Featured Lies About John Calvin Refuted

From Alister E.McGrath's book :A Life of John Calvin :

"Post-Enlightenment writers have every right to protest against the cruelty of earlier generations;to single out Calvin for particular criticism,howver,suggests a selectivity approaching victimization. to target him in this way --when the manner of his involvement was,to say the least,oblique --and overlook the much greater claims to infamy of other individuals and institutions raises difficult questions concerning the precommitments of his critics. Servets was the only individual put to death for his religious opinions in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime,at a time when executions of this nature were a commonplace elsewhere.

Futhermore,the trail,condemnation and execution (including the selection of the particular mode of execution)of Servetus were entirely the work of the city council,at a period in its history when it was particularly hostile to Calvin. The Perrinists had recently gained power,and were determined to weaken his position. Their prosecution of Servetus...was intended to demonstrate their impeccable orthodoxy,as a prelude to undermining Calvin's religious authority within the city.The Consistory...was bypassed altogether by the council in its efforts to marginalize Calvin from the affair."

 

Continuing McGrath's Account...

"...it was the city council who --despite their intense hostility to Calvin --took over the case,and prosecuted Servetus with vigor.(This caused some surprise to outside observers:Wolfgang Musculus wrote of his belief that Servetus evidently expected to beefit from the hostility of the city council towards Calvin.) It should be noted that Calvin's role in these procedures was subsequently that of teachnical adviser or expert witness,rather than prosecutor." (p.119)

 

Calvin by Bruce Gordon

"Although Servetus' quarrel waas clearly with Calvin,the Frenchman's role in the process was limited. He was already enmeshed in the dispute with the magistrates over who possessed the right to excommunicate. This was a battle for control of the church. The rulers of Geneva were not about to permit Calvin to determine the course of the trail. The whole point was that they should decide whether the Spaniard lived or died." (219)

"Heresy was a capital offence,but Calvin did not want Servetus to die." (222)

"Calvin had wanted Servetus to recant,not die,and in that respect victory belonged to the Spaniard." (223)

 

Calvin by Bruce Gordon

"Why had the Protestant reformers so readily agreed to the execution of Servetus? To address that question we have to shed modern sensibilities and enter the world of the sixteenth century. By the early 1550s the Protestant Reformation was facing a resurgent Catholic church which at the Council of Trent was clearly defining its theology and discipline.The Protestant churches continued to be severely damaged by accusations that they were spawning heresy and heretics. The unwanted Servetus case came at a vital moment when Protestantism was forced to define itself against heresy. Failure to condemn Servetus and his evident denial of fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church would have been catastrophic. Having waged a long battle against what he regarded as idolatry,Calvin could not have turned a blind eye. To the Protestant churchmen of the sixteenth century,of all the plagues that struck their cities heresy was the most heinous.
...Calvin could not have Servetus executed. That was the decision of a council not well disposed towards the Frenchman and with which he was locked in battle over excommunication. Servetus provided an opportunity for the magistrates to demonstrate their authority over Calvin...The magistrates understood clearly that harboring or exonerating a heretic would blacken Geneva's name across Europe. Servetus was a dead man the moment he was recognized in the church service." (224)

 

B.B. Warfield produced a book called Calvin and Calvinism. The first chapter is called :John Calvin:The Man and His Work.

"And Servetus was condemned and executed by a tribunal of which Calvin was not a member,and which he possessed little influence,and which rejected his petition against the unnecessary cruelety of the penalty inflicted." (p.25)

 

Why don't you place a question mark after you ask a question? Why don't you make it possessive when speaking of the king's English? Further,don't you know that a king doesn't sit on the royal throne? It should be called the Queen's English.

 

More from Warfield's book:

"It is time,however,that we reminded ourselves that Calvin's work as a Reformer is not summed up in his literary activities. A 'man of letters' he was fundamentally;and a 'man of letters' he remained in principle all his life. But he was something more than a 'man of letters.' This was his chosen sphere of service;and he counted it a cross to be compelled to expend his energies through other channels. But this was laid upon him,and he took it up and bore it. And the work which he did under the cross was such that had we no single word from his pen,he would still hold his rank among the greatest of the Reformers. We call him 'the Reformer of Geneva.' But in reforming Geneva he set forces at work which have been world-wide in their operation and are active still today." (14,15)

"Censorship of manners and morals was not introduced by Calvin into Geneva...was the immemorial practice not only of Geneva but of all other similarly constituted towns.It was part of the recognized police regulations of the times. calvin's sole relation to this censorship was through his influence -- he never bore civil office or exercised civil authority in Geneva,and indeed,acquired the rights to citizenship there only late in life --gradually to bring some order and rationality into its exercise." (16)

 

Bruce Gordon on Calvin

"The 1559 Institutes was a masterpiece of organization and clarity...His goal in this work is to present a comprhensive accout of doctrine in a clear,brief and persuasive manner. This doctrine,he maintains,is what the true Church has always taught. His purpose is to explain the teachings of the Church in the right order so that the faithful might understand. This does not replace scripture,but is intended to act as a guide to key topics to be found in the Bible. Here was a stunning vision of God,creation,humanity,salvation and the church..." (p.302)

 

Calvin by Bruce Gordon

"In fact,his appeal was quite magnetic,and his sermons drew large congregations,such that by the middle of the 1550s he was preaching at the morning and afternoon services in Saint-Pierre to accommodate the numbers. Calvin was the star,but did not and could not work alone...Each individual minister preached...progressively through each chapter of a book of the Bible,so the people could be following several preaching series at the same time...When Calvin was not preaching himself he would attend the sermons of other ministers --doubtless a dauting prospect for them." (p.294.295)

 

Bruce Gordon on Cavin

"The extent of Calvin's international influence cannot be measured by confessions,church ordinances or even letters. His works were widely read and his ideas appropriated in varying degrees even in lands that never saw a Reformation. Through personal contacts,his teaching and preacvhing in Geneva and his correspondence,he reached a vast and diverse body of individuals. His reputation among those who were sympathetic was immense,but he did not stand alone. He was read alongside the other great reformers,such as Bullinger.Melanchthon and Vermigli. He never attempted to impose his views onchurch organization,and never regarded Geneva,despite Knox's praise,as the gold standard. Calvin's international work grew from his abiding belief that the visisible churches had to be unified in doctrine,not in outward forms. During his life he saw very little of that unity,but through the massive printing of his works he remained in death its most prominent advocate." (p.275)

 

I know lies,slurs and insults flow so naturally fromyour mouth and keystrokes. You are an amazing specimen of who-knows-what.

Has it ever occured to you that you should occasionally have something of substance to contribute instead of your non-Christ-like,unedifying posts?...Guess not. Keep on bringing disgrace to yourself.

 

Admitting you have lied on a repeated basis about Calvin would be a good start in turning your BB life around S/N.

 

Williston Walker:John Calvin...

The Organizer Of Reformed Protestantsism. I will quote from him again. On page 444:

"But whether friend,disciple,or foe,none could fail to recognize Calvin's transcendent ability. He might be slandered,the worst of motives might be imputed to him by traducers,but none who knew him could doubt his devotion to his cause. With all his frequent arrogance towards men,Calvin's spirit was humble towards God. To do and to teach His will was undoubtedly his prime intention; and if Calvin too often identified the divine purpose with his own wishes the error does not detract from the sincerity of his consecration. He submitted to his long bodily enfeeblement as from the wise hand of God. In the crises of his life,his conversion,his first settlement in Geneva,and in his return to the difficult ministry in that turbulent city,he sacrificed ease,scholarly honours,and personal inclination to what he deemed the imperative voice of God. He put God first. In the strength of the conviction that God had chosen his task,he fought his battles and did his work. It is this crowning trait that was expressed in the declaration of the Genevan Little Council,standing under the shadow of his recent death :'God gave him a character of great majesty,' and that must ever remain Calvin's highest claim to personal regard."

 

From Courtenay Studies In Reformation Theology :John Calvin. The following is from the first chapter by Basil Hall called The Calvin Legend.

"It is a curious fact that if one were to collect references to "Calvin,' 'Calvinism', and 'Calvinistic' in non-scholarly writing, the majority of instances would be pejorative in tone and in general bear very little relation to what is known to scholars of Calvin's writing, doctrine, and achievements.

Those who wish to focus denigration of Calvin and what he stood for, on his supposed cruelty and dictatorial powers, fail to come to grips with two major facts. First, if Calvin was a cruel man, how did he attract so many, so varied, and so warmly attached friends and associates who speak of the sensitiveness and the charm beneath his shy and withdrawn manner in public life? The evidence is plain for all to read in the course of his vast correspondence. Secondly, if Calvin had dictatorial control over Geneva affairs, how is it that records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand Calvin's wishes for the religious life of Geneva, and was always master in Genevan affairs?...To call Calvin the 'dictator of a theocracy' is, in view of the evidence, mere phrase-making prejudice. Calvin in Geneva had less power either in theory or in practice than has Archbishop Whitgift in England, and less again than had Archbishop Laud, or Cardinal Richelieu in France,for he had neither the authority of their office nor the consistent and powerful political support which they received. Moreover, to take the pattern --a pattern so continually used that it has become a historian's cliché --of the 'Geneva discipline' (as it has was exemplified by anti-Calvinist Genevan writers in the nineteenth century)out of the context of the variously repressive ecclesiastical disciplines of the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian Churches of the sixteenth century, is to lose proportion and come near to caricature." (pages 10 and 11)