. This would be the legal equivalent of executing YOU for being a heretic by appealing to the legal codes of the Now extinct Holy Roman empire.

Servetus' murder was not only unconscionable.....it was ILLEGAL! and Calvin knew that full well. THAT'S why he insisted on be-heading, it was in order to couch the execution as codified by a charge of "treason" which was imported from the Justinian code. "sheesh"

I leave you with the same advice I give others in your predicament...."Quit while you're behind."