John Calvin a Murderer?

Had Calvin ever condemned the brutal execution of 58 people or the imprisonment of 76 people?
Was he just a spectator at that time?

If he had been really sympathetic to those victims, he would have been expelled from there.
One of my acquaintances repent very often whenever he get drunk. After he drank alcohol,he repent deeply about his behavior against his parents and so on. But he would not accept the Lord and objects to the truth. If Calvin really repented about his behavior, no one here would necessarily defend him.

How many billions should be killed if we apply the same rule to this world today, as Geneve did at his time?
What did Jesus do to the woman caught in adultery? What did He do to the biggest cult at that time, Pharisees and Sadducees? Has He killed any? The Holy Spirit in me who watched and listened to the prayer of Servetus tells me not to stand in defense of Calvin. If Servetus committed any civil offense, yes he deserve the penalty for it. Did he kill any people? Just because he disagreed to the Trinity, did he deserve such death? If anyone justify the hatred-filled murder of Calvin ( or just a spectator enjoying watching the execution), he or she is confessing that he himself or she herself has hatred-filled murderous desire.
I disagree with Jehova's Witness people even though they deny Trinity, but would not kill them even though I am empowered to do any type of execution, nor would sit at the scene as a spectator. I would have left a clear message of my objection to the brutal murder.
What happened in Geneve was exactly the same as committed by Roman Catholic under Popes and some people call Calvin as Pope of Geneve.

Do we still need more research before we discern Calvin? I would not spend much time studying Mahomed or Budha before discerning them. I would not set up any research center in my mind for each heresy. My understanding about those religion is enough for me to discern properly and depart from them. We have to adore and remember only One who loved us so much that he died for us and I know no one else died for me.
I am glad that I didn't live in Geneve at the time of Calvin, because my personality would have made me disobey Calvin and would have condemned him as a hatred-filled hypocrite, openly, and would have died by the brutal exection.

 

Do we still need more research before we discern Calvin? I would not spend much time studying Mahomed or Budha before discerning them.

Yeah, well, you would probably be consistently mistaken about them, too. Your track record speaks for itself on this thread.

 

I would suggest studying them enough to spell them correctly.

 

I lived in Saudi Arabia only for 2 years which might not be enough to learn the exact spelling in Arabic and in English, but just noticed so many people state Mohammad, Muhammad, Mahommed, even Mahomet. I was raised in a Buddhist family where people people state Buddha as Budda, Budah, Budha. If any one wants check the spelling errors or any divergeance on this site every day, he will be very busy every day.

Here are the points:
The reason why Dave Hunt mentioned about beheading might be understood from the following site:

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

where you can find that even 34 women were executed.

Servetus could have been granted the great grace from Calvin, to be beheaded, only if he confessed Jesus, eternal son of God, instead, Jesus the Son of Eternal God.

There are just reasons to doubt about Calvin's salvation because he connect the salvation with infant baptism and he had non experience to testify his own salvation other than infant baptism.


I strongly oppose to the denial of deity of Jesus Christ, but to the killing of the people just because their belief and conscience as well.
I am glad that I am not a dog sucking the blood on the floor of the Human Slaughter House masterminded and operated by John Calvin.

[ December 04, 2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

Don't know for sure that this hasn't already been pointed out, but we tout the doctrines written down by murderers every time we read the Bible. They were God's doctrines of course, but He used many different types of men.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, which were the only Scripture that many people had in the beginning.
He murdered.

David wrote much of Psalms.
He murdered.

Paul wrote over half the New Testament.
He in the very least consented to the stoning of the first Christian martyr, Stephen.
He also then went on to be responsible for the arrest and imprisonment of many other Christians, some of whom were most likely executed.

That being said, Im not a Calvinist, either.

 

Eliyahu said:

The reason why Dave Hunt mentioned about beheading might be understood from the following site:

Why are you making excuses for this pathetic excuse for a theologian? The reason Dave Hunt claims Servetus was beheaded is because Dave Hunt is incapable of either researching Calvin and Calvinism fairly, or too biased against it to treat it honestly.

Dave Hunt's errors, backpedalling, misrepresentations, and outright lies have been documented by dozens of people. His book What Love is This? is a case study in academic dishonesty.

 

In my quotation, you can notice the followings:

E. Hunt writes (p 18): "By Calvin's personal orders Michael Servetus, whom John Calvin had declared to be a heretic, was murdered by beheading. The Catholics and Protestants alike were for Servetus being burned at the stake. Some critics argued that burning Servetus would only encourage the Roman Catholics of France to do the same to the Huguenots

In the above sentences, you can notice that Hunt himself is mentioning "the burning" itself. The only mistake might be because it was re-quoted, not the his own sentence, because in the previous sentence of the original article by Hunt may be saying, Calvin intended to behead him as Servetus begged him. The only problem was that Hunt made a certain mistake in stating the sequences. In the next sentences he clearly mentions burning twice "Servetus being burned at the stake. Some critics argued that burning Servetus" So, it is hard to say that Hunt didn't know Servetus was burnt instead of being beheaded.

Therefore finding fault with some minor error in the statement doesn't justify the whole argument against it. You can find many other critics against Calvin. Main reason for the behavior of Calvin which I think is that:
1) he has very much obscure testimony on his own salvation. He is confused that one can be saved by infant baptism, which was often the reason why he burnt the women who refused Infant Baptism. I never heard about his own testimony on salvation while John Wesley, Martin Luther, Pascal, Harry Ironside, all have very clear testimony on the salvation.
2) His doctrine contains a lot of heresies such as : Baptism by sprinkling, Salvation may be lost without baptism, Infant Baptism, Predestination, Clergy sytem. Lengthy explanation on Holy Catholic Church. There is not a word for catholic in the Bible. " Universal" eventually lead to worldly, secular church which might be good for "ecumenical" while Ecclesia is connected with Consecrated,chosen out, heavenly assembly.
Clergy system is groundless in the Bible. Pastor should have been translated as Shepherd from Poimen, and Eph 4:10-11 should be understood as talking about the "gifts" Otherwise Calvin should have explained how Pastors should be elected, what are the qualification for such office. He also says all the secraments should be presided by Pastor, which is not found in Bible. He should have explained about "Let 2 or 3 prophets speak, and let others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent" (1COR 14:28-29) This is totally different from clergy system while Plymouth Brethren still perform the service in this way.He also mentions each pastor should have his own church, while Bible states episkope or elders as plural for each church.
Predestination may be partly right, but there are many verses which explains otherwise in the bible, i.e. Jonah 3:12

2) If the victims were killed because of their civil offenses, one can rightfully condone the brutal execution of such violators. But their offenses were just the unbelief of certain doctrines or because of conscience, then it is a big problem.

3) Bapmom, I appreciate your articles on the other threads which were very much agreeable to me. But in this case you have to identify between OT times and NT times. Of course in case of Calvin, he was in a unique situation because he had the responsiblity for the worldly politics too, in addition to the church matters. In such case one can often think that the state is different from individual even today as the state has the power and responsibility to rule and govern the people as a shadow of God's judgment until Lord comes.
However, even in this case we should know there is a style and teachings for such governing.
Disciples asked " Lord wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned and rebuked them and said "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" LK9:54-55

If anyone is heretic,
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

This is enough.

What Calvin did was exactly the same as the Popes of Roman Catholics, and his supporters are busy to deny that he played the most important role in the execution, which is common to RCC in denying Inquisition and Neo-Nazis in denying Holocaust.
If I am empowered with such worldly politics, I would fully persue the guidance of Holy Spirit, which may be extremely difficult but possible if Holy Spirit would have exalted me to sit down on such a position as Jesus showed the mercy to the woman caught in adultery. That was not found in Calvin.

 

Calvin is nothing. Christians have been committing atrocities and killing in the name of Jesus from the very beginning.

[inappropriate link deleted]

[ December 05, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Travelsong, Sorry to disagree with you. The most of them commiting atrocities were nominal churchmen, not the true Christians. we have to speparate between actually born-again Christian and churchmen and churchwomen full of theory and hypocricy or rituals. In addition, most of atrocities quoted were connected with Catholic such as the Holocaust by devout Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, and Jews and Christians were the victims of Crusade and Inquisition. Therefore it is a false accusation.
In such case the true Christians were the victims

 

Good stuff there Ransom!

 

Facts are fine to have as company!

 

I do like your fact-filled post!

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

How sadly true that is!

 

We need more people like you on the BB!

 

Really Rippon! Diggin up a thread from 2005 and responding to people who no longer post here is not the most ethical thing to do. Stick to the history forum instead of repeating the same rant here.