-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
John Calvin a Murderer?
- Thread starter andross
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Eliyahu said:
If Calvin was really the right person who deserve our respect, then he would have persuaded the council of Geneve, not to do so.
Once again it appears that Calvin's problem was not being a time traveller. How was he supposed to know whether the two women Knox arrived in Geneva with were his own wife and daughter or not? Were the Scottish authorities supposed to track Knox' movements with a GPS, then send Calvin an email to warn him?
I am assuming for the sake of argument that your history is correct: though, given your complete lack of accuracy so far, that would be the worst-case scenario. My understanding of Knox, little as it is, is that he travelled to Geneva with his first wife and mother-in-law. Like Calvin, Knox had many enemies and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them try and vilify his legacy with slanders against his character and conduct.
If Calvin was really the right person who deserve our respect, then he would have persuaded the council of Geneve, not to do so.
Once again it appears that Calvin's problem was not being a time traveller. How was he supposed to know whether the two women Knox arrived in Geneva with were his own wife and daughter or not? Were the Scottish authorities supposed to track Knox' movements with a GPS, then send Calvin an email to warn him?
I am assuming for the sake of argument that your history is correct: though, given your complete lack of accuracy so far, that would be the worst-case scenario. My understanding of Knox, little as it is, is that he travelled to Geneva with his first wife and mother-in-law. Like Calvin, Knox had many enemies and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them try and vilify his legacy with slanders against his character and conduct.
Yes, I must admit my information is just rough and tough. Indeed, my information lacks the accuracy definitely, because I don't want to spend much time for such people after I checked them at a glance. However, when I encounter such negative criticism, I become careful in advocating such people. The previous quote should be corrected as Sex in History by G R Taylor (not Tayor).
The following quote is much milder and reports the story of John Knox understandable but still it admits that there were controversial and doubtful behaviors by him.
Difference between Presbyterian and Baptists is that Presbyterian were often on the side of persecuting either Baptists or Brethren, or Indians having scandals often, remaining as Reformed Roman Catholic, while Baptists or Brethren chose to die instead of murdering people, But God preserved Baptists and Brethren ( both were the same in reality, depending on how the people call them)
Calvin imprisoned the people just because they disagreed with the pre-destination or burnt the people because they objected the infant baptism.
http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/knox.htm
The following quote is much milder and reports the story of John Knox understandable but still it admits that there were controversial and doubtful behaviors by him.
Difference between Presbyterian and Baptists is that Presbyterian were often on the side of persecuting either Baptists or Brethren, or Indians having scandals often, remaining as Reformed Roman Catholic, while Baptists or Brethren chose to die instead of murdering people, But God preserved Baptists and Brethren ( both were the same in reality, depending on how the people call them)
Calvin imprisoned the people just because they disagreed with the pre-destination or burnt the people because they objected the infant baptism.
http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/knox.htm
The following can explain why there can be a problem with Knox. If Elizabeth wanted her daughter marry Knox, she didn't have to leave her husband. I don't know how Calvin commented on that man. sometimes such person is very much generous on the other people just because they follow him. God hates two different weighing balance.( Proverb 11:1,16:11)
***************
Knox's misogyny is legendary. Behind this blatant hatred however, lay a more complex persona. His relationship with Elizabeth Bowes has long raised some eyebrows. About ten years older than Knox, Elizabeth was married to Richard Bowes, Captain of Norham Castle, when she was only 16 and bore him numerous children. Although a devout Catholic, she became increasingly troubled and converted to the new faith. She was first introduced to Knox when she went to listen to him in Berwick in 1549. Elizabeth had particular difficulty with the Protestant doctrine of predestination, and sent Knox long and mournful letters requesting his advice. The relationship probably remained that of preacher and parishioner, although the tone of Knox's letters throws a definite doubt on that. Whatever the case, it seems that Richard Bowes was not overly perturbed by his wife's friendship with Knox. Elizabeth may have played more the role of mother than mistress to Knox, and she decided that he should find himself a wife. Her choice was her own fifth daughter, Marjorie, an educated girl of 16 or 17. There is no doubt that Knox, an impoverished man of 35, saw this as a golden opportunity, which is probably why her father was reluctant to give his consent. Knox and Marjorie were betrothed but Richard Bowes refused to complete the marriage contract and hand over the dowry.
***************
Knox's misogyny is legendary. Behind this blatant hatred however, lay a more complex persona. His relationship with Elizabeth Bowes has long raised some eyebrows. About ten years older than Knox, Elizabeth was married to Richard Bowes, Captain of Norham Castle, when she was only 16 and bore him numerous children. Although a devout Catholic, she became increasingly troubled and converted to the new faith. She was first introduced to Knox when she went to listen to him in Berwick in 1549. Elizabeth had particular difficulty with the Protestant doctrine of predestination, and sent Knox long and mournful letters requesting his advice. The relationship probably remained that of preacher and parishioner, although the tone of Knox's letters throws a definite doubt on that. Whatever the case, it seems that Richard Bowes was not overly perturbed by his wife's friendship with Knox. Elizabeth may have played more the role of mother than mistress to Knox, and she decided that he should find himself a wife. Her choice was her own fifth daughter, Marjorie, an educated girl of 16 or 17. There is no doubt that Knox, an impoverished man of 35, saw this as a golden opportunity, which is probably why her father was reluctant to give his consent. Knox and Marjorie were betrothed but Richard Bowes refused to complete the marriage contract and hand over the dowry.
Another part:
Knox commuted between the southern counties and Berwick, keeping an active correspondence with Elizabeth. On the accession of Mary Tudor, Knox thought it prudent to flee to the safety of France, not without guilt for having forsaken his congregation. The politically tainted sermons now began to take the shape of open incitation to rebellion in Knox's mind. Still unsure of himself, he travelled to Geneva to consult the leading Protestant authority, John Calvin
Soon, Knox was once more called to Geneva to be the leader of the congregation of exiles there. He readily accepted, sending Elizabeth and Marjorie (whom he had recently married in Edinburgh) ahead. He joined them in Dieppe accompanied by a servant and a student, and reached Geneva in September 1556. He was reunited with some of his colleagues from Frankfurt and could once more resume his preaching at leisure. Elizabeth became his housekeeper and Marjorie his secretary. Their first son, Nathaniel, was born.
Another friend of Knox's then arrived from London, Anna Locke. Anna was some fifteen years younger than Knox, and like Elizabeth, thirsted for Knox's spiritual guidance in the form of long and frequent letters. Again, the language and tone of the letters raise suspicions, but Anna's husband was quite happy to let her travel to the safer Geneva. Knox continued to keep in contact with her from wherever he was throughout the years.
Knox commuted between the southern counties and Berwick, keeping an active correspondence with Elizabeth. On the accession of Mary Tudor, Knox thought it prudent to flee to the safety of France, not without guilt for having forsaken his congregation. The politically tainted sermons now began to take the shape of open incitation to rebellion in Knox's mind. Still unsure of himself, he travelled to Geneva to consult the leading Protestant authority, John Calvin
Soon, Knox was once more called to Geneva to be the leader of the congregation of exiles there. He readily accepted, sending Elizabeth and Marjorie (whom he had recently married in Edinburgh) ahead. He joined them in Dieppe accompanied by a servant and a student, and reached Geneva in September 1556. He was reunited with some of his colleagues from Frankfurt and could once more resume his preaching at leisure. Elizabeth became his housekeeper and Marjorie his secretary. Their first son, Nathaniel, was born.
Another friend of Knox's then arrived from London, Anna Locke. Anna was some fifteen years younger than Knox, and like Elizabeth, thirsted for Knox's spiritual guidance in the form of long and frequent letters. Again, the language and tone of the letters raise suspicions, but Anna's husband was quite happy to let her travel to the safer Geneva. Knox continued to keep in contact with her from wherever he was throughout the years.
Robert J Hutton
New Member
Even Adolf Hitler never killed Jews, I think. The only thing he had to do was to order his henchmen. In case of Calvin, when 58 were executed and 76 were imprisoned, he could have saved them. I never heard that he struggled to save the people who were killed just because they disagreed Predestination, Infant Baptism, Trinity. A girl was beheaded because she struck her parents, the other was imprisoned just because he laughed during the sermon.
There are plenty of great Christian believers whom we should remember and pay respect to, but I think Calvin or John Knox are not to be among them. However, so many people follow such human made religion, which is the continuous trends of the history.
There are plenty of great Christian believers whom we should remember and pay respect to, but I think Calvin or John Knox are not to be among them. However, so many people follow such human made religion, which is the continuous trends of the history.
While the facts show that the attacks here on Calvin (and Knox) are just a bunch of hooey, the "charges" of "murder" seem to beg the question:
Is it unjust to put an adulterer to death? Lev 20:10
Is it unjust to put a mama-slapper to death? Exodus 21:15
Is it unjust to put a heretic to death? Duet. 13:1-10
Is it unjust to put an adulterer to death? Lev 20:10
Is it unjust to put a mama-slapper to death? Exodus 21:15
Is it unjust to put a heretic to death? Duet. 13:1-10
Did Calvin live during the OT period?
Once anyone decide to keep the Torah, he or she must keep all the commandments, not 99% or 99.9% among 613 commandments. Read Deut 19:9 and Dt 26;18-19 Paul was refering these when he mention Gal 5:3, 3:10-11, and James too when he mentioned 2:10
Did Calvin observe Sabbath? Did he abstain from Pork meat and Ham and Beacon? What he added was to prohibit Dancing.
Therefore Jesus was mentioning this in John 8:1-11. Calvin tried to do better than Jesus, which was the problem. There are biblical ways in the NT when the heresies are encountered , which is mentioned in the Bob's posting. Above all the most important thing that Christians keep in mind is Love and Mercy, I believe.
Once anyone decide to keep the Torah, he or she must keep all the commandments, not 99% or 99.9% among 613 commandments. Read Deut 19:9 and Dt 26;18-19 Paul was refering these when he mention Gal 5:3, 3:10-11, and James too when he mentioned 2:10
Did Calvin observe Sabbath? Did he abstain from Pork meat and Ham and Beacon? What he added was to prohibit Dancing.
Therefore Jesus was mentioning this in John 8:1-11. Calvin tried to do better than Jesus, which was the problem. There are biblical ways in the NT when the heresies are encountered , which is mentioned in the Bob's posting. Above all the most important thing that Christians keep in mind is Love and Mercy, I believe.
Eliyahu said:
Yes, I must admit my information is just rough and tough. Indeed, my information lacks the accuracy definitely, because I don't want to spend much time for such people after I checked them at a glance.
Laziness is not a virtue.
However, when I encounter such negative criticism, I become careful in advocating such people.
So you assume someone is guilty by mere virtue of the fact that the accusation was raised?
What a load of codswallop.
It appears to me - and I am sure to may others, as well - that you are not driven by a love of the truth, but a desire to vilify a departed brother in Christ by raising any possible calumny against him that you can find, no matter whether it is true or false.
Since you cannot be relied upon to verify the truthfulness of the history you post, any further discussion with you would be pointless, and I am not going to waste any further time correcting every single falsehood you post here.
Yes, I must admit my information is just rough and tough. Indeed, my information lacks the accuracy definitely, because I don't want to spend much time for such people after I checked them at a glance.
Laziness is not a virtue.
However, when I encounter such negative criticism, I become careful in advocating such people.
So you assume someone is guilty by mere virtue of the fact that the accusation was raised?
What a load of codswallop.
It appears to me - and I am sure to may others, as well - that you are not driven by a love of the truth, but a desire to vilify a departed brother in Christ by raising any possible calumny against him that you can find, no matter whether it is true or false.
Since you cannot be relied upon to verify the truthfulness of the history you post, any further discussion with you would be pointless, and I am not going to waste any further time correcting every single falsehood you post here.
I have not finished the institues of Christian religion which I bought 30 years ago because I could not find much interest as I read some part of the book. When I discern him, first of all I tried to figure out how he was saved. I could not find any where how he was saved, different from John Wesley and Martin Luther who have very clear testimony on the salvation. Someone says Calvin was saved some time during 1524-1528
But his understanding about infant baptism was wrong. Also, whenever I met Presbyterian, they say if anyone decide to attend the church, then he or she is saved. They never had actual experience of being born again. I used to attend the presbyterian church and was baptized by sprinkling, but afterwards, realize the whole world is corrupted and sinful, then I myself too. Then I decided to commit suicide. At that time I read Galatian 2:20 and found myself was crucified already with Christ. That was how I was born again. Thereafter I visited a presbyterian pastor. When he heard my testimony, he said " you are cult trying to bring Salvation-sect heresy" I have so many experiences with Presbyterians and found they are not saved, but just nominal churchmen and churchwomen.
When I hear about Calvin and Servetus, especially reading Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, I could believe that such report is true more or less. I understand Calvin may excuse. I don't want to spend much time for Mormons, Russel of JW, or Moonies and to my view, Calvin is not so much better than those guys.
I am so called Plymouth Brethren even though we don't accept the denomination concept as per 1 Cor ch1. There are plenty of people whom we can respect such as J.N. Darby, CH McIntosh, Hudson Taylor, David Livingstone, George Muller, Joseph Scrivener ( song writer for what a friend we have in Jesus), and Eric Sauer and son. I like the confession by Robert Chapman " The biggest target of my life is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ by living the life of Jesus Christ" and he did so until he die at the age of 100.
What Calvin did was far away from what Jesus did.
The fact that he wrote a great book " the institutes of Christian religion " itself proves that he lived a wrong pattern, because the best attitude is not to have any doctrine as Bible itself is the best and the only doctrine. Once any one has a doctrine, it will cause tremendous problem. We will just stay on the Bible itself.
What Calvin did was similar to what Paul did before his conversion.
I am not lazy. I am too busy to read much about such people like Calvin or Knox. Bible is enough and enough.
But his understanding about infant baptism was wrong. Also, whenever I met Presbyterian, they say if anyone decide to attend the church, then he or she is saved. They never had actual experience of being born again. I used to attend the presbyterian church and was baptized by sprinkling, but afterwards, realize the whole world is corrupted and sinful, then I myself too. Then I decided to commit suicide. At that time I read Galatian 2:20 and found myself was crucified already with Christ. That was how I was born again. Thereafter I visited a presbyterian pastor. When he heard my testimony, he said " you are cult trying to bring Salvation-sect heresy" I have so many experiences with Presbyterians and found they are not saved, but just nominal churchmen and churchwomen.
When I hear about Calvin and Servetus, especially reading Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, I could believe that such report is true more or less. I understand Calvin may excuse. I don't want to spend much time for Mormons, Russel of JW, or Moonies and to my view, Calvin is not so much better than those guys.
I am so called Plymouth Brethren even though we don't accept the denomination concept as per 1 Cor ch1. There are plenty of people whom we can respect such as J.N. Darby, CH McIntosh, Hudson Taylor, David Livingstone, George Muller, Joseph Scrivener ( song writer for what a friend we have in Jesus), and Eric Sauer and son. I like the confession by Robert Chapman " The biggest target of my life is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ by living the life of Jesus Christ" and he did so until he die at the age of 100.
What Calvin did was far away from what Jesus did.
The fact that he wrote a great book " the institutes of Christian religion " itself proves that he lived a wrong pattern, because the best attitude is not to have any doctrine as Bible itself is the best and the only doctrine. Once any one has a doctrine, it will cause tremendous problem. We will just stay on the Bible itself.
What Calvin did was similar to what Paul did before his conversion.
I am not lazy. I am too busy to read much about such people like Calvin or Knox. Bible is enough and enough.
Robert J Hutton
New Member
The previous post questioning the "conversion" of John Calvin is interesting. In the book "Debating Calvinism" Dave Hunt writes about this. It would appear that Mr Calvin could testify to being delivered from Catholicism but there seems to be no clear testimony to being saved.
Kind regards to all.
Bob
Kind regards to all.
Bob
. . .when, lo, a very different form of doctrine started up, not one which led us away from the Christian profession, but one which brought it back to its fountain . . . to its original purity. Offended by the novelty, I lent an unwilling ear, and at first, I confess, strenuously and passionately resisted . . . to confess that I had all my life long been in ignorance and error. . . .
I at length perceived, as if light had broken in upon me, [a very key phrase, in view of what we will see] in what a sty of error I had wallowed, and how much pollution and impurity I had thereby contracted. Being exceedingly alarmed at the misery into which I had fallen . . . as in duty bound, made it my first business to betake myself to thy way [O God], condemning my past life, not without groans and tears (see note 14).
God, by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame. . . . Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with [an] intense desire to make progress" (see note 15).
13. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, p. 42.
14. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, pp. 114-115.
john.
I at length perceived, as if light had broken in upon me, [a very key phrase, in view of what we will see] in what a sty of error I had wallowed, and how much pollution and impurity I had thereby contracted. Being exceedingly alarmed at the misery into which I had fallen . . . as in duty bound, made it my first business to betake myself to thy way [O God], condemning my past life, not without groans and tears (see note 14).
God, by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame. . . . Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with [an] intense desire to make progress" (see note 15).
13. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, p. 42.
14. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, pp. 114-115.
john.
Robert J Hutton said:
It would appear that Mr Calvin could testify to being delivered from Catholicism but there seems to be no clear testimony to being saved.
It's too bad for John Calvin that he wasn't a drug-dealing, mass-murdering, gay prostitute so that generations of later Christians could be thrilled and entertained by his deliverance from the depths of sin.
Sadly, he was raised in a pious Catholic house, and had the misfortune of becoming convinced of the evangelical Gospel during his student years. Tragically, the only evidence of his conversion was the fact that he now believed the truth instead of error.
Poor Calvin!
It would appear that Mr Calvin could testify to being delivered from Catholicism but there seems to be no clear testimony to being saved.
It's too bad for John Calvin that he wasn't a drug-dealing, mass-murdering, gay prostitute so that generations of later Christians could be thrilled and entertained by his deliverance from the depths of sin.
Sadly, he was raised in a pious Catholic house, and had the misfortune of becoming convinced of the evangelical Gospel during his student years. Tragically, the only evidence of his conversion was the fact that he now believed the truth instead of error.
Poor Calvin!
I have noticed there are many believers who have very clear testimony on the salvation even though they were born at the believers family. John Wesley was nurtured by his pious mother and father, but was converted only after he became a priest at Anglican church and returned from the missionary to Georgia,in May 24 1738 after hearing from Peter Boehler. In other words he was not saved when he went to Georgia as a priest of Anglican church and met Moravians at the ship.
There is a clear difference in the life
of John Wesley between before 1738 and after 1738.
What Calvin presented was the theories which have served the religion. I notice some interesting points in his book, Institutes:
Baptism by sprinkling or by immersion should be left free, even though the immersion was the form used by the primitive church. (p524 by Erdmans)
But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of the regeneration if he decease without baptism! (p525)
(The robber at the cross may have been deprived of the salvation ! In that case someone had to spray some water from the bottom!)
There are many rediculous theories in his book in my view.( I don't want to waste much time for the garbage again!)
I think Baptism by sprinkling was the starting point of his followers deviation from the truth. Even though he mentioned the Lord Supper should not be remembered once a year, but frequently, illustrating twice a week or once a week at least (p600-601), Presbyterians celebrate it once or twice a year. In my view, what can be seen in those churches are moral, ethics, theories, politics,instead of life and change of life, true worship and obedience to the commandments. They worship in vain Him, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15:9)
Can anyone disprove that Calvin ruled Geneve or prove that Calvin remained in Geneve as a scholar without influencing the council at all?
[ December 02, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
There is a clear difference in the life
of John Wesley between before 1738 and after 1738.
What Calvin presented was the theories which have served the religion. I notice some interesting points in his book, Institutes:
Baptism by sprinkling or by immersion should be left free, even though the immersion was the form used by the primitive church. (p524 by Erdmans)
But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of the regeneration if he decease without baptism! (p525)
(The robber at the cross may have been deprived of the salvation ! In that case someone had to spray some water from the bottom!)
There are many rediculous theories in his book in my view.( I don't want to waste much time for the garbage again!)
I think Baptism by sprinkling was the starting point of his followers deviation from the truth. Even though he mentioned the Lord Supper should not be remembered once a year, but frequently, illustrating twice a week or once a week at least (p600-601), Presbyterians celebrate it once or twice a year. In my view, what can be seen in those churches are moral, ethics, theories, politics,instead of life and change of life, true worship and obedience to the commandments. They worship in vain Him, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15:9)
Can anyone disprove that Calvin ruled Geneve or prove that Calvin remained in Geneve as a scholar without influencing the council at all?
[ December 02, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
billwald said:
Servetus didn't know the diffference between a threat and a promise, a Darwin Award candidate.
My personal reading of this piece of history - and I emphasize that this is strictly my "armchair quarterback" interpretation of the facts based upon what I know - is that Michael Servetus was seriously unhinged. Genius and insanity often seem to go together.
It is known that Servetus and Calvin had corresponded prior to his arrest in Geneva. Calvin's intellect was formidable, and he had made a name for himself as one of the leaders of the new evangelical movement in Paris. Perhaps Servetus saw a kindred spirit that he could convert to his own way of thinking.
I have mentioned the time that Servetus arranged a secret meeting with Calvin in Paris, where upon returning clandestinely at the risk of his life, Calvin realized he had been had.
At another point, Servetus had sent him a manuscript of his yet-unpublished "Restitution of Christianity," promising he would read of "stupendous and unheard-of things." He then basically pressed Calvin to respond to his thesis point-by-point. In response Calvin, who had no time to be writing books back to Servetus, sent him a copy of the Institutes and referred him there for his answers. Servetus returned it, thoroughly marked up with criticisms. Since Servetus' letters were becoming more and more strident, around this time Calvin basically decided to ignore him, although Servetus sent something like thirty more letters that went unanswered.
When Calvin wrote Farel that Servetus would not "depart alive" from Geneva, he was not making a threat, but issuing a warning: Calvin would not guarantee his safe passage. Servetus did not heed the warning, and he received the due penalty of his error.
Servetus didn't know the diffference between a threat and a promise, a Darwin Award candidate.
My personal reading of this piece of history - and I emphasize that this is strictly my "armchair quarterback" interpretation of the facts based upon what I know - is that Michael Servetus was seriously unhinged. Genius and insanity often seem to go together.
It is known that Servetus and Calvin had corresponded prior to his arrest in Geneva. Calvin's intellect was formidable, and he had made a name for himself as one of the leaders of the new evangelical movement in Paris. Perhaps Servetus saw a kindred spirit that he could convert to his own way of thinking.
I have mentioned the time that Servetus arranged a secret meeting with Calvin in Paris, where upon returning clandestinely at the risk of his life, Calvin realized he had been had.
At another point, Servetus had sent him a manuscript of his yet-unpublished "Restitution of Christianity," promising he would read of "stupendous and unheard-of things." He then basically pressed Calvin to respond to his thesis point-by-point. In response Calvin, who had no time to be writing books back to Servetus, sent him a copy of the Institutes and referred him there for his answers. Servetus returned it, thoroughly marked up with criticisms. Since Servetus' letters were becoming more and more strident, around this time Calvin basically decided to ignore him, although Servetus sent something like thirty more letters that went unanswered.
When Calvin wrote Farel that Servetus would not "depart alive" from Geneva, he was not making a threat, but issuing a warning: Calvin would not guarantee his safe passage. Servetus did not heed the warning, and he received the due penalty of his error.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.