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 of the Christian Religion 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 thirty-four (34) women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545. John Calvin's actions were very paganistic like his mentor, Saint Augustine. Jesus and all of the Apostles would have abhorred and condemn these blatant mass murders.
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. The history of John Calvin's reign of terror in Geneva is undisputed. Calvin himself had historical records kept that have survived to this day.
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.
I quoted the sources but you did not. You should quote your source material as it could also be in serious error filled with half truths and lies from someone merely trying to defend Calvin at any cost.
You wrongfully applied 1 Peter 1:2. I have already demonstrated that the word "chosen" or Elect" was misplaced. The passage is talking about the Nation of Israel and we cannot claim this for Gentiles/Christians.
Do you care to try and explain away the acts of the council of Dort and what Calvinists did to Christians who dared to challenge the beliefs of Calvinism? Where they the actions of true Christians?
You said: So, a few people who believed a different theology were killed......didn't God order the Israelites tokill every man, woman, and child, including the livestock, of certain peoples? "
It is one thing for GOD to kill or order people to be killed but last I looked Calvinists were not GOD. How can you even compare this? Then you make a flippant remark.. "so a few who believed a different theology were killed..."
Are you kidding me?!!! A few people? Look at the sever persecution from the Council of Dort and what they did to Christians who disagreed with Calvinism. It was no small number my friend.
To: God's chosen people, literally, �Gods elected ones,� meaning Israel, living as aliens in the Diaspora. Peter directs his letter primarily to Jewish believers (including Jewish proselytes who later accepted Jesus), since he was �an emissary to the Circumcised� (Ga 2:7-8). However, the spiritual content of his Gospel, salvation by trust (3-9), was identical to that of Paul, the �emissary to the Gentiles� (Ga 2:6-9). Gentiles who have not converted to Judaism but have trusted in the Jewish Messiah and thrown in their lot with the Jewish believers are counted along with them, since by their trust such Gentiles have been grafted into Israel (Ro 11:17-24, Ep 2:11-16). What the phrase does not mean is simply �the Church,� as opposed to �the Jews�; since the word Diaspora (Greek for �dispersion� from the Land of Israel) would then be inapplicable.
Another thing that is important that you should consider is that prior to St. Augustine, none of the Early Church believed or taught any of the ideas or concepts of what is called Calvinism today. None of the Five Points whatsoever.
HOWEVER...what you will find is that the Early Church Fathers (Ante-Nicene) did believe and teach all of the concepts and ideas of what we call Arminian theology today. In fact what they taught was contrary to Calvinsm.
These are irrefutable facts of Church history.
Here is just one of many examples from one of the Church Fathers. This is from Ignatius who was the personal disciple of John the Apostle.
Ignatius (AD30-107)
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God�s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men � the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, V)
well Walter you have zero credibility after your false article was exposed!Sir James totally exposed you.You have some kind of deep seated hatred for the doctrines of grace.I pray that you reconsider your stance before its too late for you.Its one thing to have a disscussion about predestination,but its quite another to slam someones beleifs and call them heresy!ive tried to chill out on that lately,but you keep bringing it up.Im sorry but your not the guardian of christianity dude.......and get a haircut would ya!
Based on my experience, when Calvinists (Reformed Christians) defend their doctrinal beliefs, they usually read from large passages in the Bible (John 6, John 17, Romans 5, Romans 9, Romans 10, Ephesians 1, etc.) and let the words of scripture speak for themselves.
In contrast, Arminians and other Anti-Calvinists usually quote a "nugget" from scripture (totally removed from its context) and then talk for 30 minutes attempting to explain why Jesus really didn't mean that Christians were chosen when he said they were chosen and why Paul didn't really mean that Christians are predestined when he said they're predestined.
I would be embarrassed (and scared) to speak against the scriptures simply because they don't say what I would like them to say. Christians are supposed to align their theological beliefs around scripture; not to bend the Bible around their own preconceived ideas.
If scripture does not support our theological position, shouldn't that tell us something
The Synod of Dort is not the only council which condemned Arminianism. Throughout the entirety of church history, at each council, synod or diet, one can find that one of the Arminian doctrines, or the whole system of Arminianism has been condemned at one time or another. Only since the birth of the Charismatic movements of Wesley, Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals have the Arminian heresy come to life again.
. Calvin's theology is not a unique theology; Calvin did not create this theology single-handed. It is only a rehashing of the teachings of Augustine of Hippo and the Apostle Paul, not to mention the rest of the Biblical authors. His theology is a systematic approach to the promise, covenant, and providence teachings of the grace of God found throughout the Scriptures.
False article...that reminds me of a certain article I viewed as false about a historic figure from my church...hmm. Anyway...doesn't matter what or where I read about Calvin...he's always approving the "maltreatment" of heretics...so...I'd like to see the books you're referencing when you say he begged that they be spared. Whether or not all of what Walter posted is accurate...some of the things that happened...did happen. Either approved by the council that supported Calvin's beliefs at first...or by Calvin himself.
Sure some things did happen. But does it affect truth? Luther was for persecution of the Jews, the Anabaptists in M�nster also used to kill thse who were not believers as they wanted them to be.
So are all branches of Protestanism wrong, all doctrines a protestant ever agreed with wrong?
This brings the debate away from what we based it on before: the bible. Is the downtalking and judgment of a man who lived 500 years ago by todays standards the thing to do when bible evidence doesn't hep too much?
Just wondering. I also wonder why I still post to those issues, I think we are turning in circles. Some of us will say all is done by God and others will say that they also do something on their own. Pointless reruns of arguments it seems to me...
