Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calvins Reign of Terror
The Many Faces of Calvinism ^

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.


TOPICS: Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: calvin; calvinism; calvinists; freformed; geneva; gentile; protestantism; reformation; servetus; switzerland; theology; tulip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
And what was that phrase in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Swedish or Latin?

Just making a point here. Seeing the 1600s in "America" as consisting of ONLY the English colonies is rather unusual.

51 posted on 12/16/2010 10:19:13 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

***Just making a point here. Seeing the 1600s in “America” as consisting of ONLY the English colonies is rather unusual.***

I’m just looking at AMERICAN witchcraft burnings. None.

In Mexico some “PIRATES” from John Hawkins’ failed slave trading expidition were burned at the stake for “heresy” and piracy but not witchcraft.


52 posted on 12/16/2010 10:29:18 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
It's ALL AMERICA ~ we are speaking of the 1600s. Even in English language usage of the time the term still had it's broadest meaning possible.

Frankly I don't care what the English did. If it helps if I had any English blood I'd gladly pull my dirk and cut a vein to let it out.

53 posted on 12/16/2010 10:41:34 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This is an intentionally negative piece written about John Calvin that doesn’t place him in the context of his times.

God doesn't look at context. Sin is sin. Murder is murder. It doesn't matter what the "context" was.

I, admittedly, have not studied Calvin's history. If he did indeed order the death of someone for heresy, that is sin. It doesn't matter what other people were doing at the time.

54 posted on 12/16/2010 10:57:26 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

***It’s ALL AMERICA ~ we are speaking of the 1600s. Even in English language usage of the time the term still had it’s broadest meaning possible.**

I thought we were talking about burning witches in New England. None were burned there.

As for the rest of the Americas, I wouldn’t know. Pirates and heretics and one Jamestown settler who murdered his wife and ate her were burned.

And a couple of Oklahoma outlaws who were indian were burned alive by settlers.

Also a couple of supposed cattle rustlers in Nebraska were burned while being hung.

But no witches!


55 posted on 12/16/2010 11:33:40 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

It’s FIVE HUNDRED years later, Shadow.

There should be a statute of limitations on Christian argument about the character and decisions of a long dead, dead guy.

In the meantime, we look foolish for hating each other over something like this.


56 posted on 12/16/2010 11:56:59 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It’s FIVE HUNDRED years later, Shadow.

What is time to God? We're still mortal after ...how many years?

There should be a statute of limitations on Christian argument about the character and decisions of a long dead, dead guy.

I don't care about the guy. Never did. I care about the doctrine some people spread based on his ideas. They are spreading doctrine based on a (as far as I know) non-apologetic murderer, calling themselves his name, and defending his actions.

Paul was a murderer, too. However, he repented and followed Christ and Scripture. Big difference.

In the meantime, we look foolish for hating each other over something like this.

I don't hate anyone. I dislike their doctrine, and hate the sin. But not the posters. I just wanted to correct the inference that context makes sin OK.

57 posted on 12/16/2010 12:18:18 PM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

This is a post sure to get Christians at each other’s throats. You know I’m not a Calvinist.

I don’t know if you realize I’m an extremely strong advocate of Christian unity.


58 posted on 12/16/2010 12:27:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: narses; Cicero; Gamecock
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.
Nothing in this article is a lie.

What is this, some sort of papist prayer wheel?

59 posted on 12/16/2010 12:41:31 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel
And just like the Pope, Calvin didn’t preach Acts 2:38; not believing that one must be baptized in the NAME of JESUS Christ for the REMISSION of SINS.
2:38 Peter said Hereby we see that those do never go away empty which ask at the mouth of the Lord, and do offer themselves unto him to be ruled and taught; for that promise must needs be true, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you, (Matthew 7:7.) Therefore, whosoever shall be rightly prepared to learn, the Lord will not suffer his godly desire to be in vain; for he is a most faithful master, so that he hath scholars which are apt to be taught and studious. Wherefore, there is no cause why he should fear, lest he suffer us to be destitute of sound counsel, if we be attentive and ready to hear him, and do not refuse to embrace whatsoever he shall teach us. And let us suffer ourselves to be governed by the counsel and authority of those men whom he offereth unto us to teach us, for this ready obedience cometh thence so suddenly in those which addict themselves unto the apostles, because they are persuaded that they are sent of God, to show them the way of salvation.

Repent. There is greater force in the Greek word, for it doth signify the conversion of the mind, that the whole man may be renewed and made another man, which thing must be diligently noted, because this doctrine was miserably corrupted in the time of Popery; for they translated the name of repentance almost unto certain external rites. They babble somewhat, indeed, about the reigned contrition of the heart; but they touch that part very slightly, and they stand principally upon the external exercises of the body, which were little worth; yea, though there were in them no corruption; but they urge nothing else in a manner but reigned trifles, wherewith men are wearied in vain. Wherefore, let us know that this is the true repentance, when a man is renewed in the spirit of his mind, as Paul teacheth, (Romans 12:2.) Neither need we to doubt of this; but that Peter did preach plainly of the force and nature of repentance; but Luke doth only touch the chief points, and doth not reckon up the words of the oration which he made. We must, therefore, know thus much, that Peter did at the first exhort the Jews unto repentance; and that done, he lifted them up with hope of pardon; for he promised them forgiveness of sins, which two things are the two parts of the gospel, as we know full well; and, therefore, when Christ will briefly teach what the doctrine of the gospel doth contain, he saith, that repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47) must be preached in his name. Furthermore, because we are reconciled unto God only by the intercession of Christ’s death, neither are our sins otherwise purged, and done away, save only by his blood, therefore, Peter calleth us back unto him by name. He putteth baptism in the fourth place, as the seal whereby the promise of grace is confirmed.

Wherefore, we have in these few words almost the whole sum of Christianity, namely, how a man renouncing himself and taking his farewell of the world, may addict himself wholly to God; secondly, How he may be delivered by free forgiveness of sins, and so adopted into the number of the children of God. And forasmuch as we can obtain none of all these things without Christ, the name of Christ is therewithal set forth unto us, as the only foundation of faith and repentance. And we must also note this, that we do so begin repentance when we are turned unto God, that we must prosecute the same during our life; therefore, this sermon must continually sound in the Church, repent, (Mark 1:15;) not that those men may begin the same, who will be counted faithful, and have a place already in the Church; but that they may go forward in the same; although many do usurp the name of faithful men, which had never any beginning of repentance. Wherefore, we must observe this order in teaching, that those which do yet live unto the world and the flesh may begin to crucify the old man, that they may rise unto newness of life, and that those who are already entered the course of repentance may continually go forward towards the mark. Furthermore, because the inward conversion of the heart ought to bring forth fruits in the life, repentance cannot be rightly taught unless works be required, not those frivolous works which are only in estimation amongst the Papists, but such as are sound testimonies of innocence and holiness.

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; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because

“he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.

Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2 Corinthians 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Romans 6:4, 6.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1 Corinthians 12.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Galatians 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part.

In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Romans 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (John 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.

(John Calvin, Commentary on Acts)


60 posted on 12/16/2010 12:48:07 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This is a post sure to get Christians at each other’s throats. You know I’m not a Calvinist.

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.

61 posted on 12/16/2010 12:51:11 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; narses; Gamecock

No, just pointing out the obvious to those who find it difficult to admit it.


62 posted on 12/16/2010 12:58:34 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: narses
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.

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.

63 posted on 12/16/2010 1:52:46 PM PST by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
If Calvin was such a great Bible scholar, he should have made Geneva a refuge for others and taught in love the errors to the people of his city. He had no excuse.

Geneva was a refuge for others: notably, English Protestant refugees from the persecutions of the Roman Catholic despot Bloody Mary.

64 posted on 12/16/2010 2:01:44 PM PST by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


65 posted on 12/16/2010 2:13:05 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

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....)


66 posted on 12/16/2010 2:42:02 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa

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.


67 posted on 12/16/2010 2:53:36 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; RansomOttawa; Cicero

Hmmmm, and yet Cicero, a student of the period seems to have a different opinion. Odd, that.


68 posted on 12/16/2010 3:26:48 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Yes. :(


69 posted on 12/16/2010 6:01:58 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

“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?


70 posted on 12/16/2010 7:59:36 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


71 posted on 12/16/2010 8:46:17 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: narses
Hmmmm, and yet Cicero, a student of the period seems to have a different opinion. Odd, that.

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.

72 posted on 12/16/2010 9:10:39 PM PST by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

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.


73 posted on 12/17/2010 6:46:05 AM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The economic collapse that had happened between 535 and 541

////////

I see 535 AD crop up among catastrophists.

Here is wikipedia chronicle of events that date from there.

Extreme weather events of 535–536

With perhaps major/minor (your call) exceptions moslems have never been known as technological innovators--but rather technological collectors--even in their dynamic early period.

If your point is that islam tends to be a late empire religion--then I agree.

...........

It took Europe another 800 years to "recover".

.......

Climatic events don't necessarily correspond to technological history--or prosperity for that matter. By the 950 AD a climatic period called the Medieval Warm advanced across europe. Grapes were grown in England. This corresponded to a period of relative prosperity to an agrarian based european economy. The world famous 1999 Thomas Mann climate temperature hockey stick graph upon which the IPCC based their 2001 report achieved its results by ignoring the Medieveal Warm. It also ignored the Little Ice age which hurt the agrarian European economies after 1450. However, scientific and technological innovations in Europe lifted European economies even as the cold weather set in.

/////////

about catastrophes--likely the one that will get the most press in the coming decades is the one that pulled the monsoons south of the sahara about 3500 BC--& dried up north africa. why? because they left aquifers much larger than the great lakes under the sahara that are only now beginning to be mined in libya and algeria. (I don't think the egyptians have yet touched them in their western deserts.)
74 posted on 12/17/2010 8:07:47 AM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
One test of "recovery" is to ask how long it took a given society to create sculpture equal to that ordinarily found at the time of the crash.

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.

75 posted on 12/17/2010 8:41:06 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Because so much of the higher art forms of the West entail Sculpture or Bas Relief, it was rather difficult for Islam to compete with classical civilization on that basis since they didn't do statues.

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.

76 posted on 12/17/2010 8:46:55 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


77 posted on 12/19/2010 3:24:04 PM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Imperial Kohemeni Shias in the late 1070’s
.........
make that read

Imperial Kohemeni Shias in the late 1970’s


78 posted on 12/19/2010 3:25:45 PM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
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.

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!

79 posted on 12/19/2010 3:37:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


80 posted on 12/19/2010 9:16:27 PM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

What’s your opinion of post #63?


81 posted on 02/06/2011 2:01:37 PM PST by Jacob Kell (Romneycare=Obamacare lite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

Sorry, I know the general story of Calvin and Servetus, but have not studied it in that much detail. The general view is that Calvin was pretty much in charge of the business, at least that’s what most historians—and not just Catholics—seem to think.

But the assertions made in Post #63 really would require examination of the primary documents.


82 posted on 02/06/2011 2:36:27 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; TNMountainMan; alphadog; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

83 posted on 10/29/2013 8:38:59 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson