Some information about Calvin

[Rick Otto]

Burning people alive does not describe me.

Me neither. I wait until they are dead.
x x
.l.
---

 

[rturner76]

I agree. But is not any form of torture equally distasteful? The Spanish Inquisition invented new torture and that was just to get confessions! After the confessions death followed usually! All approved by the Pope of course.

source

I would say none are totally innocent.

None are without sin there's no doubt about that and I'm sure I'd have a few stripes on my back for my portion of law breaking at LEAST. The Catholic has been the perpetrator of crimes against humanity the like of which the world has never known. I'm not saying Calvin invented bad behavior. The poster said describing Calvin is like describing most of us and I disagree. Most of us do not live in the days of mid-eval style OT justice. Drive evil from among you was the order of the day and so was executions for adultery and in extreme cases badly behaving children who disrespect their parents, because it says in the OT that first you warn then beat the child, then bring the child before the elders and they beat him then either banish or kill him to drive evil from among you. It was just OT law. We know more about Christ's teachings now to know that we don't need to live by OT law. Kind of like Christian Sharyia Law 500 years ago.

 

[Albion]

None are without sin there's no doubt about that and I'm sure I'd have a few stripes on my back for my portion of law breaking at LEAST. The Catholic has been the perpetrator of crimes against humanity the like of which the world has never known. I'm not saying Calvin invented bad behavior. The poster said describing Calvin is like describing most of us and I disagree. Most of us do not live in the days of mid-eval style OT justice. Drive evil from among you was the order of the day and so was executions for adultery and in extreme cases badly behaving children who disrespect their parents, because it says in the OT that first you warn then beat the child, then bring the child before the elders and they beat him then either banish or kill him to drive evil from among you. It was just OT law. We know more about Christ's teachings now to know that we don't need to live by OT law. Kind of like Christian Sharyia Law 500 years ago.

It's true that Calvin was asked to remain in Geneva and be its moral compass with police powers thrown in. That was a common position in those days. It's also true that he ran a tight ship on social activities in a way that none of us would be comfortable with. But he was nothing compared to the Inquisitions and even the everyday persecutions of heretics in earlier times.

 

[apache1]

I am glad I didn't live then. I like living in the 20th/21st century USA too much, and am thankful the Good Lord let me be here now instead of back then, and here in the country, not Iran or Sudan or Yemen or some place like that, in this or other past centuries.

 

[apache1]

Torquemada, Calvin, Cotton Mather, etc., don't do nothin' for me. The only Christian leader I truly admire, other than my pastor and Billy Graham, is Jesus Christ. I have no more use for Jesse Jackson than I do Jimmy Swaggert. Well, Torquemada at least was cool in the Mel Brooks movie "History of the World". The Inquisition, what a show, the Inquisition, here we go, I know that you're wishing we would go away..... but the Inquisition's here, and here to stay!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sounds like the "Christians" in positions of authority in those days were kinda like the ayatollahs and mullahs in the Muslim world now. I worship Jesus Christ, and him only, and don't submit to any "ecclesiastical" (or whatever ten dollar word you want to use) authority. Neither Calvin nor Servetus mean jack crap to me.

Submitting to 'no' authority makes YOU the authority, which is not what Christ initiated.

 

[apache1]

Submitting to 'no' authority makes YOU the authority, which is not what Christ initiated.

Huh, or as the Canadians would say, eh?

 

[apache1]

Submitting to 'no' authority makes YOU the authority, which is not what Christ initiated.

Well, you ain't no authority over me, either.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Burning people alive does not describe me.

Juries don't inject the potassium chloride. Calvin didn't light the match. That was my point in the post. If you'd bothered to check the other links at the bottom of the article I posted the link for, you'd see he fought to preserve Servetus' life. Burning at the stake was not his decision, but at the time, heresy was a state crime. That is foreign to us, we can't wrap our heads around it. But it is the truth, and crime is always subject to appropriate punishment. Death was not appropriate, and Calvin tried to save Servetus. But most people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway. I don't know why I bother.

 

[iLogos]

I'm surprised no one has blamed Adam yet. He gets all the blame! Poor guy. he was fine til God gave him a woman!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, you ain't no authority over me, either.

My turn...Huh? Eh?

Did I claim I was your authority?

 

[george baily]

I was doing some research about Calvinism trying to really understand this religon and I came across some stuff that shocked me. I'm surprised he has so many followers since Christ preached against killing and all.

Of crimes against humanity: 1531 John Calvin 1000s of religious nonconformists are killed and witches burned after John Calvin (1509-1564) turns Geneva into religious police state.
Of murder : (1553) That John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva did order Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy.
Of murder: (1531) Jacques Gruet Calvin orders beheading of Jacques Gruet for blasphemy.

Just a couple things I saw, there was a ton of terrorizing in Geneva. I'm sick, I thought he was a good preacher and was reading his stuff like he was a man of God.

Yes Calvin did bear some fruit that should of been a giant red flag!........But you know the old story

 

[VolRaider]

Free Methodists are Calvinists. The United Methodist Church traces it's roots to John Wesley (identified by today's pigeonholers who have to label everything) as an Arminian.

Despite the contributions of Whitefield, the only predominantly Calvinist Methodists today are in Wales. The United Methodist, Free Methodist, AME Zion, and Nazarene churches are predominantly Wesleyan.

 

[Abrahamist]

I was doing some research about Calvinism trying to really understand this religon and I came across some stuff that shocked me. I'm surprised he has so many followers since Christ preached against killing and all.

Of crimes against humanity: 1531 John Calvin 1000s of religious nonconformists are killed and witches burned after John Calvin (1509-1564) turns Geneva into religious police state.
Of murder : (1553) That John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva did order Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy.
Of murder: (1531) Jacques Gruet Calvin orders beheading of Jacques Gruet for blasphemy.

Just a couple things I saw, there was a ton of terrorizing in Geneva. I'm sick, I thought he was a good preacher and was reading his stuff like he was a man of God.

I rejected Protestant doctrine on it's own merits long before considering the Church.

But once I did start examining the Church and the reformers, one thing I found was that the reformers weren't exactly the men of God people like to think they are.

Of course, one might say the same thing about some priests and Popes through the ages but the difference is that they didn't originate any new doctrines or effect any actual changes within the church. These men might have abused the authority the Church gave them but their crimes did not result in any lasting legacy or changes to the Church.

The reformers on the other hand formed their own church. But they do not appear to have done this by any divine authority.

Martin Luther's father put him through school to be a lawyer but then, against his father's wishes, he joined the clergy instead. The RCC excommunicated him, not for protesting the selling of indulgences but for overstepping his boundaries. Instead of repenting, he formed his own church. He went back on his vow to celibacy and married, he edited books out of the OT canon and tried to do the same to the NT canon and he advocated ceasing, confiscating and burning Jewish homes and property. These are not the characteristics of "Godliness." Instead, they are the characteristics of someone that has a great deal of trouble with authority.

By both OT and NT standards, Martin Luther was a false prophet. He qualifies as a prophet because he introduced new doctrine that was unheard of before then. By the OT standards, a prophet that makes a falsifiable claim that turns out to be false is not a true prophet of God. He claimed that his doctrine was plain and clear in the Bible and that if people could read the Bible for themselves, they'd all see it as well. But even before the end of his life, he saw the reformers splitting up into different sects.

According to the Didache, a false prophet is one who does not hold the ways of the Lord and Luther certainly falls into this category.

And the men that followed in his footsteps, like John Calvin, do not appear to have been any better.

If God intended a reformation, it seems awfully strange to me that God would pick men of such questionable moral character to lead the reformation.

I understand that a person's moral character does not necessarily reflect the soundness or lack thereof of their doctrine or argument. But at the same time, there is a kind of precedent set in the scriptures for the kind of person God calls to be a leader and reveal his Word and Will through and Martin Luther doesn't seem to qualify.

That God would act to establish God's authority through someone who spent his entire life working to undermine others' authority, including God's (he did try to eliminate four books from the NT), just doesn't gel for me.

 

[Albion]

I rejected Protestant doctrine on it's own merits long before considering the Church.

But once I did start examining the Church and the reformers, one thing I found was that the reformers weren't exactly the men of God people like to think they are.

Of course, one might say the same thing about some priests and Popes through the ages but the difference is that they didn't originate any new doctrines or effect any actual changes within the church.

Yes, and we so admire so men who've gone along with the power establishment rather than speak up and take a stand against falsity and corruption when they see it.

'Give me liberty or ... oh, forget it.' --Patrick Henry

'I regret that I have but one life to give...uh, is it too late to reconsider this?' --Nathan Hale

'You have lions, I see. Where's that temple to the Roman Emperor again?' -- early Christian almost-martyr.

 

[Rick Otto]

Of course, one might say the same thing about some priests and Popes through the ages but the difference is that they didn't originate any new doctrines or effect any actual changes within the church.

Wow. Selective observation or convenient redefinition?

If God intended a reformation, it seems awfully strange to me that God would pick men of such questionable moral character to lead the reformation.

But no problem with popes of questionable character, I see.
I'll admit, there are some advantages to be taken in Catholicism.

 

[Abrahamist]

Yes, and we so admire so men who've gone along with the power establishment rather than speak up and take a stand against falsity and corruption when they see it.

'Give me liberty or ... oh, forget it.' --Patrick Henry

'I regret that I have but one life to give...uh, is it too late to reconsider this?' --Nathan Hale

'You have lions, I see. Where's that temple to the Roman Emperor again?' -- early Christian almost-martyr.

Wow. Selective observation or convenient redefinition?

But no problem with popes of questionable character, I see.
I'll admit, there are some advantages to be taken in Catholicism.

The point is that the system of the Catholic Church works in spite of evil people. The people in the Church aren't a 100% flawless and no one is claiming that they are. Sometimes, through human error, evil people are given positions of power. The difference is that in the Church, when this happens, those people are not able to corrupt the establishment as a whole. They are no more able to change the Church as a man is able to change the weather.

It is not the man who is the Pope that has any real control over the Church. He, as an individual, might have enormous influence and power over certain other individuals in the Church, but he has no actual power to influence or change the Church itself.

Instead, the power belongs to the office of pope (not the man) and the power the pope has to keep the church from changing and to keep the teachings of the Church. It is a theocracy but the pope is not the king, Jesus is. The pope, as head of the Church, is not to rule the Church so much as to keep any other earthly authority from sitting on the throne instead.

Luther and the other reformers introduced a system that right from the get go fell into corruption. Almost immediately after the reformation began, the reformers began splitting up among doctrinal differences. The reason was because the reformation took the power of authority away from the Church and handed it over to man.

And so these men, many of them displaying all the same flaws of character as the popes they were attacking, introduced new doctrine based upon their own flawed human understanding of the Bible.

Luther didn't differentiate between the office of the pope and the man occupying that office. Because he disapproved of the man holding the office, he deemed the office itself unnecessary and formed a new Church where he actually had more power than the pope.

 

[Albion]

The point is that the system of the Catholic Church works in spite of evil people.

Is there some evidence that that's so? I can think of a number of changes in the RCC over the centuries in which the character of individuals affected the outcome. It is true, I'd agree, that the larger the institution--and the RCC is large--the easier it is to ride out the problems that come along.

Sometimes, through human error, evil people are given positions of power. The difference is that in the Church, when this happens, those people are not able to corrupt the establishment as a whole. They are no more able to change the Church as a man is able to change the weather.

To what do you ascribe changes, corruptions and abuses, if not the actions of men?

Luther and the other reformers introduced a system that right from the get go fell into corruption. Almost immediately after the reformation began, the reformers began splitting up among doctrinal differences.

I wouldn't call that corruption. More than that, I wouldn't call it accurate. Luther and Calvin did what they did completely independent of each other and were not ever one movement that could then be said to have splintered.

The reason was because the reformation took the power of authority away from the Church and handed it over to man.

This theory just doesn't hold water, no matter how hard you labor to make something out of it. Bearing in mind what I just pointed to, you have no argument about Lutherans or Calvinists being somehow less than the Roman Church.

Luther didn't differentiate between the office of the pope and the man occupying that office.

He certainly did.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I was doing some research about Calvinism trying to really understand this religon and I came across some stuff that shocked me. I'm surprised he has so many followers since Christ preached against killing and all.

Of crimes against humanity: 1531 John Calvin 1000s of religious nonconformists are killed and witches burned after John Calvin (1509-1564) turns Geneva into religious police state.
Of murder : (1553) That John Calvin, the "Protestant Pope" of Geneva did order Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake for heresy.
Of murder: (1531) Jacques Gruet Calvin orders beheading of Jacques Gruet for blasphemy.

Just a couple things I saw, there was a ton of terrorizing in Geneva. I'm sick, I thought he was a good preacher and was reading his stuff like he was a man of God.

I know where you got these "facts" and they are bold-faced lies. Calvin's only involvement in the trial and execution of a heretic was Jacobus Arminius. At that time heresy was a state crime. We don't understand that in this day and age, but that was the case in the 1500's. The rest of these so-called "atrocities" are the product of vivid imaginations. Calvin didn't even teach what Calvinists today call "Calvinism." He did not believe in Limited Atonement, and he believed that while God is sovereign, man is still responsible. Just to let you know, 95% of what you find on the Internet about Calvin is B/S.

 

[Abrahamist]

Is there some evidence that that's so? I can think of a number of changes in the RCC over the centuries in which the character of individuals affected the outcome. It is true, I'd agree, that the larger the institution--and the RCC is large--the easier it is to ride out the problems that come along.

I wouldn't say that the Church has so much changed as has grown. When I say that the Church hasn't changed, the general practices and doctrines have remained the same, just expanded on. The is evidenced in that the practices of the RCC are still largely the same as both the Jews and the orthodoxy, who also trace their history back to the first century.

To what do you ascribe changes, corruptions and abuses, if not the actions of men?

That's exactly what I ascribe changes, corruptions and abuses. I'm unclear on your point.

I wouldn't call that corruption.

Than what would you call it?

More than that, I wouldn't call it accurate. Luther and Calvin did what they did completely independent of each other and were not ever one movement that could then be said to have splintered.

Luther laid the groundwork for all the other reformers in that he introduced the idea of a Christian church outside the authority of the Church. Had it not been for Luther, it might not have ever occurred to Calvin that he also could start his own religion and call it Christianity.

This theory just doesn't hold water, no matter how hard you labor to make something out of it. Bearing in mind what I just pointed to, you have no argument about Lutherans or Calvinists being somehow less than the Roman Church.

Except for the Church started in the first century and was established by Jesus himself when he appointed Peter as the first pope.

The reformers were removed from the source by a good 1500 years and they introduced doctrine for which there was no historical precedent. Neither the doctrine of Luther nor Calvin find any historical precedent in either prereformation Christianity or Judaism.

He certainly did.

Then why did he think that the office of the pope was not necessary?