Atrocities of John Calvin

[DHK]

Sources abound. This is a timeline of Calvin's life which all should read.
In this part of his life Calvin gives reasons why he persecuted others:

Prefatory Address in his Institutes to Francis, King of the French, 1536. "But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?"

http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm
IF he was a Christian, this cannot be defended.

 

[RLBosley]

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?

Whoever wrote this put WAY too much effort into being wrong.

 

[RLBosley]

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

That's what I was thinking. I'm 99% sure i've seen the EXACT same writing here before and elsewhere.

Yes he plagiarized this paper:


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

Good find. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

That's what I was thinking. I'm 99% sure i've seen the EXACT same writing here before and elsewhere.



Good find. :thumbs:

Uh, I also said he may have just forgotten to put the link with it. That can happen to anyone. Very few of us have not been guilty of forgetting that at one time or another.

 

[RLBosley]

Uh, I also said he may have just forgotten to put the link with it. That can happen to anyone. Very few of us have not been guilty of forgetting that at one time or another.

Yep. That's why I said good find when you found the source. I wasn't accusing him of intentionally plagiarizing. I was just saying I'm pretty sure I've previously read exactly what he posted.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep. That's why I said good find when you found the source. I wasn't accusing him of intentionally plagiarizing. I was just saying I'm pretty sure I've previously read exactly what he posted.

Gotchya..............

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Personally, the way most here view Calvinism only takes in a very small portion John Calvin's system. Most here limit their Calivinism to the Doctrines of Grace as put forth in the Canons of Dort. However, this leaves aside the Reformed Church's other confessions (Heidelberg, Belgic, ect.). These confessions flesh out the Reformed positions

• on the unity of church and state (sacralism) and
• infant baptism

I avoid the descriptive not so much because of its Continental and British proponents, in particular the English Puritans and Separtist Baptists (Gill, Carey, Spurgeon, et al.). My avoidance come out of the American Baptist experience with the Puritan rulers of Massachusettes Bay Colony (e.g. the Obadiah Holmes case). In the Holmes case, he was whipt by the colony's civil authority for holding a prayer meeting while visiting a sick friend. Govenor Winthorp wanted him hanged for opposing infant baptism.

For the most part, bringing up John Calvin's 16th century sacralism is a rabbit trail. Thus not really of any impact.

 

[Rippon]

The main thrust of the Arminian/Calvinistic forum should be on soteriology. It has nothing to do with the life of John Calvin. But some here are adept at bunny trails.

Yet for those who want to discover the truth about the life of Calvin they need to see my thread of the past :Lies About John Calvin Refuted.

There folks will find out that Calvin was not the dictator of Geneva. He never ruled it. Calvin wielded no theocratic regime.

It is there that people will come to grips with the fact that Calvin was not a member of any of the three Councils of Geneva. He was with the Consistory --and that "could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishment, which belonged exclusively to the Council." (Schaff)

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

In that thread I have documented abundant scholarly research by well-respected historians aside from the previous just mentioned.

For instance, I cited quotes from Hall, Cunningham, Packer, Doumergue, Benoit, Wendel, McGrath, Cottret, Vollmer, Muller, Furguson, Walker, Warfild, Cadier, Scott, Walter, Froese, Gordon and Larson among others.

Nearly two dozen competent authorities were cited. Read their citations.

The author of the OP and his supporters are not trustworthy when it comes to the subject of the life of John Calvin.

 

[plain_n_simple]

"The main thrust of the Arminian/Calvinistic forum should be on soteriology. It has nothing to do with the life of John Calvin."

You cannot separate the man's life from his teaching, especially a subject so important as salvation.

Did he live it?

Did his teaching have any effect on his own life?

Did Calvin's life reflect scripture?

Does the bible itself tell us to look at a teachers life?

Should a teacher be a good example?

Will you allow an alcoholic doctor to operate on you?

Is it okay to read and accept the teachings and philosophy of Charles Manson, ignoring his history?

Maybe a simple way to put it: Can you judge an auto mechanics skills by the way his own car runs?

I guarantee these things are standards you hold other people to in every other aspect of your life BUT this one.

Funny because when the shoe is on the other foot, many here are the first to examine a man's character and background( Dr. Carl Peterson/http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97484) but ignore Lord Calvin's track record.

Well okay, let's do that.

Proverbs 6

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,...

SEVEN YEARS he tracked Servetus.

Was Calvin righteous in putting Servetus to death because Servetus was guilty?

Was Calvin righteous in putting Servetus to death because Servetus was innocent?

And you speak about trustworthy?

Okay, I will examine the link you gave and the authors you recommend, maybe another thread is required for that.

 

[Revmitchell]

"The main thrust of the Arminian/Calvinistic forum should be on soteriology. It has nothing to do with the life of John Calvin."

You cannot separate the man's life from his teaching, especially a subject so important as salvation.

Did he live it?

Did his teaching have any effect on his own life?

Did Calvin's life reflect scripture?

Does the bible itself tell us to look at a teachers life?

Should a teacher be a good example?

Will you allow an alcoholic doctor to operate on you?

Is it okay to read and accept the teachings and philosophy of Charles Manson, ignoring his history?

Maybe a simple way to put it: Can you judge an auto mechanics skills by the way his own car runs?

I guarantee these things are standards you hold other people to in every other aspect of your life BUT this one.

Funny because when the shoe is on the other foot, many here are the first to examine a man's character and background( Dr. Carl Peterson/http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97484) but ignore Lord Calvin's track record.

Well okay, let's do that.

Proverbs 6

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,...

SEVEN YEARS he tracked Servetus.

Was Calvin righteous in putting Servetus to death because Servetus was guilty?

Was Calvin righteous in putting Servetus to death because Servetus was innocent?

And you speak about trustworthy?

Okay, I will examine the link you gave and the authors you recommend, maybe another thread is required for that.

Just a warning Rippon is rabid about defending John Calvin.

 

[plain_n_simple]

thank you Rev

 

[Revmitchell]

Yea so long as it is called Calvinism and the people are called Calvinists it will be forever tied to John Calvin. There is no changing that.

 

[DHK]

The main thrust of the Arminian/Calvinistic forum should be on soteriology. It has nothing to do with the life of John Calvin. But some here are adept at bunny trails.

Yet for those who want to discover the truth about the life of Calvin they need to see my thread of the past :Lies About John Calvin Refuted.

There folks will find out that Calvin was not the dictator of Geneva. He never ruled it. Calvin wielded no theocratic regime.

It is there that people will come to grips with the fact that Calvin was not a member of any of the three Councils of Geneva. He was with the Consistory --and that "could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishment, which belonged exclusively to the Council." (Schaff)

Here is what Schaff really said:

It was a glaring inconsistency that those who just had shaken off the yoke of popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect to a human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery a modern Protestant peopery.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1959), Schaff, History, 8:357.

Obviously Schaff considered Calvin as the dictator, the autocrat of Geneva.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Here is what Schaff really said:

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1959), Schaff, History, 8:357.

Obviously Schaff considered Calvin as the dictator, the autocrat of Geneva.

Yes I just read a similar account. After reading a few old posts, it seems a few folks not only defend Calvin, they almost worship him.

 

[Rippon]

Just a warning Rippon is rabid about defending John Calvin.

I have real issues with falsehoods. John Calvin's life has been smeared with a mountain of lies for centuries. Christians are commanded not to lie. Yet DHK and others freely break the 9th commandment. It becomes especially acute when the subject turns to John Calvin.

I will indeed defend the man from Geneva from lies --just as much as I have from his worthless attacks upon Dr. Mohler.

 

[Rippon]

Here is what Schaff really said:

Your statement above implies that my quote of Schaff was false. It was, in fact true.

Obviously Schaff considered Calvin as the dictator, the autocrat of Geneva.

Obviously you don't have your head screwed on.

"It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual sense."

"But he was equally opposed to a clerical control of civil and political affairs, and confined the Church to the spiritual sword."

"The final responsibility of the condemnation, therefore, rests with the Council of Geneva...Calvin conducted the theological part of the examination of the trial, but had no direct influence upon the result."

"All impartial writers admit the purity and integrity, if not the sanctity of his character... He may 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."

 

[DHK]

I have real issues with falsehoods. John Calvin's life has been smeared with a mountain of lies for centuries. Christians are commanded not to lie. Yet DHK and others freely break the 9th commandment. It becomes especially acute when the subject turns to John Calvin.

I will indeed defend the man from Geneva from lies --just as much as I have from his worthless attacks upon Dr. Mohler.

Rippon's love for Calvin is no secret. He fails to seek objectivity in history.
What happened when Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541?

In 1541, too, Calvin was invited back to Geneva by the city council (the Bern faction had been voted out). His reputation had grown to such stature that the city regarded him as a prize. From the beginning of his return to Geneva, Calvin made it plain that he was going to have a strong voice in how the city was run. By November of that year, a series of ordinances were passed that created in Geneva that division of lay and spiritual powers that had long been the theoretical ideal in Europe. The City Council governed, but the Consistory (made up of preachers and elders) ruled on all matters of faith and could refer citizens to the City Council for disciplining.

This created the Geneva known to most people: the Geneva that forbade dancing and gambling, that constrained its citizens in every direction, and that executed heretics on its own authority. Later historians have called it a theocracy, pointing out that in nearly every case that mattered, the Consistory—with John Calvin as the driving force behind it—got its way and was not overruled by the City Council.

It is difficult to argue with this stereotype, though some historians have tried. Many of the regulations seem downright silly or even frightening to us, but many cities had sumptuary legislation that regulated what people could wear, how they could celebrate feasts, and even how fancy their weddings could be. These laws could be found in both Catholic and Protestant towns. What made Geneva different was how carefully and clearly formulated were the powers of the church authorities, and how equally detailed were its relations with the government. In most other towns this developed organically. In Geneva it was instituted in legislation.

http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/reformation/reformers/calvin.shtml

 

[Revmitchell]

I have real issues with falsehoods.

Baloney, you get all hot and bothered by two things on this board. Calvinism and the NIV. You show a pretense about falsehoods where those things are concerned but the truth is you get real insecure when anyone criticizes either of those and attack them. It has been that way since I came to this board.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon's love for Calvin is no secret.

I do admire him. If any Christian would look at his life and works objectively they would come to the same conclusion.

He fails to seek objectivity in history.

LOL!

You are a master of twisting history. You specialize in devising lies to suit your sentiments.

You have been shown the truth about your slanders. Now please tell me how the statements of Schaff which I provided are wrong.

 

[Rippon]

Baloney,

On the contrary rm, I do care about the truth and I counter lies with facts. I am sincere.

you get all hot and bothered by two things on this board. Calvinism and the NIV.

Well, both have have had tons of lies, slander and misrepresentation aimed at them. I don't take kindly to bold-faced lies. However, this thread isn't about Calvinism --though the author of the OP would wish that it might affect Calvinism.

You show a pretense about falsehoods where those things are concerned but the truth is you get real insecure when anyone criticizes either of those and attack them. It has been that way since I came to this board.

You have shown that you are acquainted with me since my inception on the BB. But your words in your last paragraph negate that altogether.

There is no pretense with me. I abhor lies. I especially detest professing Christians engaging in the practice. The subject under discussion if John Calvin. Is it asking too much to put away prejudice and look objectively at his life by a multitude of established scholars and historians?