Lies About John Calvin Refuted

[Bro. James]

Gameo

GAMEO, an interesting place to surf: Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Anabaptists, infant baptism, reformation and more, with lots of bibliography--for the rest of the story.

Bro. James

 

[prophet]

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.

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?

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)

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.

Capital crime. He was a wanted criminal --and considered a danger to the State.

Yes,he was merciful in that regard. The Council overruled him (as they did on many other occasions) and had him burnt to death.

No, it was 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.

Many books have been written and shall be written detailing how greatly God gifted the Church with the person of John Calvin.

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."

That the gravity of heavenly bodies affects our health is no bizarre belief.

Servetus sought to convince Calvin to come further out of RCC doctrine.
He simply asked the reformers to drop the words not found in Scripture, in order to purify doctrinal belief.

You are incapable of acknowledging truth, like your god, Calvin. You assent to murder, along with him.
Your father was a murderer from the beginning, and has no truth within him.

Servetus wasted his time with Calvin.

One of these men gave the World scientific advancements, the other hated liberty.

 

[Rippon]

Servetus sought to convince Calvin to come further out of RCC doctrine.
He simply asked the reformers to drop the words not found in Scripture, in order to purify doctrinal belief.

Are you for real? Is that all he simply did? Do you wish to say that he was perfectly orthodox in his beliefs?

like your god, Calvin.

If there was a capable mod here your vile words would be stricken. Don't bring your filth in here.

You assent to murder, along with him.

Listen --I have made myself perfectly clear in this thread --don't pull junk on me.

Your father was a murderer from the beginning, and has no truth within him.

Like I said before --if there was an actual mod doing his work those kind of vile comments would be deleted.

You do realize that you are in violation of BB rules don't you? You are comfortable calling fellow Christians those kinds of things --shameful.

Servetus wasted his time with Calvin.

It's up to the crowd here to make heads or tails out of that remark. So you are under the impression that if only Calvin would have listened to Michael Servetus the man of Geneva would have been a more enlightened fellow? You're saying that Calvin would have been a better preacher/Bible scholar?!

Servetus sure tried very hard to convince Calvin of all sorts of things. after Calvin patiently explained things in several letters --the vile things that Servetus said were too much to deal with. Calvin didn't reply back to him. But Servetus did not give up. I think the number of other letters (as well as drafts of some of his books) were around 30 or so.

One of these men gave the World scientific advancements, the other hated liberty.

There have been scads of books crediting Calvin with the foundation of America and capitalism along with being a beacon of expository light on the Word of God for millions.
___________________________________________________________
Proph --I will make a prediction -- you will land in hot water if you keep up your vile conduct. Please censor yourself.

 

[DHK]

There have been scads of books crediting Calvin with the foundation of America and capitalism along with being a beacon of expository light on the Word of God for millions.

If ever there was an absurd comment it is this one. Calvin had nothing to do with America. He wouldn't even go there.
That is unlike the Wesley brothers who actually went to America and preached the gospel there. Considering the foundation of America, Calvin was a dismal failure. He was simply an ego-centered individual interested only in his state-religion centered and run in Geneva, where he implemented the harshest of laws, even to the extent of what should be considered murder.
Face the facts and stop denying them.

 

[prophet]

Are you for real? Is that all he simply did? Do you wish to say that he was perfectly orthodox in his beliefs?

If there was a capable mod here your vile words would be stricken. Don't bring your filth in here.

Listen --I have made myself perfectly clear in this thread --don't pull junk on me.

Like I said before --if there was an actual mod doing his work those kind of vile comments would be deleted.

You do realize that you are in violation of BB rules don't you? You are comfortable calling fellow Christians those kinds of things --shameful.


It's up to the crowd here to make heads or tails out of that remark. So you are under the impression that if only Calvin would have listened to Michael Servetus the man of Geneva would have been a more enlightened fellow? You're saying that Calvin would have been a better preacher/Bible scholar?!

Servetus sure tried very hard to convince Calvin of all sorts of things. after Calvin patiently explained things in several letters --the vile things that Servetus said were too much to deal with. Calvin didn't reply back to him. But Servetus did not give up. I think the number of other letters (as well as drafts of some of his books) were around 30 or so.


There have been scads of books crediting Calvin with the foundation of America and capitalism along with being a beacon of expository light on the Word of God for millions.
___________________________________________________________
Proph --I will make a prediction -- you will land in hot water if you keep up your vile conduct. Please censor yourself.

I have said what I believe. I accept the consequences.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This whole conversation just reminds me of the Mel Brooks movie, the Producers where the Nazi is trying to justify Hitler as a nice guy.....FUNNY! :


The Producers Dialog (1967)

Franz Liebkind: Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer.

Franz Liebkind: Hitler... there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!

Franz Liebkind: Gentlemen. Ve have here a technical problem. Hmm? I do not know if vat ve have here is ze quick burning fuse or ze slow buring fuse. Ja, ja, I must find zis out.
[snips dynamite fuse]
Franz Liebkind: Zis is critical.
[lights fuse with match]
Franz Liebkind: Ha ha ha, ja ja, you see zis? You see zis here vat I have told you? Yeah, zis is an example of smartness here. I have said that zis is ze quick fuse. Huh? And zis IS ze quick fuse.
[pause]
All: THE QUICK FUSE!
[explosion]

Franz Liebkind: Der Führer does not say, "Achtung, baby."

Franz Liebkind: Baby! Baby!... Why does he say this "baby"? The Führer has never said "baby". I did not write, "baby". What is it with this, "baby"?

Franz Liebkind: [runs backstage to try to stop the play]
Stagehand: Hey, what can I do for you?
Franz Liebkind: You will please be unconscious.
[hits him on the head]

[holding a gun to his head]
Franz Liebkind: Soon, I shall be with mein Führer... and Himmler. I'm coming to join you boys!

Max Bialystock: Listen. Every night people are laughing at your beloved Fuhrer. Why?
Franz Liebkind: It's that L.S.D., und his verdampter "babies"!

Max Bialystock: Have I ever steered you wrong?
Franz Liebkind: Always.
Max Bialystock: Never mind.

Leo Bloom: There, there.
Franz Liebkind: [crying] Where, where?

Lady: [during the Springtime for Hitler performance] Will you please, shut up!
Franz Liebkind: You shut up! You are the audience! I am the author! I OUTRANK you!

 

[Rippon]

If ever there was an absurd comment it is this one. Calvin had nothing to do with America. He wouldn't even go there.

You are a trip DHK. LOL! "He wouldn't even go there." (chuckle)

Western settlers din't go there until more than a half century after Calvin's death. I find it hard to believe that any literate person hasn't encountered the view that Calvin founded America. Calvin's principles of government are the underpinnings of the origin Republic.

You've never heard of Max Weber's the Protestant work ethic?

You've never come across Leopold von Rane (1795-1886)? It's not a novel idea.

Mark J. Larson has a book :Calvin's Doctrine of the State:A Reformed Doctrine and its American Trajectory, The Revolutionary War,and the Founder of the Republic"

Dr. Muller says this work is "A careful and balanced account of Calvin's views of church state relations."

A book I would love to have is :"The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding" by David W. Hall.

Fro reviews it is quite excellent and also credits Calvin as the virtual founder of America. E. Calvin Beisner,Daniel L. Dreisbach and Doug Phillips also share his view and endorse the book.

He was simply an ego-centered individual

That is just a flat out misrepresentation. No objective historian would ever call him ego-driven. Far from it.

interested only in his state-religion centered and run in Geneva,

Still persistent regardless of facts which have been presented countless times. Just a few posts ago you were confused about the distinction between the Little Council which dealt with civil matters --including punishments and the Consistory which dealt with church matters only.

where he implemented the harshest of laws,

Calvin and the Consistory did not implement any laws --harsh or not. You know that but, say untruths regularly regarding Calvin. It is a sinful compulsion of yours.

even to the extent of what should be considered murder.
[/quote[
How many times do you intend to slander him with this completely false charge?

Face the facts and stop denying them.

Even as you typed the above you knew how stupid it was. Facts and DHK go together like oil and water. You are a modern day Bolsec.

 

[DHK]

You are a trip DHK. LOL! "He wouldn't even go there." (chuckle)

What evidence do you have that he was mission-minded?
He was the head of a state-religion; not interested in the propagation of the gospel beyond Geneva unless it was for his own gain.

Western settlers din't go there until more than a half century after Calvin's death. I find it hard to believe that any literate person hasn't encountered the view that Calvin founded America. Calvin's principles of government are the underpinnings of the origin Republic.

Not everyone worships Calvin as you do. You give him credit where credit is not due. He was the head of a state religion, not a republic--a dictatorship.

You've never heard of Max Weber's the Protestant work ethic?

You've never come across Leopold von Rane (1795-1886)? It's not a novel idea.

Mark J. Larson has a book :Calvin's Doctrine of the State:A Reformed Doctrine and its American Trajectory, The Revolutionary War,and the Founder of the Republic"

Dr. Muller says this work is "A careful and balanced account of Calvin's views of church state relations."

A book I would love to have is :"The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding" by David W. Hall.

Fro reviews it is quite excellent and also credits Calvin as the virtual founder of America. E. Calvin Beisner,Daniel L. Dreisbach and Doug Phillips also share his view and endorse the book.

I have plenty to read--Mostly the study of the Word. I am not wasting my time in Calvinistic nonsense.

That is just a flat out misrepresentation. No objective historian would ever call him ego-driven. Far from it.

Any person that demands every thing be done his way has a big ego. He was a dictator.

Still persistent regardless of facts which have been presented countless times. Just a few posts ago you were confused about the distinction between the Little Council which dealt with civil matters --including punishments and the Consistory which dealt with church matters only.

Yes, church laws that resulted in "beheadings," and other cruel forms of torment and murders. Don't be so naive.

Calvin and the Consistory did not implement any laws --harsh or not. You know that but, say untruths regularly regarding Calvin. It is a sinful compulsion of yours.

Let me give you a more modern day example that will prove my point, or at least give you a better idea how things were back in Geneva.
Almost all state-religions end up the same way.

When I first became a missionary the Lord sent me to an Islamic nation. At that time that nation was under martial law. The leader was the General of the army, and took the position of President of the nation. Now the nation does have a parliament. But the parliament doesn't operate under martial law. This General also put the nation under Sharia law.
What is Sharia law? It is the Koran. However, it is decisions based on the Koran, made by a Council of Islamic clerics. Those decisions will be executed by the army. The final decisions of that council lay in the hand of the dictator of course, a faithful Muslim himself. The real Parliament's hands are tied.
Who had the power in Geneva? It was the dictator--Calvin.
It was his Council that made the religious decisions "based on the Bible" and formalized by Calvin, and then carried out through proper authorities. But it was Calvin and his authority, his council that made decisions. Life was balanced in his hands. For example, if a child rebelled against his parents he could be put to death. This was his interpretation of OT law being carried out in an Age of Grace. He is the dictator with the power to do so. It was his state-religion. These are the things easily verifiable, even through a few paragraphs of reading Schaff.

 

[Rippon]

What evidence do you have that he was mission-minded?

Why pretend to be naive DHK?

He was very missionary minded. He sent out an expedition to Brazil in 1557. Two of the men were Pierre Richier and William Chartier. It was a very involved saga. Not successful at first.

Between 1555 and 1562 Calvin sent out 88 missionaries to France, and that was dangerous undertaking at that time. At least nine were killed for their faith. There was one legitimate church planted in France as a result of Calvin's initiative. By 1562 there were over 2,000.

John Calvin was devoted to missions. He made it his # 1 priority in the last decade of his life. It was what he was trying to achieve in his ministry.

He didn't just coldly send them out with money and prayers. He constantly corresponded with them to encourage and advise.

Some that he sent out were short-term church planters.
He was the head of a state-religion; not interested in the propagation of the gospel beyond Geneva unless it was for his own gain.

Calvin was an evangelist and missionary himself --not just a Reformer and certainly an Ivory tower theologian. He preached to all ages in Bourge shortly after his conversion for example.

Not everyone worships Calvin as you do.

That kind of sordid remark is repugnant and should never be used by anyone here --especially not one who pretends to be a mod. You are disgraceful and in need of deep repentance.

You give him credit where credit is not due.

I am defending him against lies and smears. That is the purpose of this thread as I made clear in my OP. You know that very well.

He was the head of a state religion, not a republic--a dictatorship.

You keep repeating that same old lie though you have been countered every time by Calvin authorities --historian/scholars who don't sling mud because it suits them.

"Far from ruling as a religious despot, Calvin was continually frustrated by the Genevan city council's unwillingness to implement many of the social reforms he advocated."

It's quite hard to be considered a dictator or despot when one is submissive to the higher powers as Calvin certainly was. And in the Servetus case it was amply illustrated.

I have plenty to read--Mostly the study of the Word.

Well, you are certainly not practicing what the Word of God admonished you to do ===tell the truth.

I am not wasting my time in Calvinistic nonsense.

And this thread isn't about Calvinism as you very well know. It is addressing the false accusations and smears against Calvin that you and others have engaged in despite all the facts that are at your disposal.

He was a dictator.

You will not dictate what actual history unfolds. He was not a dictator or head of State. Lies are not advancing your cause --whatever that may be.

Yes, church laws that resulted in "beheadings," and other cruel forms of torment and murders.

There were no church laws that enacted executions and punishments. You know the facts and are intentionally being insolent because the truth hurts you for some reason.

Calvin was the head of the Consistory. That body was concerned with ecclesiastical matters. The Little Council (of which he was no member) dealt with civil matters. The latter were magistrates --not Calvin. You were seemingly confused about this in a prior post of yours. Those where two separate and distinct bodies. Calvin was subject to the dictates of the Little Council, the 60 and the 200. As Mark Larson said:"It was the Small Council alone which had the power of the supreme penalty of capital punishment." Larson also has said :"The highest level of punishment which could be measured out by the Consistory was excommunication." And that power was only at certain times when the Concil was pleased to do so. As Schaff has said, the Consistory "had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments which belonged exclusively to the Council."

Let me give you...

You constantly deny historical facts. You are untrustworthy. You can't give any example proving anything because it would not illustrate factual items in Calvin's life.

Who had the power in Geneva? It was the dictator--Calvin.

Blah,blah, blah.Nothing but blather from your keystrokes. Read the appropriate sections above.

it was Calvin and his authority, his council that made decisions. Life was balanced in his hands.

Completely false as his been amply evidenced by quote after quote in abundant supply which you have put under your rug. (It's super lumpy now.)

He is the dictator with the power to do so. It was his state-religion.

Your lies are a mile high and building.

These are the things easily verifiable, even through a few paragraphs of reading Schaff.

In this very post I quoted Schaff (which I have done numerous times before). Schaff is against your falsehood.

 

[Rippon]

It Bears Repeating

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.

"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)

There,I have broken the paragraph up into two parts for even greater ease of comprehension.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There,I have broken the paragraph up into two parts for even greater ease of comprehension.

Were these 24 Consul people also members of Calvin's Reformed Church?

 

[Rippon]

Were these 24 Consul people also members of Calvin's Reformed Church?

There were about seven Reformed churches in Geneva in Calvin's time. I highly doubt that all 24 members of the Little Council were members of his particular assembly.

 

[Rippon]

not interested in the propagation of the gospel beyond Geneva unless it was for his own gain.

Why you even bother to type out bold-faced lies of any sort is hard to figure out. The above is particularly outrageous. Quote even one respected source that says anything of that nature.

Any person that demands every thing be done his way has a big ego.

Please quote any legitimate source that says anything remotely related to your charge.

I'll quote one from a legitimate source. There is a book edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, called "The Calvin Handbook."

"Calvin did not have a very positive self-image..." (p.6)

Who had the power in Geneva? It was the dictator--Calvin.

"Research of the archives of Geneva has revealed that Calvin definitely did not have the decisive power in this city..." (5)

It was his Council that made the religious decisions "based on the Bible"

He was not on any Council much less the most powerful one. The Consistory was not a Council. It dealt only with church matters.

 

[Rippon]

through a few paragraphs of reading Schaff.

I'll remind you what Schaff thouht of Calvin:

Upon the whole, the verdict of history is growing in favor of Calvin. Those who know him best esteem him most. All impartial writers admit the purity and integrity, if not the sanctity of his character...He may be called the Christian Elijah."

"He must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men God raised up in the history of Christianity."

And from the Herman J. Selderhuis edited tome --"The Calvin Handbook" comes this line:

"He is simply incapable of not speaking the truth,for that is completely contrary to his image." (p.6)

 

[DHK]

I'll remind you what Schaff thouht of Calvin:

Upon the whole, the verdict of history is growing in favor of Calvin. Those who know him best esteem him most. All impartial writers admit the purity and integrity, if not the sanctity of his character...He may be called the Christian Elijah."

"He must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men God raised up in the history of Christianity."

And from the Herman J. Selderhuis edited tome --"The Calvin Handbook" comes this line:

"He is simply incapable of not speaking the truth,for that is completely contrary to his image." (p.6)

You are unable to separate fiction from fact.
If I like you as a person has nothing to do with the lies you post on the board. You defend a murderer. That has nothing to do with my opinion of you, but maybe it should.
Schaff like Calvin. So what. Did it affect the price of tea in China? Probably not. It was totally irrelevant to any facts.

He then goes on to state actual facts. The facts that he states are what counts. You ignore the facts and stand upon opinion. Opinions are worth nothing.

 

[Rippon]

You are unable to separate fiction from fact.

Historical facts regarding the life of John Calvin and the distortions of DHK are antithetical.

You defend a murderer.

No matter how many times you tell a lie --it remains a lie.

Calvin murdered no one. He executed no one. He did not authorize any such thing.

Schaff like[sic] Calvin.

And you hate your straw man version of Calvin.

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

Do you comprehend? You refuse to be taught by dozens of historical church scholars --including Schaff.You cling to your warped image of Calvin despite all the truth presented to you time and time again.

He then goes on to state actual facts. The facts that he states are what counts.

Facts are dispensable as far as you are concerned --you are too deep in your prejudice. But you need to humbly take some steps and acknowledge that you have been stubbornly denying the obvious. DHK, the elephant of truth is in the room. It won't go away.

You ignore the facts and stand upon opinion.

That's another lie of yours. I have presented dozens upon dozens of quotes from historical scholars --many of whom are experts on the life of Calvin. Facts stand in the way of your fabrications and traditions.

You have even had the temerity to demean Calvin's evangelistic efforts --denying he even had missionary-mindedness against all the facts one more. You went so far as to say that if he did believe in the furtherance of the Gospel it was for his own gain. That was disgraceful and false in the extreme for you to say. You are getting down and dirty in trying to propel your misrepresentations and slurs about Calvin. You are desperate --you just want to throw any and all things at him and hope that something --anything might stick. That is so perverse DHK.

 

[blackbird]

This thread has reached its page limit and will be closed