Featured Lies About John Calvin Refuted

Are you for real? Is that all he simply did? Do you wish to say that he was perfectly orthodox in his beliefs?

If there was a capable mod here your vile words would be stricken. Don't bring your filth in here.

Listen --I have made myself perfectly clear in this thread --don't pull junk on me.

Like I said before --if there was an actual mod doing his work those kind of vile comments would be deleted.

You do realize that you are in violation of BB rules don't you? You are comfortable calling fellow Christians those kinds of things --shameful.

It's up to the crowd here to make heads or tails out of that remark. So you are under the impression that if only Calvin would have listened to Michael Servetus the man of Geneva would have been a more enlightened fellow? You're saying that Calvin would have been a better preacher/Bible scholar?!

Servetus sure tried very hard to convince Calvin of all sorts of things. after Calvin patiently explained things in several letters --the vile things that Servetus said were too much to deal with. Calvin didn't reply back to him. But Servetus did not give up. I think the number of other letters (as well as drafts of some of his books) were around 30 or so.

There have been scads of books crediting Calvin with the foundation of America and capitalism along with being a beacon of expository light on the Word of God for millions.
___________________________________________________________
Proph --I will make a prediction -- you will land in hot water if you keep up your vile conduct. Please censor yourself.

 

You are a trip DHK. LOL! "He wouldn't even go there." (chuckle)

Western settlers din't go there until more than a half century after Calvin's death. I find it hard to believe that any literate person hasn't encountered the view that Calvin founded America. Calvin's principles of government are the underpinnings of the origin Republic.

You've never heard of Max Weber's the Protestant work ethic?

You've never come across Leopold von Rane (1795-1886)? It's not a novel idea.

Mark J. Larson has a book :Calvin's Doctrine of the State:A Reformed Doctrine and its American Trajectory, The Revolutionary War,and the Founder of the Republic"

Dr. Muller says this work is "A careful and balanced account of Calvin's views of church state relations."

A book I would love to have is :"The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding" by David W. Hall.

Fro reviews it is quite excellent and also credits Calvin as the virtual founder of America. E. Calvin Beisner,Daniel L. Dreisbach and Doug Phillips also share his view and endorse the book.

That is just a flat out misrepresentation. No objective historian would ever call him ego-driven. Far from it.

Still persistent regardless of facts which have been presented countless times. Just a few posts ago you were confused about the distinction between the Little Council which dealt with civil matters --including punishments and the Consistory which dealt with church matters only.

Calvin and the Consistory did not implement any laws --harsh or not. You know that but, say untruths regularly regarding Calvin. It is a sinful compulsion of yours.

 

Why pretend to be naive DHK?

He was very missionary minded. He sent out an expedition to Brazil in 1557. Two of the men were Pierre Richier and William Chartier. It was a very involved saga. Not successful at first.

Between 1555 and 1562 Calvin sent out 88 missionaries to France, and that was dangerous undertaking at that time. At least nine were killed for their faith. There was one legitimate church planted in France as a result of Calvin's initiative. By 1562 there were over 2,000.

John Calvin was devoted to missions. He made it his # 1 priority in the last decade of his life. It was what he was trying to achieve in his ministry.

He didn't just coldly send them out with money and prayers. He constantly corresponded with them to encourage and advise.

Some that he sent out were short-term church planters.
He was the head of a state-religion; not interested in the propagation of the gospel beyond Geneva unless it was for his own gain.

Calvin was an evangelist and missionary himself --not just a Reformer and certainly an Ivory tower theologian. He preached to all ages in Bourge shortly after his conversion for example.

That kind of sordid remark is repugnant and should never be used by anyone here --especially not one who pretends to be a mod. You are disgraceful and in need of deep repentance.

I am defending him against lies and smears. That is the purpose of this thread as I made clear in my OP. You know that very well.

You keep repeating that same old lie though you have been countered every time by Calvin authorities --historian/scholars who don't sling mud because it suits them.

"Far from ruling as a religious despot, Calvin was continually frustrated by the Genevan city council's unwillingness to implement many of the social reforms he advocated."

It's quite hard to be considered a dictator or despot when one is submissive to the higher powers as Calvin certainly was. And in the Servetus case it was amply illustrated.

Well, you are certainly not practicing what the Word of God admonished you to do ===tell the truth.

And this thread isn't about Calvinism as you very well know. It is addressing the false accusations and smears against Calvin that you and others have engaged in despite all the facts that are at your disposal.

You will not dictate what actual history unfolds. He was not a dictator or head of State. Lies are not advancing your cause --whatever that may be.

There were no church laws that enacted executions and punishments. You know the facts and are intentionally being insolent because the truth hurts you for some reason.

Calvin was the head of the Consistory. That body was concerned with ecclesiastical matters. The Little Council (of which he was no member) dealt with civil matters. The latter were magistrates --not Calvin. You were seemingly confused about this in a prior post of yours. Those where two separate and distinct bodies. Calvin was subject to the dictates of the Little Council, the 60 and the 200. As Mark Larson said:"It was the Small Council alone which had the power of the supreme penalty of capital punishment." Larson also has said :"The highest level of punishment which could be measured out by the Consistory was excommunication." And that power was only at certain times when the Concil was pleased to do so. As Schaff has said, the Consistory "had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments which belonged exclusively to the Council."

You constantly deny historical facts. You are untrustworthy. You can't give any example proving anything because it would not illustrate factual items in Calvin's life.

Blah,blah, blah.Nothing but blather from your keystrokes. Read the appropriate sections above.

Completely false as his been amply evidenced by quote after quote in abundant supply which you have put under your rug. (It's super lumpy now.)

Your lies are a mile high and building.

In this very post I quoted Schaff (which I have done numerous times before). Schaff is against your falsehood.

 

It Bears Repeating

There,I have broken the paragraph up into two parts for even greater ease of comprehension.

 

There were about seven Reformed churches in Geneva in Calvin's time. I highly doubt that all 24 members of the Little Council were members of his particular assembly.

 

Why you even bother to type out bold-faced lies of any sort is hard to figure out. The above is particularly outrageous. Quote even one respected source that says anything of that nature.

Please quote any legitimate source that says anything remotely related to your charge.

I'll quote one from a legitimate source. There is a book edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, called "The Calvin Handbook."

"Calvin did not have a very positive self-image..." (p.6)

"Research of the archives of Geneva has revealed that Calvin definitely did not have the decisive power in this city..." (5)

He was not on any Council much less the most powerful one. The Consistory was not a Council. It dealt only with church matters.

 

I'll remind you what Schaff thouht of Calvin:

Upon the whole, the verdict of history is growing in favor of Calvin. Those who know him best esteem him most. All impartial writers admit the purity and integrity, if not the sanctity of his character...He may be called the Christian Elijah."

"He must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men God raised up in the history of Christianity."

And from the Herman J. Selderhuis edited tome --"The Calvin Handbook" comes this line:

"He is simply incapable of not speaking the truth,for that is completely contrary to his image." (p.6)

 

Historical facts regarding the life of John Calvin and the distortions of DHK are antithetical.

No matter how many times you tell a lie --it remains a lie.

Calvin murdered no one. He executed no one. He did not authorize any such thing.

And you hate your straw man version of Calvin.

Listen to Schaff once more:"The Consistory Court was the controlling power in the church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishment, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec and Servetus do not even appear in its records."

Do you comprehend? You refuse to be taught by dozens of historical church scholars --including Schaff.You cling to your warped image of Calvin despite all the truth presented to you time and time again.

Facts are dispensable as far as you are concerned --you are too deep in your prejudice. But you need to humbly take some steps and acknowledge that you have been stubbornly denying the obvious. DHK, the elephant of truth is in the room. It won't go away.

That's another lie of yours. I have presented dozens upon dozens of quotes from historical scholars --many of whom are experts on the life of Calvin. Facts stand in the way of your fabrications and traditions.

You have even had the temerity to demean Calvin's evangelistic efforts --denying he even had missionary-mindedness against all the facts one more. You went so far as to say that if he did believe in the furtherance of the Gospel it was for his own gain. That was disgraceful and false in the extreme for you to say. You are getting down and dirty in trying to propel your misrepresentations and slurs about Calvin. You are desperate --you just want to throw any and all things at him and hope that something --anything might stick. That is so perverse DHK.