Atrocities of John Calvin

[Revmitchell]

No, what you hate is criticism of Calvinism and the NIV. Nothing more.

 

[Rippon]

No, what you hate is criticism of Calvinism and the NIV. Nothing more.

I was perfectly honest in my last post.

I hate lies.

This particular thread is not about Calvinism. It is about John Calvin. Some here would rather lie about him rather than humble themselves and acknowledge their lies.

You are being dishonest to say the kind of things you are harping on.

Stick with the theme.

 

[DHK]

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

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.

You have looked hard for a few admirers of Calvin. The truth is he was bitterly opposed for his iron-clad hold on Geneva, his many punishments in the forms of banishments, and even executions. He burned people at the stake.

The main difference with Jacob Arminius, for example was not doctrinal. No man was slandered more than he. To him was falsely attributed all kinds of false doctrine, especially by Calvin. Arminius didn't like the way that Calvin did things--the harsh way he meted out "his form of justice." It was not Christ-like. For a supposed Christian he didn't act like Christ at all.

Arminius had a gentle and kind spirit about him and spoke to Calvin about these things. Calvin was bull-headed and listened to no one.
Arminius was Calvinistic. He went to John Calvin's school. When Calvin and others began to circulate letters about Arminius's supposed false doctrine he protested vehemently. He never strayed from any orthodox doctrine.
The confession that he adhered to was "The Belgic Confession" and never departed from it.
For that he was banished
In the end it would cost him his life.
His entire family was murdered in his absence.

 

[RLBosley]

The main difference with Jacob Arminius, for example was not doctrinal. No man was slandered more than he. To him was falsely attributed all kinds of false doctrine, especially by Calvin. Arminius didn't like the way that Calvin did things--

Arminius had a gentle and kind spirit about him and spoke to Calvin about these things.

Arminius was Calvinistic. He went to John Calvin's school. When Calvin and others began to circulate letters about Arminius's supposed false doctrine he protested vehemently..

Unlikely since Arminius was 4 years old when Calvin died...

 

[DHK]

Unlikely since Arminius was 4 years old when Calvin died...

You're right. Specifically he studied under Beza in Calvin's Institute.

 

[RLBosley]

You're right. Specifically he studied under Beza in Calvin's Institute.

Then why did you say the silliness you said earlier? Here, I'll refresh your memory:

To him was falsely attributed all kinds of false doctrine, especially by Calvin. Arminius didn't like the way that Calvin did things--

Arminius had a gentle and kind spirit about him and spoke to Calvin about these things.

Arminius was Calvinistic. He went to John Calvin's school. When Calvin and others began to circulate letters about Arminius's supposed false doctrine he protested vehemently.

 

[DHK]

Then why did you say the silliness you said earlier? Here, I'll refresh your memory:

These are the exact words of Jacob Arminius from his own writings: The Works of James Arminius, Vols. 1&2 Translated from by James Nichols: "The Apology or Defense of James Arminius, against certain theological articles extensively distributed and currently circulated...in the low countries and beyond...Delivered before the states of Holland at the Hague, on the 30th of October, 1608 (quoted in Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This," pages 91-92.

Arminius preached that salvation was entirely through Christ as a work of grace, which God alone could do in the heart. He categorically denied the false charges made against him of Pelagianism and Socinianism. He also, with these words, defended himself against the false charge that he taught the doctrine of falling away:
For I never…taught any thing contrary to the word of God, or to the Confession and Catechism of the Belgic Churches. At no period have I ceased to make this avowal, and I repeat it on this occasion…Yet since a sinister report, has for a long time been industriously and extensively circulated about me…and since this unfounded rumor has already operated most injuriously against me, I importunately entreat to be favored with your gracious permission to make an ingenuous and open declaration…
[Articles were circulated] as if they had been my composition: when, in reality…they had neither proceeded from me, nor accorded with my sentiments, and, as well as I could form a judgment they appeared to me to be at variance with the word of God…
Twice I repeated this solemn asservation, and besought the brethren “not so readily to attach credit to reports that were circulated concerning me, nor so easily to listen to any thing that was represented as proceeding from me or had been rumored abroad to my manifest injury…”
My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ…
Though I openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration…
I am not conscious of myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions…yet my opinion is not so widely different from [Calvin’s] as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject [of justification], in the third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them full approval… For I am not of the congregation of those who wish to have dominion over the faith of another man, but am only a minister to believers, with the design of promoting in them an increase of knowledge, truth, piety, peace and joy in Jesus Christ our Lord.”

 

[RLBosley]

These are the exact words of Jacob Arminius from his own writings: The Works of James Arminius, Vols. 1&2 Translated from by James Nichols: "The Apology or Defense of James Arminius, against certain theological articles extensively distributed and currently circulated...in the low countries and beyond...Delivered before the states of Holland at the Hague, on the 30th of October, 1608 (quoted in Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This," pages 91-92.

Ok... That's all well and good but that has nothing at all to do with you making Arminius and Calvin out to be contemporaries who debated each other.

 

[Jerome]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Castellion

his education, zeal and theological knowledge were so outstanding that he was considered to be one of the most learned men of his time, equal, if not superior, to John Calvin. Regarding Castellio, Voltaire wrote: "We can measure the virulence of this tyranny by the persecution to which Castellio was exposed at Calvin's instance—although Castellio was a far greater scholar than Calvin, whose jealousy drove him out of Geneva."

In 1543, after the plague struck Geneva, Sebastian Castellio was the only divine in Geneva to visit the sick and console the dying; the Geneva Consistory and Calvin himself refused to visit the sick

the Geneva City Council recommended Castellio's permanent appointment as preacher in Vandoeuvres; however in 1544 a campaign against him was initiated by Calvin. At the time, Castellio decided to translate the Bible into his native French. . .but Calvin's endorsement was already given to his cousin Pierre Olivetan's French translation of the Bible, so Castellio was rebuked*

during a public meeting Castellio rose to his feet and claimed that clergy should stop persecuting those who disagree with them on matters of Biblical interpretation, and should be held to the same standards that all other believers were held to. Soon after, Calvin charged Castellio with the offense of "undermining the prestige of the clergy." Castellio was forced to resign from his position of Rector and asked to be dismissed from being a preacher in Vandoeuvres. Anticipating future attacks from Calvin, Castellio asked for a signed letter that outlined in detail the reasons for his departure. . . . .Years of poverty. . . . .many perhaps were afraid to help Castellio for fear of reprisals from Geneva.

*Disgusting diatribe published by Calvin and Beza in a preface to their Bible de Genève:

"Satan has found as many translators as there are frivolous and impudent minds; and he will probably find even more, unless God give them pause before it is too late. If the reader asks me for an example, let me refer to Sebastian Castellio's translation of the Bible. . . . We therefore regard it as a conscientious duty to break the silence we have hitherto kept, and to warn all Christians against this man, the chosen of Satan."

 

[DHK]

Ok... That's all well and good but that has nothing at all to do with you making Arminius and Calvin out to be contemporaries who debated each other.

No, again that was my mistake. It was after he left Geneva, returned to his homeland of Holland, took up a pastorate, and then was compelled to defend his position on Calvinism with some other theologians. His position on Romans 7 led others to believe he was Pelagian, and from there other doctrinal errors were attached.
However, he was also a marked man simply because he disagreed with the harshness of the city-state (state-religion) in Geneva, the Institute that he had attended and the things he had observed. This was not Christlike in his opinion.

 

[OldRegular]

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?

The atrocities of Calvin do not change the Scriptural teaching of Sovereign Election and Grace.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The atrocities of Calvin do not change the Scriptural teaching of Sovereign Election and Grace.

Good fruit can never come from a bad tree

 

[RLBosley]

No, again that was my mistake. It was after he left Geneva, returned to his homeland of Holland, took up a pastorate, and then was compelled to defend his position on Calvinism with some other theologians. His position on Romans 7 led others to believe he was Pelagian, and from there other doctrinal errors were attached.
However, he was also a marked man simply because he disagreed with the harshness of the city-state (state-religion) in Geneva, the Institute that he had attended and the things he had observed. This was not Christlike in his opinion.

OK. I was just pointing out that Calvin and Arminius weren't contemporaries. That error is often made by folks on both sides of the debate. In all honesty, I know little of Calvin's life and his authority in Geneva. Church history is something I really lack knowledge about. I know even less about Arminius himself.

However, I do know two things:
I know enough history to know that most of the OP is nonsense.
I also know that whether Calvin was as wicked as Hitler or as pure as the driven snow is ultimately irrelevant to the doctrines of grace clearly found in scripture.

 

[plain_n_simple]

"I also know that whether Calvin was as wicked as Hitler or as pure as the driven snow is ultimately irrelevant to the doctrines of grace clearly found in scripture."

It is totally relevant and is exactly the place to use the what Jesus said about how good fruit can never come from a bad tree. It applies to Calvin as well as Jim Jones, Charles Manson, and other murderers preaching their own gospel.

 

[OldRegular]

Good fruit can never come from a bad tree

John Calvin is not the Author of the Biblical Doctrines of Election and Grace. God is!

 

[plain_n_simple]

John Calvin is not the Author of the Biblical Doctrines of Election and Grace. God is!

You poor soul, you desire it so much to be true you will go far to make it so. You have even gone and attributed this devilish doctrine wrought from the hand of a murderer to the Holy Father. Another verse is now applied to you sir, having itching ears you heap to yourself false teachers. I pray the Holy Spirit brings you revelation of what Calvinism really is.

 

[RLBosley]

It is totally relevant and is exactly the place to use the what Jesus said about how good fruit can never come from a bad tree. It applies to Calvin as well as Jim Jones, Charles Manson, and other murderers preaching their own gospel.

Genetic Fallacy

You are saying the Calvinism (the Doctrines of Grace) is false, because Calvin was a bad guy. Calvin's actions are utterly irrelevant to the truthfulness of the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism). In the process you completely mishandle what Jesus said and meant in Matthew 7.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Genetic Fallacy

You are saying the Calvinism (the Doctrines of Grace) is false, because Calvin was a bad guy. Calvin's actions are utterly irrelevant to the truthfulness of the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism). In the process you completely mishandle what Jesus said and meant in Matthew 7.

You poor soul, you desire it so much to be true you will go far to make it so. You have even gone and attributed this devilish doctrine wrought from the hand of a murderer to the Holy Father. Another verse is now applied to you sir, having itching ears you heap to yourself false teachers. I pray the Holy Spirit brings you revelation of what Calvinism really is.

 

[RLBosley]

You poor soul, you desire it so much to be true you will go far to make it so. You have even gone and attributed this devilish doctrine wrought from the hand of a murderer to the Holy Father. Another verse is now applied to you sir, having itching ears you heap to yourself false teachers. I pray the Holy Spirit brings you revelation of what Calvinism really is.

Your false piety and self-righteous attitude are noted.

It's sad that pointing out your illogical argumentation causes you to consider me an unbeliever.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It is with this thought I am closing this thread

The atrocities of Calvin do not change the Scriptural teaching of Sovereign Election and Grace.