Posted on 12/15/2010 7:22:45 PM PST by narses
Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.
Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment. Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva, because that is what his theology teaches.
Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, was born in Villanova in 1511. He was credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood from the right chamber of the heart through the lungs and back to the left chamber of the heart. He was Calvin's longtime friend in their earlier resistance against the Roman Catholic Church. Servetus, while living in Vienne (historic city in southeastern France), angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's writings, Institutes, with critical comments in the margins. Servetus was arrested by the Roman Catholic Authorities on April 4 but escaped on April 7, 1553. He traveled to Geneva where he attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on August 13. Calvin promptly had Servetus arrested and charged with heresy for his disagreement with Calvin's theology. The thirty-eight official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus was correct in challenging Calvin's false teaching about infant baptism for salvation, but he was heretical in his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus pleaded to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method. Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned but not executed. Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. John Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower. Servetus was screaming as he was literally baked alive from the feet upward and suffered the heat of the flames for 30 minutes before finally succumbing to one of the most painful and brutal death methods possible. Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which Calvin had strapped to the chest of Servetus. The flames from the burning book rose against Servetus' face as he screamed in agony.
John Calvin celebrated and bragged of his killing of Servetus. Many theological and state leaders criticized Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus, but it fell on deaf ears as Calvin advised others to do the same. Calvin wrote much in following years in a continual attempt to justify his burning of Servetus. Some people claim Calvin favored beheading, but this does not fit charges of heresy for which the punishment, as written by Calvin earlier, was to be burning at the stake. Calvin had made a vow years earlier that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he were ever captured, and Calvin held true to his pledge. Truly John Calvin is burning in Hell for his heresy, blasphemy of God and murder of many.
Another victim of Calvin's fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be incarcerated twice at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. John Calvin's actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemned these blatant mass murders.
I suspect it was in retaliation for some of the comments that have been made on the Devotion-to-Mary-is-the-greatest-things-since-sliced-bread threads.
No, just pointing out the obvious to those who find it difficult to admit it.
At best, this is a half-truth. The letter Gruet placed on the pulpit did more than call him a hypocrite: it issued a death threat against him and against the city council if they did not flee Geneva. Further investigation revealed more materials of the same kind in his home, as well as heretical and blasphemous literature.
In other words, Gruet was not put to death by John Calvin for the insult against him, but by the city government of Geneva (who were no friends of Calvin) for the civil offenses of high treason and blasphemy. Calvin's only involvement (apart from, I assume, discovering and reporting the threat) was being the primary target of Gruet's hate.
In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.
Another half-truth. Calvin had committed a political faux-pas about 10 years earlier: he exercised church discipline against Perrin's in-laws for lewd conduct. Perrin and Gruet had been "Libertines," a party of antinomians. They were happy enough to support the Reformation when it meant overthrowing the rule of Rome, but Perrin was incensed that Calvin intended to uphold the moral laws already on the books in Geneva, and that these laws would apply equally to all Genevans regardless of class.
In 1547, as Ambassador to Paris, Perrin was arrested and indicted for treason when it was learned that he intended to quarter 200 French cavalrymen in Geneva, and it was thought that he intended to overthrow the city. For his part, Perrin claimed that he intended to seek the permission of the city council first. In the end he was acquitted but stripped of his position. This led to an armed mob attempting to overthrow the city government. Calvin heard the commotion from the street and entered the building. Despite threats against his life and being alone and unarmed, he dared the mob to strike him down, and when they did not, he preached at them until they dispersed in silence.
Prior to 1555, Calvin was constantly at loggerheads with the city council, but by this time enough Protestant refugees had attained citizenship in the city to elect a council that was more sympathetic. Perrin conspired with others to murder the French refugees and sympathetic Genevans. When the plot was discovered, he fled the city.
When the facts are examined, it really turns out that the opposition to John Calvin was an opposition to law and order.
As for this section on Servetus . . . oh dear, where to begin? The author has gotten his facts not merely wrong, but virtually 180 degrees turned from reality.
He was Calvin's longtime friend in their earlier resistance against the Roman Catholic Church.
They were not "friends." They had corresponded. Servetus invited Calvin to meet him once in Paris in 1537, which Calvin attempted to do, at risk to his own life, but Servetus never showed up to the meeting.
Servetus, while living in Vienne (historic city in southeastern France), angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's writings, Institutes, with critical comments in the margins.
Another half-truth. Servetus had pressed Calvin on some theological point or other, in response to which Calvin sent him a copy of the Institutes. Servetus did return a marked-up copy, but his notes were not merely "critical" - they were mocking and vituperative, as were many of the letters he subsequently sent Calvin, which the latter chose to ignore.
What this article doesn't say is that at this time, Servetus was a fugitive in Vienne and working for the local archbishop under an assumed name as his personal physician. Calvin knew this, and yet he did not denounce him. He believed his duty as a minister of the Gospel was to persuade heretics, not persecute them.
He traveled to Geneva where he attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on August 13. Calvin promptly had Servetus arrested and charged with heresy for his disagreement with Calvin's theology.
Servetus was a fugitive and it was Calvin's civic duty to turn him in. He had already warned Servetus that if he thought he would receive safe passage in Geneva, he was mistaken. He came anyway. That's not Calvin's fault.
Servetus pleaded to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but Calvin and the city council refused the quicker death method.
Exactly backwards. I don't know how Servetus would have preferred to die. It was Calvin who requested that the charge against him be reduced to civil disobedience so that the more humane death of beheading could be carried out. The city council, which was still hostile to Calvin at this point, refused and insisted on the stake, in order to spite him.
Other Protestant churches throughout Switzerland advised Calvin that Servetus be condemned but not executed.
Exactly false. The city council sent letters to the neighbouring Swiss cantons for advice, and they unanimously agreed that Servetus had to die.
Calvin ignored their pleas and Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. John Calvin insisted that his men use green wood for the fire because it burned slower.
Since Calvin did not desire Servetus to die slowly by burning, it makes no sense that he would demand that the fire be built so as to prolong his death even further.
Servetus had written a theology book, a copy of which Calvin had strapped to the chest of Servetus.
Wrong again. One, the book was chained to his leg, not his chest. Two, Calvin was not present at the execution; it was Guillaume Farel who walked him to his death. However, Calvin had spent the previous evening with Servetus in prison, attempting (though unsuccessfully) to persuade him to recant his heresies.
Many theological and state leaders criticized Calvin for the unwarranted killing of Servetus, but it fell on deaf ears as Calvin advised others to do the same.
Heresy was universally regarded as a civil and capital offense. Calvin's opinion on the subject was perfectly mainstream. What century does this revisionist think this was, anyway?
Some people claim Calvin favored beheading,
By "some people," read "reputable church historians such as Philip Schaff and Alister McGrath," as opposed to anonymous bloggers.
Geneva was a refuge for others: notably, English Protestant refugees from the persecutions of the Roman Catholic despot Bloody Mary.
I’ve no doubt that retaliation is a game played on the religion forum. Used to play it myself. All it accomplished was greater anger.
I didn’t justify his actions, and I don’t have to, as Calvinism (and the Bible, oddly enough) teaches that no man or institution is without sin. Calvin will answer to God—as will we all.
My point was that AMIDST 16TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS (ummm, who all had the New Testament) NO ONE WAS RELIGIOUSLY TOLERANT (especially the religious monopoly at the time the Roman Catholic Church—which yes, in this era, EXECUTED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER CHRISTIANS FOR THEIR FAITH) meaning, advocating the lawful death penalty for heresy was a rather common sin in that day.
I’m happy that both Roman Catholics and Protestants have now concluded that executing people for their religion is morally wrong. It’s a good thing that the powerful Roman Catholic church especially has indeed changed its mind on that.
“He who lives in a glass house must not throw stones.”
A Roman Catholic criticizing Calvin for his sin of advocating the lawful death penalty of ONE heretic lives in a very fragile glass house.
(I’d take the sins of Calvin over the sins of virtually any of the 16th C. Medici popes, 10 to 1....)
Well done. Anti-Calvin revisionism is for some reason very common. A close examination of the facts though invariably proves Calvin a lot more reasonable and frankly godly, than anyone gives him credit for.
I really don’t understand why, after 450 years, the man is hated so much.
Don’t agree with him, fine. But please, don’t resort to slander, half-truths and lies to try to personally destroy the man.
Hmmmm, and yet Cicero, a student of the period seems to have a different opinion. Odd, that.
Yes. :(
“My point was that AMIDST 16TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS (ummm, who all had the New Testament) NO ONE WAS RELIGIOUSLY TOLERANT “
If I recall correctly, the first century was rather intolerant and brutal also. That did not prevent the disciples from holding to Christ’s teaching!!!
**************
“(I’d take the sins of Calvin over the sins of virtually any of the 16th C. Medici popes, 10 to 1....)”
That doesn’t make a murderer and less a murderer, now does it?
There is so much to disagree on, concerning Mr. Calvin’s ‘commentary’. I will just keep it brief.
**In the name of Christ**
Well, Mr. Calvin talked quite a while there and didn’t mention the name of....JESUS....one....time.
**Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences;**
Jesus commanded: “he that believeth (no comma) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16
If you devalue the command of baptism in any way, you’re guilty of unbelief.
I may offer more thoughts later, as I’m presently quite busy. Thanks for the reply.
Then let Cicero take Schaff's history of the Swiss Reformation, McGrath's biography of Calvin, and other such works, and show from primary sources how they went wrong. Until then, I'll stick with mainstream historians rather than the nonsense put out by those who have an axe to grind with Calvin.
Just so you understand. America was founded by Calvinists.
The USA is still considered to be the last best hope of mankind. Not least because of the documents of its founders.
Michelangelo began to produce items the equal of the Greeks and Romans (the preceeding "classical civilization") about 1505 (he finished the Pieta by the time he was 30).
That's just short of 1,000 years BTW, which gives you an idea of what a backwater Europe had become.
Another test after a fall in the good old days would be how long it took gold and silver stamped coins to return to the marketplace ~ or at least the vaults of the rich ~ or even how long it took for there to be rich people with enough stuff to stick in vaults.
Rene of Anjou was ransomed by a single individual from the Duc d'Boulogne (who ruled what is now Belgium) about 1450. The gold came from a minor nobleman who owned Carnac. He ran it rather like Disneyland and other nobles who visited from all over Europe were charged admission fees. He also had a castle known as "the vault".
So, that would be just a tad more than 900 years.
Bank vaults filled with gold certainly are among the finer things higher civilization gives us. Toilets also. A close relative of Rene d'Anjou also built a castle OVER the Loire river. He installed toilets of convenience in the "overpass". His castle didn't stink ~ and EVERYBODY who was ANYBODY wanted to party at his place.
By the mid 1500s Protestantism was on everybody's mind of course, and that definitely took some clever stuff ~ like printing presses, private homes (rather than group hovels), villagers with enough wealth to build their own chapels, buy horses, own some swords and matchlocks.
Those who claim civilization in Western and Northern Europe didn't collapse usually point to diaries kept by monks on an island just offshore Ireland ~ so why are they on an island?
In the mid 1500s the first Vassa King did a famous crosscountry ski trek evading the agents of the Danish king who were trying to kill him and all the other Swedish nobles.
He beat them ~ and one of his great grandmother's was a member of the Bourbonnaise. That's another sign ~ peddling surplus Bourbon titled princesses to kings just before the founding of the Kalmar Union. When the Swedes could begin to afford the nicer things, they shopped in France FUR SHUR.
Now that's a recovery.
However, when we look to the East ~ to India and China ~ where tapestries and large drawings were traditional, and quite acceptable to the Moslem conquerers who went that way (Mostly Turks ~ what we'd call the Western Turks) you find that sort of art RECOVERING by the mid 800s ~ about 300 years after the collapse. China is usually credited with having achieved its prior state within 300 years.
Note, the catastrophe that hit the Northern Hemisphere not only destroyed most of European civilization it also destroyed Central Asia and China.
The Moslems also popped up with STAINLESS STEEL ~ probably from experiments in using nickel-iron meteorites in the manufacture of SWORDS ~ they dug those swords.
The Moslems also popped up with STAINLESS STEEL ~ probably from experiments in using nickel-iron meteorites in the manufacture of SWORDS ~ they dug those swords.
,,,,,,,,
I don’t know much about this stuff. Conventional wisdom has it that the black stone of mecca is a meteorite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone
Conventional wisdom—here I’m equating conventional wisdom as whatever you turn up in wikipedia—holds that damascus steel originated from “ingots of Wootz steel, which originated in India and Sri Lanka”.
It doesn’t look like its nickel iron that gives the damascus swords their particular properties. Rather, Trace elements of vanadium and molybdenum and others have been found in damascus swords.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9809/verhoeven-9809.html
You can find vanadium and molybdenum in meteorites.
http://bit.ly/f3I9VD
So you could argue that the reason the black stone of mecca is a meteorite is because the trace elements that accounted for the hardness and flexibility of the damascus swords came from meteorites. (Similiarly you could argue that the reason for rise of the Imperial Salafists among the Sunnis and the Imperial Kohemeni Shias in the late 1070’s is because of the succussful oil embargoes of the early 1970’s. But then you’d need a sacred shrine with an oil derrick in the middle.)
Damascus swords are prized but the original methodology for creating damascus swords reputedly died out in the 1700’s. There are immitators but their methods are based on speculation rather than old designs.
Anyhow that’s what a couple minutes of research yields. You might know better.
The process for making Stainless steel today was developed in the early 1900s. While some of the trace elements are the same as damascus steel—the origins of the trace elements in today stainless steel doesn’t look to be from meteorites.
imho the Chinese will only be successful at cornering the market on rare earth metals for a couple years. There’s a lot of new mines currently being rushed online—plus old ones are being restarted.
My arguement for the age is that the biggest discovery in the last couple years has been the presence of water on the moon (& Mars); That the way to get at the water on the moon is to first collapse the cost of water on earth—therby making it possible to turn all the world’s deserts green &double the size of the habitable planet. Thereby creating the wealth and technology needed to make the investments in off world colonization.
just a thought.
Imperial Kohemeni Shias in the late 1070’s
.........
make that read
Imperial Kohemeni Shias in the late 1970’s
You just go out there in the desert and this stuff is laying there on stone all ready to take back home and turn into swords and stuff.
The first Bowie knife was supposedly fashioned from a meteorite found in America.
Many ancient swords of great renown appear to have a similar origin.
The stone in Mecca may well have been replaced several times over the centuries as the meteorite then in use broke down due to saliva from frequent kissing by millions of people.
The current one is set in a stainless steel bracket.
The desert Arabs were making stainless steel POLES to just stand up in the desert as "markers".
They probably weren't the first people to make stainless or other special steel swords, but they definitely had a good supply of the natural ingredients.
The Japanese were using stainless while the common Chinese troops were still using soft iron weapons when Kublai Khan tried to invade Japan.
Although they vastly outnumbered the Japanese the Chinese didn't stand a chance!
Here’s another thought for you. There are TWO very good places to find meteorites just lying about. One of them is Antarctica. The other is the Rub Al Khalid, the great desert in what is now Saudi Arabia and Yemen and the Gulf states.
You just go out there in the desert and this stuff is laying there on stone all ready to take back home and turn into swords and stuff.
.............
Gene Shoemaker was one of the two men responsible for photographing asteroids the size of the earth crashing into Jupiter back in the 1990’s. http://bit.ly/eh0IEl
He also did an analysis of the Wabar Meteorite Impact Site in Ar-Rub’ Al-Khali Desert, Saudi Arabia.http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/jwynn/3wabar.html
This might be the stream field you’re referring to.
Anyhow, Shoemaker says “original asteroid was about 94% iron, about 3.5% nickel, 0.22% cobalt, with up to 3.6 ppm iridium. The rest of the sample was primarily copper.”
As well, Shoemaker concludes that “the impact took place somewhere between 135 and 450 years ago.”
So its likely—if the Damascus swords were made with contributions from meteroite iron—the meteorites didn’t come from this area. Nor did the black stone of mecca.
For more sources on the Wabar craters see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabar_craters
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196106/desert.meteorites.htm
From the references however, there have been a lot of meteor strikes in the empty quarter over time.
It appears the shifting sands are constantly veiling and unveiling these meteorites.
If you watch TV at all you’ll notice that one program is about meteor hunters. Apparently there’s good money iron cobalt meteors. Given the location of the meteor fields — they would make a good source of revenue for AQ smugglers piggy backing on their knowledge of the diamond smuggling. Likely too AQ hunters would be tracking them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.