Calvin By Bruce Gordon
Read slowly and with comprehension. The above is the truth. Don't deny the truth.
-
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.
Lies About John Calvin Refuted
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Now focus and read carefully.B.B. Warfield produced a book called Calvin and Calvinism. The first chapter is called :John Calvin:The Man and His Work.
"And Servetus was condemned and executed by a tribunal of which Calvin was not a member,and which he possessed little influence,and which rejected his petition against the unnecessary cruelty of the penalty inflicted." (p.25)
Are your eyes unaccustomed to the light?More from Warfield's book:
"Censorship of manners and morals was not introduced by Calvin into Geneva...was the immemorial practice not only of Geneva but of all other similarly constituted towns.It was part of the recognized police regulations of the times. Calvin's sole relation to this censorship was through his influence -- he never bore civil office or exercised civil authority in Geneva,and indeed,acquired the rights to citizenship there only late in life --gradually to bring some order and rationality into its exercise." (16)
Yes,it was "the business of the Genevan magistrates" and Calvin was not among their number.In another fine book with the title The Man God Mastered by Jean Cadier(1965) he states:"On October 18,the reply from the Swiss churches [ Bern, Basle, Zurich and Schaffhausen]arrived.They all decided that Servetus was guilty. They had not to pronounce on his punishment,which was the business of the Genevan magistrates,but their opinion was clear. In a private comment, Haller of Berne, giving his account of the session,said of his colleagues:"...I had no doubt that if he were in their hands he would be delivered to the flames. They added to our reply a letter in which they exhort the Genevans to root out this pestilence for fear that the neighbouring fields be damaged by their negligence.' " (p.160)
From Courtenay Studies In Reformation Theology :John Calvin. The following is from the first chapter by Basil Hall called The Calvin Legend.
"It is a curious fact that if one were to collect references to "Calvin,' 'Calvinism', and 'Calvinistic' in non-scholarly writing, the majority of instances would be pejorative in tone and in general bear very little relation to what is known to scholars of Calvin's writing, doctrine, and achievements.
Those who wish to focus denigration of Calvin and what he stood for, on his supposed cruelty and dictatorial powers, fail to come to grips with two major facts. First, if Calvin was a cruel man, how did he attract so many, so varied, and so warmly attached friends and associates who speak of the sensitiveness and the charm beneath his shy and withdrawn manner in public life? The evidence is plain for all to read in the course of his vast correspondence. Secondly, if Calvin had dictatorial control over Geneva affairs, how is it that records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand Calvin's wishes for the religious life of Geneva, and was always master in Genevan affairs?...To call Calvin the 'dictator of a theocracy' is, in view of the evidence, mere phrase-making prejudice. Calvin in Geneva had less power either in theory or in practice than has Archbishop Whitgift in England, and less again than had Archbishop Laud, or Cardinal Richelieu in France,for he had neither the authority of their office nor the consistent and powerful political support which they received. Moreover, to take the pattern --a pattern so continually used that it has become a historian's cliché --of the 'Geneva discipline' (as it has was exemplified by anti-Calvinist Genevan writers in the nineteenth century)out of the context of the variously repressive ecclesiastical disciplines of the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian Churches of the sixteenth century, is to lose proportion and come near to caricature." (pages 10 and 11)
Read,contemplate and absorb the truth.
"Serious Calvin -scholars" are the ones I have repeatedly cited. But there are some posters here who continually malign Calvin with their slurs. They desperately want to mischaracterize him as J.I. Packer has aptly pointed out.From Courtenay Studies In Reformation Theology : John Calvin.
Chapter eight,Calvin the Theologian, was authored by J.I.Packer.
"...Calvin held that in the Gospel Christ is offered to all,and spent his whole life seeking to spread the Gospel throughout Europe by praying,writing,advising,and training leaders...The popular idea of him is still of a chilly,arrogant intellectualist --though in fact no Reformation leader was more consistently practical in his teaching,or more humble and adoring in his thoughts of God. Yet all serious Calvin-scholars now know that the Calvin of legend --the slobbering ogre,the egoistical fanatic,the doctrinaire misanthrope,the inhuman dictator with a devilish god --is a figure of fancy,not of fact. The real Calvin was not like that,nor was his theology the monstrous and mis-shapen thing that the legendary image would suggest." (p.150)
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Many words, little substance.
You've made an idol of Calvin. Done here.
You've made an idol of Calvin. Done here.
Muller and Larson are not your allies --but mine!
Your remark is insubstantial in contradistinction to my truthful posts from scholar/historians.Many words, little substance.
As I said in my OP --I am combating lies about Calvin. There is no idolization going on. And your slur is typical of you and your posts. You have failed multiple times in several threads to undo truth. You've tried again and again and failed.You've made an idol of Calvin.
Sayonara.Done here.
Why do you keep denying this, and why do I have to keep re-posting it?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.
- A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
- A banker was executed for repeated adultery.
In my books that is murder.
This is what Calvin wanted; this is what Calvin got. He might not have swung the axe, but he ordered the execution. You cannot deny this. Schaff is talking of the events of Calvin's life here.
As you say "Calvin scholars," biased people who won't face the truth (like you), but defend Calvin's evil. I put them all in the same boat, and rather quote the other side, and also from far more neutral sources. Even Wikipedia condemns Calvin, and that can hardly be considered biased."Serious Calvin -scholars" are the ones I have repeatedly cited. But there are some posters here who continually malign Calvin with their slurs. They desperately want to mischaracterize him as J.I. Packer has aptly pointed out.
http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm
- Letter of August 20, 1553, one week after Servetus arrest. "I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death."
- Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, published in early 1554. "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
- He has such kind words doesn't he. He was in absolute favor of his death, did nothing to stop it, and in fact, spurred it on.
You know the Facts --but deny them
All of the above is absolutely truthful --historically factual. Anyone who differs with it is fabricating. Calvin had no authority to "order" the death of Sevetus or anyone else. To insist on that junk is pure obstinacy despite very well knowing the truth. In other words --sinning.Calvin was not the religious dictator of Geneva. Stop imbibing fiction. Calvin was turned down by the council many times with his requests regarding excommunication and having the Lord's Supper every week. Since he was turned down he can't very well be some despot can he?
Schaff,whom you use to try and place blame as a killer, lavishes praise on Calvin. He calls him "the Christian Elijah" and speaks of "the sanctity of his character." Was Schaff schizophrenic? Was he calling Calvin a murderer at times and extolling his admirable virtues in the next breath? Of course not. Schaff never called Calvin a killer. You know that very well. You know very well that all of those incidents detailed in chapter eight of Schaff's volume never charge Calvin with murder. All capital punishments were dealt with by the State. The Consistory only had authority over ecclesiastical matters --not things in the civil realm. You know that.
You know that the Consistory was not a civil court.
You know that the Small Council alone had the power to execute anyone.
You know that the City Council prosecuted the case against Servetus.
You know that Calvin was not a member of any of the three Councils in Geneva.
You know that Schaff never charged Calvin with murder.
You know that the other Reformers of Calvin's time endorsed the state execution of Servetus.
You know that Calvin held no political office.
You know that from 1546 to 1555 Calvin and his friends and fellow pastors of the Consistory were in the minority.
You know that the Little Council was composed of a majority who resented Calvin --the Libertines.
You know that the Libertines had to follow the expressed wishes of the four Swiss Churches or Geneva would be considered ripe for the plucking.
You know that thousands of refugees flooded to Geneva during Calvin's time.
You know that those thousands would not have come there if Calvin was the tyrant you make him out to have been.
You know that no other city in Europe was considered as much of a safe haven as Geneva was.
You know all of these facts. Yet you still resist the truth at every turn. It's shameful. It really is. But my postings here are for the benefit of the lurkers --not even BB members. You and others here defame and demean John Calvin. But you (in the collective sense) will be met with the facts. Your efforts are futile.
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.
All of the above is absolutely truthful --historically factual. Anyone who differs with it is fabricating. Calvin had no authority to "order" the death of Sevetus or anyone else. To insist on that junk is pure obstinacy despite very well knowing the truth. In other words --sinning.Calvin was not the religious dictator of Geneva. Stop imbibing fiction. Calvin was turned down by the council many times with his requests regarding excommunication and having the Lord's Supper every week. Since he was turned down he can't very well be some despot can he?
Schaff,whom you use to try and place blame as a killer, lavishes praise on Calvin. He calls him "the Christian Elijah" and speaks of "the sanctity of his character." Was Schaff schizophrenic? Was he calling Calvin a murderer at times and extolling his admirable virtues in the next breath? Of course not. Schaff never called Calvin a killer. You know that very well. You know very well that all of those incidents detailed in chapter eight of Schaff's volume never charge Calvin with murder. All capital punishments were dealt with by the State. The Consistory only had authority over ecclesiastical matters --not things in the civil realm. You know that.
You know that the Consistory was not a civil court.
You know that the Small Council alone had the power to execute anyone.
You know that the City Council prosecuted the case against Servetus.
You know that Calvin was not a member of any of the three Councils in Geneva.
You know that Schaff never charged Calvin with murder.
You know that the other Reformers of Calvin's time endorsed the state execution of Servetus.
You know that Calvin held no political office.
You know that from 1546 to 1555 Calvin and his friends and fellow pastors of the Consistory were in the minority.
You know that the Little Council was composed of a majority who resented Calvin --the Libertines.
You know that the Libertines had to follow the expressed wishes of the four Swiss Churches or Geneva would be considered ripe for the plucking.
You know that thousands of refugees flooded to Geneva during Calvin's time.
You know that those thousands would not have come there if Calvin was the tyrant you make him out to have been.
You know that no other city in Europe was considered as much of a safe haven as Geneva was.
You know all of these facts. Yet you still resist the truth at every turn. It's shameful. It really is. But my postings here are for the benefit of the lurkers --not even BB members. You and others here defame and demean John Calvin. But you (in the collective sense) will be met with the facts. Your efforts are futile.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone who differs with you is fabricating (history)?? Really?All of the above is absolutely truthful --historically factual. Anyone who differs with it is fabricating. Calvin had no authority to "order" the death of Sevetus or anyone else.
I have read the facts as they are put in the proper context.You know all of these facts.
The facts can be simplified so that even a child can simply understand the work of John Calvin.But my postings here are for the benefit of the lurkers --not even BB members. You and others here defame and demean John Calvin. But you (in the collective sense) will be met with the facts.
His past--A Roman Catholic priest.
Then he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within, as did Luther; hence a Reformer.
When the RCC resisted all efforts he became a Protestant, one who protested against the RCC.
His form of Protestantism was to have his own state-city religion in Geneva--Presbyterian government, reformed church, a state church government. He took with him a lot of Catholic baggage that he couldn't leave behind. Obviously that was the state-religion part. He couldn't part with that. He became the "Pope" of the state-religion of Geneva. No other Reformer became such a dictator as Calvin did. No one else formed such a state-church system as he did. It didn't matter what the city officials decided; they had to submit to the authority of "Pope Calvin," didn't they? He held the power in Geneva. Perhaps he thought he was "the Pope."
Anyone who differs from the facts is fabricating history.Anyone who differs with you is fabricating (history)??
That sounds rather weasel-like.I have read the facts as they are put in the proper context.
1)False.His past--A Roman Catholic priest.
2)False.Then he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within, as did Luther; hence a Reformer.
3)False.When the RCC resisted all efforts he became a Protestant, one who protested against the RCC.
4)False.His form of Protestantism was to have his own state-city religion in Geneva--
5)True for the most part.Presbyterian government,
6)True.reformed church,
7)False.a state church government.
8)Surprisingly little. It is only from our 21st vantage point that we idealistically see a lot of baggage.He took with him a lot of Catholic baggage that he couldn't leave behind.
9)I already told you that was false.Obviously that was the state-religion part. He couldn't part with that.
10)Stupidly false.He became the "Pope" of the state-religion of Geneva.
11)Nonsensically false.No other Reformer became such a dictator as Calvin did.
12)This is the third time I'm telling you in response to your post. He did not have a state-church.No one else formed such a state-church system as he did.
13)Absolutely untrue. And you know it is untrue, so that's called lying. You know the truth and are intentionally rebelling against it.It didn't matter what the city officials decided; they had to submit to the authority of "Pope Calvin," didn't they?
14)False.He held the power in Geneva. Perhaps he thought he was "the Pope."
Hmm..12 out of 14 were false. You are really wrong.
You lose. You fail. You hang onto your fictitious Calvin despite everything factual to the contrary. I can't call you uninformed. You know the facts but wish to be contrary out of spite.
As representative of many quotes from a variety of sources which I have provided --I will offer Mark J. Larson's voice. (Thanks again TND.)
"This specified limitation upon the power of the consistory --this separation between the jurisdiction of the ministers, on the one hand, and the jurisdiction of the magistrates, on the other was in sharp contrast to the previous history of Geneva when it was ruled by a prince-bishop,who possessed both civil and ecclesiastical authority." ( John Calvin and Geneva Presbyterianism,p.68)
Who was preaching the morning that one of the most brilliant Renaissance Men stepped into church, in Geneva, seeking to reconcile differences with a former University classmate?
Who turned that Man in, to the Parisian authorities, for "Anti- Catholic" ideas, so many years earlier, causing the original death warrant to be issued by París?
Who turned him in that morning, to the Genevan Authorities?
What crime was Miguel guilty of?
Didnt Calvin recommend he be beheaded? Wasnt this an assent to murder, whether his hands shed the blood or not?
Servetus gave the World the map of the Circulatory System.
Calvin gave the World ...Calvinists.
Here is a test that Calvin and his co-conspirators flunk:
Jn 16:2-3
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues:yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Who turned that Man in, to the Parisian authorities, for "Anti- Catholic" ideas, so many years earlier, causing the original death warrant to be issued by París?
Who turned him in that morning, to the Genevan Authorities?
What crime was Miguel guilty of?
Didnt Calvin recommend he be beheaded? Wasnt this an assent to murder, whether his hands shed the blood or not?
Servetus gave the World the map of the Circulatory System.
Calvin gave the World ...Calvinists.
Here is a test that Calvin and his co-conspirators flunk:
Jn 16:2-3
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues:yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
They were not classmates. I see no evidence that they had ever met. Perhaps you can give me some insight on that.Servetus had scheduled a meeting once but he was a no-show exposing Calvin to great danger.Who was preaching the morning that one of the most brilliant Renaissance Men stepped into church, in Geneva, seeking to reconcile differences with a former University classmate?
Servetus certainly did not want to reconcile with Calvin! You need to read more about his behavior. His deportment left a lot to be desired shall we say?!
Is Servetus a Deity to you?Who turned that Man in,
Your history is skewed. Read the abstract of a paper by E.S. Ra on "The Question of Calvin's Involvement in the Trial of Servetus at Vienne (1553). It should clear things up for you. The bottom line is a snip from his conclusion where he states that Calvin "was unwilling to give evidence against Servetus to de Trie. Thus, Calvin had no involvement in the trial of Vienne." (p.179)to the Parisian authorities, for "Anti- Catholic" ideas, so many years earlier, causing the original death warrant to be issued by París?
Calvin was responsible. I don't know if he was the first person to identify him though. Calvin's secretary,Nicholas de la Fontaine brought him to trial with a long list of complaints.Who turned him in that morning, to the Genevan Authorities?
Capital crime. He was a wanted criminal --and considered a danger to the State.What crime was Miguel guilty of?
Yes,he was merciful in that regard. The Council overruled him (as they did on many other occasions) and had him burnt to death.Didn't Calvin recommend he be beheaded?
No, it was not.Wasn't this an assent to murder, whether his hands shed the blood or not?
Bravo to him. He also entertained some bizarre beliefs to --including the idea that stars have an impact on our health. And of course his blasphemy of God with his works which ridiculed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.Servetus gave the World the map of the Circulatory System.
Many books have been written and shall be written detailing how greatly God gifted the Church with the person of John Calvin.Calvin gave the World ...Calvinists.
In the words of his older friend and mentor, Martin Bucer of Straussburg :"Now he comes at last, Calvin, that elect and incomparable instrument of God, to whom no other in our age may be compared, if at all there can be the question of another alongside him."
Michael Servetus was quickly recognized by visitors from Lyons who who told Calvin about it.I don't know if he was the first person to identify him though. Calvin's secretary,Nicholas de la Fontaine brought him to trial with a long list of complaints.
Some Snips...
from a paper :"The Perfect Storm :A Survey of Influences Affecting the Fate of Michael Servetus" by Ernest W. Durbin 11.
The Life and Thought of the Christian Church :1500A.D. to Present.
HCUS 5020
Walter Froese,Ph.D. April 4,2005.
"Servetus is seen as the quintessential example of John Calvin's intolerance towards divergent belief. It is presumed by many that sans John Calvin, Servetus would not have been executed in Geneva; as if Calvin's denunciation of the heretic was sufficient in and of itself to seal his fate. While Calvin's contributions in the matter were significant,in all actuality Servetus' untimely demise was nearly inevitable; resultant of cultural, religious, and political influences converging in his adult life,staged in the sixteenth century."(p.5)
"Actually, the city state was governed by a Council consisting of 24 male citizens of Geneva,including four syndics. Virtually every area of public life was subject to their scruitiny, and they intended no aspect to slip beyond their control. The trial, condemnation and execution (including mode) of Michael Servetus were entirely the responsibility of this corporate body. The primary body in Geneva for the purpose of maintaining ecclesiastical discipline was the Consistory. Formed in 1542, it was composed of twelve lay elders and all members of the Venerable Company of Pastors. Calvin conceived of this body primarily as an instrument for policing religious orthodoxy. In the Servetus incident this ecclesiastical body was bypassed altogether, possibly to marginalize Calvin in the affair." (p.11)
from a paper :"The Perfect Storm :A Survey of Influences Affecting the Fate of Michael Servetus" by Ernest W. Durbin 11.
The Life and Thought of the Christian Church :1500A.D. to Present.
HCUS 5020
Walter Froese,Ph.D. April 4,2005.
"Servetus is seen as the quintessential example of John Calvin's intolerance towards divergent belief. It is presumed by many that sans John Calvin, Servetus would not have been executed in Geneva; as if Calvin's denunciation of the heretic was sufficient in and of itself to seal his fate. While Calvin's contributions in the matter were significant,in all actuality Servetus' untimely demise was nearly inevitable; resultant of cultural, religious, and political influences converging in his adult life,staged in the sixteenth century."(p.5)
"Actually, the city state was governed by a Council consisting of 24 male citizens of Geneva,including four syndics. Virtually every area of public life was subject to their scruitiny, and they intended no aspect to slip beyond their control. The trial, condemnation and execution (including mode) of Michael Servetus were entirely the responsibility of this corporate body. The primary body in Geneva for the purpose of maintaining ecclesiastical discipline was the Consistory. Formed in 1542, it was composed of twelve lay elders and all members of the Venerable Company of Pastors. Calvin conceived of this body primarily as an instrument for policing religious orthodoxy. In the Servetus incident this ecclesiastical body was bypassed altogether, possibly to marginalize Calvin in the affair." (p.11)
The Council did Calvin's bidding.Formed in 1542, it was composed of twelve lay elders and all members of the Venerable Company of Pastors. Calvin conceived of this body primarily as an instrument for policing religious orthodoxy. In the Servetus incident this ecclesiastical body was bypassed altogether, possibly to marginalize Calvin in the affair." (p.11)
Notice the word "conceive". What does it mean. Surely you understand conception. This word does not mean perception or understand. It means that Calvin was the one who brought the Council into existence. He was the originator of the whole thing, and as such it was subject to him.
To behead someone is not showing mercy; it is showing murder.
His intervention was that he be murdered; just another method be used.
He wasn't opposed to the murder, he just wanted it done another way.
Having a belief different than your own is not grounds for murder.
Are you in need of ESL? You and TND have huge reading comprehension problems. Calvin brought the Consistory into existence --not the Little Council. Can't you manage to distinguish the meanings of different words?The Council did Calvin's bidding.
Notice the word "conceive". What does it mean. Surely you understand conception. This word does not mean perception or understand. It means that Calvin was the one who brought the Council into existence. He was the originator of the whole thing, and as such it was subject to him.
It was not murder on Calvin's behalf. It was a state sponsored execution. The death of Sevetus was going to happen no matter what. Calvin's request that Servetus be given the less painful death by beheading was rejected by the Council. Calvin was not in charge. He was subject to the authority of the Council.To behead someone is not showing mercy; it is showing murder.
His intervention was that he be murdered; just another method be used.
He wasn't opposed to the murder, he just wanted it done another way.
I agree. But back then, by the actions of Servetus --he warranted execution by the State.Having a belief different than your own is not grounds for murder.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.