-
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.
1.) Bolsec would again....be one of those critics of Calvin the existence of whom you deny.\
You said Reformeres and church men.
You are officially now on record claiming that Calvin had no critics
No,I said that Reformers and church men did not criticize him for his persecutions. Those were the words you used in your initial challenge.
The POINT, .......was to demonstrate that he indeed HAD numerous critics which you deny exist and I cite you here:
See above.
And yet.....Even though EVERYONE has political enemies, you deny that Calvin had any. Absolutely absurd :BangHead:
You are in another world. What you are now claiming has nothing to do with your original claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
The error is his, in that HE (not you or any Arminians) insists that Calvin's name must be cleared in order to protect the docrinal [sic]ideas so named.
No,not at all. I specifically made this thread to address lies and slander made against the person of John Calvin.
Servetus' hatred???? Now you are being simply ludicrous. You will possibly note that his prosecutor will attest that Servetus prayed for his accusers at his own execution
No,I am not aware of that. Please furnish some proof.
In regards to your question about Bolsec, I consider him EVERY BIT as much a "churchman" as I do John Calvin.
You are entitled to call him a 'churchman" if you wish. But by the standard meaning of the term he certainly doesn't qualify. Are Roman Catholics churchmen?
Do you even read your OWN SOURCES???? Do you know WHY that is the case?
Why yes,I do.
Did you never stop to question why McGrath doesnt' say that it was common IN GENEVA??
The answer is.........It wasn't LEGAL in Geneva to execute someone for heresy....
Wrong.
Servetus' murder was not only unconscionable.....it was ILLEGAL!
Wrong again.
From McGrath's book :A Life of John Calvin.
"Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for office...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion.Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin would and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command.
The image of Calvin as the 'dictator of Geneva' bears no relation to the known facts of history...The city council had no intention of surrendering its hard-won rights and privileges to anyone,let alone one of its employees --a foreighner devoid of voting rights,whom they could dismiss and expel from the city as they pleased...Throughout,the city council retained its authority in civic matters. That Calvin's authority in civic matters was purely personal and moral in character was demonstrated by the difficulties his successors faced after his death." (page 109)
"Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for office...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion.Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin would and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command.
The image of Calvin as the 'dictator of Geneva' bears no relation to the known facts of history...The city council had no intention of surrendering its hard-won rights and privileges to anyone,let alone one of its employees --a foreighner devoid of voting rights,whom they could dismiss and expel from the city as they pleased...Throughout,the city council retained its authority in civic matters. That Calvin's authority in civic matters was purely personal and moral in character was demonstrated by the difficulties his successors faced after his death." (page 109)
There are some posters who insist on spreading untruths in order to further their cause (whatever that may be).
For instance Heir of Salvation claims" there were numerous reformers and church-men(many who knew Calvin) who spoke strongly against his [Calvin's] actions and policies,and was VERY aware of them."
Name them please. But some of the most notable:Melanchthon,Bullinger,Farel,Knox,Bucer and Beza supported him in the Servetus affair.
HoS also says that " Luther decried Calvin's actions for example."
Sat/Nep said Calvin "had many tortured and executed."
Where is his evidence? I have poured over Schaff,Wiley,Parker,McGrath and other Calvin authorities and have found no evidence whatsoever for S/N's incredible lies and slanderous charges.
In Paris between the years 1547 and 1550 thirty-nine people were burned to death for heresy. But Paris and Geneva are not the same place,may I say!
In Alister E. McGrath's book :A Life of Calvin the author points out:
"Nor is it entirely clear why the affair should be thought of as demonstrating anything monstrous concerning Calvin. His tacit support for the capital penalty for offences such as heresy which he (and his contemporaries) regarded as serious makes him little more than a child of his age,rather than an outrageous exception to its standards. Post-Enlightenment writers have every right to rotest against the cruelty of earlier generations;to single out Calvin for particular criticism,however,suggests a selectivity approaching victimization. to target him in this way --when the manner of his involvement was,to say the least,oblique --and overlook the much greater claims to infamy of other individuals and institutions raises difficult questions concerning the precommitments of his critics. Servetus was the only individual put to death for his religios opinions in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime,at a time when executions of this nature were commonplace elsewhere." (115,116)
None of my concerns in the op have been answered by the accusers. Step up to the plate please.
To get you on record....do you actually DENY that many of the reformers and movers and shakers of the era had criticisms of Calvin's persecution? Is that your official claim?
Yes,I indeed said so. And you STILL have not produced any evidence whatsoever to support your bogus claim.
Please tell me about Luther in particular. butI am still interested in the "many."
DrJamesAch
New Member
Yes,I indeed said so. And you STILL have not produced any evidence whatsoever to support your bogus claim.
Please tell me about Luther in particular. butI am still interested in the "many."
In your OP, you claimed that you had "poured over" historians, and of them that you quoted was Phillip Schaaf. That is why I posted what HE said about it, because Schaaf gave quite a lengthy list of atrocities that were committed under Calvin.
Thus the fact that you ignore the evidence even from those you claimed to have relied on to prove that accusations against Calvin didn't occur proves that you are simply unwilling to accept the overwhelming historical evidence that shows that Calvin had a violent unscriptural attitude in practice against those who disagreed with him.
In my book :John Calvin:Man of the Millennium are some extracts.
Theodore Beza:"What accusations will not some men bring against him? But no refutation of them is wanting tpo those persons who knew him while he lived,and they will want none among his posterity with men of judgment who shall collect his character from his writings.
Having given with good faith the history of his life and of his death,after sixteen years' observation of him I feel myself warranted to declare that in him was proposed to all men an illustrious example of the life and death of a Christian;so that it will be found as difficult to emulate as it is easy to calumniate him.' (129)
Theodore Beza:"What accusations will not some men bring against him? But no refutation of them is wanting tpo those persons who knew him while he lived,and they will want none among his posterity with men of judgment who shall collect his character from his writings.
Having given with good faith the history of his life and of his death,after sixteen years' observation of him I feel myself warranted to declare that in him was proposed to all men an illustrious example of the life and death of a Christian;so that it will be found as difficult to emulate as it is easy to calumniate him.' (129)
In your OP, you claimed that you had "poured over" historians, and of them that you quoted was Phillip Schaaf. That is why I posted what HE said about it, because Schaaf gave quite a lengthy list of atrocities that were committed under Calvin.
Thus the fact that you ignore the evidence even from those you claimed to have relied on to prove that accusations against Calvin didn't occur proves that you are simply unwilling to accept the overwhelming historical evidence that shows that Calvin had a violent unscriptural attitude in practice against those who disagreed with him.
"Committed under Calvin"? No, Calvin didn't have the authority to arrest,torture or execute anybody. Those were decisions of the Council and of the Council of 200. Calvin or the church consistory did not have the civil power to do what you and others constantly claim.
The Great Christian Revolution by Otto Scott says :"Calvin never ruled Geneva. The city was not a totalitarian society,but a Rebublic,with elections and dissent. Calvin held no civil office,could neither arrest nor punish any citizen,appoint or dismiss any official. To argure that his eloquence and logic constituted tyranny is to invent a new standard." (p.57)
A Life of John Calvin by Alister E. McGrath :"The rigid restrictions on voting rights in sixteenth-century Geneva reflected widespread anxieties within the city over the possible influence of foreigners upon its affairs. By restricting citizenship,with its full rights to vote and hold office,to certain native-born rsidents,the council had effectively forestalled the ambitions of any foreigner to exercise political influence within the city.
Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for public office. From 1541-1559,his status within the city was that of habitant...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion. Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin could and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command." (109)
Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for public office. From 1541-1559,his status within the city was that of habitant...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion. Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin could and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command." (109)
And for all this talk of Calvin being a dictator,monster etc...why did Europeans flock there? Because it was considered a safe haven from religious persecution by Protestant refugees.
In 1550 the popualtion was 13,000 in Geneva. By 1560,it was 21,400 per McGraths research.
And let me add something else. For centuries Calvin has been linked with Servetus' death. Why,if he is somehow responsible for upwards of nearly a hundred or so more was the Spanish madman's state execution so singular? Why hasn't Calvin been painted as evil for the hundred or so you have given him responsibilty for instead of the one?
In 1550 the popualtion was 13,000 in Geneva. By 1560,it was 21,400 per McGraths research.
And let me add something else. For centuries Calvin has been linked with Servetus' death. Why,if he is somehow responsible for upwards of nearly a hundred or so more was the Spanish madman's state execution so singular? Why hasn't Calvin been painted as evil for the hundred or so you have given him responsibilty for instead of the one?
DrJamesAch
New Member
"Committed under Calvin"? No, Calvin didn't have the authority to arrest,torture or execute anybody. Those were decisions of the Council and of the Council of 200. Calvin or the church consistory did not have the civil power to do what you and others constantly claim.
The Great Christian Revolution by Otto Scott says :"Calvin never ruled Geneva. The city was not a totalitarian society,but a Rebublic,with elections and dissent. Calvin held no civil office,could neither arrest nor punish any citizen,appoint or dismiss any official. To argure that his eloquence and logic constituted tyranny is to invent a new standard." (p.57)
First of all, it was Calvin's theocracy. Even if he had no involvement personally, the constitutions were all his making, so he is still responsible for the policies that permitted the execution of heretics. The death of those who did not adhere to their doctrines would have been a foreseeable result of the implentations of their laws. You can not create an avalanche and then claim exclusion under respondeat superior
Nevertheless, this argument defies all of the documented evidence about John Calvin's own comments, not only toward how the government operated against heretics in general, but specifically toward Servetus. No revisionist attempts can wipe away the stigma of what Calvin created for himself. Even if Calvin did not have the authority to issue orders, that does not mean that others still did not follow his influence and obey his wishes regardless of whether he had the authority to give them or not. The matter is not a question of authority, it is whether Calvin had anything to do whatsoever in any manner, authority or not, in causing the death of Servetus, and the abuse of those consider heretics, and history says that he did.
Yet again, it is difficult to accept your revisionist attempts when evidence was provided that you were wrong about Schaaf.
This is like watching the explanation of Benghazi!
Last edited by a moderator:
Then he smote his breast, invoked God for pardon, confessed Christ as his Saviour, and besought God to pardon his accusers.No,I am not aware of that. Please furnish some proof.
"Ut Deus accusatoribus esset propitius." Farel. This is certainly a Christian act. Henry (III. 191) admits that Servetus in his last moments showed some noble traits towards his enemies.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm#_edn210
Nevertheless, this conversation is un-fruitful. I think anyone reading this thread can see for themselves that objective knowledge of Calvin's history is not to be gleaned from someone simply trying to prove a pre-concieved point. The history of Calvin's life speaks for itself. Anyone wishing to learn about it has ample opportunity.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
I agree. This subject has run its course. You guys have proven the point well, and if this does not convince someone, then they are blind. The thing we can learn from lives like this in the past is to spot them before they do the damage this man did, and never put them in a position of leadership.Then he smote his breast, invoked God for pardon, confessed Christ as his Saviour, and besought God to pardon his accusers.
"Ut Deus accusatoribus esset propitius." Farel. This is certainly a Christian act. Henry (III. 191) admits that Servetus in his last moments showed some noble traits towards his enemies.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm#_edn210
Nevertheless, this conversation is un-fruitful. I think anyone reading this thread can see for themselves that objective knowledge of Calvin's history is not to be gleaned from someone simply trying to prove a pre-concieved point. The history of Calvin's life speaks for itself. Anyone wishing to learn about it has ample opportunity.
I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
I agree. This subject has run its course. You guys have proven the point well, and if this does not convince someone, then they are blind. The thing we can learn from lives like this in the past is to spot them before they do the damage this man did, and never put them in a position of leadership.
I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.
And that is an excellent question. I have seen the same thing done on another forum I visit.
The history of Calvin's life speaks for itself. Anyone wishing to learn about it has ample opportunity.
I agree. Commense reading Calvin's works!
I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.
And the lenghths you have gone to besmirch your fictional Calvin. You express hatred of Calvin and of myself every chance you get even though you contradict yourself at every turn. You said you wern't going to speak of the subject of Calvin's character again. (You said that several times.) You said you would never address Rippon again! With great ease you break your word.
You have yet to support your contention that Calvin was "a liar and a bearer of false witness."
With absolutely no thread of truth you claim that Calvin "never truly broke away from the Catholic church."
With no proof whatsoever you claim that Calvin participated "in the persecution of the local,autonmous [sic]churches of the day."
And there are countless other lies about Calvin as well as your evident hatred pouring out in your posts.
You said that the mere mention of his name makes your blood boil. That's a sin.
You said that the subject harms your inner self. Why not yield to more edifying subjects then instead of letting your flesh rule you?
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing we can learn from lives like this in the past is to spot them before they do the damage this man did, and never put them in a position of leadership.
But God. (I like that biblical phrase.)But God put John Calvin to do what he did in his leadership capacity in Geneva. Calvin did not want to be in a position of authority in Geneva the first time and certainly not the second time when he was pleaded with to return.
No one intends to answer you any further....Good day to you sir.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.