Replies

“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.

"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)." ~~ vladimir998

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.

Protestantism numbers in the hundreds of millions, and is growing in numbers.
Calvinism numbers in the tens of millions, and is growing quicker still.
Roman Catholicism numbers a Billion (at least in terms of nominal baptismals)... but is dying, in terms of worldwide growth.

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

The best that the adversaries of Calvinism can do is attack John Calvin, the man.

Because you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger.

This is the oldest and most transparent trick of Satan (The Adversary).

Let's summarize your accusations:

1) John Calvin had Servetus executed.

2) John Calvin was sodomized.

Therefore: John Calvin is a sinner. Everything he wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner.

But of course you know that Saint Paul had Saint Stephen executed.

Do you therefore assert that everything Saint Paul wrote, taught, and did is the work of a sinner?

Why do you not contest the doctrines of Calvinism instead of misdirecting our attention to John Calvin, the man?

Answer: Because you cannot contest the doctrines of Calvinism.

You believe that by attacking John Calvin, the man, you are being clever.

You are not being clever. You are being transparent and foolish.

Repent!

I wonder how you would looked upon King David who would line people up (men, women and children) and execute every third person; how he would put people "under the saw", slowly chopping them in half; murdering unsuspecting villagers and cutting off their foreskins; or what you would have thought about him taking a high ranking official's wife and having him murdered. This was the person who wrote most of the Psalms we enjoy today. Do we discount the Psalms?

I bring this all up not as a poor reflection upon King David for we know that David was a man "after God's own heart". I bring this up simply because we cannot look back on history and judge people for the way they lived their lives. It is a different time and different era with different values.

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.

You are trying to make a case that Calvin set up a kangaroo court to execute Servetus and what he did was wrong. If this is the case then it should be pointed out the Catholic Church had no such court and sought to execute Servetus without a trial or legal proceedings all with decrees from the Chair of Peter. As a historian and a Catholic I'm sure you can appreciate what that means. If you condemn Calvin then you must condemn the Church. Assuming your authors are even remotely correct, if anything Calvin sought to work within the legal system. The Church did not. You can't have it both ways.

There was a judge and a jury who tried and convicted Servetus. I don't know about you but I get a team of five people in a room and it is next to impossible to get them to agree on anything. I doubt if Calvin weighed that much control over 12 jurors regardless of how important you may feel his position was.