Calvin vs Satan

[Rebel]

I would appreciate it if those who continually lie about the authority John Calvin had in Geneva to quote reputable Calvin scholars. Come up with a list of quotes from two dozen honest Church Historians to refute my sources. The time is ticking.

Oh, quote Calvin scholars to show the truth about Calvin. That would be like quoting RCC scholars to show the truth about the papacy.

All objective sources show the truth about Calvin and his Geneva theocracy. No amount of bias, writhing, squirming, false accusations, twisting, and denying can change objective, historical facts. Those facts are there in print for anyone to read.

 

[DHK]

There have been many threads on this topic. Historical sources and various historians and "scholars" have been quoted ad infinitum. When that is accomplished they are summarily dismissed by Rippon for one reason or another.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

IOW, no matter what the evidence is, or how much of it is piled up before Rippon, "he will not be convinced."

 

[Rippon]

Oh, quote Calvin scholars to show the truth about Calvin. That would be like quoting RCC scholars to show the truth about the papacy.

All Cavin scholars are not Calvinists.The Calvin scholars are from various church backgrounds and time periods. That proves you haven't an inkling by putting them all in one camp.

No amount of bias, writhing, squirming, false accusations, twisting, and denying can change objective, historical facts. Those facts are there in print for anyone to read.

I agree. I have provided quotes from several dozen Calvin scholars/Church historians. You have not yet come up to bat.

Provide your documentation from two dozen honest Church historians/Calvin scholars regarding the authority Calvin had in Geneva.

As the old saying goes : Put up or shut up.

The clock is ticking.

 

[Rippon]

There have been many threads on this topic. Historical sources and various historians and "scholars" have been quoted ad infinitum.

And I had done the heavy-lifting in that respect.

When that is accomplished they are summarily dismissed by Rippon for one reason or another.

I don't dismiss my own scholarly sources.

At one point, in one of the threads, you said that all I supplied were names. I had given dozens of quotes yet you didn't read them --names only you said. You are a card.

 

[DHK]

I don't dismiss my own scholarly sources.

This is a great quote. :laugh::laugh:

I think I heard something similar by a Oneness Pentecostal some time ago.

 

[Rebel]

This is a great quote. :laugh::laugh:

I think I heard something similar by a Oneness Pentecostal some time ago.

Yes, for purposes of validity, it's important to agree with oneself. :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rebel]

All Cavin scholars are not Calvinists.The Calvin scholars are from various church backgrounds and time periods. That proves you haven't an inkling by putting them all in one camp.

I agree. I have provided quotes from several dozen Calvin scholars/Church historians. You have not yet come up to bat.

Provide your documentation from two dozen honest Church historians/Calvin scholars regarding the authority Calvin had in Geneva.

As the old saying goes : Put up or shut up.

The clock is ticking.

The clock has stopped for you, as you are stuck in theocratic Geneva with your dead hero, the murdering despot Calvin.

I have posted lots of evidence, as everybody here knows --
factual and objective, historical and scholarly.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, for purposes of validity, it's important to agree with oneself.

My sources --several dozen Calvin scholars/Church historians. I don't invent quotes.

You need to do what I have requested multiple times. Are you chicken? What's holding you back?

 

[Rippon]

The clock has stopped for you, as you are stuck in theocratic Geneva

There was no theocracy in Geneva as multiplied quotes have demonstrated.

I have posted lots of evidence, as everybody here knows --
factual and objective, historical and scholarly.

Chuckle.

 

[DHK]

There was no theocracy in Geneva as multiplied quotes have demonstrated.

Chuckle.

Ain't that the truth! :laugh:

We all know that. It was the devil that reigned not God.
Calvin was a dictator. The Council simply carried out his wishes.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin was a dictator.

Nonsense. You have been proven wrong over and over on that score. Do what I asked Rebel to do: Produce quotes from two dozen Church history scholars regarding the extent of John Calvin's authority in Geneva.

The Council simply carried out his wishes.

That's not true. Why, if he had the power of a dictator were many of his requests denied?

You need to substantiate your reckless assertions.

Pretend you are an adult and produce some quotes from reputable scholars concerning the authority John Calvin had in Geneva.

If you are unable to do so then you are simply being obnoxious.

 

[SovereignGrace]

All this bickering over a man who died over 400 years ago? He has left this world, and no amount of debating his life will change his eternal state. Guys, please let this go, both sides, please.

 

[Rippon]

My Line In The Sand

All this bickering over a man who died over 400 years ago? He has left this world, and no amount of debating his life will change his eternal state. Guys, please let this go, both sides, please.

It is necessary because it is a testimony against those who are willing to lie about him with not a touch of conscience. They think that if enough evil can be gathered against him then the thelogy of Calvinism will fail. But the biblical expression of scriptural doctrines called Calvinism is not dependent upon the man of Geneva. Its source is the Word of God. Besides, there were many others who believed as John Calvin did --such as Bucer and Beza to name only two.

It is remarkable how depraved some are here who pass along lies as easily as the meat and potatoes at meal time. They have no compunction to say the most horrendous things of their strawman that they call John Calvin. The real John Calvin is a world apart from their severe misrepresentations.

Some of them get up in a pulpit and preach. They may even denounce lying. But they are hypocrites. These members practice mendacity as easily as breathing.

I issued a challenge and it has still been unmet. They would rather toss mud then humbly tell the truth. I have given quotes from dozens of John Calvin/Church scholars in past threads. Some have said that they know of the authors --but still they do not relent.

My souces are not monolithic. They come from various backgrounds and time periods. Some have been Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, atheistic etc. That's a rather broad range. So they did not meet in collaboration. ;-)

It takes a man --a Christian man, to admit that he has been wrong. Some speak out of ignorance and others with intent to promote falsehoods.

One can hate what he thinks Calvinism is --but to lie about what they believe is still a lie. One can detest what one thinks of Mormonism. But to misrepresent it is still lying. It subverts your testimony and Mormons will certainly not listen to you once they find out that you have spoken falsely.

Be careful what you say. Don't speak off-the-cuff. Research the life of John Calvin from honest historians who tell his story with warts and all. As a professing Christian your words that show up on a computer screen and stays there for ages is a public witness to your character --or lack of it.

I await the day when someone will have the humility to tell me and others here --that it was sinful to say wicked things about the man just to promote an anti-Calvinist agenda. I await the day when someone, or some people, will say it is time to tell the truth --even if it hurts and goes against much of their background and tradition.

 

[Rebel]

All this bickering over a man who died over 400 years ago? He has left this world, and no amount of debating his life will change his eternal state. Guys, please let this go, both sides, please.

I know what you are saying.

But the reason I respond is because there is something in me that simply will not let blatant dishonesty and falsehood go unchallenged. Further, I feel an obligation to stand up for those who were persecuted and murdered at the hands of theocrats.

 

[Rebel]

The truth is this: I and others have posted loads of objective, factual, historical evidence of the situation of Calvin in Geneva. This is irrefutable evidence.

Rippon would not even respond. That silence speaks volumes.

 

[DHK]

Nonsense. You have been proven wrong over and over on that score. Do what I asked Rebel to do: Produce quotes from two dozen Church history scholars regarding the extent of John Calvin's authority in Geneva.

I have not been proven wrong. I have produced numerous quotes in the past. I shall produce a couple again. But as in the past you, no doubt, will not like the sources I post, and therefore will summarily dismiss them.

That's not true. Why, if he had the power of a dictator were many of his requests denied?

I have no evidence that his requests were denied.

Pretend you are an adult and produce some quotes from reputable scholars concerning the authority John Calvin had in Geneva.

You mean, for example, If I were defending Roman Catholicism I should use RCC sources. That is really what you want me to do. Defeat myself??

If you are unable to do so then you are simply being obnoxious.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

There are two examples in the writings of John Calvin which go to show that the Baptists were in the practice of dipping. Calvin came in direct contact with the Baptists and well knew their opinions, for he married the widow of a Baptist preacher. In the first example, he defines, in a well-known passage the meaning of the word. He says:

The word signifies to immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church (Calvin, Institutes, Bk. IV. c. 15).

Immediately following this statement he makes a reply to a Baptist who urged that Acts 19:3-5 taught rebaptism. Calvin says to the Baptist:

That if ignorance vitiated the former baptism, so that another baptism is made to correct it; they were the first of all to be baptized by the apostles, who in all the three years after their baptism scarcely tasted a small particle of the measure of the sincere doctrine. Even now among us, where would there be sufficient rivers for a repetition of the dipping of so many, who in ignorance of the compassion of the Lord, are daily corrected among us (Ibid, c. 15. Sec. 18).

Calvin thus speaking of his own times declares that if the opinions of the Baptists prevailed the rivers would not suffice for their dippings.

The second instance where Calvin refers to the dipping practiced by the Baptists is as follows:

Truly so much ignorance deservedly requires another baptism, if for ignorance they should be rebaptized again. But what pertains to us it would be necessary always to have a lake or a river at our back, if so often as the Lord purge any error, we should be completely renewed from baptism (Calvin, Opuscula. Contra Anabaptists, II. 28. Geneva, 1547).

Calvin was here discussing the relation of baptism to Acts 19:3-5 as expounded by the Baptists. He declared the Baptist needed a river or lake to carry out their idea of dipping. (CHAPTER 9)

This comes from J.T. Christian's book, A History of the Baptists. The above is a discussion simply on the mode of baptism carried out at that time. The context of the quotes given should tell you that. But within that context you can see the attitude (one which he literally carried out), that Baptists should be drowned for their "heresy."

The influence of John Calvin had begun to be felt in English affairs. His books had appeared in translations in England. He was responsible in a large measure for the demon of hate and fierce hostility which the Baptists of England had to encounter. He advised that "Anabaptists and reactionists should be alike put to death" (Froude, History of England, V. 99). He wrote a letter to Lord Protector Somerset, the translation was probably made by Archbishop Cranmer (Calvin to the Protector, MSS. Domestic Edward VI, V. 1548)) to the effect: "These altogether deserve to be well punished by the sword, seeing that they do conspire against God, who had set him in his royal seat"

The first to be burnt in this reign was Joan of Kent, who was probably a member of the church at Eythorne (Evans, The History of the English Baptists, I. 72 note). She was a pious and worthy woman, and a great reader of the Scriptures. She was arrested in the year 1548 on the charge of heresy and she was burnt April 30, the following year. (CHAPTER 15)

This chapter is discussing the history of Baptists in England, and the influence that Calvin and his writings had there. He had a very kind and positive influence (just like Christ would have had) didn't he?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Guys, the man has been dead for ~450 years. Please let this go. You are being devisive over a subject that know one truly knows what transpired between Calvin and Arminius. Both sides post 'historians' who are 'experts' in what transpired. You're getting your dander up over someone dead for ~450 years?

 

[Rippon]

You are being devisive over a subject that know one truly knows what transpired between Calvin and Arminius.

Man! Your knowledge of Church History is suspect with that line. Arminius was almost four when Calvin died.

Both sides post 'historians' who are 'experts' in what transpired.

Church historians have access to archives and records of eye-witnesses.

 

[Rippon]

I have not been proven wrong.

Man you have been steamrolled over and over.

I have no evidence that his requests were denied.

Your memory is poor.

Again, Calvin was not a member of any of the three Councils in Geneva. He was with the Consistory which handled ecclesiastical matters.The most "power" Calvin had was to excommunicate Church members. But even that was denied him a number of times --the Council wanted that authority.

Basil Hall :"...the records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand."

In August of 1553 he asked the Council for allowing him to resign. The request was denied --even though his enemies constiuted the majority of the Council.

In Ocotober of the same year he pleaded with the Council not to burn Servetus to burn. The request was denied.

Some dictator! ;-)
_________________________________________________________________
I had said :"Pretend you are an adult and produce some quotes from reputable scholars concerning the authority John Calvin had in Geneva."

Your reply is below.

You mean, for example, If I were defending Roman Catholicism I should use RCC sources. That is really what you want me to do. Defeat myself??

Are you confused? Just furnish some quotes from reputable scholars concerning the authority John Calvin had in Geneva. That is a simple request.