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....)
“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?