Lies About John Calvin Refuted

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

And you don't believe his sickness to be self inflicted?!?

 

[Rippon]

"From the time that Servetus was convicted of his heresy I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness." (Calvin :Opera,V111,p. 461)

"For what particular act of mine you accuse me of cruelty I am anxious to know. I myself know not that act, unless it be with reference to the death of your great Master, Servetus. But that I myself earnestly entreated that he might not be put to death his judges themselves are witnesses, in the number of whom at that time two were his staunch favorites and defenders." (Calvin's Calvinism :Treatises on Predestination,p. 346)

In a letter to Farel,October 26,1553:"We have done our best to change the kind of death,but in vain. I shall tell thee when we meet why we had no success."

Melanchthon wrote to Calvin almost a year after the execution saying:"I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man."

Dr. Emile Doumergue (1844-1937) :"The sentence of condemnation to death was pronounced only after consultation with the Swiss churches, several of which were far from being on good terms with Calvin (but all of which gave their consent)...Besides, the judgment was pronounced by a Council in which the inveterate enemies of Calvin, the free thinkers, were in the majority." (From an article --What ought to be known about Calvin,in the Evangelical Quartlerly,Jan.1929)

 

[Rippon]

And you don't believe his sickness to be self inflicted?!?

Well, to a certain extent. He was a workhorse. He didn't take care of himself as he ought. He was quite selfless in the service of others. He ate little and slept too little. A number of his sicknesses were probably inherited though.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"From the time that Servetus was convicted of his hersy I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness." (Calvin :Opera,V111,p. 461)

"For what particular act of mine you accuse me of cruelty I am anxious to know. I myself know not that act, unless it be with reference to the death of your great Master, Servetus. But that I myself earnestly entreated that he might not be put to death his judges themselves are witnesses, in the number of whom at that time two were his staunch favorites and defenders." (Calvin's Calvinism :Treatises on Predestination,p. 346)

And your point is?

 

[Rippon]

Quotes From Philip Schaff

"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."

"He improves upon acquaintance."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

Perhaps you should understand the term before you criticize it. Not like the "charismatic movement." He was very personable. He attracted students by the thousands. And you claim to know enough of him well enough to defend him? Seems to me you are practically married to his aura rather than truly respecting his actual person.

Calvin did not want him to die.

Calvin hated him. He defied Calvin. Of course Calvin wanted him to die. That is the kind of vengeance of which Calvin was capable. Your back story on this series of incidents is faulty to the point of falsehood.

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

Uh-huh. Prove it.

 

[Rippon]

Dr. William Cunningham (1805-1861) :"Calvin is the man, who next to St. Paul, has done most good to mankind."

Philip Vollmer (1909) said:"Strange as it may seem to those who still cling to the traditional view of a 'heartless' Calvin, the circle of his devoted friends at Geneva and throughout Europe increased to enormous proportions as the years rolled by. His extensive correspondence also bears unimpeachable evidence of this."

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) :"I know no man, since the Apostles' days, whom I value and honor more than Calvin, and whose judgment in all things, one with another, I more esteem and come near to."

 

[Bro. James]

Gentlemen, Brethren, the rules plainly state we are not to call one another liars. We are supposed to pray for those deluded including our worst enemies--it heaps coals on their heads--some repent and are converted.

The stronger the words, the weaker the arguments.

Giving honor(glory) to men/women is forbidden in scripture. To God be the glory, great things He has done. Man has botched the job ever since the Garden of Eden. Man is still botching ecclesiology.

God is jealous of glory not given to Him. It is fearful to fall into the hands of the Living God.

No yes, but...allowed.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

No yes, buts allowed.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps you should understand the term before you criticize it. Not like the "charismatic movement."

Boy you take offense so easily. I said in his teaching-style he was probably more like Jonathan Edwards. How you can mistake that for someone from the charismatic movement is ludicrous.

He was very personable. He attracted students by the thousands.

He was not unpersonable, but to call him 'personable' might be stretching it.What drew the crowd was the solidity of his bible expositions --not his magnetic personality!

And you claim to know enough of him well enough to defend him?

Yes. I know him much better than you for instance. I have read a number of his works,including his letters. And I have read quite a number of books about him as is evidenced in my threads on the man of Geneva.

You can't even keep it straight when you profess to know the thesis of Dr. Richard A. Muller who is an expert on Calvin. For you to lecture me is preposterous.

When you want to come up with a score of godly scholars who come to completely different conclusions about the man --go for it. But remember this,as Daniel Patrick Moynihan has said:"You are entitled to your own opinion,but not your own facts."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, to a certain extent. He was a workhorse. He didn't take care of himself as he ought. He was quite selfless in the service of others. He ate little and slept too little. A number of his sicknesses were probably inherited though.

I am referring to Calvin's mental state.

 

[Rippon]

we are not to call one another liars.

A lie is a lie is a lie. There is no lack of factual information that they have at their disposal. They willingly state falsehood after falsehood. That is no way to thrust one's agenda through. Some staunch conservatives here are practicing BHO's methods in this forum. That reeks of hypocrisy.

There is no middle ground on real history when it comes to the life of John Calvin. Some outrageous lies have come from several folks who are banned. But other current members want to leap on the bandwagon of falsehood.

I gave DHK a list of yes or no choices. There is no gray area. If he says yes --he's lying. If he replies 'no' he is being truthful. We shall wait and see.

RM posted an article from the infamous Dan Corner. If folks are so unaware of that man's methods I pity them. But I don't underestimate the intelligence of members here. They willingly post things that are categorically false (with a bit of truth weaved in to make in more presentable.) So when I addressed what Dan Corner posted --it was to him I said :"It's a lie."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A lie is a lie is a lie. There is no lack of factual information that they have at their disposal. They willingly state falsehood after falsehood. That is no way to thrust one's agenda through. Some staunch conservatives here are practicing BHO's methods in this forum. That reeks of hypocrisy.

There is no middle ground on real history when it comes to the life of John Calvin. Some outrageous lies have come from several folks who are banned. But other current members want to leap on the bandwagon of falsehood.

I gave DHK a list of yes or no choices. There is no gray area. If he says yes --he's lying. If he replies 'no' he is being truthful. We shall wait and see.

RM posted an article from the infamous Dan Corner. If folks are so unaware of that man's methods I pity them. But I don't underestimate the intelligence of members here. They willingly post things that are categorically false (with a bit of truth weaved in to make in more presentable.) So when I addressed what Dan Corner posted --it was to him I said :"It's a lie."

You are taking this personally.

 

[Revmitchell]

You are taking this personally.

He always does.,

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Rippon do you worship Calvin?

It sure seems like it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rippon do you worship Calvin?

It sure seems like it.

There you have it from the Romper Room class of 92. Rippon, per the average guy in the street.

 

[DHK]

DHK,you are wasting your time.

I will ask you yet another time --

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

Obviously, yes. He returned to Geneva in 1541. Here is what happened according to Wikipedia.

Following his return, Calvin introduced new forms of church government and liturgy, despite the opposition of several powerful families in the city who tried to curb his authority. During this period, Michael Servetus, a Spaniard regarded by both Catholics and Protestants as having heretical views, arrived in Geneva. He was denounced by Calvin and executed by the city council. Following an influx of supportive refugees and new elections to the city council, Calvin's opponents were forced out. Calvin spent his final years promoting the Reformation both in Geneva and throughout Europe.

From this quote we see that Calvin and his "state-church" held power over the city council. The city-council could not control him. They could not "curb his authority," even after new elections to the city council, "Calvin's opponents were forced out." His authority, at this time (1541-1549) was greater than the council's which he disdained.

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

He didn't have to. His decisions were made without the Council's authority. He was greater than the council. The council was meaningless in his view.

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?

His church held all the power; not the council. He wielded the power. Yes, he had great power. It was no different than a modern Islamic state. The President of the country has official power. But the religious power is in the hands of the mosque of the town. He rules it. In some South American towns the Catholic priests operate the same way. They hold the power.

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

It was a state-church. The council's power was irrelevant.

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

A non sequitor.

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?

Yes. He did not submit to the powers of the state. He was "the state."

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.

He was as much as a civil power as Pope Innocent III who led a horrible Crusade against the Albigenses and wiped them out. The Catholics make the same case as you are--he wasn't the civil power at that time either. All state-churches cannot divorce themselves from civil power.

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.

He was a murderer and a persecutor. That is the honest truth. History pegs him as that.

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

I have cited many sources already. Why don't you read them and consider them.

 

[Rippon]

Dr. William Cunningham (1805-1861) :"Calvin is the man, who next to St. Paul, has done most good to mankind."

Philip Vollmer (1909) said:"Strange as it may seem to those who still cling to the traditional view of a 'heartless' Calvin, the circle of his devoted friends at Geneva and throughout Europe increased to enormous proportions as the years rolled by. His extensive correspondence also bears unimpeachable evidence of this."

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) :"I know no man, since the Apostles' days, whom I value and honor more than Calvin, and whose judgment in all things, one with another, I more esteem and come near to."

Here's another one from Dr. William Cunningham in his book "The Reformers and the Reformation" :

"...there is probably not one among the sons of men, beyond the range of those whom God miraculously inspired by His Spirit,who has stronger claims upon our veneration and gratitude." (p.224)

 

[Rippon]

You Failed The Truth Test

His decisions were made without the Council's authority. He was greater than the council. The council was meaningless in his view.

Absolutely false. Any legitimate Church History book will inform you that Calvin did not become a citizen of Geneva until 1559 --any of them.

You're making stuff up because of your hatred of a fictional figure you call John Calvin.

His church held all the power; not the council.

That's stupid. No legit source, except hate-filled anti-Calvinist websites push that junk of yours.

Yes, he had great power. It was no different than a modern Islamic state. The President of the country has official power. But the religious power is in the hands of the mosque of the town. He rules it. In some South American towns the Catholic priests operate the same way. They hold the power.

You've gone off the rails entirely. Rather than saying things that are completely untrue hold your tongue and keystrokes and begin to tell the truth for a change.

It was a state-church. The council's power was irrelevant.

Yes. He did not submit to the powers of the state. He was "the state."

Absolutely,incredibly false. You are compounding your prevarications.

He was a murderer and a persecutor. That is the honest truth. History pegs him as that.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Lies do not serve to advance your "cause" --whatever that may be.

You have a bad case of truth decay. And as a professing Christian that is troubling. And you are a moderator to boot. That is hard to fathom.

"I truly dislike the hate speech and lies about Calvin. Calvin DID NOT murder anyone. And I will not tolerate lies by 'haters' here." (Dr. Bob 4/25/1206)

I have cited many sources already. Why don't you read them and consider them.

Yeah,and I've read them --especially the ones by Schaffer. Have you read my Schaffer quotes?

You are amazingly hypocritical DHK. You ask me to read your sources and yet dismiss mine out of hand. You remind me of Mormons who tell me to read their stuff --and I have. Then,a week or so later thinking they would have the decency to read my biblical literature --no,they read nary a page. There was no reciprocity. You are like the Mormons.

You have intentionally broken the 9th commandment. You are not being a very good example here.

For all this power that you claim Calvin had --if he was such a dictator --calling all the shots in Geneva --how in the world did he, Farel, and company get kicked out of Geneva in 1538? Did he banish himself?!

He was not a magistrate. He held no political office. Most of the members of the City Council who decided the fate of Servetus were enemies of Calvin. These were the Libertines. They hated Calvin. Calvin was not in charge. They decided on the execution of Servetus reluctantly after getting input from the other Swiss churches. Those churches with unanimity said Servetus needed to be executed. The City Council decided to burn him. Calvin wanted the more humane decapitation. His request was turned down.

That's the truth. Your "version" is not factual --it is fantasy. As Christians we are called upon to be truthful. We are supposed to be His witnesses here. Christ is Truth --we should follow the way of truth.

 

[DHK]

That's the truth. Your "version" is not factual --it is fantasy. As Christians we are called upon to be truthful. We are supposed to be His witnesses here. Christ is Truth --we should follow the way of truth.

That last bit of truth came from Wikipedia, the most used encyclopedia on-line. I am sure, that because of their wide-spread use and popularity, they would not post lies and falsehoods about a historical character as well known as John Calvin. That wouldn't make much sense would it?

Secondly, my way of finding information about Calvin is doing a simple search. In the last search Wikipedia was the first to come up. I didn't even have to look at the other links, but there were scores of them--all drawing the same conclusions (by their headlines).

Do a search yourself. Link after link will tell you the same thing and give you the same information that I and others have been telling you. Your loyalty to this man is akin to the blind loyalty that the Catholic apologist has to the Pope--defend him at all cost no matter what history says. Change history if you have to. This is your attitude. You are at the point where you are unteachable. That is truly sad.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Absolutely false. Any legitimate Church History book will inform you that Calvin did not become a citizen of Geneva until 1559 --any of them.

You're making stuff up because of your hatred of a fictional figure you call John Calvin.

Then by all means, quote one. Don't just make the claim, if "any of them" will do. Looks to me like DHK is giving you some pretty solid evidence to refute your beliefs. This isn't defense. This is protest.

That's stupid. No legit source, except hate-filled anti-Calvinist websites push that junk of yours.

Again, protest, not defense, or refutation.

You've gone off the rails entirely. Rather than saying things that are completely untrue hold your tongue and keystrokes and begin to tell the truth for a change.

You have a perfect opportunity in all of this post thus far to prove DHK wrong, yet you haven't availed yourself of it. That's rather telling, isn't it?

Absolutely,incredibly false. You are compounding your prevarications.

This is engaging in the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack That's a term I've seen you use numerous times on this board. Yet here you involve yourself in the same tactic. For that matter, it has been the case throughout the post -- and just about everything you've posted on this thread.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Lies do not serve to advance your "cause" --whatever that may be.

You have a bad case of truth decay. And as a professing Christian that is troubling. And you are a moderator to boot. That is hard to fathom.

"I truly dislike the hate speech and lies about Calvin. Calvin DID NOT murder anyone. And I will not tolerate lies by 'haters' here." (Dr. Bob 4/25/1206)

That's not a source. That is, unfortunately (though I respect Bob) a comment by another member who refuses to acknowledge the truth about John Calvin.

Thus far, you've done nothing but attack and deny. Not a very good indication of your ability to refute what is being said, I'm afraid.

I'm going to skip the rest of your ad hominem because it is simply repetitive and unproductive. However, I will take you to this portion of the post:

For all this power that you claim Calvin had --if he was such a dictator --calling all the shots in Geneva --how in the world did he, Farel, and company get kicked out of Geneva in 1538? Did he banish himself?!

Obviously this is two years before he returned to Geneva, having left the city to organize his supporters, urging them to move to Geneva and become a majority for him to use to overthrow the powers that were preventing him from being the driving force behind the theological terrorism that marked the city for the next several years to come. You know that. Why ask a question to which you know the answer?

He was not a magistrate. He held no political office. Most of the members of the City Council who decided the fate of Servetus were enemies of Calvin. These were the Libertines. They hated Calvin. Calvin was not in charge. They decided on the execution of Servetus reluctantly after getting input from the other Swiss churches. Those churches with unanimity said Servetus needed to be executed. The City Council decided to burn him. Calvin wanted the more humane decapitation. His request was turned down.

This has all been proven wrong, other than the fact that Calvin wanted Servetus beheaded. How you see that as "more humane" given he had committed no real crime is truly beyond me, and I'm sure the rest of us. It points to your unholy worship of the man, versus the true object of worship upon whom you need to focus, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Unless you have evidence to refute this information, your protests are worthless. You've had numerous opportunities to post any you may have. Why haven't you?

That's the truth.

No, it isn't.

Your "version" is not factual --it is fantasy. As Christians we are called upon to be truthful. We are supposed to be His witnesses here. Christ is Truth --we should follow the way of truth.

And finally, one more party ad hominem shot. If this is all you've got, you need to drop this thread. It is an epic fail.