Atrocities of John Calvin

[plain_n_simple]

The truth of the character of Calvin can be seen in the "heretic" Michael Servetus and others who were accused of violating his laws. Servetus was a scholarly theologian, and a renowned physician. He was condemned as a heretic by both the Roman Church as well as the Protestants for his rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. In 1531, Servetus published a book titled “Errors of the Trinity” in which he referred to those who believed in the Trinity as believing in three Gods. He and Calvin corresponded for some time, but Servetus would not accept Calvin’s teachings on the Trinity. Calvin, having failed to convert Servetus, became vindictive and saw him as his devoted enemy. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to his friend Farel “If he (Servetus) comes (to Geneva) I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

For seven years Calvin sought to capture and try Severtus. When Severtus made the mistake of returning to Geneva and attending on of Calvin’s services he was recognized and arrested and put on trial. Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict in Servetus’ trial would be the death penalty.

Calvin got his wish and Servetus was convicted of two of the thirty-eight charges brought against him. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake along with his books, and on October 27, 1553, his sentence was carried out. Outside of Geneva, he was taken to a hill and Nigg records that a “A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...." It should be noted that Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, but was only visiting the city. Thus, the misdirected piety of John Calvin claimed but another victim.

Calvin did not have the faculty for entering into another person’s ideas. Rather, he tended to decide arbitrarily that such ideas were diabolically inspired. . . no amount of human or historical broad-mindedness can bring us to excuse Calvin’s actions. This should cause any logical and honest person to question how could this spiritually unsound man be the founder of Protestant Reformed theology. How could Reformed Theology hold him in such high esteem?

Calvin, who had denounced Roman Catholicism for its false beliefs and practices, was giving French refugees asylum from the Inquisition in Geneva. He himself had also been condemned to be burned at the stake absentia, was now conducting his own Reformed Inquisition in Switzerland. For someone who follows this man, ask yourself if this is love? Is this the character of Christ? Is this good fruit?

 

[BobRyan]

The truth of the character of Calvin can be seen in the "heretic" Michael Servetus and others who were accused of violating his laws. Servetus was a scholarly theologian, and a renowned physician. He was condemned as a heretic by both the Roman Church as well as the Protestants for his rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. In 1531, Servetus published a book titled “Errors of the Trinity” in which he referred to those who believed in the Trinity as believing in three Gods. He and Calvin corresponded for some time, but Servetus would not accept Calvin’s teachings on the Trinity. Calvin, having failed to convert Servetus, became vindictive and saw him as his devoted enemy. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to his friend Farel “If he (Servetus) comes (to Geneva) I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

For seven years Calvin sought to capture and try Severtus. When Severtus made the mistake of returning to Geneva and attending on of Calvin’s services he was recognized and arrested and put on trial. Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict in Servetus’ trial would be the death penalty.

Calvin got his wish and Servetus was convicted of two of the thirty-eight charges brought against him. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake along with his books, and on October 27, 1553, his sentence was carried out. Outside of Geneva, he was taken to a hill and Nigg records that a “A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly.

The "protesting Catholics" such as were Luther and Calvin were raised by a church that justified torture and burning victims alive, While we can respect the Reformers for attempting to distance themselves from the many doctrinal errors of their former church - it is still sad to see that they were not able to make a clean break with all the horrific practices of the RCC in the dark ages.

Yet today the RCC declares her call to "Exterminate heretics" in Lateran IV to be "infallible" since it is part of an ecumenical council. Not so with the various mistakes among Protestants. They are not married to the idea of claiming that the atrocities of the past were "infallible"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The truth of the character of Calvin can be seen in the "heretic" Michael Servetus and others who were accused of violating his laws. Servetus was a scholarly theologian, and a renowned physician. He was condemned as a heretic by both the Roman Church as well as the Protestants for his rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. In 1531, Servetus published a book titled “Errors of the Trinity” in which he referred to those who believed in the Trinity as believing in three Gods. He and Calvin corresponded for some time, but Servetus would not accept Calvin’s teachings on the Trinity. Calvin, having failed to convert Servetus, became vindictive and saw him as his devoted enemy. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to his friend Farel “If he (Servetus) comes (to Geneva) I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

For seven years Calvin sought to capture and try Severtus. When Severtus made the mistake of returning to Geneva and attending on of Calvin’s services he was recognized and arrested and put on trial. Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict in Servetus’ trial would be the death penalty.

Calvin got his wish and Servetus was convicted of two of the thirty-eight charges brought against him. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake along with his books, and on October 27, 1553, his sentence was carried out. Outside of Geneva, he was taken to a hill and Nigg records that a “A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...." It should be noted that Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, but was only visiting the city. Thus, the misdirected piety of John Calvin claimed but another victim.

Calvin did not have the faculty for entering into another person’s ideas. Rather, he tended to decide arbitrarily that such ideas were diabolically inspired. . . no amount of human or historical broad-mindedness can bring us to excuse Calvin’s actions. This should cause any logical and honest person to question how could this spiritually unsound man be the founder of Protestant Reformed theology. How could Reformed Theology hold him in such high esteem?

Calvin, who had denounced Roman Catholicism for its false beliefs and practices, was giving French refugees asylum from the Inquisition in Geneva. He himself had also been condemned to be burned at the stake absentia, was now conducting his own Reformed Inquisition in Switzerland. For someone who follows this man, ask yourself if this is love? Is this the character of Christ? Is this good fruit?

Oh for goodness gracious! Why rehash this? I mean, who needs to review stuff that happened that long ago ....and by what standards do you wish to judge any of these people by? Let it go dude & move on up to the 21st century.

 

[blessedwife318]

Usually in debates when you attack the character and not the arguments it means you don't have an argument. If you don't believe in Calvinism that's fine but attacking a man who is long dead and gone will not changes anyones mind about reformed theology, especially when he really was just a product of his time.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Usually in debates when you attack the character and not the arguments it means you don't have an argument. If you don't believe in Calvinism that's fine but attacking a man who is long dead and gone will not changes anyones mind about reformed theology, especially when he really was just a product of his time.

Just a product of his time? We test, we look, we examine fruits. You think it's just old news about a murderer from 500 yrs ago? I'll remind you it is this murderer's doctrine that so many hold so high as Holy, yet it did the opposite for himself. He never repented but gloried in his murders. We are instructed to examine a teacher's fruit:

"17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

"15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

"9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;"

"21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:"

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

Clearly Jean Calvin did not know love, nor God, nor the scriptures.


In 1536 Calvin wrote: “The Bible is a knotty, difficult text, whose interpretation demands extensive knowledge. If brought into contact with it unceremoniously, many minds are upset and seized with confusion. The Bible is too old a text in too new a world."

A haughty spirit transferred to his followers. Bad tree=Bad fruit.

 

[Revmitchell]

The truth of the character of Calvin can be seen in the "heretic" Michael Servetus and others who were accused of violating his laws. Servetus was a scholarly theologian, and a renowned physician. He was condemned as a heretic by both the Roman Church as well as the Protestants for his rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. In 1531, Servetus published a book titled “Errors of the Trinity” in which he referred to those who believed in the Trinity as believing in three Gods. He and Calvin corresponded for some time, but Servetus would not accept Calvin’s teachings on the Trinity. Calvin, having failed to convert Servetus, became vindictive and saw him as his devoted enemy. On February 13, 1546, Calvin wrote to his friend Farel “If he (Servetus) comes (to Geneva) I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

For seven years Calvin sought to capture and try Severtus. When Severtus made the mistake of returning to Geneva and attending on of Calvin’s services he was recognized and arrested and put on trial. Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict in Servetus’ trial would be the death penalty.

Calvin got his wish and Servetus was convicted of two of the thirty-eight charges brought against him. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake along with his books, and on October 27, 1553, his sentence was carried out. Outside of Geneva, he was taken to a hill and Nigg records that a “A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. 'Mercy, mercy!' he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,' the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ...." It should be noted that Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, but was only visiting the city. Thus, the misdirected piety of John Calvin claimed but another victim.

Calvin did not have the faculty for entering into another person’s ideas. Rather, he tended to decide arbitrarily that such ideas were diabolically inspired. . . no amount of human or historical broad-mindedness can bring us to excuse Calvin’s actions. This should cause any logical and honest person to question how could this spiritually unsound man be the founder of Protestant Reformed theology. How could Reformed Theology hold him in such high esteem?

Calvin, who had denounced Roman Catholicism for its false beliefs and practices, was giving French refugees asylum from the Inquisition in Geneva. He himself had also been condemned to be burned at the stake absentia, was now conducting his own Reformed Inquisition in Switzerland. For someone who follows this man, ask yourself if this is love? Is this the character of Christ? Is this good fruit?

This has been posted on this board a hundred times over.

 

[DHK]

Usually in debates when you attack the character and not the arguments it means you don't have an argument. If you don't believe in Calvinism that's fine but attacking a man who is long dead and gone will not changes anyones mind about reformed theology, especially when he really was just a product of his time.

But history doesn't change. What many don't realize is the history of Calvinism and where it really started. Let's go right back to Constantine.

Constantine in the early part of the 4th century made a false profession of faith. He did it for political reasons. He saw that Christianity was spreading and had become popular among the masses. He issued forth an edict of toleration, which was very important at that time. It restored a measure of peace.
But uniting "Christianity" with the state, he formed a "church-state," and hence the beginnings of the "Catholic Church." Constantine wanted unity--peace and unity at all costs.

What Constantine didn't count on was certain "sects" (I use the term loosely) of Christianity who opposed the this state-church and all the corruption and false doctrine that had entered in. It was the Donatists who separated from this Church.
Constantine had his famous vision, a cross in the sky, and a voice that said: "In this thou shalt conquer." Constantine never renounced his loyalty to the sun-gods, nor the goddess Vesta, nor others. He certainly was not a true Christian.
It was not long after the edict of tolerance was issued that he encountered the division with the Donatists in north Africa. After 3 years of futile discussions Constantine resorted to force. In 317 he issued an edict at Milan, declaring the Donatists as heretics, and that they should be persecuted even to death. In fact, all those outside of the Catholic were to have their property confiscated and treated as heretics.

It was in this environment that Augustine was born, one of the fathers of the Catholic Church--a man who believed in baptismal regeneration, that salvation came through keeping the sacraments of the church, and that no one could be saved outside of the Catholic Church. His devotion to the Catholic Church was extreme. He also perpetuated the persecution of heretics.
Augustine wrote his famous book, "The City of God," describing the Kingdom of God on earth. Perhaps it could be established by exterminating heretics, weeding out the tares, leaving only the wheat.

1200 years later Calvin came and took the same belief system that Augustine had developed--total depravity, and many of the doctrines built upon it which established TULIP. To enforce it heretics had to be punished such as they were in Augustine's time. Many Anabaptists were tortured for their faith, even executed.
Calvin set up his own state church, such as Augustine had written about. He tried to cleanse Geneva of the tares. He tried to force salvation on those in Geneva. How could he impose "election" upon all in Geneva is a question that still remains unanswered.
Coming out of Cathoicism, and following Augustine, Calvin took much of the Catholic baggage with him. He practiced baptismal regeneration. He practiced persecution of the saints. If anyone disagreed with this "Protestant Pope," he would be punished. A "system" of "Christianity" was imposed upon the city of Geneva. The Bible, as Augustine did, was now interpreted in an allegorical way.
In March of 1537 all Anabaptists were banished from the city.
He imposed his brand of Christianity on the citizens of Geneva with floggings, imprisonments, banishings, and burning at the stake.
But this is not Christianity is it? Was it really anything different than Constantine did as a pagan ruler?

 

[convicted1]

Was the OP a cut n copy? If so, that's plagerism, seeing he cited no link...

 

[Revmitchell]

Was the OP a cut n copy? If so, that's plagerism, [plagiarism] seeing he cited no link...

Yes he plagiarized this paper:


http://bible-truth.org/Election2.doc


Or he just forgot to include the link by accident.

 

[BobRyan]

Usually in debates when you attack the character and not the arguments it means you don't have an argument. If you don't believe in Calvinism that's fine but attacking a man who is long dead and gone will not changes anyones mind about reformed theology, especially when he really was just a product of his time.

The real history of a Protestant reformer who urged that someone who differed with him be burned alive is right up there with some stuff going on in Iraq. I argue that the only reason this seemed like a good thing to someone living in the dark ages - is that they had been so convinced in their childhood by stuff the RCC was doing.

It is a warning to all of us that the Reformers probably did not make a "clean break" with Catholicism even though they made noble strides in that direction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[blessedwife318]

The real history of a Protestant reformer who urged that someone who differed with him be burned alive is right up there with some stuff going on in Iraq. I argue that the only reason this seemed like a good thing to someone living in the dark ages - is that they had been so convinced in their childhood by stuff the RCC was doing.

It is a warning to all of us that the Reformers probably did not make a "clean break" with Catholicism even though they made noble strides in that direction.

in Christ,

Bob

No they did not make a clean break from the RCC. But if you looked at any of the Reformers they all have skeletons that we would rather not talk about. Calvin is not unique in that respect.

 

[BobRyan]

No they did not make a clean break from the RCC. But if you looked at any of the Reformers they all have skeletons that we would rather not talk about. Calvin is not unique in that respect.

And my understanding is that those "Carry over" bad ideas about intolerance, persecution, demonizing of the opponent that the RCC practices, carried over at least "in part" with the first generation of Reformers, with the result being what it was.

In any case - while we are on the subject...

What do think of this former-Calvinist-turned-Catholic claiming that it was Calvin that opened his eyes to why it would be good to be Catholic

Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.


These discoveries faced me with important questions. Why should Calvin treat these “Catholic things” with such seriousness? Was he right in thinking them so important? And if so, was he justified in leaving the Catholic Church? What did these discoveries teach me about Protestantism? How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views? Was the whole Protestant way of doing theology doomed to confusion and inconsistency?


http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

 

[Rippon]

To enforce it heretics had to be punished such as they were in Augustine's time. Many Anabaptists were tortured for their faith, even executed.

In Geneva? Supposedly under the authority of Calvin? That's a LIE.

Calvin tried to force salvation on those in Geneva. How could he impose "election" upon all in Geneva is a question that still remains unanswered.

Stupid LIE.

Calvin practiced persecution of the saints. If anyone disagreed with this "Protestant Pope," he would be punished.

Two more idiotic LIES.

The Bible, as Augustine did, was now interpreted in an allegorical way.

Foolish categorical LIE. Anyone who has the barest amount of integrity knows Calvin was against the allegorical method all the way. You are spouting stupid drivel and shame covers your LIES.

In March of 1537 all Anabaptists were banished from the city.
He imposed his brand of Christianity on the citizens of Geneva with floggings, imprisonments, banishings, and burning at the stake.

You are not uniformed. You are intentionally lying. Calvin did not have the authority you still wish to impose on him with your revisionist history. The City Council --not John Calvin imposed punishments of the kind you have itemized. And John Calvin was not a member of the City Council.

 

[PreachTony]

1200 years later Calvin came and took the same belief system that Augustine had developed--total depravity, and many of the doctrines built upon it which established TULIP. To enforce it heretics had to be punished such as they were in Augustine's time. Many Anabaptists were tortured for their faith, even executed.

<snip>

In March of 1537 all Anabaptists were banished from the city.
He imposed his brand of Christianity on the citizens of Geneva with floggings, imprisonments, banishings, and burning at the stake.
But this is not Christianity is it? Was it really anything different than Constantine did as a pagan ruler?

The only instance I'm readily aware of in which Anabaptists were tortured and killed was in the aftermath of the Münster Rebellion, in which several Anabaptists seized political control of the German town of Münster, instituting a theocracy and claiming the city to be the New Jerusalem. One of the leaders, John of Leiden, became so arrogant in his power that he proclaimed himself a successor to King David and instituted legalized polygamy, taking multiple wives himself. Once the rebellion was put down, three of the Anabaptist leaders (John of Leiden, Bernhard Krechting, and Bernhard Knipperdolling [who had been installed as mayor]) were executed. To quote Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source, but this isn't exactly an academic paper here):

Each of the three was attached to a pole by an iron spiked collar and his body ripped with red-hot tongs for the space of an hour. After Knipperdolling saw the process of torturing John of Leiden, he attempted to kill himself with the collar, using it to choke himself. After that the executioner tied him to the stake to make it impossible for him to kill himself. After the burning, their tongues were pulled out with tongs before each was killed with a burning dagger thrust through the heart. The bodies were placed in three cages and hung from the steeple of St. Lambert's Church and the remains left to rot. About fifty years later the bones were removed, but the cages have remained into the 21st century.

The fallout from the rebellion was that the Anabaptists never again gained political advantage, though various sectarian groups held out. The Batenburgs, in particular, held on to the polygamy John of Leiden advocated, and also believed violence to be a reasonable answer to anyone who differed in belief from them.

 

[DHK]

You are not uniformed. You are intentionally lying. Calvin did not have the authority you still wish to impose on him with your revisionist history. The City Council --not John Calvin imposed punishments of the kind you have itemized. And John Calvin was not a member of the City Council.

You are intentionally blind. A very quick and cursory glance of the internet will show otherwise:

Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.

(Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, written in 1554; in Philip Schaff, History of the Reformation, [New York, 1892], vol. 2, p. 791; cited in Stanford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus?, Infinity, 2008, pp. 348-349)

http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2009/05/john-calvins-advocacy-of-capital.html

 

[Yeshua1]

You are intentionally blind. A very quick and cursory glance of the internet will show otherwise:

http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2009/05/john-calvins-advocacy-of-capital.html

MUST though understand the nature of the times, and what was happening...

Did Calvin at times do things that were not Christian based? yes, but then so have ALL of us here, and we are to examine the teachings of His by the Bible itself, not by if he was perfect all his life!

I have no doubt that he was saved, and gifted by God to be a theologian, unlike those so called ones in catholicism and SDA!

 

[DHK]

MUST though understand the nature of the times, and what was happening...

Did Calvin at times do things that were not Christian based? yes, but then so have ALL of us here, and we are to examine the teachings of His by the Bible itself, not by if he was perfect all his life!

I have no doubt that he was saved, and gifted by God to be a theologian, unlike those so called ones in catholicism and SDA!

Does culture change the Bible?
Under what circumstances does the Bible change?
Is it right to kill innocent people (though one may think they be heretics) ?
Can you go at random and kill J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. Can your president issue such a decree? When does it become right for a Christian to wage war and execute other Christians because they disagree with him.
He was a cruel monster.
This was the basic difference that Arminius had with Calvin, not doctrinal.
Arminius studied at Calvin's school.

 

[Yeshua1]

Does culture change the Bible?
Under what circumstances does the Bible change?
Is it right to kill innocent people (though one may think they be heretics) ?
Can you go at random and kill J.W.'s, Mormons, etc. Can your president issue such a decree? When does it become right for a Christian to wage war and execute other Christians because they disagree with him.
He was a cruel monster.
This was the basic difference that Arminius had with Calvin, not doctrinal.
Arminius studied at Calvin's school.

NOT saying that what Calvin always did was right thing, but that we must understand in the light of the times why was more acceptable to do...

And his teachings were still much better than the catholic ones of the time...

 

[DHK]

The only instance I'm readily aware of in which Anabaptists were tortured and killed was in the aftermath of the Münster Rebellion, in which several Anabaptists seized political control of the German town of Münster, instituting a theocracy and claiming the city to be the New Jerusalem. One of the leaders, John of Leiden, became so arrogant in his power that he proclaimed himself a successor to King David and instituted legalized polygamy, taking multiple wives himself. Once the rebellion was put down, three of the Anabaptist leaders (John of Leiden, Bernhard Krechting, and Bernhard Knipperdolling [who had been installed as mayor]) were executed. To quote Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source, but this isn't exactly an academic paper here):

The fallout from the rebellion was that the Anabaptists never again gained political advantage, though various sectarian groups held out. The Batenburgs, in particular, held on to the polygamy John of Leiden advocated, and also believed violence to be a reasonable answer to anyone who differed in belief from them.

The Anabaptists were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, all of which were pedobaptists. Only some took up arms, but that was not a general practice.

Up until this point, the Anabaptists were pacifists, “perfect quietists, preaching the duty of non-resistance and the wickedness of bearing arms, even in self-defense”[28]. However, this was not the case amongst all Anabaptist groups. Inspired by an Anabaptist preacher, Rothmann, the city of Münster was declared by many millennial Anabaptists to be the New Jerusalem[29].

In the Munster Rebellion there were some that were called Anabaptists (a name given to anyone that rebaptized) that did take up arms). However that was an exception to the majority of the Anabaptist.

The Catholics, Lutherans and Calivinists all “at least agreed in perceiving the Anabaptist groups as a threat to sixteenth-century society”[59]. Anna Bijns, a Catholic poet and teacher stated that the “Anabaptists had come to epitomize the dangers of heresy”[60], but believed that the persecution should go further than what Luther was comfortable with. Advocating that heresy deserved death, she argued that if God had not wanted the executions to occur, he would have sent a sign[61]. When this sign did not appear, the persecution continued.

Bullinger, an adamant follower of Zwingli, hated the Anabaptists, accusing them of excessive spiritualism and literalism in biblical interpretation. The Lutheran, Melanchthon, believed that all Anabaptists be executed, taking Luther’s evaluation to the next step. Another Lutheran, Menius, “hated the Anabaptists and thought their leaders should be executed”[62]. Despite initially resisting the use of force, Luther came to believe that “hell was sufficient punishment for the Anabaptists”[63]. While the Catholics demanded the death penalty for Anabaptists, being the major instigators of execution, all Protestant groups demanded expulsion, imprisonment and occasionally execution[64]. Luther believed them to be “not mere heretics but open blasphemers; are rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers”[65].

https://thoughtsofalivingchristian....tholic-lutheran-and-calvinist-perspectives-2/

 

[DHK]

NOT saying that what Calvin always did was right thing, but that we must understand in the light of the times why was more acceptable to do...

And his teachings were still much better than the catholic ones of the time...

That is the teaching of relativism. A choice between two evils.
The teaching of the Anabaptists was the correct teaching.

The closest that the Anabaptists had to a confession of faith was the Schleitheim Confession of Faith (1527), but even this was not completely accepted. In this confession, there were seven statements as outlined below[42]:

Baptism. Reserved for those who truly understand repentance and the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
The Ban. Those not living a ‘Christian’ life – i.e. those who are seen to be living in sin, rather than in Jesus’ resurrection – are banished from the community of believers.
Communion. After being baptized, being united with the body of Christ, a person may participate in communion, a ritual remembering Jesus’ unifying work of atonement.
Separation. The church must establish itself as distinct from society and the state, and all Christians may not associate themselves with anyone not of the Church[43].
One Pastor. There is one leader of the church, who has the authority and responsibility to ban, admonish, teach and lead prayer.
Pacifism. As Jesus Christ is the Christian’s only protector, the sword is a wicked tool of the devil, and the only forms of discipline may be the ban and the command to sin no more.
Oaths. No Christian can partake in taking oaths, as Jesus forbade it Himself. This is to insist on the perfection of the Law, rather than civil authority.

https://thoughtsofalivingchristian....tholic-lutheran-and-calvinist-perspectives-2/
Calvin, in many ways, came out of the Catholic Church, only to mimic it once again.