I read the whole story in Bainton's Hunted Heretic, (the most indepth, neutral recunting of the story I could find) and some of the stuff posted above, don't remember seeing. Like him being into astrology, or whatever. Or him being some political figure trying to take over and overthrow govts. (though I did hear of some of this elsewhere, probably calvinist defenses). He was trying to convince the world of his doctrines, and he believed both state Church systems (Catholic and Protestant) were false. Many of us today agree with that.
He may have been a bit "arrogant", and lacked tact in his approach to the authorities, but Calvinj and the others were far worse (being they had the power). Calvin kept presuming that he needed to be "won to the Lord", and had no sense that maybe some more of the "Catholic" doctrines and traditions they still maintained, were wrong. If some were, then maybe others too; hence the Zwinglians and Anabaptists. And while some of his doctrines were a bit strange (particularly his concept of Christ "living in us", which was taken straight from the ECF's); still, the "horrid blasphemies" he was executed on primarily were the Trinity and infant baptism. The latter most of us agree with today. Even on the Trinity, his position matched that pretty much of the ECF's, esp. Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Tertullian. Rather than three eternal "Persons", he basically had one single being, God the Father, with the Son and Spirit proceesing from Him. At first, he was a bit more adoptionistic (The Word was united to the human Christ), but later changed that to say the Word was Christ. He was ultimately killed for his prayer to "the Son of the Eternal God", rather than "the Eternal Son of God". We know that as part of the Godhead, the Son is eternal, but that term was not used in scripture, yet Son of the eternal" is. So basically, he was killed, not for blaspheming God's word, but rather going against the fourth century Nicene Creed (which itself was questioned by many bishops who signed it, and still acknowledged that the Son and Spirit generate and proceed from the father, rather than the Father being "begotten" along with them from something else). They were so used to seeing scripture and God through those creeds, it seems as if the creeds had been elevated to the status of God's Word, and even then, they may not have understood them as they were originally intended. Also, the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, and state Church, which they also similarly bitterly attacked verbally and often persecuted the Anabaptists over.
To me, all of those Reformers, while restoring some essential truth the RCC had buried, still had a lot of the old Catholic (corrupt institutional state Church) darkness, that it would take some more time for later Protestants to gradually clean up. I can't judge whether the'll be in Heaven, but if judged on his own standards, it wouldn't look good for him. He himself taught that God gives "reprobates" a false faith so they can still be lost after thinking they were saved. He himself was led into the ministry by threats of hellfire from Farel. (stuff like that was supposed to be predestined, wasn't it, but through the "God works His will through us" clause, they were able to still use it to try to scare people into what they thought was God's will). Do we see what kind of mindset did all of these people have? It was not good at all, and thankfully; God has led the Christian world back into more truth than that.
We need to be careful when we say "don't dare look at them through 20th century mindset", because this is moral relativism and situational ethics, which we condemn in the modern non-Christian world! When people today claim adultery homosexuality and abortion are OK because times have changed, we scream at them. But whom does God expect to know better? God's Word was the same regardless of what century it was, and funny how they used the Old Testament so much for stuff like that, when otherwise they claimed it was "puerile instruction" to the Israelites.
What's scary, is when conservatives today defend the 16th century situationally, as "pre-modern", "pre-enlightenment", and then condemn the modern world and the Enlightenment as Western civilization's "turn from God", which actually suggests the way they did things back then was right!
He may have been a bit "arrogant", and lacked tact in his approach to the authorities, but Calvinj and the others were far worse (being they had the power). Calvin kept presuming that he needed to be "won to the Lord", and had no sense that maybe some more of the "Catholic" doctrines and traditions they still maintained, were wrong. If some were, then maybe others too; hence the Zwinglians and Anabaptists. And while some of his doctrines were a bit strange (particularly his concept of Christ "living in us", which was taken straight from the ECF's); still, the "horrid blasphemies" he was executed on primarily were the Trinity and infant baptism. The latter most of us agree with today. Even on the Trinity, his position matched that pretty much of the ECF's, esp. Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Tertullian. Rather than three eternal "Persons", he basically had one single being, God the Father, with the Son and Spirit proceesing from Him. At first, he was a bit more adoptionistic (The Word was united to the human Christ), but later changed that to say the Word was Christ. He was ultimately killed for his prayer to "the Son of the Eternal God", rather than "the Eternal Son of God". We know that as part of the Godhead, the Son is eternal, but that term was not used in scripture, yet Son of the eternal" is. So basically, he was killed, not for blaspheming God's word, but rather going against the fourth century Nicene Creed (which itself was questioned by many bishops who signed it, and still acknowledged that the Son and Spirit generate and proceed from the father, rather than the Father being "begotten" along with them from something else). They were so used to seeing scripture and God through those creeds, it seems as if the creeds had been elevated to the status of God's Word, and even then, they may not have understood them as they were originally intended. Also, the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, and state Church, which they also similarly bitterly attacked verbally and often persecuted the Anabaptists over.
To me, all of those Reformers, while restoring some essential truth the RCC had buried, still had a lot of the old Catholic (corrupt institutional state Church) darkness, that it would take some more time for later Protestants to gradually clean up. I can't judge whether the'll be in Heaven, but if judged on his own standards, it wouldn't look good for him. He himself taught that God gives "reprobates" a false faith so they can still be lost after thinking they were saved. He himself was led into the ministry by threats of hellfire from Farel. (stuff like that was supposed to be predestined, wasn't it, but through the "God works His will through us" clause, they were able to still use it to try to scare people into what they thought was God's will). Do we see what kind of mindset did all of these people have? It was not good at all, and thankfully; God has led the Christian world back into more truth than that.
We need to be careful when we say "don't dare look at them through 20th century mindset", because this is moral relativism and situational ethics, which we condemn in the modern non-Christian world! When people today claim adultery homosexuality and abortion are OK because times have changed, we scream at them. But whom does God expect to know better? God's Word was the same regardless of what century it was, and funny how they used the Old Testament so much for stuff like that, when otherwise they claimed it was "puerile instruction" to the Israelites.
What's scary, is when conservatives today defend the 16th century situationally, as "pre-modern", "pre-enlightenment", and then condemn the modern world and the Enlightenment as Western civilization's "turn from God", which actually suggests the way they did things back then was right!
