Featured Lies About John Calvin Refuted

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

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!

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

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

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

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."

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

 

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?

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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