Lies About John Calvin Refuted

[DHK]

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.

No you didn't quote them. You listed them just as you did above. That is not quoting them. You never gave any quotes to check out. Am I to take your word for it? You post irrationally, sentimentally, emotionally-charged posts with no facts to back it up. Why should I take your word?
And then you have the audacity to say "all these people agree with me," without providing the proof that they do. Of course I deny it. You don't provide me a choice. You don't give me any evidence. Perhaps the devil himself agrees with you. You don't provide me any evidence that he doesn't. Instead of emotionally-driven, factually-devoid posts, why not try to respond with something other than your standard "That is a lie."

And that is a load of bovine crapola DHK.

Read my above answer. More carefully this time.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

bovine crapola......LOL! Really, is the alternative any more offensive for expressing.....ah, never mind.

 

[Rippon]

No you didn't quote them.

Of course I did. Don't be juvenile.

Here is what you said in post #171 to me:"You [sic] sources are one-sided apparently, though I have not checked them."

You didn't bother to read them but you dismiss them with a wave of your hand.

You listed them just as you did above. That is not quoting them. You never gave any quotes to check out.

How can you be so untruthful with so little effort? Read posts 152,154,155,156,159,160,161,162 and 219 instead of ignoring them. You will find substantiation for everything I have maintained against your distortions. I didn't merely list the authors --I cited their words which contradict yours at every turn. Facts DHK. Get acquainted with them.

why not try to respond with something other than your standard "That is a lie."

When you finally admit the truth I will not tell you "That is a lie."

 

[DHK]

Of course I did. Don't be juvenile.

Here is what you said in post #171 to me:"You [sic] sources are one-sided apparently, though I have not checked them."

You didn't bother to read them but you dismiss them with a wave of your hand.

How can you be so untruthful with so little effort? Read posts 152,154,155,156,159,160,161,162 and 219 instead of ignoring them. You will find substantiation for everything I have maintained against your distortions. I didn't merely list the authors --I cited their words which contradict yours at every turn. Facts DHK. Get acquainted with them.


When you finally admit the truth I will not tell you "That is a lie."

Yes, now I remember your endless posts all of one shade of color.
I also remember the lists of author.
Let's look at one of those posts, as you suggested:

"...Servetus suffered the fate that hundreds of heretics and anabaptists suffered at the hands of Protestant authorities of all shades of opinion,as well as of Catholic authorities;and secondly,that it is contrary to a sound conception of history to try to apply our ways of judging and our moral criteria to the past. Calvin was convinced, and all the reformers shared this conviction,that it was the duty of a Christian magistrate to put to death blasphemers who kill the soul,just as they punished murderers who kill the body." (p.97)

So, who is this "Wendell" from which this is quoted from?
Why is this a direct contradiction from Spurgeon's account of what happened?
Since I know about Spurgeon, a reliable Baptist, and I don't a thing about this guy, who do you think I am going to trust?
Spurgeon stated that ALL the Reformers persecuted the Baptists during the Reformation. He had hoped for some degree of tolerance, but there was none. Spurgeon knew what he was talking about. His view was not colored by the RCC or the Reformers for he wasn't related to either one.

Secondly, the quote itself condemns you. Calvin agrees with the Protestants.
I quote him again for your sake:

Calvin was convinced, and all the reformers shared this conviction,that it was the duty of a Christian magistrate to put to death blasphemers

This is the admission of a murderer.
A blasphemer needs to be put to death! Really! What if we decide you are the blasphemer? Shall we put you to death likewise? See how this works?
The post condemns you.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

Once again, you make an unfounded accusation. Prove we have "altered history" by citing one of those "any number of legitimate Church History books" you claim will do so. Otherwise, it's time to shut up about someone other than yourself "altering history."

 

[Rippon]

Once again, you make an unfounded accusation. Prove we have "altered history" by citing one of those "any number of legitimate Church History books" you claim will do so.

Listen Wrong Way Corrigan --you simply must pay attention. I have produced quotes from a variety of Church historians/scholars both past and present. Take up and read. Look at the content of my posts 152,154-156,159-162. Both of you have run afoul of historical truth multiple times.

And I find it most interesting that neither you nor DHK have commented on post #219.

 

[DHK]

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."

This proves two things to me.
The level of your deniability is extreme.
Given the above your level of comprehension of my posts is very weak. I have already covered this material and have given you information, verified by other source material. Calvin didn't have to be a citizen. He was a dictator who put himself above the law--a law unto himself. He was the law--citizen or not.

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."

Calvin pushed that the Consistory be put in his hands. It held the real power, and he became the head of it.
Note:

The Genevan Consistory (French: Consistoire de Genève) is a council of the Protestant Church of Geneva similar to a synod in other Reformed churches.[1]
The Consistory was first organized in November 1541 as part of the implementation of John Calvin's Ecclesiastical Ordinances. It initially consisted of the city's pastors and twelve lay elders who were selected from among the city's councils.[2] The Consistory was to meet every Thursday and exercise church discipline by summoning and formally rebuking Genevans who had refused to repent when confronted by elders and pastors in private with issues of sin. If they remained obstinate, they were suspended from the Lord's Supper temporarily.

He instituted it; he was the head of it; he carried out the judgments--some of the murderous.

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..."

The judgment of the churches was summed up in the Genevan_Consistory. This was the council that had more power than all councils present. They decided the fate of Servetus.
For example:

In 1543, the Council of 60, a legislative body of the Republic of Geneva, ruled that the Consistory did not have the power to excommunicate, and that their only power was admonishment, but the Consistory continued to excommunicate about a dozen people per year.

It was Calvin that executed--his Consistory.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin didn't have to be a citizen. He was a dictator who put himself above the law--a law unto himself. He was the law--citizen or not.

You can't have it both ways DHK. One the one hand you cite Schaff as an excellent historian --then you ignore the validity of what he says at other times.

No legitimate source says he was a law unto himself. He was not a dictator. He had no political power. He was subject to the higher powers --the Council of the Sixty,the Council of the Two Hundred --and the ultimate authority in Geneva which was the Small Council of 25.

Calvin pushed that the Consistory be put in his hands. It held the real power, and he became the head of it.

He instituted it; he was the head of it;

He might well be considered the head of the Consistory. But by "real power" you mean civil authority. But Calvin had no such authority.

he carried out the judgments--some of the[sic] murderous.

You are plugging away at your same ole' untruthful smears --to your shame.

The judgment of the churches was summed up in the Genevan_Consistory. This was the council that had more power than all councils present. They decided the fate of Servetus.

You express yourself awkwardly. I don't know specifically what you are attempting to say. By the terminology "the judgment of the churches" what do you mean? Do you mean the four Swiss Churches? "Summed up in the Genevan Consistory" is confused wording. What are you trying to say? Please rephrase.

It is complete nonsense to maintain that the Consistory had more power than the Councils of the 200 and 60. The Council of the 25 --The Little Council, was the ultimate authority in Geneva. Calvin and all others in Geneva were under its jurisdiction. To insist otherwise is pure foolishness.

It was Calvin that executed--his Consistory.

Ha,ha! So finally the Consistory consisted of him alone?

You're unintentionally funny.

 

[Rippon]

The judgment of the churches was summed up in the Genevan_Consistory. This was the council that had more power than all councils present. They decided the fate of Servetus.

And as all my sources Schaff, Larson (thanks TND) ad infinitum have said, the Consistory wielded no civil authority. The Little Council made the decision to execute Servetus. That body had the supreme power in Geneva. And in 1553 the majority did not like John Calvin. Calvin was not a member of the Little Council.The Genevan Consistory was not considered, or even called a Council.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Listen Wrong Way Corrigan --you simply must pay attention. I have produced quotes from a variety of Church historians/scholars both past and present. Take up and read. Look at the content of my posts 152,154-156,159-162. Both of you have run afoul of historical truth multiple times.

None of these are proof of anything, given that they are all from notorious Calvin apologists like yourself who refuse to see anything negative about him. What DHK and I have cited are works that are neutral in position. On the other thread, I cited Larson, who, after writing that paper, "changed his mind," undoubtedly because he could not get a doctorate from that seminary with that mindset.

And I find it most interesting that neither you nor DHK have commented on post #219.

There's no need to respond to it. It makes statements refuting facts that have not been stated by us, making claims such as "he didn't hold public office" when no one has said that he did.

 

[DHK]

And as all my sources Schaff, Larson (thanks TND) ad infinitum have said, the Consistory wielded no civil authority. The Little Council made the decision to execute Servetus. That body had the supreme power in Geneva. And in 1553 the majority did not like John Calvin. Calvin was not a member of the Little Council.The Genevan Consistory was not considered, or even called a Council.

As was noted, and as I perceived from the beginning, your "sources" were plainly one-sided--from those trying to defend the legitimacy of Calvin. They are as reputable as coming from the apologists of the Catholic Church trying to defend the RCC. :laugh: It is a joke.

Calvin clung to the idea common among Christians that the world worked by God’s mysterious will. Calvin believed that God's power was absolute, and he held to the old contradictory position of predestination and human will. God created order, he believed, and it was a disgrace for someone to allow himself to deviate from that order, including men acting effeminate and women doing masculine things. He described such women as deserving not only of being spat upon but also having some piece of filth thrown at them. (Sermon 143 on Deuteronomy, quoted by William J. Bouwsma in John Calvin, page 234.) Calvin was absolutistic. “All human desires,” he wrote, “are evil.” He added that “Nothing pure or sincere can proceed from a corrupted and polluted nature.” (Quoted by Bouwsma, p. 36.)
Calvin became an authority in the Swiss city of Geneva, and the city saw itself as carrying out God's plan for virtue.

Calvin clung to the idea common among Christians that the world worked by God’s mysterious will. Calvin believed that God's power was absolute, and he held to the old contradictory position of predestination and human will. God created order, he believed, and it was a disgrace for someone to allow himself to deviate from that order, including men acting effeminate and women doing masculine things. He described such women as deserving not only of being spat upon but also having some piece of filth thrown at them. (Sermon 143 on Deuteronomy, quoted by William J. Bouwsma in John Calvin, page 234.) Calvin was absolutistic. “All human desires,” he wrote, “are evil.” He added that “Nothing pure or sincere can proceed from a corrupted and polluted nature.” (Quoted by Bouwsma, p. 36.)
Calvin became an authority in the Swiss city of Geneva, and the city saw itself as carrying out God's plan for virtue. Geneva's government included a body called the Consistory, whose duty was to watch over everyone and to admonish those it decided were leading "a disorderly life." Calvin believed that the Consistory's activities should be thorough and its eyes everywhere.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h18-eu3.htm

Calvin saw the evil. Calvin denounced the evil. Calvin used the Consistory to carry out his denunciation and execution of all evil in Geneva, including his murderous acts.

 

[Rippon]

your "sources" were plainly one-sided--from those trying to defend the legitimacy of Calvin.

Okay Johnnie One-Note. How do you go about trying to demean the credentials of a BB Warfield, William Cunningham, J.I. Packer, Bruce Gordon, Dr. Emile Doumergue, Jean-Daniel Benoit, Basil Hall, Herman Selderhuis and so many others that I quoted? You simply say that they were one-sided. (chuckle)

So despite their saintliness and scholarship they are to be thrown on the scrapheap because DHK says so. Well I and all reasonable people beg to differ.

What do you do with the likes of Francois Wendel and Philip Schaff who were not Reformed --but Lutheran? They don't fit your warped dissmissal of the Reformed authors.

Perhaps it is you who are the partisan one --who will try in vain to revise history though flying in the face of facts. Learned men who actually were true historians should not be so lightly cast aside.

Calvin used the Consistory to carry out his denunciation and execution of all evil in Geneva, including his murderous acts.

You're not making any sense. "Execution of all evil"? Huh?

As Schaff has said, the Consistory "had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments." Just acknowledge the truth DHK. You are running on empty screeds.

You keep repeating your mantra of "murderous acts" when you have not a scintilla of evidence to submit. Why do you persist in such a slanderous falsehood?

 

[Rippon]

I cited Larson, who, after writing that paper, "changed his mind,"

I know you are embarrassed, but Larson's work:"John Calvin and Geneva Presbyterianism" which you had quoted from so approvingly said the very opposite from what you believe. He didn't change his mind afterward. The very paper itself torpedoed your vapid claims as I have demonstrated. Reading with comprehension is a needed skill you need to acquire.

 

[Rippon]

There's no need to respond to it. It makes statements refuting facts that have not been stated by us, making claims such as "he didn't hold public office" when no one has said that he did.

The above was in reference to my post numbered 219 when I quoted statements by Philip Schaff which run completely opposite from the claims that you and DHK have made repeatedly.

But your phraseology is hard to decipher. "It makes statements refuting facts that have not been made by us..." Huh? What in the world does that mean? Please clue us in.

 

[Rippon]

DHK: on 3/23/2014 you admitted that Calvin was not in charge in Geneva. But then,in the very same post you said Calvin "acted without the authority of the Council." When did he act with the authority of the Council? And are you referencing the Little Council? He did not act without the approval of any of the three Councils.

On 3/20/2014 you stated :"His decisions were made without the Council's authority. He was greater than the Council." Again,there were three Councils he didn't get to "decide" against any of them. He had to submit to the authority of the Councils. He certainly was not greater than the Councils. That claim of yours is ridiculous.

On the same date you said "His church held all the power;not the Council." That does not make the least bit of sense. What exactly do you mean by "his church"?

From the same post you made the absurd remarks that He did not submit to the powers of the state. He was the state." That is utter nonsense.

You need to give evidence for these wild assertions which are in opposition to historical facts. What's the old phrase? Oh yeahut up or shut up.

 

[DHK]

What do you do with the likes of Francois Wendel and Philip Schaff who were not Reformed --but Lutheran? They don't fit your warped dissmissal of the Reformed authors.

You keep repeating your mantra of "murderous acts" when you have not a scintilla of evidence to submit. Why do you persist in such a slanderous falsehood?

I have quoted from Schaff time and time again. I have referred you to chapter 8. You blind your eyes; deny the truth, say no what Schaff has written; say it can't be so, and keep going on in your emotional denial.
But Schaff considers Calvin a murderer. Case closed.

 

[Rippon]

But Schaff considers Calvin a murderer.

Schaff does no such thing and you know it --yet persist in your falsehood here and elsewhere.

Case closed.

The only thing closed is your stubborn refusal to concede that you have slandered Calvin over and over and have brought in Schaff for support. Yet he does not level any such charge at Calvin's feet.

TND brought in Larson to support his falsehood only it blew up in his face. The same thing is your problem.

 

[Rippon]

Philip Schaff

Chapter 13

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..."

DHK: Please read with your eyes wide open and try to comprehend easy English.

I have quoted from Schaff time and time again. These quotes above show that Schaff never accused Calvin of being a murderer. The Consistory had no such powers as you have falsely accused it of having. You do not have the right to make up DHK history. Truth is important. You need to realize that. Schaff does not help your cause at all --he sets you straight,as have all the other witnesses I have assembled. To continue in the manner in which you conduct yourself is reprehensible.

 

[DHK]

DHK: Please read with your eyes wide open and try to comprehend easy English.

I have quoted from Schaff time and time again. These quotes above show that Schaff never accused Calvin of being a murderer. The Consistory had no such powers as you have falsely accused it of having. You do not have the right to make up DHK history. Truth is important. You need to realize that. Schaff does not help your cause at all --he sets you straight,as have all the other witnesses I have assembled. To continue in the manner in which you conduct yourself is reprehensible.

You keep ignoring Schaff.

Sources quoted in Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. 8:

• "The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment."
• Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
• A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly 'He prays a beautiful psalm.'
• A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: 'This is the best Psalter.'
• Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
• Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
• A man who swore by the 'body and blood of Christ' was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
• A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
• A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
• A banker was executed for repeated adultery.
• A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
• Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft. (See Pike, pp. 55,56).

From Other Sources:

• 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).
• Martin Luther said of Calvin's actions in Geneva, "With a death sentence they solve all argumentation" (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).
• "About the month of January 1546, a member of the Little Council, Pierre Ameaux, asserted that Calvin was nothing but a wicked man - who was preaching false doctrine. Calvin felt that his authority as an interpreter of the Word of God was being attacked: he so completely identified his own ministry with the will of God that he considered Ameaux's words as an insult to the honour of Christ. The Magistrates offered to make the culprit beg Calvin's pardon on bended knees before the Council of the Two Hundred, but Calvin found this insufficient. On April 8, Ameaux was sentenced to walk all round the town, dressed only in a shirt, bareheaded and carrying a lighted torch in his hand, and after that to present himself before the tribunal and cry to God for mercy" (F. Wendel, Calvin, pp. 85, 86).

"Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" James 3:11.

http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

Convincing enough? Or just more denial?

 

[Rippon]

Convincing enough? Or just more denial?

You can repost that till the cows come home. The fact remains that Schaff did not call Calvin a murderer. Schaff continually reminds us that the Little Council (of which Calvin was not a member) issued the death warrant for Servetus. Calvin and the Consistory dealt only with ecclesiastical matters --not civil affairs. The Consistory did not wield any authority in the matters pertaining to the State whatsoever. That's the truth --the truth that Schaff and the testimonies of all the others that I have produced. You are running on empty DHK.