Calvinism- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva

One must first study the man, John Calvin, in order to understand the theology that has come to be called Calvinism. Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Picardy at Noyon, France to devout Roman Catholic parents as Jean Chauvin and died at Geneva, May 27, 1564, at age 54. The family name, spelled in many ways, was Cauvin, latinized according to the custom of the age as Calvinus. For some unknown reason John is commonly called Maître Jean C. His mother, Jeanne Le Franc, born in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cambrai, is mentioned as "beautiful and devout." She took her little son to various shrines and brought him up a good Catholic. John was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. On the father's side, his ancestors were seafaring men. His grandfather settled at Pont l'Evêque near Paris, and had two sons who became locksmiths. The third, Gerard, became procurator at Noyon and had four sons and two daughters. John Calvin's father, Gerard, an attorney, had purchased the freedom of the City of Noyon where he practiced civil and canon law. Gerard's four sons were made clerics and held benefices at a tender age. John was given one when a boy of twelve. He became Curé of Saint-Martin de Marteville in the Vermandois in 1527 and of Pont l'Eveque in 1529. Three of the boys attended the local Collège des Capettes, and there John proved himself an apt scholar.

Calvin's formal education was complete in 1527 when he was eighteen. He drifted from his Roman Catholic faith to become a humanist and a reformer, according to the Catholics. The "sudden conversion" to a spiritual life in 1529 could possibly be interpreted as his becoming saved, but throughout his life he counted on his Roman Catholic infant baptism as the basis of his regeneration.

John Calvin studied the voluminous writings of Saint Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo (354-430 AD), much more so than those of Martin Luther, his contemporary. Calvin is continually praising Augustine's work with numerous references and quotations. Augustine was greatly influenced by the Gnostics, an early Christian sect, whose doctrine was heretical. Gnostics believed that mankind was wholly evil and some sects even renounced marriage and procreation. They also believed in two gods, one evil and one good. Their teachings are believed to have influenced Saint Augustine in the development of his theology of the "total depravity" of mankind and his concept of God. For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of "total depravity" and the claim that they were the "elect." Augustine then turned to skepticism and was attracted to the philosophy of Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic and Christian teachings. Augustine's prolific writings were more strongly biased by his previously obtained theology than on his detailed study of the Christian Scriptures. He used Christian Scripture out of context when words or phrases could be adapted to match his theology. Augustine's teachings were in turn passed on to John Calvin through his extensive study of Augustine's writings. It is very easy to follow the trail of John Calvin's theology from the pagan religion of Mani in Babylonia to Saint Augustine and into his own writings in France and Geneva that distort the Word of God. Calvin's false doctrine came directly from Augustine.

Calvin's famous letter to King Francis I was dated August 23, 1535. It served as a prologue to his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which was written in March 1536, not in French but in Latin. Calvin's apology for lecturing the king was displayed as placards posted all over the realm denouncing the Protestants as rebels. King Francis I did not read these pages, but if he had done so he would have discovered in them a plea not for toleration, which Calvin utterly scorned, but for doing away with Catholicism in favor of the new gospel. "There could be only one true Church; therefore, kings ought to make an utter end of popery," said the young theologian. The second edition of Calvin's Institutes was written in 1539; the first French translation in 1541; the final Latin, as revised by its author, in 1559; but that in common use, dated 1560, has additions by his disciples.

We know little of Calvin's previous activities, but because of a war between King Charles V and King Francis I, he settled his family affairs and reached Bale by way of Geneva in July 1536. He persuaded two of his brothers and two sisters to accept the Reformed views he had adopted and took them with him. At Geneva the Swiss preacher Fare, then looking for help with his propaganda, besought Calvin with such vehemence to stay and teach his theologies that, as Calvin himself relates, he was terrified into submission. As a student, recluse and new to public responsibilities, he may well have hesitated before plunging into the troubled waters of Geneva, then at their stormiest period.

Calvin had not introduced the legislative articles of Geneva; however, it was mainly by his influence that in January 1537, the articles were approved which insisted on communion four times a year, set spies on delinquents, established a moral censorship, and punished the unruly with excommunication. There was to be a children's catechism, which he drew up. The articles caused a dispute, and the city became divided into "jurants" who swore an oath to the articles and "nonjurors" who would not accept them. Questions had arisen with Berne concerning the points of major dispute, but Calvin made the claim in Lausanne for the freedom of Geneva. Discourse ensued in Geneva, where the opposition became more obstinate. In 1538 the council exiled Farel, Calvin, and the blind evangelist, Couraud from Geneva.

Calvin complained of his poverty and ill health, but these did not prevent him from marrying Idelette de Bure, the widow of an Anabaptist whom he had converted. Nothing more is known of this lady except that she bore him a son who died almost at birth in 1542 and that her own death took place in 1549.

After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. 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 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, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva, who had invited him there.

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, a physician, a scientist and a 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 leading to 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. 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 was proud of his killing of Servetus, bragging and celebrating. 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.

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 twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded. Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545.

The citizens of Geneva hated John Calvin as he clearly stated. In 1554 Calvin wrote "Dogs bark at me on all sides. Everywhere I am saluted with the name of 'heretic,' and all the calumnies that can possibly be invented are heaped upon me; in a word, the enemies among my own flock attack me with greater bitterness than my declared enemies among the papists." Calvin, quoted in Schaff, History, volume 8, page 496.

John Calvin had no love, no compassion, no patience and no tolerance for those who did not believe his Institutes. Criticism of Calvin's Institutes was considered heresy for which the sentence was death by burning at the stake. To his dying day Calvin preached and taught from his works. By no means an aged man, he was worn out in these frequent controversies. On April 25, 1564, he made his will, leaving 225 French crowns, of which he bequeathed ten to his college, ten to the poor, and the remainder to his nephews and nieces. His last letter was addressed to Farel. He was buried without pomp in a spot which is not now ascertainable. In the year 1900 a monument of expiation was erected to Servetus in the Place Champel. Geneva has long since ceased to be the head of Calvinism.

John Calvin's murder of people who held different doctrinal views, his failure to acknowledge or repent from his sins, his incomplete gospel, his placing of his own writings above the Bible, his distortion of God and the Scriptures, and his dependence upon infant baptism places into question his salvation. In all of his writings is not found a clear declaration of his salvation by faith in the birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Calvin was a cruel, murderous, tyrant who considered himself to be the pope of Geneva. The Bible never advocates harming an individual due to his unbelief or lack of understanding. Jesus taught to "turn the other cheek" instead. None of the Apostles taught action against unbelievers but instead taught the believer to seek them out to present the gospel in love.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."

John Calvin showed no signs of being a regenerate man. He became more murderous and cruel during his rule in Geneva. He showed no inclination to be conformed to the image of Christ as described in Scripture for those who have been saved. Notice Romans 8:29 below says we are "predestined to be conformed to His Son" and does not say we are predestined to be saved as taught by Calvin.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to] [be] conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

One should not have to study the works of John Calvin but should study his life first in order to arrive at the conclusion that he was an ungodly man who could only produce a distorted doctrine that opposes the true teachings of Scripture. Calvin's actions were directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

Matthew 10:14 "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

1 John 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Calvin's theology could not be ascertained by the typical student of the Bible without the external study of Calvin's Institutes. Therefore, Calvin wrote commentary notes in the margin of the Bible to be used as the interpretation of the Scripture. A present day review of these margin notes shows they present doctrine that is not supported by the text. This commentary Bible with margin notes came to be known as the Geneva Bible. Theodore de Beza (1519-1605) was the Protestant Reformer who succeeded John Calvin. Beza published the Geneva Bible in English between 1560 and 1611. William Whittingham, who was married to John Calvin's sister, is believed to have assisted by translating most of the New Testament. He has been accused of having a theological bias and making other random changes in the translation. The source manuscripts for the work appears to have been the Textus Receptus and other Byzantine Greek manuscripts. The most disturbing feature of the Geneva Bible was the extensive commentary notes placed in the margins written by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza and Anthony Gilby. The marginal notes give an allegorical or philosophical explanation of Scripture rather than a literal explanation of the text. The Roman Catholic Church was enraged by the notes because they deemed the act of confession of sin to men, the Catholic Bishops, as unjustified by Holy Scripture. Calvin can be congratulated for at least getting that doctrine correct.

The Geneva Bible and the doctrines of John Calvin spread across Europe as church leaders used the margin notes as the basis of their lectures and preaching. King James I (1566-1625) was opposed to Calvinistic Presbyterianism and some claim he was infuriated by the Geneva Bible because the marginal notes allowed disobedience to the King. This claim can be largely dismissed because Calvin ruled as "King" of Geneva and allowed absolutely no disobedience. King James was requested by Dr. John Reynolds of the Puritans in the famous Hampton Court Conference to authorize the printing of a new Bible without the marginal notes. King James agreed. He authorized work to begin on the new Bible in 1604 with a team of fifty-four theologians and scholars, and it was printed in 1611. The Bible was to be a new translation from the Greek. The King James Version of the Bible was prepared from the Textus Receptus as well as many of the other 5,000 Greek manuscripts. It is known as the 1611 Authorized King James Version and held by many as the only "Inspired Word of God."

The Dutch Church convened the Synod of Dordrecht in 1610 to resolve the dispute between Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius) and the Reformed Church (followers of John Calvin) concerning the correct interpretation of the Bible. In the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Jacob Arminius began to teach doctrines contrary to the Reformed faith. The Remonstrants drew up five statements of doctrine in which they set forth their own views. The Calvinists answered the Five Points of the Arminians with their own, which has come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism. The approval of the Calvinist position was sealed by a packed prejudiced Synod before it began, and the Calvinists relished the victory by murdering many of their opponents as they fled for their lives. This appeared to be a great victory for Calvinism at the time, but it has since been shown to have been the high point in their theological domination. Calvinism has continued to decline over the centuries because John Calvin's technique of terror is no longer allowed for the spread of his theology.

Jesus nor any of the Apostles raised a finger against those who disagreed with them, but Calvinists continued to use the sword, beheading axe and burning at the stake as methods to eliminate any opposition well after the passing of John Calvin. Charles I succeeded King James in England. The Calvinists gained control of the English Parliament and waged a civil war against the king. They abolished episcopacy, ejected two thousand royalist ministers, summoned the Westminister Assembly, executed Archbishop Laud, and eventually executed the King himself in 1649.

Calvinists are proud to proclaim, "The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God." This doctrine allowed John Calvin to misinterpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. He simply claimed the sovereignty of God allowed it. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became irrelevant so long as sovereignty reigned. John Calvin's extreme definitions of sovereignty and sin (Total Depravity or Total Inability) laid the foundation for a religion that bears his name, Calvinism.

Certainly God is sovereign. However, John Calvin used sovereignty as an excuse to formulate doctrines which violated God's other attributes. Calvin's doctrines of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement predestine much of humanity to eternal torment in violation of God's attributes of love, justice, mercy and grace. Doctrines which are correctly interpreted from Scripture will not violate any of God's attributes.

Calvinism has been called "the archenemy of soul-winning" and rightly so. John Calvin's false doctrine declares that some people are predestined by God from eternity past to spend eternity with Him by His sovereign grace while others are predestined to eternal torment. This doctrine causes one to question the need for presenting the gospel. If Calvinism were true, why bother? Those who have been predestined to salvation will be regenerated by God's unfailing sovereign will, and the others cannot be saved no matter how effectively one presents the gospel because they are not the elect.

But soul winning is not the major tragedy of Calvinism. Failure to present the gospel of Christ is the real problem. One can easily notice that Calvinists discuss and present Calvinism with the notion that they are presenting the gospel. They quote the writings of Calvin and other Calvinists and quote those Bible verses they feel are most supportive of Calvinism. The Bible is not taught directly and without bias. This is the reason John Calvin and his early followers prepared the Geneva Bible which contained Calvin's teachings written in the margins. Teaching was done from the margin notes in lieu of the Scriptural text. We will see in our study of Limited Atonement that Calvinism presents a false gospel.

Calvin's predestination doctrine teaches that God in eternity past established the course of all future events from the molestation of a child to a rocket trip to the moon. Calvin taught that God has decided in eternity past those persons who would spend eternity with Him and those who would endure eternal torment. This doctrine was not derived from the Bible, but was derived from the philosophical concepts called the immutability of God (unchangeable) and the impassability of God (unaffectable).

The pagan philosopher, Aristotle, was born in 384 BC and wrote a book he called, Metaphics. His reasoning concluded that "God can't feel and can't change." This God must be unaffected by anything and unalterable. He is unchanging for to do so would be a weakness and thus render Him less than the ultimate God. Aristotle's God cannot love, cannot suffer and cannot be influenced. Saint Augustine incorporated this philosophy from Plato, Plotinus and Aristotle into his writings which were transferred to John Calvin. Thus, Calvin's doctrine of predestination was born.

We know from Scripture that God does change His mind. God does suffer. God is influenced by prayer. God can be sorrowful and God does love. God changes His intended purpose as He chooses in response to the actions of man. Calvin's doctrine of predestination strips God of His character and is proven to be false by Scripture that shows God changing His mind in response to mankind's prayer or repentance.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the Lord: `Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.' " 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 "Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done [what] [was] good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 "Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, `Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 "And I will add to your days fifteen years.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The God of the Bible is certainly not the immutable, impassable God of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

All of the great Christian fathers from the Apostles up to Martin Luther taught that the sovereign God placed free will in mankind to choose either good or evil. This free will is present and obvious in Scripture before the fall of Adam and thereafter. The heresies of Augustine were incorporated by Calvin into his doctrines. Was the Apostle Paul such a poor teacher that his followers didn't understand his teachings? Certainly not. All of the writings of Church leaders that came after Paul and before Augustine taught that mankind had a free will to either choose the gospel or reject it. The truth was presented in a beautiful expression of free will and the supportive work of the Holy Spirit by John Chrysostom (347-407 AD).

"God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; He does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing." (Homilies on Genesis, 19.1)

"All is in God's power, but so that our free will is not lost. . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first chose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help. . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God's to perfect and bring to the end." (On Hebrews Homily, 12)

John Calvin and his followers teach that God makes everything happen because of His sovereignty. This doctrine makes God the author of sin, which is blasphemy. God allows Satan and man to do things but does not make them do so. This is clearly presented in Scripture. God keep the Dispensation of Grace a mystery because Satan, his evil demons and people under his control (rulers of this age), would not have killed Jesus had they known about the Dispensation of Grace. In Jesus' death we become victorious over sin. We can now come into the Throne of Grace to live forever with God. The Dispensation of Grace was kept a mystery hidden by God in order to give us a way of salvation.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith based upon the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus took upon Himself the sins of all mankind in His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead provides salvation to all who believe. All who receive the Lord Jesus Christ through faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become the children of God.

Calvinism encompasses many of the features which are characteristic of a Christian cult. Calvinist hold John Calvin too such a high esteem that his writings and teachings are studied and quoted in preference to Scripture. His teachings are used by Calvinists to interrupt Scripture rather than the sound doctrine of using Scripture to interrupt Scripture. John Calvin defined important doctrinal Bible words differently than the orthodox and historic Christian interruption. These erroneous definitions are needed to give logical support to Calvin's blasphemous doctrines. This technique is typical of cults such as Mormons who hold Joseph Smith in high esteem and base their doctrines on his writings. Calvinists are so indoctrinated with these false definitions that they cannot understand the opposition to their doctrines. Naturally Calvinists believe the false doctrines of John Calvin because they believe the false definitions of major doctrinal words. The human brain is easily tricked when one does not search diligently for the truth. Calvinists have typically taught from the margin notes in the Calvinist's Geneva Bible in preference to the Scriptural text. King James ordered the King James Version translation of the English Bible to be printed in order to rid the church of Calvin's margin notes. John Calvin's doctrines are an incomplete and inaccurate gospel which is not in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. This study of Calvinism will easily prove the doctrines of John Calvin to be unorthodox and contrary to the historic Christian Church. History of the New Testament Scriptures.

The Five Points of Calvinism which form the acrostic T-U-L-I-P will be shown here to distort and blaspheme the true attributes of God, the true nature of man and the Holy Scriptures.

I learn that we are to obey Him even if we think our good is better,...all the more reason to question our doubt in Him.

On the one hand you claim not to be "relativistic" and that we should obey God regardless of our conception of good because it may mean destroying a "persistent enemy". Then you turn around and accuse Calvin as an accomplice to homocide because a man who cleary taught and promoted heresy, according to orthodox Christian beliefs, was put to death as a persistent enemy of God. According to what objective standard were the actions in the OT different than the actions of the Geneva Council?

But my point regarded torture and vengeance. I don't recall anywhere in Scripture where God tortures, other than a byproduct of eternal separation from God.

Perhaps your definition of torture is limited strictly to burning at a stake? The American free-will, "God is love" churchman loves to put bumper stickers on his car that read: "Smile, God loves you." I wonder if Noah had that bumper sticker on the back of the Ark as millions of men, women, and children drowned?

I would expect the justification to be as noteworthy as the publicity of the torture,...if it were indeed righteous.

Justification?...Quoting yourself: "I understand How God gave direction to ~~Israel~~Geneva to destroy their enemies entirely and I believe the lineage of those that were not destroyed, later became a persistent enemy of ~~Israel~~ Geneva."

Do you know of anywhere else in Scripture where God tortures as disctinctive or not confused with Divine Discipline or punishment?

Of course, I do not agree with the implicit assumptions in your question. Simple question. Do you believe Servetus was a heretic?

I don't know if he was a heretic. The evidence appears to have been burned up with the condemned.

The passages quoted give good grounds to question if he was indeed a heretic. He was accused of denying the Trinity, yet his arguments appear to be very similar to many involved in religious discussions, along the lines of,...well, gee, if so-and-so really believes that, then they obviously aren't worshipping the true God, but a false god, therefore I don't believe in 'your' god or your 'trinity' is a false trinity.

Perhaps he was a died in the wool heretic, but many apologetic arguments regarding the Divinity of Christ point to the manifest testimony of Christ on the cross,....that if Jesus Christ were false, then he would not have endured to the end. If Servetus were false and not Christian, then his final utterences devoting himself to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ would seem to bear testimony otherwise.

This rather obvious conclusion seems well noted by the silence of those in Geneva immediately after the execution, in great part by their embarassed forelorn silence.

BTW, Calvin wasn't just involved in one trial, but over a hundred, with over fifty of them resulting in a death sentance of the condemned. I don't witness as much concern by Calvin to warn his followers not to err and mistakenly judge the accused or not to place themselves before God when performing their judgment. I would think that a great part of his testimony would stress this point repeatedly to insure whatever judgment was reached was indeed just and holy.

An interesting historical feature to all of these enemies of Calvin is that they had communicated to Calvin in writing their disagreement with him. Some by means of writing notes in the margins of Calvin's notes on Scripture and some by referring him as a hypocrit tactfully to him directly.

Calvin's response seems much more characteristic of a person consumed by arrogance seeking vengeance for any attack on his personal belief rather than a theologian perseverent to his obedience to God.

Even if Calvin was well justified in believing his enemies were heretics, with his personal receipt of accusation, had he been perseverant in his obdeience to God's will over his own, he would have divorced himself from the accused status to avoid conflict of interest.

Surely after the first few prosecutions, Calvin would have acknowledged the temptations involved in such duties. He really must be a remarkable fellow to have endured such temptation for over a hundred prosecutions, even to the point of self-denial by allowing his juniors to be placed in prison for himself because of his poor health. My what a noble fellow Calvin must have been.

My real point here is that the the documented events seem to be very consistent with a fallen prosecutor, arrogant in his belief even to the point of those who attempted to point out his errors were manipulated into confinement and then slaughter or consumption close enough to the accusor's direct involvement as to raise doubt of the accusor's credibility. They are also consistent with how events may have played out if the accused had indeed been faithful to God and faced with such arrogance by their accusor.

IMHO, Calvin's actions and circumstances place doubt on his credibility.

Cvengr:I would expect the justification to be as noteworthy as the publicity of the torture,...if it were indeed righteous.

lockeliberty: Justification?...Quoting yourself: "I understand How God gave direction to IsraelGeneva to destroy their enemies entirely and I believe the lineage of those that were not destroyed, later became a persistent enemy of Israel Geneva."

Again, I understand an obedience to destroy, but I discern the destruction from acts of torture. They are not the same nor is it a mute point. When one dies, the soul and spirit is separated from the body. It is not a case of nonexistence. Destroying one's enemies, doesn't allow torture and extraneous evil to implicitly follow without consequence.

Additionally, the threats perceived by Geneva would not have been eliminated for all man had they killed even more accused heretics. The nature of the conflict they faced was much closer to their heardened hearts.

Israel's role in God's plan is also far different than that of Geneva.

***Whatever Zwingli may or may not have done, it is no defense for Calvin's actions.***

Agreed. But the incessant rehashing of the Servetus death and the silence on Zwingli's complicity in the execution by drowning of the anabaptists (men who were clearly believers) is quite telling.

I think the real hatred for Calvin is his theology not his involvement with Servetus death. Few (including you) express any concern over the thousands of other executions -- yet Calvin is a fixation.

Servetus is not the real issue.

You don't know about Zwingli because you don't care about him. You hate Calvin. You hate what you perceive are the personal implications of Calvinism. Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Mantz mean nothing to you. Yet you will spend eternity with these men in heaven and Servetus will be in Hell.

The passages quoted give good grounds to question if he was indeed a heretic.

This article is nothing but truth-twisting venom of a bitter Calvin hater. If you want to be truthful, unlike the small-minded individual who wrote this piece, you will give direct evidence or quote reliable historians to back your case. Quoting the source P-Marlowe used in post #81 with footnotes included: (Wow, imagine that. using footnotes to back up your statements)

We do not know whether Servetus was aware of this state of things. But he could not have come at a time more favorable to him and more unfavorable to Calvin. Among the Libertines and Patriots, who hated the yoke of Calvin even more than the yoke of the pope, Servetus found natural supporters who, in turn, would gladly use him for political purposes. This fact emboldened him to take such a defiant attitude in the trial and to overwhelm Calvin with abuse. The final responsibility of the condemnation, therefore, rests with the Council of Geneva, which would probably have acted otherwise, if it had not been strongly influenced by the judgment of the Swiss Churches and the government of Bern. Calvin conducted the theological part of the examination of the trial, but had no direct influence upon the result. His theory was that the Church may convict and denounce the heretic theologically, but that his condemnation and punishment is the exclusive function of the State, and that it is one of its most sacred duties to punish attacks made on the Divine majesty. "From the time Servetus was convicted of his heresy," says Calvin, "I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness; and I challenge even the malignant to deny it if they can."1171 One thing only he did: he expressed the wish for a mitigation of his punishment.1172

Now what have we learned from this short passage?

1. That there was a considerable faction within Geneva that opposed Calvin and in fact the libertines had members on the Council. Of course, this little fact is conveniently ignored by you in your attempt to paint Calvin as the supreme dictator of Geneva.

2. Calvin relinquished any authority for punishment to the State. Although he may have had some influence upon members of the Council he did not exercise as much influence as you would claim by the fact the Council refused his request for a lighter punishment for Servetus.

Now, will you begin to be honest in your postings and admit to the fact that Calvin did not have supreme dictatorial power in Geneva?

If Servetus were false and not Christian, then his final utterences devoting himself to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ would seem to bear testimony otherwise.

Again, quoting from the source Marlowe provided:

In the last moment he is heard to pray, in smoke and agony, with a loud voice: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"1197 This was at once a confession of his faith and of his error. He could not be induced, says Farel, to confess that Christ was the eternal Son of God.

Is Jesus Christ Son of the Eternal God or the Eternal Son of God?

Agreed. But the incessant rehashing of the Servetus death and the silence on Zwingli's complicity in the execution by drowning of the anabaptists (men who were clearly believers) is quite telling.

No one is defending Zwingli's actions or his theology. The same cannot be said about Calvin.

I think the real hatred for Calvin is his theology not his involvement with Servetus death. Few (including you) express any concern over the thousands of other executions -- yet Calvin is a fixation. Calvin was not present at the Synod of Dort. Again, no one is defending others who were responsible for executing others, but no one is elevating their theologies to scriptural or near scriptural status.

Servetus is not the real issue.

Calvin's responsibility for his execution is.

You don't know about Zwingli because you don't care about him. You hate Calvin. You hate what you perceive are the personal implications of Calvinism. Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock, Felix Mantz mean nothing to you. Yet you will spend eternity with these men in heaven and Servetus will be in Hell.

Just what leads you to be so sure that Servetus will be in Hell? For that matter, what makes you so sure that Calvin will be in Heaven. Neither you nor I can judge their salvation status. BTW, I don't hate Calvin, but his actions ought to cause a reasonable person to reconsider just how godly he was and not be so willing to accept everything he wrote just because he wrote it.

No, in other words I have sketched out an ironclad, irrefutable argument, that you somehow still manage to deny on specious grounds.

I don't want what you personally think is an ironclad, ect argument. I want Scripture. You said what God revealed backed up your assertion that He would not demand the impossible. Yet all I get is your human babblings.

I bet you think "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" is an ironclad, irrefutable argument too.

I don't think this is going anywhere.

Evidently not, but all you have to do is pony up. Don't realy on emphatic assertion (which is all your "ironclad" argument boils down too), bring on the revelation.

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.