Lies About John Calvin Refuted

[Rippon]

"...it was the city council who --despite their intense hostility to Calvin --took over the case,and prosecuted Servetus with vigor.(This caused some surprise to outside observers:Wolfgang Musculus wrote of his belief that Servetus evidently expected to benefit from the hostility of the city council towards Calvin.) It should be noted that Calvin's role in these procedures was subsequently that of technical adviser or expert witness,rather than prosecutor." (p.119)

The above is from McGrath's book.

It is getting clearer to you now?

 

[Rippon]

Calvin By Bruce Gordon

"Why had the Protestant reformers so readily agreed to the execution of Servetus? To address that question we have to shed modern sensibilities and enter the world of the sixteenth century. By the early 1550s the Protestant Reformation was facing a resurgent Catholic church which at the Council of Trent was clearly defining its theology and discipline.The Protestant churches continued to be severely damaged by accusations that they were spawning heresy and heretics. The unwanted Servetus case came at a vital moment when Protestantism was forced to define itself against heresy. Failure to condemn Servetus and his evident denial of fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church would have been catastrophic. Having waged a long battle against what he regarded as idolatry,Calvin could not have turned a blind eye. To the Protestant churchmen of the sixteenth century,of all the plagues that struck their cities heresy was the most heinous.
...Calvin could not have Servetus executed. That was the decision of a council not well disposed towards the Frenchman and with which he was locked in battle over excommunication. Servetus provided an opportunity for the magistrates to demonstrate their authority over Calvin...The magistrates understood clearly that harboring or exonerating a heretic would blacken Geneva's name across Europe. Servetus was a dead man the moment he was recognized in the church service." (224)

Do you see why accurate historical facts run counter to slanderous "historical accounts?"

 

[Rippon]

From BBW's Book :Calvin And Calvinism

More from Warfield's book:

"It is time,however,that we reminded ourselves that Calvin's work as a Reformer is not summed up in his literary activities. A 'man of letters' he was fundamentally;and a 'man of letters' he remained in principle all his life. But he was something more than a 'man of letters.' This was his chosen sphere of service;and he counted it a cross to be compelled to expend his energies through other channels. But this was laid upon him,and he took it up and bore it. And the work which he did under the cross was such that had we no single word from his pen,he would still hold his rank among the greatest of the Reformers. We call him 'the Reformer of Geneva.' But in reforming Geneva he set forces at work which have been world-wide in their operation and are active still today." (14,15)

"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)

Solid information should not be despised.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is immediately apparent that Calvin was a very learned, highly educated man and theologian, though he himself loathed the term and the terminology of "theology." It is difficult to assess what kind of man he was from the distance of 450 years. He is said to have been intolerant; needlessly vengeful; arrogant in believing there was no issue before government, the church, or in theology, about which his viewpoint was not the most correct; but also conscientious, pious, humble (seemingly at odds with arrogance), socially and intellectually refined, and faithful to a fault. From a distance of 450 years, any or all of these qualities could have been magnified or depreciated beyond their true value and evidence in Calvin's character.

That he was a charismatic teacher cannot be denied. That his influence on his own age and on those succeeding is beyond question. That he was a prolific writer and cerebral scholar cannot be disparaged. He was exceptionally analytical and managed to study truth and reword it for digestion by the masses in impressive fashion, and for all of that he is to be well remembered in academic, spiritual and general circles of thought.

But (and you knew there was one, right?) a man is judged equally by his negative actions as well as those thing about him that are positive. Calvin is no different.

• Calvin demonized Philibert Berthelier, the son of a patriot and martyr, simply because Berthelier was cleared of murky allegations that got him banned from Communion; Calvin nonetheless refused to offer him the Lord's Supper if he presented himself, which he didn't, at the advise of the Syndic of the time
• Jéréme Hermés Bolsec denied predestination publicly, for which Calvin and others uniformly berated and chastised him, abusing him publicly and eventually getting him imprisoned and banished in 1551
• Sebastian Castellio, another arrogant man not unlike himself, drew Calvin's ire and outright hatred for denying the Canticles and the teaching that Christ descended into hell
• And of course there is Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake for heresy in preaching anti-trinitarianism; there was no biblical justification for such punishment, and the defense of Calvin in this matter is useless -- he did in fact bring about the death of a man who didn't like him, which was the primary reason Calvin encouraged his execution

None of these events from Calvin's life are lies. They are facts which, taken against the mountain of evidence for his "good," nonetheless leave him sadly wanting in terms of his humanity and his relationship to and with God. We can judge him for his actions, and they were not Christlike, despite the great contributions he made to Christian thought and doctrine.

 

[DHK]

I have only now seen this thread Rippon.
The same quote from Philip Schaff, that I quoted on two different threads in two different forums (General Baptist Discussions and Baptist Theology) has been quoted here in the first three pages. You simply ignored it as you did in the other two threads. As I said more recently:
You are good at denying the truth; poor at responding to evidence.

Calvin murdered, persecuted, set up his own set of rules at his own whim and wish. He executed according to his own standards. You are so loyal to this man you will not deal with the evidence set before you. You are blind to the facts. They have been posted and re-posted many times. They are irrefutable. You cannot re-write history no matter how strong your loyalty to this man is.

 

[Rippon]

It is immediately apparent that Calvin was a very learned, highly educated man and theologian, though he himself loathed the term and the terminology of "theology."

I have never come across that before. Where does Calvin indicate that in his works?

It is difficult to assess what kind of man he was from the distance of 450 years.From a distance of 450 years, any or all of these qualities could have been magnified or depreciated beyond their true value and evidence in Calvin's character.

People who were his contemporaries are good sources;both friend and foe. But the accounts of the foes are a lot less trustworthy. Most of the characterizations of Calvin have been from the antagonistic side through the centuries.

That he was a charismatic teacher cannot be denied.

I'll deny it. There is no source that would characterize him as charismatic at all. He was more like Jonathan Edwards in his teaching style.

And of course there is Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake for heresy in preaching anti-trinitarianism; there was no biblical justification for such punishment, and the defense of Calvin in this matter is useless -- he did in fact bring about the death of a man who didn't like him, which was the primary reason Calvin encouraged his execution

Calvin did not want him to die. Calvin met with him tried to persuade him to recant when there was what I would call a mercy-block of time. He prayed with him. He showed more compassion for Servetus that anyone else.Calvin did't throw the switch as it were. He was not a prosecuting attorney. He didn't have any power or authority in the civil realm.

leave him sadly wanting in terms of his humanity and his relationship to and with God. We can judge him for his actions, and they were not Christlike,

What I have quoted above from your keystrokes is trash --plain and simple.

 

[Rippon]

The same quote from Philip Schaff, that I quoted on two different threads in two different forums (General Baptist Discussions and Baptist Theology) has been quoted here in the first three pages.

It has been quoted multiple times on the BB. Schaff,though certainly no Calvinist, regarded Calvin in the highest terms. If he had thought that he was a wicked man responsible for murder and persecution and other crimes against humanity --why would he then extol him?

You are good at denying the truth; poor at responding to evidence.

A true mark of inconsistency on your part DHK. You are the one guilty of the above. I have quoted reputable historians with evidence contrary to your repeated falsehoods.Somehow I think that the testimony of Wedel, McGrath, Scott, Cottret, Hall, Benoit, Warfield, Packer, Gordon, Walker,Ferguson, and Cadier has much more weight than your hollow charges. Face up to the facts --not your traditions.

Calvin murdered,

That's a lie.

persecuted,

It depends on how you want to define the word. He certainly didn't go around persecuting local churches for instance.

set up his own set of rules at his own whim and wish.

That's a lie.

He executed according to his own standards.

That's a lie. And you can even tell me why it is a lie --IF you want to finally come clean and tell the truth.

You are so loyal to this man you will not deal with the evidence set before you.

I am not arguing for Calvin's perfection --but against the lies that have been made about him.

You are blind to the facts. They have been posted and re-posted many times.

I have have posted facts. You believe dribble from sources which are bogus. True history and DHK do not mix. That's why you have muddled up Augustine. Wycliff, Erasmus, Gill, Spurgeon, Westcott, Hort and others in church history.

They are irrefutable.

Yes,I'd say that my sources that I have quoted are irrefutable.

You cannot re-write history no matter...

But you have and will try again and again in your vain attempts.

 

[Rippon]

He wasn't banned because of this dead thread you chose to revive.

I didn't say our dearly departed was banned on account of his inane posts on this thread. Instead I that others here would like to follow in his wake and vilify Calvin with the most disgusting charges they can imagine and ignore true history.

 

[Reformed]

Calvin was but a man. So was Arminius, Augustine, Pelagius, Spurgeon, Luther, Erasmus, Wesley, Edwards, Gill, Scofield, Darby, et. al. (note that I listed theologians of all stripes). I wonder what this thread would be like if we listed all the personal peccadilloes that each of these men committed? I am a Calvinist because the term has been used to describe those who hold to the Reformed view of soteriology. It stops there. I am not an apologist for John Calvin and have no desire to be one.

 

[Rippon]

An Oldie But Goodieost # 99

In another fine book with the title The Man God Mastered by Jean Cadier(1965) he quotes Bolsec who tried to defame Calvin,but fell flat. Here is Bolsec per Cadier speaking of Servetus:"I do not write these things out of pleasure for the death of such a monstrous heretic,for he was evil and unworthy to live amongst men,and I would like all similar men to be exterminated and the church well purged of such vermin." (p.153)

Yep, that's Bolsec talking about Servetus.

 

[DHK]

It has been quoted multiple times on the BB. Schaff,though certainly no Calvinist, regarded Calvin in the highest terms. If he had thought that he was a wicked man responsible for murder and persecution and other crimes against humanity --why would he then extol him?

Quoted many times, and you won't deal with the facts. Why is that? Are you afraid that you will find something you don't like. Schaff, Chapter 8--Read it!

A true mark of inconsistency on your part DHK. You are the one guilty of the above. I have quoted reputable historians with evidence contrary to your repeated falsehoods.Somehow I think that the testimony of Wedel, McGrath, Scott, Cottret, Hall, Benoit, Warfield, Packer, Gordon, Walker,Ferguson, and Cadier has much more weight than your hollow charges. Face up to the facts --not your traditions.

You sources are one-sided apparently, though I have not checked them. Many of the more contemporary sources have succumbed to an ecumenical influence and white-wash much of history. Even the popes of the inquisition are saints!

It depends on how you want to define the word. He certainly didn't go around persecuting local churches for instance.

He was a Pedobaptist, who, like the others, took pleasure in persecuting those who weren't.

That's a lie. And you can even tell me why it is a lie --IF you want to finally come clean and tell the truth.

I haven't told you any lies. You are afraid to face the truth.

I have have posted facts. You believe dribble from sources which are bogus. True history and DHK do not mix. That's why you have muddled up Augustine. Wycliff, Erasmus, Gill, Spurgeon, Westcott, Hort and others in church history.

You started this thread. It is your OP. It has nothing to do with Gill or others. Stick with your OP.

Yes,I'd say that my sources that I have quoted are irrefutable.

But you have and will try again and again in your vain attempts.

Your sources are questionable at best.
Do you trust Spurgeon?
Here is Spurgeon's critique of Cramp's book on Baptist History. In it he gives his own "sermon" on the history of the Baptists. Without naming them, I am sure that the "Reformers" being referred to include "Calvin."

Baptists were always equally prepared for conflict and for persecution. At the rise of the Reformation they openly declared themselves, coming out of their obscure positions, where they had long worshipped their Master in quiet seclusion. They were prepared to enlist themselves under the banners of the Reformers. They looked upon the defiant daring men of God whom no ecclesiastical tyranny could tame, no Papal fulminations could awe, no threatenings could silence, as their brothers � bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh. It is much to be regretted that they should have been so bitterly disappointed. The Reformers were not as yet sufficiently wide in their sympathies, nor sufficiently clear in their Protestantism, to extend the right hand of friendship, and loving communion to the despised Baptists. As now, so then, Baptists were a go-a-head race, always prepared to travel beyond others. They were persecuted, destroyed, forsaken, had their possessions confiscated, and [p. 4]
were reduced to the lowest depths of poverty. In spite of the Reformers who were bemisted by Popery, they maintained that the church of Christ should be kept as pure as possible; that there must be no indiscriminate mixing of wheat and tares, as though both were so much akin that there was no difference between them; that believers only were the proper subjects of baptism; that Scripture and Scripture alone was the sole arbiter in all theological disputes; and that civil magistrates and earthly potentates had no control over God's free gift to man � conscience. We, as Baptists of the present day, have precisely the same principles to defend, and in demanding the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish church, that embodiment of injustice and bulwark against the progress of Protestantism in the sister country, we do but propagate opinions and principles which were tenaciously held by the Anabaptists of Reformation days � principles which find their source and authority in Holy Writ.

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/cramp.review.by.spurgeon.html

 

[Rippon]

Quoted many times, and you won't deal with the facts. Why is that? Are you afraid that you will find something you don't like. Schaff, Chapter 8--Read it!

I have. Calvin did not murder anyone. He had no power to arrest,condemn,convict or execute anyone. That is factual --not your upside down perspective.

You [sic]sources are one-sided apparently, though I have not checked them.

"Apparently" huh? But you haven't checked them --so what you are saying is you need to do due diligence.

Many of the more contemporary sources have succumbed to an ecumenical influence and white-wash much of history.

You don't what you are saying. Read my reposted quotes --154-156,158-163. Then report back.

I haven't told you any lies.

That itself is a lie.

Your sources are questionable at best.

Sources you have not read? Take up and read before making remarks that you will have to retract.

 

[DHK]

I have. Calvin did not murder anyone. He had no power to arrest,condemn,convict or execute anyone. That is factual --not your upside down perspective.

Then IF you are telling the truth, and IF you have read the said chapter, THEN:
1. You deny the information in the chapter.
2. You are incapable of understanding the information in the chapter.
3. You lied and didn't read it in the first place.
What is the real truth? Care to tell?

"Apparently" huh? But you haven't checked them --so what you are saying is you need to do due diligence.

No, I have done due diligence. I spend much of my time on the Other Religions forum. When the Catholics give me a dozen references citing proof for the Immaculate Conception I don't have to check them out. I know where they come from and who promotes it. They aren't Baptist! They aren't reliable.
Your sources are the same way. They take one slanted view of history, and that not the correct one. I don't need to check them out. I am familiar with that view. You use only source material that supports your view--just like the Catholics do.
I have a library of over 2,000 books and can easily add another thousand with all the resource material on my computer. I am very familiar with church and Baptist history in general.

The sources you need to read are J.T. Christian, Armitage, Schaff, Wylie, and some others. Even Spurgeon, as I quoted, has a much better perspective of Baptist history than you do.

 

[Rippon]

Then IF you are telling the truth, and IF you have read the said chapter, THEN:
1. You deny the information in the chapter.
2. You are incapable of understanding the information in the chapter.
3. You lied and didn't read it in the first place.
What is the real truth? Care to tell?

You're as dense as a wall. Tell me where Schaff said that Calvin was responsible for the murder of anyone. That's right -zip, zero, nada, zilch. If the man was not a citizen, held no civil office, was in fact outnumbered by his foes until the mid-1550s then he was not the one to be fingered for any state executions. Admit the obvious.

No, I have done due diligence. I don't have to check them out.
Your sources are the same way. They take one slanted view of history, and that not the correct one. I don't need to check them out. I am familiar with that view.

You're content in your ignorance? You love darkness? A little light would be helpful for you to see better DHK. You are saying you will not check out the quotes I provided because all of the authors have some agenda? They all,with one voice slant history? The older ones and the newer ones? The words of Calvin's contemporaries as well? You have taken upon yourself a monumental thing. You wish to disregard honest scholarship because it does not fit your particular DHK scheme of things.

You are not such a wise person.

I am very familiar with church and Baptist history in general.

You have proven otherwise. That's why you have twisted the histories of Augustine, Wycliffe, Erasmus, Gill, Westcott, Hort, Spurgeon and company.

Just go on your merry way and blindly allow your distortions to rule your judgment. Refuse to look at sound and solid material yet claim that you know what you are talking about.

The sources you need to read are J.T. Christian, Armitage, Schaff, Wylie, and some others. Even Spurgeon, as I quoted, has a much better perspective of Baptist history than you do.

Preachingjesus in the other thread should set you straight about using Spurgeon as a good source for Church history.

I like Schaff and have read a number of his volumes which I borrowed. But he has his limitations.

I respect Wylie a great deal. And he was Reformed as you well know. So you divide the Reformed camp up --those you will read and respect in the field of Church his and those you will ignore altogether. Not smart DHK.

I have read J.T. Christian a great deal over the years at the Reformed Reader. But he too has his limitations. There are better reference works that we have available today.

Regarding Armitage, I had acknowledged on the other thread that I mistook his views on Baptist successionism. I have read little of him compared to the others you just mentioned.

 

[DHK]

You're as dense as a wall. Tell me where Schaff said that Calvin was responsible for the murder of anyone. That's right -zip, zero, nada, zilch. If the man was not a citizen, held no civil office, was in fact outnumbered by his foes until the mid-1550s then he was not the one to be fingered for any state executions. Admit the obvious.

Here is what you need to know.
In his Institutes Calvin addresses the King of France in 1536 regarding his favor of Persecution:

CALVIN'S STATEMENTS SUPPORTING PERSECUTION Prefatory Address in his Institutes to Francis, King of the French, 1536. "But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?"

Here are 3 flattering letters concerning Servetus (they are just flowing with all the fruits of the Spirit)

• Letter to William Farel, February 13, 1546. "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."
• Letter to the Lord Protector of Somerset, adviser to King Edward VI, October 22, 1548. "[They] well deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, seeing that they attack not the King only, but God who has seated him upon the throne, and has entrusted to you the protection as well of His person as of His majesty."
• Letter of August 20, 1553, one week after Servetus arrest. "I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death."

PERSECUTIONS AT CALVIN'S GENEVA

The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59 (translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy):

"During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.

From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.

During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen.

One burgher smiled while attending a baptism: three days imprisonment.

Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.

Some workingmen ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water.

Two burghers played skittles: prison.

Two others diced for a quarter bottle of wine: prison.

A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city.

Another praised Castellio's translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.

A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance.

Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: four-and-twenty hours on bread and water.

A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.

A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung around his neck.

Another sang riotously in the street: was told 'they could go and sing elsewhere,' this meaning he was banished from the city.

Two bargees had a brawl: executed.

A man who publicly protested against the reformer's doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.

A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.

Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.

Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence." (See Pike, pp. 61-63).

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).

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

 

[Rippon]

DHK,you are wasting your time.

I will ask you yet another time --

Was Calvin a citizen in Geneva before 1559? Yes,or no?

Did Calvin hold any civil office at any time? Yes,or no?

Did he have the power and authority to execute any sentence whatsoever if he was only a member of the church consistory? Yes,or no?

Making it clear here --was he a member of the City Council? Yes,or no?

Was he a member of the greater Council of 200? Yes,or no?

Can he possibly be seen as a dictator --able to do as he wished, if he was under the powers of the state (Romans 13)? Yes,or no?

If the answer to all of the above is no,then Calvin is not responsible for a single death in Geneva. It was out of his hands. He had no civil jurisdiction --only in ecclesiastical matters did he and other members of the Church consistory have any sway. They were under the control of the civil powers --not the other way around.

I am asking you to be honest. Answer either yes or no to my questions. Do not be evasive which is your normal tendency. If the honest answer to my questions are all negative then cease and desist in the furtherance of your campaign in smearing the character of John Calvin.

If,with obstinacy, you give affirmative replies --you must cite an authoritative source for your claim. And I said :"an authoritative source."

 

[Revmitchell]

On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal beliefs!(1) Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine of "once saved, always saved" (known in certain circles as "the perseverance of the saints") violated the cry of the Reformation -- "Sola Scriptura" -- by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification. This event was something John Calvin had considered long before Michael Servetus was even captured, for John Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Michael Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying:

"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."(2)

pope of Geneva Evidently, in that day John Calvin's authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate "weight." This is why some referred to Geneva as the "Rome of Protestantism"(3) and to John Calvin as the "Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva."(4)

During Servetus' trial, John Calvin wrote:

"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."(5)

All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not well-known or very appealing, to say the least! Obviously, he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. Although John Calvin consented to Michael Servetus' request to be beheaded, he acquiesced to the mode of execution employed. But why did John Calvin have a death wish for Michael Servetus?

"To rescue Servetus from his heresies, Calvin replied with the latest edition of his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion,' which Servetus promptly returned with insulting marginal comments. Despite Servetus's [sic] pleas, Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material."(6)

"Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities, Servetus escaped the death penalty by a prison break. Heading for Italy, Servetus unaccountably stopped at Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seized the day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin."(7)

In the course of his flight from Vienne, Servetus stopped in Geneva and made the mistake of attending a sermon by Calvin. He was recognized and arrested after the service.(8)

"Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic. Convicted and burned to death."(9)


1. "On only two counts, significantly, was Servetus condemned -- namely, anti-Trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism." Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic (The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 207. [Comment: While Servetus was wrong about the Trinity, regarding his rejection of infant baptism, Servetus said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity" (Ibid., p. 186.) Many Christians of our day could only give a hearty "Amen" to this statement made about infant baptism. However, this is why, in part, Servetus was condemned to death by the Calvinists!] (return)
2. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Baker Book House, 1950), p. 371. (return)
3. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary Of The Church (Moody Press, 1982), p. 73. (return)
4. Stephen Hole Fritchman, Men Of Liberty (Reissued, Kennikat Press, Inc., 1968), p. 8. (return)
5. Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328. (return)
6. Steven Ozment, The Age Of Reformation 1250-1550 (New Haven and London Yale University Press, 1980), p. 370. (return)
7. Who's Who In Church History (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1969), p. 252. (return)
8. The Heretics, p. 326. (return)
9. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary Of The Church, p. 366. (return)


http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is what you need to know.
In his Institutes Calvin addresses the King of France in 1536 regarding his favor of Persecution:
Here are 3 flattering letters concerning Servetus (they are just flowing with all the fruits of the Spirit)
http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

Saturn Neptune was right. John Calvin was a sick man.

 

[Rippon]

John Calvin was a sick man.

He had to contend with about a dozen maladies. He had to have had exceptional mental and spiritual energy to endure what his weak body had to absorb.

 

[Rippon]

On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal beliefs!

That's a lie. And I need not elaborate because you know the truth.

Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine

John Calvin did not originate any doctrine. That's a lie.

by murdering a doctrinal heretic

He didn't murder anyone. That's a lie.

John Calvin put another to death and in a most cruel way.

John Calvin did not "put" anyone to death. That's a lie.

Although John Calvin consented to Michael Servetus' request to be beheaded, he acquiesced to the mode of execution employed.

John Calvin did not wield any civil authority. Calvin did not want Servetus burned,but the more humane execution of beheading. Calvin's request was denied by the authorities. Your source is muddled.

Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material."(6)

Calvin had written to Servetus years earlier:"I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with great audacity."

"Calvin had him convicted and burned to death."(9)

As you very well know --that is a lie. As has been established over and over.

While Servetus was wrong about the Trinity,

The above is the understatement of the millennium!