Lies About John Calvin Refuted

[preacher4truth]

Absolutely false. Any legitimate Church History book will inform you that Calvin did not become a citizen of Geneva until 1559 --any of them.

You're making stuff up because of your hatred of a fictional figure you call John Calvin.

That's stupid. No legit source, except hate-filled anti-Calvinist websites push that junk of yours.

You've gone off the rails entirely. Rather than saying things that are completely untrue hold your tongue and keystrokes and begin to tell the truth for a change.

Absolutely,incredibly false. You are compounding your prevarications.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Lies do not serve to advance your "cause" --whatever that may be.

You have a bad case of truth decay. And as a professing Christian that is troubling. And you are a moderator to boot. That is hard to fathom.

"I truly dislike the hate speech and lies about Calvin. Calvin DID NOT murder anyone. And I will not tolerate lies by 'haters' here." (Dr. Bob 4/25/1206)



Yeah,and I've read them --especially the ones by Schaffer. Have you read my Schaffer quotes?

You are amazingly hypocritical DHK. You ask me to read your sources and yet dismiss mine out of hand. You remind me of Mormons who tell me to read their stuff --and I have. Then,a week or so later thinking they would have the decency to read my biblical literature --no,they read nary a page. There was no reciprocity. You are like the Mormons.

You have intentionally broken the 9th commandment. You are not being a very good example here.

For all this power that you claim Calvin had --if he was such a dictator --calling all the shots in Geneva --how in the world did he, Farel, and company get kicked out of Geneva in 1538? Did he banish himself?!

He was not a magistrate. He held no political office. Most of the members of the City Council who decided the fate of Servetus were enemies of Calvin. These were the Libertines. They hated Calvin. Calvin was not in charge. They decided on the execution of Servetus reluctantly after getting input from the other Swiss churches. Those churches with unanimity said Servetus needed to be executed. The City Council decided to burn him. Calvin wanted the more humane decapitation. His request was turned down.

That's the truth. Your "version" is not factual --it is fantasy. As Christians we are called upon to be truthful. We are supposed to be His witnesses here. Christ is Truth --we should follow the way of truth.

I'll stand with you here. You are absolutely correct and said get a pass for such behavior on BB.

It's good to see another brother who unabashedly speaks the truth. May God continue to bless you abundantly.

 

[DHK]

I'll stand with you here. You are absolutely correct and said get a pass for such behavior on BB.

It's good to see another brother who unabashedly speaks the truth. May God continue to bless you abundantly.

He doesn't set forth the truth. He sets forth an emotional tie to an historical man, now dead, and refuses to see the facts for what they are. That is sad.
From another source:

(Preface to Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 1, 22 July 1557)

Honour, glory, and riches will be the reward of your pains. Above all do not fail to rid the country of all those zealous scoundrels that stir up the people to make head against us. Such monsters should be smothered, as I have done here by Michel Servetus the Spaniard.

(Letter to the Marquis du Poet, Grand Chamberlain of the Queen of Navarre, 30 September 1561; in Letters of John Calvin, Vol. IV, edited by Jules Bonnet; translated by Marcus Robert Gilchrist, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858, p. 434)

Servetus suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.

--Monsters should be smothered (probably Baptists included here)
--Servetus suffered the death penalty due to his heresies?? (That is like disagree with me and you will die?
--Arrogance destroyed him? (Shall we kill all who are arrogant on this board?)
--They owe him a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church! (Who is the arrogant one??

Rippon doesn't want to face the facts. According to Wikipedia:

Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536.

So, yes, he was forced out of the city. I never said he wasn't at an earlier date.
To read on in Wikipedia:

In that year, Calvin was recruited by William Farel to help reform the church in Geneva. The city council resisted the implementation of Calvin's and Farel's ideas, and both men were expelled. At the invitation of Martin Bucer, Calvin proceeded to Strasbourg, where he became the minister of a church of French refugees. He continued to support the reform movement in Geneva, and was eventually invited back to lead its church.

In that year was 1536. The council resisted him. He and Farel were expelled. However, look at the last statement: He was eventually invited back to lead its church (the reform movement in Geneva).

The next section of his history, which I have already previously quoted in this thread deals with the heavy hand of his rule from the years 1541-1549 where he institutes his reforms in complete disregard of the City Council. The Council could not stop him; he had greater power and authority than they did. He was unto himself his own law.
He made the law, and he executed even to the extent of severe persecution--persecution unto death which is murder.
Those are the facts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He doesn't set forth the truth. He sets forth an emotional tie to an historical man, now dead, and refuses to see the facts for what they are. That is sad.
From another source:

--Monsters should be smothered (probably Baptists included here)
--Servetus suffered the death penalty due to his heresies?? (That is like disagree with me and you will die?
--Arrogance destroyed him? (Shall we kill all who are arrogant on this board?)
--They owe him a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church! (Who is the arrogant one??

Rippon doesn't want to face the facts. According to Wikipedia:

So, yes, he was forced out of the city. I never said he wasn't at an earlier date.
To read on in Wikipedia:

In that year was 1536. The council resisted him. He and Farel were expelled. However, look at the last statement: He was eventually invited back to lead its church (the reform movement in Geneva).

The next section of his history, which I have already previously quoted in this thread deals with the heavy hand of his rule from the years 1541-1549 where he institutes his reforms in complete disregard of the City Council. The Council could not stop him; he had greater power and authority than they did. He was unto himself his own law.
He made the law, and he executed even to the extent of severe persecution--persecution unto death which is murder.
Those are the facts.

In truth Servetus was only a transient in Geneva (note he was not a citizen)subject to the laws of Geneva therefore the Council could not do anything legally but ban him. When they saw him that day attending a church service, it was Calvin who ordered the arrest, it was Calvin that drew up the indictments & it was Calvin who took an active role in the trial & it was Calvin that was his chief accuser. And Calvin was also the guy who petitioned the other Swiss churches to give their opinion of what to do with Servetus. Note that they all advised MS condemnation but none his execution. Clearly & if nothing else, Calvin greatly influenced the court toward execution. Need we go any further with this?

 

[DHK]

In truth Servetus was only a transient in Geneva (note he was not a citizen)subject to the laws of Geneva therefore the Council could not do anything legally but ban him. When they saw him that day attending a church service, it was Calvin who ordered the arrest, it was Calvin that drew up the indictments & it was Calvin who took an active role in the trial & it was Calvin that was his chief accuser. And Calvin was also the guy who petitioned the other Swiss churches to give their opinion of what to do with Servetus. Note that they all advised MS condemnation but none his execution. Clearly & if nothing else, Calvin greatly influenced the court toward execution. Need we go any further with this?

I agree with you. In fact Calvin "intervened." He didn't want him to burn at the stake. He would have rather seen him beheaded instead.
The fact remains--as great as influence as Calvin had, he promoted the execution, and did nothing to stop it.

But that was not the real issue here. The thread is about the entire demeanor of Calvin, not just his encounter with one man--but with the entire community. In fact he murdered many.

A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.

A banker was executed for repeated adultery.

Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

The above have been quoted countless of times already. They are from Shaff's Church History, chapter 8. Rippon refuses to acknowledge it.

Here is another interesting tidbit which shows Calvin's attitude toward the Baptists:

Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).

 

[Rippon]

Secondly, my way of finding information about Calvin is doing a simple search. In the last search Wikipedia was the first to come up. I didn't even have to look at the other links, but there were scores of them--all drawing the same conclusions (by their headlines).

You have demonstrated that discernment is not one of your strengths. You castigate the dozens of historian/scholars that I have quoted then tell me to believe your links are superior. Nonsense.

Change history if you have to. This is your attitude. You are at the point where you are unteachable. That is truly sad.

DHK,you have distorted history regularly. You have twisted the lives of Augustine, Wycliff, Erasmus, Gill, Westcott, Hort, and Spurgeon. Calvin is another add on. You have even tried to distort contemporray his by saying that hyper-Calvinism is running rampant in Presbyterianism. What a hoot!

Unteachable --you certainly are. Telling the truth is important. You turn it on its head.

 

[Rippon]

From this quote we see that Calvin and his "state-church" held power over the city council. The city-council could not control him. They could not "curb his authority," even after new elections to the city council, "Calvin's opponents were forced out." His authority, at this time (1541-1549) was greater than the council's which he disdained.

You and your source have it backwards. Calvin's influence was at its lowest ebb then --especially 1550 -1555. In 1553 he was certainly was certainly at his nadir.

He didn't have to. His decisions were made without the Council's authority. He was greater than the council. The council was meaningless in his view.

Gibberish man. That's all your spouting here. Actual history is very different than your bizarro-world version.

He did not submit to the powers of the state. He was "the state."

You know it would make me seem so nice if I merely said you are mistaken. But you are so transparent. You're fibbing big time DHK. I have to call a spade a spade.

 

[Rippon]

Looks to me like DHK is giving you some pretty solid evidence to refute your beliefs.

Your opthamologist just called. You're going blind. What looks "solid" to you is in fact gaseous.

That is, unfortunately (though I respect Bob) a comment by another member who refuses to acknowledge the truth about John Calvin.

It was a warning to folks like you and DHK not to lie about Calvin and accuse him of murder and other completely unfounded remarks --as well as your altered history.

you've done nothing but attack and deny.

I despise falsehood. What a great sin!

You are trying to tell me that DHK has not attacked and denied over and over and over again? Get those eyes checked --pronto!

Obviously this is two years before he returned to Geneva, having left the city to organize his supporters, urging them to move to Geneva and become a majority for him to use to overthrow the powers that were preventing him from being the driving force behind the theological terrorism that marked the city for the next several years to come.

You're making stuff up. Calvin did not want to go back to Geneva at all. It was like the first time when Farel basically had to threaten him with God's wrath if he wouldn't do his duty. Calvin certainly wasn't gathering any power from supporters. That's absurd.

As I have said over and over --Calvin did not have the majority of friends in positions of civil authority in Geneva from 1538-1555. His enemies were in charge --the Libertines.

It points to your unholy worship of the man, versus the true object of worship upon whom you need to focus,...

You're being sinfully stupid with that remark --better temper your remarks. I worship the Lord alone. I hold no brief with Calvin being a perfect man. I do take issue with fabrications --slanderous lies told about him by the likes of you and DHK though. Please note the difference.

 

[Rippon]

I'll stand with you here. You are absolutely correct and said get a pass for such behavior on BB.

It's good to see another brother who unabashedly speaks the truth. May God continue to bless you abundantly.

Thanks p4t. Glad to have your support.

 

[Rippon]

So, yes, he was forced out of the city. I never said he wasn't at an earlier date.
To read on in Wikipedia:

In that year was 1536. The council resisted him. He and Farel were expelled.

Wrong. It was in September of 1538 that he and Farel were expelled from Geneva. I am glad that you acknowledged that the Council resisted him. Calvin was not in charge before his expulsion or after his return.

the heavy hand of his rule from the years 1541-1549 where he institutes his reforms in complete disregard of the City Council. The Council could not stop him; he had greater power and authority than they did. He was unto himself his own law.

Completely untrue. At least your are consistently untruthful. Calvin wasn't a citizen until 1559. He held no political office. He was the leading member of the Consistory. He was not a magistrate. He could not arrest anyone,convict anyone, try anyone, torture or execute anyone. What I am saying here is the truth. You maintain the opposite. You are in the wrong.

He made the law, and he executed even to the extent of severe persecution--persecution unto death which is murder.
Those are the facts.

All of the above quote of yours is untruthful DHK. I don't know how long you will persist in your campaign --but your "version" of history is dead wrong.

 

[Rippon]

And Calvin was also the guy who petitioned the other Swiss churches to give their opinion of what to do with Servetus.

No, you are wrong EW&F. The Little Council (of which Calvin was not a member)asked the four churches of Bern, Zurich, Schaffausen and Basel for their opinion on the matter. Calvin did not do it.

Need we go any further with this?

Yes, we do. Lies aplenty are issuing forth --and I am here to tell the truth in opposition to said falsehoods.

 

[Rippon]

it was Calvin that drew up the indictments

At the behest of the Council.

& it was Calvin who took an active role in the trial

Only as a theological expert. His role was only a part of the trial. And Calvin had no direct influence on the result. The judgments of the four Swiss churches that I mentioned earlier, played the biggest role.

 

[Rippon]

I agree with you. In fact Calvin "intervened." He didn't want him to burn at the stake. He would have rather seen him beheaded instead.

And the man you have maintained was in charge of the whole affair was overruled.

The thread is about the entire demeanor of Calvin,

This thread is dedicated to the overthrow of the lies that have been told about John Calvin.

not just his encounter with one man--but with the entire community.

He was rather popular with the populace! ;-) He was not favored by the majority in civil authority.

In fact he murdered many.

Didn't your Mommy and Daddy tell you it is wrong to tell lies?

A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.

A banker was executed for repeated adultery.

Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

And does Schaff at any time say that Calvin was at fault for any of these things? How can a man without citizenship,holding no civil office, not able to arrest,try,convict,sentence anyone --do what you claim?

How can Schaff say so many nice and praiseworthy things about Calvin if you think Calvin authorized any of these sentences? Hmm...?

The above have been quoted countless of times already.

Countless is right. And your point...?

Rippon refuses to acknowledge it.

Your claims about Calvin and Rippon are not truthful.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

At the behest of the Council.

Only as a theological expert. His role was only a part of the trial. And Calvin had no direct influence on the result. The judgments of the four Swiss churches that I mentioned earlier, played the biggest role.

So how did it escalate from a trial where at most a non citizen is banished to a full scale execution?

I suggest that Calvin's agenda all along had been one to show the world that both he (and Geneva) could be tough on heretics so this guy was dead before he ever set foot into court. Servetus had provoked him repeatedly so Calvin felt the necessity to be extreme.....I said extreme, not tolerant. In short, Calvin conspired with Catholics & Protestants alike to approve the death sentence. He never completely cut himself away from those people even though he gave the impression of complete separation. He could not even stand up to Farel regarding providing mercy by beheading rather than burning, even though he felt that the beheading to be the right thing to do. From my prospective, he was a poor excuse for a representative of Christ......both now & back in the day. Bottom line, Calvin wanted him dead, he pushed for his execution & he should bear responsibility for the murder of a mentally dysfunctional individual...... not a murderer, not a child molester, not even a thief. Just a poor unfortunate schlub who happened to be at the wrong place at the time when the egotists felt the need to spill blood.

How do you defend that Rippon..... that is the primary question here?

 

[DHK]

You have demonstrated that discernment is not one of your strengths. You castigate the dozens of historian/scholars that I have quoted then tell me to believe your links are superior. Nonsense.

Discernment? You are like the atheist who only uses atheistic sources.
Then when an author gives an "opinion" you quote the "opinion" but refuse to look at the actual facts that the same author quotes. You have no discernment at all. In fact what you have done here is called hypocrisy.

DHK,you have distorted history regularly. You have twisted the lives of Augustine, Wycliff, Erasmus, Gill, Westcott, Hort, and Spurgeon. Calvin is another add on. You have even tried to distort contemporray his by saying that hyper-Calvinism is running rampant in Presbyterianism. What a hoot!

All ad hominems are not recognized in debate as you have here. They are the mark of the person who has nothing left to say but diatribe. He attacks the person because he cannot present any facts on the subject. Poor you.

Unteachable --you certainly are. Telling the truth is important. You turn it on its head.

Unteachable is the right word. If you were teachable you would give some substance to your post and then verify it. You give emotionally charged posts that have no substance whatsoever. I am sure all who read these posts recognize this immediately.
The links I give verify that they are truthful. They verify the facts that I say. You simply deny, deny, deny.

 

[DHK]

You and your source have it backwards. Calvin's influence was at its lowest ebb then --especially 1550 -1555. In 1553 he was certainly was certainly at his nadir.

I clearly said between the years 1541 and 1549. Learn to read. It was during this time (1541-1549) that he made his greatest reforms. Why don't you address what I actually posted instead of a different part of his life?

Gibberish man. That's all your spouting here. Actual history is very different than your bizarro-world version.

Deny, deny, deny. You offer your opinion of history, but can't back it up. Who is going to believe that?

You know it would make me seem so nice if I merely said you are mistaken. But you are so transparent. You're fibbing big time DHK. I have to call a spade a spade.

More ad hominem. Who is going to believe you? Now you are calling me a liar. But I am the one that have given you the links to the truth. You have given me nothing.

BTW, I will call a spade a spade.
I have one in my back yard, in the shed. It is used for digging holes. Some use it for digging the hole for an outhouse--where your unsubstantiated opinions belong.

 

[DHK]

Wrong. It was in September of 1538 that he and Farel were expelled from Geneva. I am glad that you acknowledged that the Council resisted him. Calvin was not in charge before his expulsion or after his return.

Your opinion; where is your documentation?

Completely untrue. At least your are consistently untruthful. Calvin wasn't a citizen until 1559. He held no political office. He was the leading member of the Consistory. He was not a magistrate. He could not arrest anyone,convict anyone, try anyone, torture or execute anyone. What I am saying here is the truth. You maintain the opposite. You are in the wrong.

You are the one untruthful here. One doesn't have to be a citizen if he is the dictator. He simply claims the power, as he did, and he did. I already gave you the link for that information. If you have a link providing different information other than your unsubstantiated information then provide it. Otherwise don't fill the board up with your emotional ignorance.

All of the above quote of yours is untruthful DHK. I don't know how long you will persist in your campaign --but your "version" of history is dead wrong.

I verify the facts of history; you don't give any verification of the truthfulness of your sentimental emotionalism.

 

[DHK]

And the man you have maintained was in charge of the whole affair was overruled.

Calvin was not the "one in charge." He didn't "pull the trigger." But of all the men in the city, he had the greatest influence, and that influence held great sway. In fact he could have saved that man's life, but he wanted him dead. He used his influence for evil and not for good. Accept it.

This thread is dedicated to the overthrow of the lies that have been told about John Calvin.

Or, contrariwise, the establishment of the truth of the life of Calvin--things you don't want to admit.

He was rather popular with the populace! ;-) He was not favored by the majority in civil authority.

There is no doubt he had his following. No one can deny that. An entire religion resulted from it. It was a state-church.
However, what good has ever come out of a state-church?
Have you ever heard of "Bloody Mary Tudor, Queen of England"? Hers was a state church?
So was King Henry the VIII's church, so well known for his immorality. I want; I will get it--so says Henry.
Wasn't the great persecution and imprisonment of John Bunyan done under the state church of the Church of England? It was a sin to preach without being licensed by the state.

Didn't your Mommy and Daddy tell you it is wrong to tell lies?

I am not telling lies, but your ad hominems fill this board.

And does Schaff at any time say that Calvin was at fault for any of these things? How can a man without citizenship,holding no civil office, not able to arrest,try,convict,sentence anyone --do what you claim?

A dictator does as he pleases. He acted without the authority of the Council. You don't read well, or ignore what is posted.
Yes, Shaff denounced what Calvin did. Why don't you read it for yourself.

How can Schaff say so many nice and praiseworthy things about Calvin if you think Calvin authorized any of these sentences? Hmm...?

Schaff was a historian. He was able to separate opinion from history. He was able to be objective. You cannot do this. Your emotions are tied to objectivity in such a way that objectivity has gone down the drain and everything is subjective--relative to your emotions.
Shaff was still able to establish history, no matter how evil it was, in spite of his own opinions of the man.

 

[Reformed]

John, I am not ignoring your request on the NPP. I have been on vacation in Florida and just got back in town. I participate in spurts on the BB, so I will address your request this week.

Thanks.

 

[Rippon]

Swiss Reformation --Third Book by Philip Schaff

Chapter 13,Section 101 :The Civil Government

"He never occupied a political or civil office. He was not even a citizen of Geneva until 1559...It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense."

Section 105 : The Venerable Company and the Consistory

"The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments,which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec and Servetus do not even appear in its records."

Chapter 16, Section 150 State of Political Parties at Geneva in 1553

"The final responsibility of the condemnation, therefore, rests with the Council of Geneva, which would probably have acted otherwise, if it had not been strongly influenced by the judgment of the Swiss Churches and the government of Bern. Calvin conducted the theological part of the examination of the trial, but had no direct influence upon the result. His theory was that the Church may convict and denounce the heretic theologically, but that his condemnation and punishment is the exclusive function of the State..."

Section 153 :Consultation of the Swiss Churches. The Defiant Attitude of Servetus
"On the 19th of Septemeber the Little Council, in accordance with a resolution adopted on the 4th, referred the case of Servetus to the magistrates and pastors of the Reformed Churches of Bern, Zurich, Schaffhausen, and Basel for their judgment."

"On the 18th of October the messenger of the State returned with the answers from the four foreign churches...They were unanimous in condemning the theological doctrines of Servetus..."

Section 154 :Condemnation of Servetus

"The Council had no doubt of its jurisdiction in the case, it had to respect the unanimous judgment of the churches..."

 

[Rippon]

Your opinion; where is your documentation?

I had quoted author after author --all reputable Church historians. But you, in your haughtiness have said that you haven't checked them. You claim they all were one-sided.

You dismissed out of hand --B.B. Warfield,McGrath, Packer, Gordon, Cottret, Cadier and others.

One doesn't have to be a citizen if he is the dictator. He simply claims the power, as he did, and he did.

And that is a load of bovine crapola DHK.