Note our bobblehead bathrobed hero in the background.
Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
Note our bobblehead bathrobed hero in the background.
Hahahahaha
Oh gosh, can't we all just get along???? :-) Have you also read "The Trail Of Blood"?
**Sola fide. Sola Gracia. Soli Deo Gloria. Solus Christus. Sola Scriptura.**
Um. Sola means alone. Only. Pick one. Or reject that vain flawed testimony.
Or carry on. Vainly.
Oh, please! You make innunedos and provide no facts nor references. Your statement, "There may have been a city council, but he ruled that too from behind the scenes." is worthy of being the headlines on the World Weekly News. Calvin actually lobbied unsuccessfully to have the council change the mode of execution. That doesn't sound like someone who "pulled strings".
The city council followed the law of the day and executed Servetus according to their law. You did neglect to mention that the Catholic Church also was seeking to execute Servetus, so I would think that you would be grateful that Gevena beat you to it. I would suggest you read the history of Michael Servetus Biography
If you really want a more interesting perspective of Christian leadership I would suggest an objective study of the various Popes who reportedly ran brothels, were heretics, and lived in splendor while the masses starved; all the while they were issuing decrees from the "Chair of Peter". And we won't even go into the contested "Pope Joan" incident.
You're right, HarleyD. Laura Boettner has a piece on his execution that is pretty thorough, and IIRC, even Paul Johnson, an eminent Oxford Historian and Roman Catholic asserts same in his History of Christianity.
His execution wasn't correct, but it is much better to die by the sword than to burn at the stake until extremeties turn into charbroiled stumps. What an absolutley horrific thing to do to someone!
Servetus referred to the Trinity as that 'cerberus', to give you an idea of his rhetoric, and is probably one of the reasons a death sentence was awaiting him in France.
What a peculiar remark.
However, your harrumphing gives me an opportunity to link to the excellent site which details the Five Solas of the Reformation, as articulated here in the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:
“Oh, please! You make innunedos and provide no facts nor references. Your statement, "There may have been a city council, but he ruled that too from behind the scenes." is worthy of being the headlines on the World Weekly News. Calvin actually lobbied unsuccessfully to have the council change the mode of execution. That doesn't sound like someone who "pulled strings".”
Can you actually read? Calvin wanted to change the method of execution. That in no way meant he was against the execution that he had vowed to make happen! You want references? Okay, read Bouwsma’s life of Calvin called John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait. He notes on page 27 that “Calvin, as his apologists have pointed out, although responsible for Servetus’s arrest and prosecution, favored a less brutal mode of execution.”
Read Lawrence Goldstone’s fascinating book called Out of the Flames. G. notes that Calvin bragged about being responsible for the arrest, initiating the prosecution, and drwaing up the charges against Servetus. (page 201) Goldstone also notes that Calvin went so far as to replace the Attorney General with himself at one point in the legal process. (page 190).
“The city council followed the law of the day and executed Servetus according to their law.”
Yes, and who revised the law code and yet kept that law? Calvin. Calvin was trained as a lawyer, and hw wanted to make all things into the image of the theocratic society he wanted. I already pointed out that the law used was the prevailing law. The important point was, after Calvin’s revision of Geneva’s laws, it was really by and large Calvin’s law code.
“You did neglect to mention that the Catholic Church also was seeking to execute Servetus, so I would think that you would be grateful that Gevena beat you to it. I would suggest you read the history of Michael Servetus Biography “
I didn’t fail to mention anything that was necessary to the point. It is irrelevant, in a discussion about Calvin’s actions, to mention what the Church wanted to do. Calvin is not the Church -- no matter how much he pretended to be. Also, the Church could not seek what it could not do. The Church had no power to execute. Calvin, as the de facto law of Geneva, could be responsible for someone’s execution – and was.
“If you really want a more interesting perspective of Christian leadership I would suggest an objective study of the various Popes who reportedly ran brothels, were heretics, and lived in splendor while the masses starved; all the while they were issuing decrees from the "Chair of Peter".”
I already know the objective history of the popes. I am a Church historian. And that there were bad popes we all know. None of them, however, invented a religion and tried to pass themselves off as offering the best Christian society as Calvin did. And no pope who was hunted by the Roman pagans ever hypocritically demanded the painful persecution of heretics. Calvin, hunted as a heretic, did demand that heretics be put to death – and by “heretic” he meant anyone who disagreed with him. That’s the difference. Christ started our Church, not any pope. Calvin started the Reformed sects and he had blood on his hands.
“And we won't even go into the contested "Pope Joan" incident.”
It is not contested by scholars that Joan never existed. It is contested by fools and sciolists who already know they lost the real argument.
Oh, and lest I forget: “The quality of Calvin's cold hatred was terrible indeed. It is manifested especially in the affair of Michael Servetus. This learned doctor, a closet Protestant, amused himself by picking out all the blunders and errors that he could find in Calvin's pride and joy, The Institutes. He then sent the book with his own annotations to Calvin. That was in 1546. Calvin clenched his teeth: "If he comes hither and I have any authority, I will never let him quit this place alive" (Letter to Viret, a preacher of Lausanne). He awaited the moment of vengeance for seven years.”
So Calvin had vowed to kill Servetus seven years before Servetus even showed up in Geneva? Pretty damning don’t you think?
And do we even need bring up the fact that Calvin was a sodomite?
“It is only fair to wonder what could be the nature of such a burning self-reproach. There is one answer, based upon serious evidence, one that has always been passionately denied by the Protestants. In 1551, a Catholic controversialist revealed that the archives of the city of Noyon, Calvin's birth place, contain the record of a condemnation against Calvin, at age 18, for sodomy. He had by then already received the tonsure. His parents obtained clemency from the bishop, so that instead of being condemned to death as the law demanded, he was branded as a sign of infamy. The Catholic controversialist presented the evidence signed by all the eminent personages of the city. The English scholar Stapleton went there to examine the archives during Calvin's lifetime, and vouched for the fact. The contemporary German Lutherans spoke of it as an established fact (Schlusselburg, Théologie calvinienne).”
Translated from Le Bachais, No. 35, November-December 1999, the publication of the Priory St. Pierre Julien Eymard, France).
Have a great day Harley.
Saint John Calvin was born in AD 1509.
If anything (if you believe the Charge of Sodomy), you are dating his Child-Sodomization by Roman Catholic Priests to age 18 at the latest, AD 1527.
John Calvin himself dates his own Experience of Conversion to 1528-1533: "At some point between AD 1528 and 1533 he experienced a 'sudden conversion' and grasped Protestantism. 'God subdued my soul to docility by a sudden conversion' was how Calvin described this experience. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm)
He then, at age 27 in AD 1536, proceeded to write the most influential Book (other than the King James Bible) in the last Thousand Years, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion."
Your charge of "Sodomy" makes me sick, Vladimir and Campion. It is as if you were to say, of a young adolescent, "Our Priests raped him first; therefore, he has nothing more to say!!"
Maybe if your Romanist Priests were not so fond of Homosexual Child-Rape, you would never have had to deal with the genius of John Calvin. Maybe he would not have been so PISSED-OFF.
But IF your charge is True... and IF your degenerate Roman Catholic "Priests" DID Homosexually-Rape our beloved Saint John Calvin as an Adolescent... then ye have sewn the Wind, and ye shall reap the Whirlwind.
In the battle between the Institutes and the Summa Theologica -- at this point, I'd bet on the Institutes.
And, Spiritually, I intend to do just that.
Best, OP
"Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellors of peace is joy." -- Proverbs 12:20
They're accusing John Calvin of Sodomy in adolescence, while he was still Under-Age, still under the Tonsure -- if they really WANT to believe the tabloid charges of a medieval Roman Catholic "controversialist" (i.e., PROPAGANDIST), then exactly WHOM are they charging?
The Roman Catholic Priest who allegedly buggered John Calvin as a Child?
What a bunch of Outdated Fascists, Theological-Cowards, and Priestly-Pederastic Sodomites.
Campion, if you (among the few Roman-Catholic Disputants whom I actually respect) are so dishonorable as to entertain these Tabloid Accusations against Saint John Calvin -- then, respectfully, you can go bugger the choir-boy you rode in on.
You and the rest of your Koran-Kissing, Pederasty-excusing, rapidly-bankrupting, Decrepit and Dying so-called "Roman Mother Church".
And to think I actually defended you, the Roman Catholic Church and her Parochial Schools.
Being a Libertarian, and therefore a Believer in Natural Society (see Aquinas), I actually went to the trouble of Posting Articles exhibiting the difference between "good" Catholic Parochial Schools as opposed to "evil" Government Schools.
I will never make that Mistake again. If you don't want me to speak on behalf of Roman Catholics, then I won't.
Your Denomination is Dying; Mine is Growing.
If you don't want the support of Protestants... we certainly don't need you.
Indeed, Luther himself advised us that the Greeks were the "Better Half" of Christendom.
Good-Bye.
Best, OP
The first is "carnal sodomy" which, of course, is a sin. All sins can be forgiven, when they are confessed and the grace of the Holy Spirit of Christ Arisen acquits the sinner.
The second is "spiritual sodomy" which is the perpetual intellectual rape of the Body of Christ.
This enormous sin is the working of Satan's deceit in the minds of his slaves, the disobedient sons of perdition, the slandering of Christ's chosen, the worshiping of the Beast.
In the French vernacular, there is a slang term for "sodomy". It is named after De Molina, the Roman Catholic architect of the teachings of spiritual sodomy.
Beware the greater sin of the perpetual intellectual rape of the Body of Christ.
Beware De Molina.
Apparently there are those who want us to believe that all children who are sodomized are sodomites. Blame the victim.
And we wonder why it's so pervasive.
Jeez, Vladimir. What are you doing citing a Catholic equivalent of Jack Chick? What possible purpose could it serve?
Granting, arguendo, that Calvin was homosexual, that does not prove anything. That has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the exposition in the Institutes any more than the recent child-abuse crisis in Roman Catholicism discredits the Magesterium. It was nothing more than a cheap shot coming from inside a glass house.
If you want to play dirty, we Protestants can find plenty of ammunition in the Catholic Church, from John Tetzel's flagrant abuse of indulgences to the recent child abuse coverups. Personally, I'd prefer to keep this civilized and keep a dialogue open.
Even to "grant" that statement in argument is to imply that all children who are sodomized are sodomites.
Such deceitful muck is where they want to place the debate.
This thread must have really made them very agitated.
Re: Indulgences, it didn't stop with Tetzel.
"In 1988, John Paul II issued a document calling the faithful to obtain plenary indulgences (offered every 25 years) in the jubilee year of the Church in 2000, which caused the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to pull out of the jubilee celebrations in Rome..."
From:
Buzz off
No, it wasn't. I was just annoyed.
I try to defend the Roman Catholics...
...and yet it seems that no Good Deed goes UnPunished.
That wasn't a "real rant" by any stretch of the imagination.
Stick around FR a while.
Best, OP
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.