Featured Lies About John Calvin Refuted

Of course I did. Don't be juvenile.

Here is what you said in post #171 to me:"You [sic] sources are one-sided apparently, though I have not checked them."

You didn't bother to read them but you dismiss them with a wave of your hand.

How can you be so untruthful with so little effort? Read posts 152,154,155,156,159,160,161,162 and 219 instead of ignoring them. You will find substantiation for everything I have maintained against your distortions. I didn't merely list the authors --I cited their words which contradict yours at every turn. Facts DHK. Get acquainted with them.

When you finally admit the truth I will not tell you "That is a lie."

 

Listen Wrong Way Corrigan --you simply must pay attention. I have produced quotes from a variety of Church historians/scholars both past and present. Take up and read. Look at the content of my posts 152,154-156,159-162. Both of you have run afoul of historical truth multiple times.

And I find it most interesting that neither you nor DHK have commented on post #219.

 

You can't have it both ways DHK. One the one hand you cite Schaff as an excellent historian --then you ignore the validity of what he says at other times.

No legitimate source says he was a law unto himself. He was not a dictator. He had no political power. He was subject to the higher powers --the Council of the Sixty,the Council of the Two Hundred --and the ultimate authority in Geneva which was the Small Council of 25.

He might well be considered the head of the Consistory. But by "real power" you mean civil authority. But Calvin had no such authority.

You are plugging away at your same ole' untruthful smears --to your shame.

You express yourself awkwardly. I don't know specifically what you are attempting to say. By the terminology "the judgment of the churches" what do you mean? Do you mean the four Swiss Churches? "Summed up in the Genevan Consistory" is confused wording. What are you trying to say? Please rephrase.

It is complete nonsense to maintain that the Consistory had more power than the Councils of the 200 and 60. The Council of the 25 --The Little Council, was the ultimate authority in Geneva. Calvin and all others in Geneva were under its jurisdiction. To insist otherwise is pure foolishness.

Ha,ha! So finally the Consistory consisted of him alone?

You're unintentionally funny.

 

And as all my sources Schaff, Larson (thanks TND) ad infinitum have said, the Consistory wielded no civil authority. The Little Council made the decision to execute Servetus. That body had the supreme power in Geneva. And in 1553 the majority did not like John Calvin. Calvin was not a member of the Little Council.The Genevan Consistory was not considered, or even called a Council.

 

Okay Johnnie One-Note. How do you go about trying to demean the credentials of a BB Warfield, William Cunningham, J.I. Packer, Bruce Gordon, Dr. Emile Doumergue, Jean-Daniel Benoit, Basil Hall, Herman Selderhuis and so many others that I quoted? You simply say that they were one-sided. (chuckle)

So despite their saintliness and scholarship they are to be thrown on the scrapheap because DHK says so. Well I and all reasonable people beg to differ.

What do you do with the likes of Francois Wendel and Philip Schaff who were not Reformed --but Lutheran? They don't fit your warped dissmissal of the Reformed authors.

Perhaps it is you who are the partisan one --who will try in vain to revise history though flying in the face of facts. Learned men who actually were true historians should not be so lightly cast aside.

You're not making any sense. "Execution of all evil"? Huh?

As Schaff has said, the Consistory "had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments." Just acknowledge the truth DHK. You are running on empty screeds.

You keep repeating your mantra of "murderous acts" when you have not a scintilla of evidence to submit. Why do you persist in such a slanderous falsehood?

 

I know you are embarrassed, but Larson's work:"John Calvin and Geneva Presbyterianism" which you had quoted from so approvingly said the very opposite from what you believe. He didn't change his mind afterward. The very paper itself torpedoed your vapid claims as I have demonstrated. Reading with comprehension is a needed skill you need to acquire.

 

The above was in reference to my post numbered 219 when I quoted statements by Philip Schaff which run completely opposite from the claims that you and DHK have made repeatedly.

But your phraseology is hard to decipher. "It makes statements refuting facts that have not been made by us..." Huh? What in the world does that mean? Please clue us in.

 

DHK: on 3/23/2014 you admitted that Calvin was not in charge in Geneva. But then,in the very same post you said Calvin "acted without the authority of the Council." When did he act with the authority of the Council? And are you referencing the Little Council? He did not act without the approval of any of the three Councils.

On 3/20/2014 you stated :"His decisions were made without the Council's authority. He was greater than the Council." Again,there were three Councils he didn't get to "decide" against any of them. He had to submit to the authority of the Councils. He certainly was not greater than the Councils. That claim of yours is ridiculous.

On the same date you said "His church held all the power;not the Council." That does not make the least bit of sense. What exactly do you mean by "his church"?

From the same post you made the absurd remarks that He did not submit to the powers of the state. He was the state." That is utter nonsense.

You need to give evidence for these wild assertions which are in opposition to historical facts. What's the old phrase? Oh yeahut up or shut up.

 

Schaff does no such thing and you know it --yet persist in your falsehood here and elsewhere.

The only thing closed is your stubborn refusal to concede that you have slandered Calvin over and over and have brought in Schaff for support. Yet he does not level any such charge at Calvin's feet.

TND brought in Larson to support his falsehood only it blew up in his face. The same thing is your problem.

 

Philip Schaff

DHK: Please read with your eyes wide open and try to comprehend easy English.

I have quoted from Schaff time and time again. These quotes above show that Schaff never accused Calvin of being a murderer. The Consistory had no such powers as you have falsely accused it of having. You do not have the right to make up DHK history. Truth is important. You need to realize that. Schaff does not help your cause at all --he sets you straight,as have all the other witnesses I have assembled. To continue in the manner in which you conduct yourself is reprehensible.

 

You can repost that till the cows come home. The fact remains that Schaff did not call Calvin a murderer. Schaff continually reminds us that the Little Council (of which Calvin was not a member) issued the death warrant for Servetus. Calvin and the Consistory dealt only with ecclesiastical matters --not civil affairs. The Consistory did not wield any authority in the matters pertaining to the State whatsoever. That's the truth --the truth that Schaff and the testimonies of all the others that I have produced. You are running on empty DHK.