You said it a mere 14 months ago.
You are mad.
Lies About John Calvin Refuted
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Rippon, May 13, 2013.
Page 2 of 14
-
-
-
-
Did you never stop to question why McGrath doesnt' say that it was common IN GENEVA??
-
From McGrath's book :A Life of John Calvin.
"Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for office...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion.Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin would and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command.
The image of Calvin as the 'dictator of Geneva' bears no relation to the known facts of history...The city council had no intention of surrendering its hard-won rights and privileges to anyone,let alone one of its employees --a foreighner devoid of voting rights,whom they could dismiss and expel from the city as they pleased...Throughout,the city council retained its authority in civic matters. That Calvin's authority in civic matters was purely personal and moral in character was demonstrated by the difficulties his successors faced after his death." (page 109) -
-
Please tell me about Luther in particular. butI am still interested in the "many." -
Thus the fact that you ignore the evidence even from those you claimed to have relied on to prove that accusations against Calvin didn't occur proves that you are simply unwilling to accept the overwhelming historical evidence that shows that Calvin had a violent unscriptural attitude in practice against those who disagreed with him. -
In my book :John Calvin:Man of the Millennium are some extracts.
Theodore Beza:"What accusations will not some men bring against him? But no refutation of them is wanting tpo those persons who knew him while he lived,and they will want none among his posterity with men of judgment who shall collect his character from his writings.
Having given with good faith the history of his life and of his death,after sixteen years' observation of him I feel myself warranted to declare that in him was proposed to all men an illustrious example of the life and death of a Christian;so that it will be found as difficult to emulate as it is easy to calumniate him.' (129) -
The Great Christian Revolution by Otto Scott says :"Calvin never ruled Geneva. The city was not a totalitarian society,but a Rebublic,with elections and dissent. Calvin held no civil office,could neither arrest nor punish any citizen,appoint or dismiss any official. To argure that his eloquence and logic constituted tyranny is to invent a new standard." (p.57) -
A Life of John Calvin by Alister E. McGrath :"The rigid restrictions on voting rights in sixteenth-century Geneva reflected widespread anxieties within the city over the possible influence of foreigners upon its affairs. By restricting citizenship,with its full rights to vote and hold office,to certain native-born rsidents,the council had effectively forestalled the ambitions of any foreigner to exercise political influence within the city.
Calvin was thus denied access to the city's decision-making machinery. He could not vote;he could not stand for public office. From 1541-1559,his status within the city was that of habitant...His influence over Geneva was exercised indirectly,through preaching,consultation and other forms of legitimate suasion. Despite his ability to influence through his moral authority,he had no civic jurisdiction,no right,to coerce others to act as he wished. Calvin could and did urge,cajole and plead;he could not,however,command." (109) -
And for all this talk of Calvin being a dictator,monster etc...why did Europeans flock there? Because it was considered a safe haven from religious persecution by Protestant refugees.
In 1550 the popualtion was 13,000 in Geneva. By 1560,it was 21,400 per McGraths research.
And let me add something else. For centuries Calvin has been linked with Servetus' death. Why,if he is somehow responsible for upwards of nearly a hundred or so more was the Spanish madman's state execution so singular? Why hasn't Calvin been painted as evil for the hundred or so you have given him responsibilty for instead of the one? -
Nevertheless, this argument defies all of the documented evidence about John Calvin's own comments, not only toward how the government operated against heretics in general, but specifically toward Servetus. No revisionist attempts can wipe away the stigma of what Calvin created for himself. Even if Calvin did not have the authority to issue orders, that does not mean that others still did not follow his influence and obey his wishes regardless of whether he had the authority to give them or not. The matter is not a question of authority, it is whether Calvin had anything to do whatsoever in any manner, authority or not, in causing the death of Servetus, and the abuse of those consider heretics, and history says that he did.
Yet again, it is difficult to accept your revisionist attempts when evidence was provided that you were wrong about Schaaf.
This is like watching the explanation of Benghazi! -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
HeirofSalvation said: ↑Then he smote his breast, invoked God for pardon, confessed Christ as his Saviour, and besought God to pardon his accusers.
"Ut Deus accusatoribus esset propitius." Farel. This is certainly a Christian act. Henry (III. 191) admits that Servetus in his last moments showed some noble traits towards his enemies.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch16.htm#_edn210
Nevertheless, this conversation is un-fruitful. I think anyone reading this thread can see for themselves that objective knowledge of Calvin's history is not to be gleaned from someone simply trying to prove a pre-concieved point. The history of Calvin's life speaks for itself. Anyone wishing to learn about it has ample opportunity.Click to expand...
I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.Click to expand... -
saturneptune said: ↑HeirofSalvation said: ↑I agree. This subject has run its course. You guys have proven the point well, and if this does not convince someone, then they are blind. The thing we can learn from lives like this in the past is to spot them before they do the damage this man did, and never put them in a position of leadership.
I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑The history of Calvin's life speaks for itself. Anyone wishing to learn about it has ample opportunity.Click to expand...
-
saturneptune said: ↑I guess the only mystery that remains is why anyone would go to the lengths this person has to make a hero out of a monster.Click to expand...
You have yet to support your contention that Calvin was "a liar and a bearer of false witness."
With absolutely no thread of truth you claim that Calvin "never truly broke away from the Catholic church."
With no proof whatsoever you claim that Calvin participated "in the persecution of the local,autonmous [sic]churches of the day."
And there are countless other lies about Calvin as well as your evident hatred pouring out in your posts.
You said that the mere mention of his name makes your blood boil. That's a sin.
You said that the subject harms your inner self. Why not yield to more edifying subjects then instead of letting your flesh rule you? -
saturneptune said: ↑The thing we can learn from lives like this in the past is to spot them before they do the damage this man did, and never put them in a position of leadership.Click to expand...
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
No one intends to answer you any further....Good day to you sir.
Page 2 of 14