John Calvin's Bodycount...

The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)...(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom. A. Execution1. Jacques Gruet(A)"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."(C)"Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet "for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances." (D)Quoting Stephan Zweig's "The Right to Heresy": "Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite." (E)"This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as 'Libertines', which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553)."(F)"Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin's control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers."(J)2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile(A)and(G)"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."(H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder?(A)(C)"Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin's house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin's accusation, for having "attacked the mystery of the Trinity," in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva."(E)(J)4. Raoul Monnet(E)(J)page 223 "This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as "Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city."5. Others(A)"Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545."(A)"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."(F)"A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake." NOTE: Probably ServetusB. Banishment (mere banishment!)1. Castellio(A)"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."(B)(K) Very full account of Castellio2. Bolsec(A)(B)(F)"Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished."(L)3. Others(A)"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."A. http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htmB. http://www.gospeltruth.net/heres..._chap5.htmC. http://www.worldwideschool.org/l...hap16.htmlD. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htmE. http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/HER...l047.shtmlF. http://www.churchlink.com.au/chu...alvin.htmlG. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htmH. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc...xv.xiv.htmI. http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.htmlJ. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press; K. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc....xv.ix.htm (different page from H)L. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc...v.viii.htm John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! 1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.The New Testament approach to false teachers is the precise opposite of what Calvin's modus operandi was:2 Tim 2:24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26 and they may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.As to the relationship of his doctrine to his practice, as he plainly taught that everything that happens is God's will (I can provide the quotes if you would like), then it necessarily follows that he considered everything he did as God's will, even having his detractors beheaded, burned at the stake, or banished. I'm saying that one's theology inevitably works out in one's practice, and this was all too apparent in the life of John Calvin. If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God? One's actions don't have any bearing on the authenticity of one's teaching? It seems to me that we should hold ANY theologian to the same moral standard as any other teacher in the body of Christ. john@revivaltheology.net

What end are you trying to achieve with this post? I'm just curious if you're taking the approach that Predestination is not a valid teaching because Calvin's moral character was lacking when it came to charity towards those who disagreed with him. While the perceived value of moral teaching can be stained with the failures of its teachers (King David comes to mind here when the Lord said that David had given God's enemies an occasion to blaspheme.), the teaching its self must be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. If this is not the case then we can discount the cross because of all the hypocrites throughout history who have preached it. You won't get much of a debate out of me on predestination, I lean towards Arminianism, so I would probably be accused of being Pelagian by men like R C Sproul. I'm just curious what end you are trying to achieve in this post and what point you are wanting to debate. Or are you simply providing us with historical information on John Calvin?In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

My point is found immediately following the historical information and links, where I begin to say:John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! One hears so many (even some here) talk about how godly Calvin was. And yet the facts of his life tell a very different story. As to predestination, the Bible plainly teaches predestination, just not the deterministic kind like Calvin and Calvinists teach. The Bible teaches conditional election, conditional predestination, and conditional security.This historical information is not widely known about Calvin; and yes, I am trying to spread these historical facts about the one whom so many in evangelicalism look to as such an esteemed spiritual leader.

Thank you so much for posting this. Although I have always clearly seen that the Bible is contrary to much Calvanist doctrine, and I always saw that 99% of Calvanists were people looking for excuses not to share their faith or obey Jesus last command, I was SHOCKED to read about these absolute historical facts about his life.I will now need to do more research on this fellow.Thank you for opening my eyes!I must say though, that a man's character DOES, to me, alter how much I will trust other areas of his life, especially in the way of doctrine.A modern-day example is Ian Paisley. His violent hate rhetoric towards the Church of Rome, which I agree is a cult, does him no favors. Others like Walter Martin (RIP) have produced Protestant/Anti-Catholic/Anti-Pope material that just simply makes Ian Paisley's material look like a bad junior-high essay compared to a Doctoral Thesis. Paisley wants to condemn, Martin wants to rescue. Paisley's open his mouth, Martin open the Bible and the truth and absolutely demolishes the Roman Catholic Church, rips its doctrines to shreds, yet in love, and in and effort to educate and rescue. I think Paisley just loves the sound of his own voice at times.Many people here like Paisley too. :(

Revivaltheology wrote: "This historical information is not widely known about Calvin; and yes, I am trying to spread these historical facts about the one whom so many in evangelicalism look to as such an esteemed spiritual leader."Reply: Thank you for clearing that up. I was thrown off because of the section of the forum that you posted this in. I was not sure what, if any, scriptures you were wanting to debate or discuss.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Several thoughts. First, in reading church history, we must keep in perspective by taking into account the historical and cultural distance between the historical figures and us (twenty-first century postmodern people). For instance, the notion of "human rights" in the form as we know it is a very recent one; we should not judge them in light of our present understanding. Zwingli, the other well-known great reformer, could also be accused of being intolerant and violent. It was also clear that regardless of how we see the morality behind his actions, Calvin saw his actions as being in obedience to God in executing the will of God.Second, some scholars would argue that the absolute form of the teaching attributed to John Calvin, that is, five-point Calvinism as we know it today, may not be what he had in mind, at least not in its extremest form.Third, to me, even a cursory reading of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion made it clear, even to magnificent masterpiece, unsurpassed by anyone to date. Moreover, I find that the man John Calvin is very different from the stereotype often attributed to later Calvinists--not only is his work a grand theological treatise, but I find it deeply devotional and bubbling with godly fervour. revivaltheology said: If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God?In summary, my main thrust is that just as we must be aware of the historical and cultural distance between the biblical world and us in our bible studies, we must also be sensitive to the distances between figures in church history and us. Any indepth historical study of people (even good people) who lived centuries ago will probably uncover some peculiarities in thoughts and behaviour that are quite out of grasp to the modern person, especially if he is trying to read his own world into the ancient world. That's why I think the quote above is rather problematic in this respect. (By the same logic, Zwingli, among many others, could be accused by the same charge...)

As Paris Reidhead said in "Ten Shekels and a Shirt," the religion of this age is based on humanism.(paraphrase) Also, I add to this frame of thought, religion today is based on rationalism. If we try to dismiss the faith of a man because we are not living in his same historical and cultural context we are basing it on the thoughts of men and not the leading of the Holy Spirit. In Christ Jesus, everything is the same. The fruit of His work in our life does not change because of history or culture. This is satan's world. Faith of a man will define who he followed. I submit that the fruit of John Calvin faith are thorns and dead works that will be burned by the righteousness of our Almighty God!

In regards to the original post and not in any way excusing him, how would this apply to the likes of Moses, David, Saul (Paul)?Appreciate the historical background, had never heard about this before.

In James 2:19-20, "So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God."By my prior post I am guilty. I was not slow to speak or slow to wrath. Forgive me. This verse also sheds light for the motivations of men's hearts. God did use Moses and David to execute His judgement on the wicked. The executor never brings about the righteousness of God. That is the work of Jesus bringing about a new life in each individual.Going back to the first post, the men that were executed by Calvin were not wicked as those who worshiped Baalam during the times of Moses and David. These men were all trying to know God. Also, the judgement of God is swift in its execution. The nature of Calvin's work is not. What was the motivation of Calvin's heart, was he truly used by God as His executioner, or was he trying to bring about God's righteousness? Bad fruit does not come from a good tree. In terms of Paul, prior to hearing the word of God, Jesus speaking to him, Paul followed his flesh. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Romans 8:7 Paul was forgiven of past sin. Jesus changed his nature. What was the fruit then? A good tree does not produce bad fruit.So the final question is this, did Calvin have a relationship with Jesus? I cannot judge if he was another servant of my Master. But reading of his thoughts in the Institutes of Calvin, he posessed a child like understanding of Scripture. He had a brilliant mind. He was trained as a lawyer. He would expound upon one Scripture for pages using his own thoughts. Just like the lawyers of today do. They create their own truth. One additional thought came to mind. In the times of Moses, Joshua, and David the presence of God was on the battle field. God opened up the Red Sea so that it could swallow up the army of Egypt. God brought down the walls of Jericho. God rained down hailstone and fire on the armies of Amalek. The Angel of the Lord destroyed the armies of the wicked. The stone pierced Golliath's skull.One more additional thought, Moses thought he was doing the work of the God of Israel when he killed the Egyptian in Exodus 2:12. At this point like Paul, God had not spoken to him. Forty years later, God speaks to Moses! God spoke to Joshua, march around Jericho. I would have to read up on David to find a similar parallel. David had Samuel and Nathan as God's spokesman.

One more additional thought, Moses thought he was doing the work of the God of Israel when he killed the Egyptian in Exodus 2:12. At this point like Paul, God had not spoken to him. Forty years later, God speaks to Moses! God spoke to Joshua, march around Jericho. I would have to read up on David to find a similar parallel. David had Samuel and Nathan as God's spokesmanThis was more along the lines I was thinking, David having Bathsheba's husband Uriah put to death, Moses and the Egyptian, Saul(Paul) persecuting the church. Actually wasn't a very good analogy in regards to character verses doctrine. I digress, and will blame it on this head cold :roll:

I understand your point crsschk.However, I considered the work that God did through David, not having time to research as I said I needed to. 1 Samuel 25:39, "So when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said,"Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and has kept His servant from evil! For the Lord has returned the wickedness of Nabal on his own head." Here the Lord executed His judgement supernaturally. We also learn that it was the Lord who kept David from evil. We also have the long story of King Saul and his efforts to kill David. What was his response to Saul, who David knew was anointed by God to be king? David waited on the Lord to bring about His solution. Yet saying this I also found that I stumbled just like the systematic theologians do. Everytime man thinks he can systematically identify how God worked in this or that event, God shows us how foolish we really are. I believe Scripture teaches us that, "My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are above your thoughts." (Paraphrase). I know that as we learn this lesson over and over again, that it only serves to point us to God. He reveals Himself as He chooses to do in each individual.

JeffMarshalek said: I submit that the fruit of John Calvin faith are thorns and dead works that will be burned by the righteousness of our Almighty God! This is a very strong statement, although I personally doubt it seriously. Nevertheless, John Calvin does not need anyone to vindicate him. We shall find out on the day of judgement.Elsewhere, it was implied that my views regarding church history are humanistic and rationalistic (though no explanation was given). I plainly fail to see why (and I find it unusual, as more often than not, I am accused of the opposite!).

I am sorry for declaring judgement in my own name. But there is a hatred that exists in me. "I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies." Psalm 139:22. You see God declared to satan, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Genesis 3:15. Those who follow Jesus, will like Jesus, begin to hate unrighteousness. Unlike Calvin, David prayed, "Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!"In terms of humanism, I was quick to judge you. I am sorry. I specifically was refering to your praise for the writings of Calvin. Jesus corrected the rich young ruler, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is God..." Matthew 19:17Man can only sow and water, it is God that gives the increase.When one seeks to take the edge off of something that seems inappropriate by distance of time and culture, again this is a warning to me. Please read my postings in the thread on predestination, and homosexuals in the church of England. To summarize in the briefest manner. The foundation on which 5 point calvinism stands is the doctrine of irresistible grace. Clearly focus on this point. Calvin teaches that we are saved by grace alone. The Scriptures teach that we are saved by grace through faith. As iron sharpens iron

As I have mentioned before, Calvin's own teachings on predestination should probably not be fully identified with the extreme forms of "Calvinism" as we know it today. If John Calvin were alive today, he might be surprised how some of the later "Calvinists" have expanded on his ideas. Therefore, rejection of the so-called "Five-Point Calvinism" does not necessarily entails dismissal of John Calvin himself.Your scripture-quoting is meaningless unless you have pre-judged John Calvin as God's enemy or even as the Devil himself. I tend to disagree with you--may God be the Judge.I see no connection between humanism and the appreciation of a believer's writings, especially when I have no intention of exalting any human's writings over the revelation of God. When one seeks to take the edge off of something that seems inappropriate by distance of time and culture, again this is a warning to me. Being aware of this distance is a basic hermeneutical rule in biblical and historical studies. Otherwise, we risk the danger of reading our own culture, thoughts, and ideals into the texts that are foreign to the author and original readers--that's how cults twist the scriptures.

Hi Agent 001As you can see, I have shared the condition of my heart in this matter. I see your point in terms of Calvin's teachings being distorted by others over the ages. Please bare with me just one more time. Does Calvin teach that grace is irresistilbe? I have not labored through his writings as thoroughly as I should. Based on his writings how would Calvin address this Scripture, Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Paul clearly teaches that all men are born dead. We are enemies of God. Paul also teaches that when we commit our life to our Savior we are made alive by the Spirit of God. Are these two precepts correct as how I have communicated it. If so, then Paul is clearly teaching to those who are born again. Paul is also teaching that a believer, one who is born again, must make a choice. The believer is given the option to continue to follow the old man or to follow the Spirit. We become what we place our faith in. Do you agree with this analysis?If so, do the writings of Calvin teach that a born again man can because of the choice he makes die spiritually. Is this what Paul is teaching?Did Calvin address this verse in his teaching. Romans 5:10, "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." The first thought, Paul teaches that we are reconciled to God through the death of His Son. The second thought, Paul teaches that, "much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." The second thought is what saves us from God's wrath. See verse 9. So salvation comes by living His life. The just shall live by faith. With this analysis are we saved by grace alone, or are we saved by grace through faith? Which doctrine does Calvin teach? As iron sharpens ironJeff

Inevitably, David, Paul, and other biblical figures are lifted up as murderers who found grace. A couple of things are important to note:1. David and Paul repented of their sins of murder.2. OT examples of God's people being commissioned to put the wicked Canaanites to death do not really speak to this issue, unless one assumes the Calvin was directly commanded by God to put Servetus and these others to death. Also, the New Covenant standard is "love thine enemy." Also, some seek to excuse Calvin's tyrannical rule of Geneva by "the times" in which Calvin lived. However, there were MANY peace-loving Anabaptists who did not resort to violence to advance the kingdom of God, and who were in turn put to death by both the Protestants and the Catholics of that day. Calvin had the same gospels to read and obey as we do today. The only thing Servetus was convicted of was being against baptizing babies and against the traditional doctrine of the trinity. These things deserve being burned at the stake, under ANY supposedly Christian government?

On Romans 5:10 -"This is an explanation of the former verse, amplified by introducing a comparison between life and death. We were enemies, he says, when Christ interposed for the purpose of propitiating the Father: through this reconciliation we are now friends; since this was effected by his death; much more influential and efficacious will be his life. (1) We hence have ample proofs to strengthen our hearts with confidence respecting our salvation. By saying that we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ, he means, that it was the sacrifice of expiation, by which God was pacified towards the world, as I have showed in the fourth chapter.""But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this -- that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed."(1) "By his life," the abstract for the concrete; it means, "through him being alive," being at God's right hand, having every power committed to him, and making intercession for us Romans 8:34. "Because I live, ye shall live also." John 14:19. -- Ed.On Romans 8:13 -"...It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith...""...however we may as yet be exposed to sins, he nevertheless promises life to us, provided we strive to mortify the flesh: for he does not strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every exertion to subdue its lusts..."All in John Calvin's own words -Calvin's Commentary

revivaltheology:I am not trying to excuse John Calvin from what he has done. We all now know as we look back at history that the persecution of others for any reason is wrong. I am merely pointing out that, Calvin apparently believed that he was doing the will of God. He earnestly believed that this was the way a Christian city should be run. And zealously he did so! (Unfortunately, zeal without true knowledge always ends up hindering God's work -- I think quite a number of Christians today are guilty of the same)In my opinion, what he did was definitely wrong. However, he could never be accused of hypocrisy. After all, he wholeheartedly acted upon what he wholeheartedly believed. I believe that had he known what he's doing is not pleasing in the eyes of God, he would not have wilfully commit the sin. He simply was not aware of it. (Take note that likewise, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. were unaware that their polygamy was a violation of God's original ordination of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.)One might say, "Why? It's so obviously wrong." And you might point out numerous bible verses to support your point. But the fact is, Calvin had such a different set of historical/cultural and theological presuppositions that he failed to see it. What is obvious today is not necessarily so obvious then.The same could be said of slavery. Everyone would condemn slavery today. But several centuries ago, it was not all that obvious -- some even try to justify slavery by citing scripture. Even so, I have no doubt that there were many Christians at that time, despite failing to see the error of slavery, who are genuine, pious, and godly. And I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from some of them spiritually and theologically. I would not say that because they had condoned slavery, therefore they were bad Christians and we could not possibly learn from their spiritual experiences and their biblical teachings.I did this in a hurry, I hope you understand what I mean.

This may be a little off topic but regarding the slavery issue and people supporting it, here is a link to an article written before the civil war; which if taken seriously by the many so called 'Christians' of that day, the civil war may have been avoided.http://www.truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Oberlin/Come-outism.html Also Zwingli, Calvin and Luther were all guilty of persecuting those who did not agree with them, Zwingli and Luther in paritcular 'backslid' from some of their reforms and started to persecute those who wanted the reformations to go further, all three of those (in my opinion) :) were more concerned in setting up a 'church' then they were a fellowship of believers. I realize that this is a little strong, however when you read the history of the anabaptists and others you will see that not all of their problems/persucution came from the Catholic church. A great deal of it came from those 'reformers' and others like them.A Work In ProgressLyndon

It must be tough for God to work in this world without using any sinners. All the Reformers had their problems - some quite significant. The Reformation was a very messy time involving much violence. Luther did have regrets for how people took his teaching. He was content to write scathing critiques, but he was shocked when people actually got out and started acting as people will act when provoked to revolt against an authority.One of many good things to come from this time was a revival of Augustinianism. Justification by faith alone. Truth comes from Scripture only. Two sacraments - not seven. Priesthood of believers. So many simple but important ideas were revived.I guess I mostly want to respond to the parts of this thread that have wandered (as they so often do) from the original topic. I'm not a "follower of Calvin" so much as a believer who sees election in Scripture and agrees with Calvin that Augustine was pretty much on the nose when refuting Pelagius. I don't even care when God elected us - pre-fall, post-fall, in seventy-four dimensions all orthogonal to ours none of which include time, whatever. I'm very tired of people who have never even scratched the surface of Calvinism giving ridiculous critiques of it. The basics of it are so simple and obviously scriptural!Scripture teaches that we are totally wicked and dead in sin from the fall. Therefore, we cannot bring ourselves up from the dead - God must do this. We have a will but without God's intervention it always goes the wrong way (none seeketh after God). So He has elected some to whom he gives the gift of faith and those people always respond by coming to Him in repentance and obedience. John 6 clearly teaches that all the Father has given to the Son will come to Him and that none can come to Him that the Father doesn't draw. How can this be refuted? I'm convinced that Arminians must have Bibles that are missing John 6 and Romans 9. No one can suddenly become spiritually alive just because they want to. As for the comment about just not wanting to evangelize - get serious. Just because you have decided to put a yoke upon yourself that isn't scriptural isn't the Calvinists' fault. We get the joy of preaching the Gospel and trusting God to do the rest. You get to sweat blood nightly worrying that people are being damned by your lack of craftiness and persuasion in "getting decisions." Not that I'm not concerned about the hellbound, but I trust that if I do my part God will do His. If you believe that people just "make decisions" without God's drawing them and don't sweat blood nightly about your insufficient witness you are a fool. I thank God that He didn't entrust the furthering of His church solely to us. He is building His church and I am glad to be a part of it. Show me where God said to be clever and persuasive to get "decisions" rather than preaching the Gospel with boldness. Maybe all this "persuasion" explains the people who have to "rededicate" 50 times because they were never saved in the first place! Arminians have ruined the harvest in many ways by getting everyone "saved." Now it is just that much harder to bring people to true repentance. "I already walked down the aisle and made a "decision for Jesus"- I have grace - I don't have to do anything." That faith doesn't save according to James. Now I'm far down the rabbit trail, aren't I?

"So He has elected some to whom he gives the gift of faith and those people always respond by coming to Him in repentance and obedience." Hello nobody. How would you explain these verses to me ?Joh 3:14 But even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, Joh 3:15 so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 1Ti 4:10 For to this we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the preserver of all men, especially of those who believe.1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¨Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, Do not fear. For behold, I give to you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Did I read anger in your comment or was it of the righteous sort ? With blessings.Another nobody.

Hi nobody,John 6 clearly teaches that all the Father has given to the Son will come to Him and none can come to Him that the Father doesn't draw. I have three questions. At what point does the Father hand over man to the Son?Two, How do you know if you are in the hands of the Son?Is it based on man telling another to pray the sinners prayer. (Which isn't Biblical) Is it the will of man? What does your theology teach?Three, was Adam in the hand of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If so, why did he fall?in ChristJeff

John 3:16 simply says that believers will get everlasting life. These believers are obviously the elect. It is true that God does not will for any man to perish in the way that he has "predestined him to Hell." He simply elects those he will save and somehow the rest are allowed to run toward their own damnation - their own fault. I don't pretend to say that this is "fair" as we judge it or easy, but it sure seems scriptural.As far as when the Father gives the elect to the Son - let me say this much. When people responded to Jesus did He say that their response set into motion their election or vice versa? He said you believe not because you aren't mine and you believe because it has been shown to you. Clearly He teaches that what we do is the result of God than God responding to our initiation. If we initiate then why pray for the lost? To be assured of your election you ask yourself if you are hungering and thirsting for righteousness and Scripture. This is given by God and didn't come from yourself. Are you chastened by God? Do you strive to enter the narrow gate? This was given to you, it did not originate in your natural self. It isn't that you are compelled to things involuntarily but that you desire them at all is a gift of God. The cross is foolishness to the perishing, right? Yet we find ourselves brought to it by God working in us.As far as supralapsarian and infralapsarian views - that is getting too deep for me. All I can do is try to understand the basics. Adam was allowed to sin in God's permissive will even though it was God's preceptive will that would have him stay from the tree. This clears some of the trouble in thinking of God's will. He has a preceptive will that says "Thou shalt..", a permissive will that allows sin to occur, and a purposive will by which He does as He pleases. Whether it was God's purposive will at work is far beyond me.I don't pretend to know a lot - I am new to this election idea as of 6 months ago. I started reading more Scripture and this really jumped out at me as something obviously in there that I have been taught against for years. I believe it strongly enough now that I've left a Church-Growth Movement church for a Reformed Church because I can't stand compromising the truth for a filled auditorium anymore. I'd rather be with a few who really seek the Truth and preach the unabridged word to others.

It's getting too deep for me too brother! :-oClutch :-D

I believe it strongly enough now that I've left a church-growth movement church for a reformed church because I can't stand compromising the truth...Amen Isn't it a wonderful gift. The word of God will free us from the works of men. I encourage you to always go to the word for understanding. Wait on the Lord, and don't take the shortcut of reading the doctrines of men. Always discern when someone tries to explain why the word does not really mean what it actually says. Do not add or subtract, just believe. The word of God lines up, it is the Holy Spirit that lines it up for you.in ChristJeff

nobody wrote,John 3:16 simply says that believers will get everlasting life. These believers are obviously the elect. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. The verse says "whosoever" and not "elect".Obviously ?Pet 3:9 any should....all should1 Tim 4:10 preserver of all men1 John 4:14 of the worldRom 1:16 to everyoneLuke 2:10 to all peopleDo all these verses also imply "elect" ?When you found it 6 months ago, how did you find it ? Did somebody preach that or did you find it by yourself in the Bible ? No hidden agenda behind these questions just plain curiosity.Amen to the no compromising, church growth movement etc..With blessings.Still nobody.

John 3:16 again:whoever believes will have everlasting lifeThis statement defines the reward for those who believe. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about who will/may/can believe or whether there are requirements, restrictions, or prerequisites on how one comes to believe. If I say that whoever comes to my place tonight gets a free meal it sounds like an invitation to all, but the fact is that you don't know where I live and therefore cannot partake of my meal with me. The free meal is offered to all, but in fact only those who I've revealed my address to can actually come. The fact here is that whosoever believeth will in fact only be those the Father draws. Let me say again that God has not forced anyone to damnation. We have fallen on our own. God does not want to see any perish, but yet He will ultimately judge since He is too just and holy not to. Jesus said He prayed not for the world but for the elect. He said He laid down His life for His sheep.What this belief of God being in control, building His church, and being the one who actually draws people to Christ has done for my life is immeasureable. Before I thought I was a rational agent (ever taken economics?) who was simply choosing God because I happened to know that it was in my best interests. If I spread the information well enough, others would act as rational agents and come to believe once they saw it was in their best interests. All free to do whatever we think is rational, right? Now I have found that this is not scriptural or seen in practice. The fact is that many people know about salvation but reject it for no apparent reason other than pure rebellion- knowing it leads to hell. The fact is that many who "decide" for Christ cannot actually let go of the world and submit to Him and remain unsaved- maybe even after thirty "rededications". We all also know that many people who seem to be the farthest from God and in no way close to "deciding" for Him suddenly have Apostle Paul-type conversions and quickly become strong believers. Doesn't seem like a people with enough grace and freewill to choose rationally to me. Seems like a warped and bent people who hate God from which a few are given a gift of being drawn to Him. Jesus said that those who practice sin are slaves to it, so where is this "freedom" that we have?We are a bunch of drug-addicts hooked on the world. Some guy comes along and says "Hey, why don't you just choose to quit? You're free to make your own choices, right?" The drug addict says "I've decided to quit everyday for ten years and look how successful my freewill is against my bondage."So now I understand that I'm not supposed to stand on my head or do circus tricks to get people's attention for a minute to present the Gospel. God is in control and I am told to simply show love and preach the Gospel. Many will reject it, but that isn't the fault of my inadequacies or lack of persuasive powers. I also have a deeper sense of gratitude that I was chosen rather than the chooser. I didn't pick God like he was a dessert at Bishop's Buffet. He chose me to be a part of His gift for the Son- a redeemed people to praise Him for eternity.

Hi brother nobody,I hear your thoughts. I believe only what God has chosen to reveal to me. Thus my thoughts are only the shadow of the true tabernacle. I say this to disqualify myself as an expert in the word. The verse which Jesus says that no one can come to Me unless the Father draws him, is very similar in its' result to what Paul teaches in Romans 3. Man is lost and depraved. Unless the grace of God comes down and gives direction, man will never find their Savior.Also in regards to election. Jesus says that many are called but few are chosen. Those who would believe are chosen to be given the fullness of Christ. "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; THAT IN EVERY THING YE ARE ENRICHED BY HIM, IN ALL UTTERANCE, AND IN ALL KNOWLEGE. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you; so that ye COME BEHIND IN NO GIFT; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Corinthians 4-7.Yet Paul, says that he can not teach them about spiritual things because they are babes in Christ. Later in the second letter, Paul identifies as you have that the affections for this world is the yoke which prevents them from realizing the fullness of Christ. 2 Corinthians 6In Love Jeff

Getting back to the original point of this thread, does anyone think that it changes the Calvin story in any way to think of him acting as a government office rather than as an individual? Obviously most of us would easily accept that people should not murder but that governments can execute criminals. Is it ridiculous for me say that Calvin may be given some leeway here as he was governing the city? I don't think that the way the Anabaptists were treated was right (and I obviously think they had a good point against Calvin on the baptism issue), but here comes a difficult question:When a man is a leader in government and a Christian should every act of his office be held to the standards of a Christian individual? Can he not decieve his enemies in wartime? Must he accept a slap in the face and turn his cheek? I don't think so, but this is going to get deep quickly. Too deep for me. I would say that he was ridiculously zealous in trying to achieve a moral society who would all accept his teachings. I don't think I can say that he murdered people, though. Bring the storm of thoughts on this if you would, I'm curious to hear some different views!

I have found that about 75% of the kings of Israel were judged wicked. I have found that God raised up Nebuchadnezzar to judge the wickedness of Israel. And God labeled the king and the babylonians as being a wicked people. It is said that God paid wages to the Babylonians for the hard work they had done for Him. And that He would pay them by giving them Egypt. So in James it says that, "for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Calvin had the Scriptures. He obviously had the ability to study and write about them. Why didn't he see that his actions could not bring about the righteousness of God?"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us." Psalm 2:1-3There is nothing new under the sun.In ChristJeff

The following short article may help correct the historical inaccuracies on this thread:Calvin vs. Servetusby J. WilkinsIn the year 1553 an event occurred which would forever blacken the reputation of Calvin in the eyes of an ungodly world. In that year a heretic named Michael Servetus entered Geneva after fleeing from France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13. This trouble he had brought upon himself by his book which denied the existence of the Trinity as well as the practice of infant baptism. Though the former is clearly a more serious error than the latter, the latter position identified Servetus with the hated Anabaptists who had spread the revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. Why Servetus came to Geneva is not clear though the Reformer Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought that Geneva might be favorable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin.On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna asking further information on Servetus. The authorities in Vienna immediately demanded his extradition to face charges there. At this the Genevan city council offered Servetus a choice: he could either be returned to Vienna or stay in Geneva and face the charges against him. Servetus, significantly, chose to remain in Geneva.The trial began and as it progressed, it became evident that the authorities had two choices: banish Servetus or execute him. They sent to their sister cities Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. The counsel from each city was the same: execute the heretic. The method of burning alive was chosen. Calvin intervened to appeal for the more quick and merciful beheading as the method of execution but the council refused and on October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed.It is strange that this incident should bring such odium upon Calvin and another example of the hatred of orthodox Christianity that it has. The facts are that mass executions were carried out in other places throughout this time. After the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in Elizabethan England. Even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views like those of Servetus at the behest of the bishops of London and Lichfield. Thirty-nine people were burned at the stake for heresy between May of 1547 and March of 1550. The 16th century was not a time of great tolerance of heresy in any place in Europe.If one contends that Calvin was in error in agreeing with the execution of heretics then why is there not equal indignation against all the other leaders who supported and carried out and supported these measures elsewhere. None less than the honored Thomas Aquinas explicitly supported the burning of heretics saying, "If the heretic still remains pertinacious the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death." (Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3)Furthermore, Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world.Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin's role in this entire matter was only that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was "the dictator of Geneva" is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to become a citizen of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants - resident legal aliens who had no right to vote, no right to carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. A habitant might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there. But he was always denied access to the decision-making machinery.The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was completely bypassed in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends.For more accurate free information on John Calvin you may want to visit http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/These two free articles are especially good:• Calvin's Character - A must read!• Calvin's WorkYour Servant in Christ (for the Third Reformation),Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKSServing Christians worldwide (in over 80 countries) for 19+ years.http://www.swrb.com

Being the dunce of the bunch, that was very helpful. Thank you for your input.Also, "the must read", I wholeheartedly agree.That we were of such caliber of character.

Wow. I am a little sick to my stomach reading this. I am actually appalled that any christian is given the ok to take a life. I will admit that i am not big on "doctrinal" issues but it would seem to me that the life and example of Jesus would make it pretty clear what is right and wrong here. You really cannot compare Calvin to old testament leaders. In the old testament, Jesus had not come yet as the ultimate example. Since the time of Jesus living on this earth, aren't we to look to Him for our example? It would be obvious to a CHILD that taking a life just because they disagree with your beliefs is WRONG.It seems to me that people are more interested in defending a "man" or a "doctrine"- than in defending the truth of Jesus Christ.Someone mentioned that Saul (Paul) was repentant. Yes, he was a changed man after "meeting" Jesus. Think of how he lived his life from then on there. He gave it all up. His rights, everything. If Calvin had really "met' Jesus as Paul had, would he not be so changed also? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit have convicted him if he was "full of the life of Jesus within him"?Something is not right here.

Lord willing, the short article below will help you better understand John Calvin -- one of the greatest servants of the Lord Jesus Christ since the days of the Apostles.Reading what a man writes or preaches for himself is one of the best ways to judge his character. It is certainly better than listening to his enemies (without knowing both sides of the story), especially when so many ungodly lies have been spread by the evil one against the most faithful servants of the Lord (Calvin included). Would you like others to find out about you from those who are your enemies? If not, then please give John Calvin the same consideration you give yourself and let him speak for himself. I can testify of a truth that the Lord has provided me with tremendous blessings through the writings of John Calvin. I pray that all who read this may find the same.You may read or listen to John Calvin through some of the free resources at the following URLs:http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/ or http://www.gty.org/~phil/rformers.htm (see especially Calvin's _Institutes of the Christian Religion_)http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/JCalvin.htm (see Calvin's _The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)_)______________ Excerpted from:JOHN CALVIN - HIS LIFE, HIS TEACHING & HIS INFLUENCE,by William Wilemanhttp://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=jc_character.htmlCHAPTER 19ESTIMATE OF CALVIN’S CHARACTER.THIS chapter has not been prepared without a perusal of those estimates of Calvin that have been written by his avowed enemies and opponents. It is of immense importance to any public man to know what his enemies say of him. It is highly desirable to know both sides of any case of controversy; for the simple reason that the man who knows nothing of the other side knows very little of his own.Dr. J. M. Mason writes: "Had anything been wanting in his own writings to evince the greatness of this extraordinary man, it would have been supplied by the rancorous malignity which assailed him during his life, and which has been hardly, if at all, abated by his death."When, therefore, biographers make use of such terms as they are not ashamed of coining in order to blacken the name of Calvin, we need not hesitate to appraise them at their true value. There were several defects in the character of Calvin; and these were just the excesses of his virtues. To illustrate this, we may quote that Bucer wrote to blame the Reformer for his extreme vehemence. To this complaint Calvin replied: "My struggles are not greater against my vices, which are very great and numerous, than against my impatience; and my efforts are not wholly useless. I have not, however, been able yet to conquer that ferocious animal."No one can read the letters written by Calvin without feeling that he was a most tender-hearted man. I place this feature of his character first because the contrary has been assumed by ill-informed persons. Take the following extract from a letter written to Knox on the occasion of the death of his wife: "Your loss is a deep and bitter affliction to me. You had a wife to whom few could be compared; but you know well where to find consolation, and I doubt not that you will bear this great sorrow with patience. Greet the faithful brethren in my name." Here is an extract from a letter to Goodman on the same: "I grieve not a little that our brother Knox has been deprived of his most sweet (suavissima) wife. But I rejoice that, afflicted as he has been, he has continued to labor strenuously for Christ and the church."In the light of such letters, those who speak of the "ferocity" of Calvin simply proclaim their utter ignorance of the man. A hundred extracts could be given.The Reformer’s character was also marked by a straightforward honest decision. It is well-known that he loved Philip Melancthon, and that on more than one occasion he conceded to Philip as much as his conscience permitted. But he well knew where to draw the line, as the following will show. I extract it from a letter from Calvin to Melancthon, dated June 18th, 1550: "Several things which you think indifferent are obviously repugnant to the Word of God. Truly, if I have any understanding in divine things, you ought not to have made such large concessions to the papists; partly because you have loosed what the Lord has bound in His Word, and partly because you have afforded occasion for bringing insult upon the gospel. Lest you may perhaps have forgotten what I once said to you, I now remind you of it: namely, that we consider our ink too precious if we hesitate to bear our testimony in writing to those things which so many of the flock are daily sealing with their blood. Although I am fully persuaded that the fear of death never compelled you in the very least to swerve from the right path, yet I am apprehensive that it is just possible that another species of fear may have proved too much for your courage; for I know how greatly you are horrified at the charge of rude severity."This letter is so admirably worded that we must marvel at its almost severe faithfulness and its tender love. To give any real "occasion for bringing insult upon the gospel" was abhorrent to Calvin, even in so dear a friend as Melancthon; and therefore it called for this sharp reproof. And the sentence in which "our ink" is placed in apposition to "their blood "is worthy of the noblest pen that ever wrote.Perhaps the most prominent feature in Calvin’s character was his love of work. He could not bear to be idle for a moment. Of this Dr. Hoyle writes: "What shall I say of his indefatigable industry, almost beyond the power of nature; which, set against our loitering will, I fear, exceed all credit? It may be the truest object of admiration, how one lean, worn, spent, and wearied body could hold out. He gave, every week of the year through, three divinity lectures. Every other week, over and above, he preached every day; so that I know not whether more to admire his constancy or theirs that heard him. Some have reckoned that his yearly lectures were one hundred and eighty-six, and his yearly sermons two hundred and eighty-six. Every Thursday he sat in the presbytery. Every Friday, when the ministers met to consult upon difficult texts, he made as good as a lecture. Besides all this, there was scarce a day that exercised him not in answering the doubts and questions of different churches and pastors. Scarcely a year passed wherein some volume came not forth."Let us hear what Beza says of his untiring diligence:"In the year 1562 it might already be seen that Calvin was hastening with rapid strides to a better world. He ceased not, however, to comfort the afflicted, to exhort, even to preach, and to give lectures. The following year his sufferings so increased that it was difficult to conceive how so weak a body, and exhausted as it had been by labor and sickness, could retain so strong and mighty a spirit. But even now he could not be induced to spare himself; for when he was obliged, against his will, to leave the public duties of his office unfulfilled, he was employed at home, giving advice to those who sought him, or wearing out his amanuenses by dictating to them his works and letters. When we besought him to refrain at least during his sickness from dictating and writing, he answered, ‘Would you that the Lord should find me idle when He comes?’ The year 1564 was the first of his eternal rest, and the beginning for us of a long and justifiable grief."Calvin was also not without meekness and humility. I have only space for two instances. A good deal of trouble had been given in Geneva by Troillet, who was unworthy of the position to which he aspired. But when death laid his finger on this man, he sent for the pastor he had so abused and wronged. Calvin hastened to the dying man, forgave him, and comforted him.He has been charged with fierceness and bigotry. The charge comes with ill grace from the lips that speak it. When disputes ran high between Luther and some other Reformers concerning the manner of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine, Luther, whose temper was naturally warm, heaped many hard names upon those who differed from him. Calvin came in for his share of this. In a letter to Henry Bullinger he says:–"I hear that Luther has at length published an atrocious invective, not so much against you as against us all. In these circumstances I can scarcely venture to ask for your silence; since it is unjust that the innocent should be thus attacked without having an opportunity to clear themselves; although it is at the same time difficult to decide whether that would be expedient."But I hope you will remember in the first place how great a man Luther is, and in how many excellent endowments he excels; with what fortitude and constancy, with what dexterity and efficacious learning, he has hitherto applied himself, both to overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist, and to spread the doctrine of salvation. It is a frequent saying with me that, if Luther should even call me a devil, my veneration for him is notwithstanding so great that I shall ever acknowledge him to be an illustrious servant of God, who, though he abounds in extraordinary virtues, yet labors under great imperfections. I wish he would endeavor to restrain the violence with which he boils over on all occasions; and that he would always direct the vehemence which is natural to him against the enemies of truth, and not brandish it also against the servants of the Lord. I should be glad if he took more pains in searching out his own defects. Flatterers have done him much harm, especially as he is by nature too much inclined to self-indulgence; but it is our duty, whilst we reprehend what is bad in him, to make due allowance for his excellent qualities."I beg therefore of you and your colleagues, in the first place to consider that you have to deal with a distinguished servant of Christ, to whom we are all much indebted; and in the next, that all you will obtain by a conflict will be to afford sport to the ungodly, and a triumph over ourselves as well as over the gospel; for if we indulge in mutual abuse, they will be but too ready to believe both sides."This admirable letter reveals much good sense. How true his remarks are with regard to controversy, experience and observation agree to prove. In most controversies, even in the case of those who contend for truth, self-opinion takes the place of self-judgment, and natural heat and vindictiveness occupy the throne instead of the Word of God.Let not mortal praise be given to any man above his desert, or even beyond what he would accept. God alone can create; a man is only great when God sees fit to accomplish anything great by his instrumentality. Never did any man understand this better than Calvin. It seemed natural to him, and was certainly no effort to him, to refer all back to God. There is absolutely nothing in all his two thousand and seventy letters to indicate that he was ever tempted to appropriate the smallest portion of human praise to himself. Luther, in more than one place, complacently dwells on the thought that he, a little monk, has made the papal throne to tremble and so well stirred the whole papal system. But Calvin never says anything like this; he never even seems to have the thought of it occur to him. Everywhere we find underlying all he wrote the thought that God alone is all and does all, "It was more God’s work than mine," he says of the birth of his "Institutes."Ernest Renan, educated for the Romish priesthood, but later a sceptic, pays this striking tribute to Calvin’s character:–"Calvin was one of those absolute men, cast complete in one mold, who is taken in wholly at a single glance: one letter, one action, suffices for a judgment of him. There were no folds in that inflexible soul, which never knew doubt or hesitation. Careless of wealth, of titles, of honors, indifferent to pomp, modest in his life, transparently humble, sacrificing everything to the desire of making others like himself, I hardly know of a man, save Ignatius Loyola, who could match him. . . . Lacking that vivid, deep, sympathetic ardor which was one of the secrets of Luther’s success, lacking the charm, the languishing tenderness of Francis of Sales, Calvin succeeded, in an age and in a country which called for a reaction towards Christianity, simply because he was the most Christian man of his generation."Guizot, the French historian, thus concludes his biography: "Calvin is great by reason of his marvelous powers, his enduring labors, and the moral height and purity of his character. Earnest in faith, pure in motive, austere in his life, and mighty in his works, Calvin is one of those who deserve their great fame. Three centuries separate us from him, but it is impossible to examine his character and history without feeling, if not affection and sympathy, at least profound respect and admiration for one of the great Reformers of Europe and one of the great Christians of France."It will now be desirable to give the rapid sketch of Calvin’s character written by his intimate friend and successor, Theodore Beza. It is hardly possible to curtail it."Calvin was not of large stature: his complexion was pale, and rather brown: even to his last moments his eyes were peculiarly bright, and indicative of his penetrating genius. He knew nothing of luxury in his outward life, but was fond of the greatest neatness, as became his thorough simplicity. His manner of living was so arranged that he showed himself equally averse to extravagance and meanness. He took so little nourishment, such being the weakness of his stomach, that for many years he contented himself with one meal a day. Of sleep he had almost none. His memory was incredible; he immediately recognized, after many years, those whom he had once seen; and when he had been interrupted for several hours, in some work about which he was employed, he could immediately resume and continue it, without reading again what he had written. Of the numerous details connected with the business of his office, he never forgot even the most trifling, and this notwithstanding the multitude of his affairs. "His judgment was so acute and correct in regard to the most opposite concerns about which his advice was asked, that he often seemed to possess the gift of looking into the future. I never remember to have heard that anyone who followed his counsel went wrong. He despised fine speaking, and was rather abrupt in his language; but he wrote admirably, and no theologian of his time expressed himself so clearly, so impressively and acutely as he; and yet he labored as much as any one of his contemporaries, or of the fathers. For this fluency he was indebted to the several studies of his youth, and to the natural acuteness of his genius, which had been still further increased by the practice of dictation, so that proper and dignified expressions never failed him, whether he was writing or speaking. He never, in any wise, altered the doctrine which he first adopted, but remained true to it to the last."Although nature had endowed Calvin with a dignified seriousness, both in manner and character, no one was more agreeable than he in ordinary conversation. He could bear, in a wonderful manner, with the failings of others, when they sprang from mere weakness. Thus he never shamed anyone by ill-timed reproofs, or discouraged a weak brother; while, on the other hand, he never spared or overlooked willful sin. An enemy to all flattery, he hated dissimulation, especially every dishonest sentiment in reference to religion. He was therefore as powerful and strong an enemy to vices of this kind as he was a devoted friend to truth, simplicity and uprightness. His temperament was naturally choleric, and his active public life had tended greatly to increase this failing; but the Spirit of God had so taught him to moderate his anger, that no word ever escaped him unworthy of a righteous man. Still less did he ever commit aught unjust towards others. It was then only, indeed, when the question concerned religion, and when he had to contend against hardened sinners, that he allowed himself to be moved and excited beyond the bounds of moderation."Let us take but a single glance at the history of those men who, in any part of the world, have been distinguished for their virtues, and no one will be surprised at finding that the great and noble qualities which Calvin exhibited, both in his private and public life, excited against him a host of enemies. We ought not indeed to feel any wonder that so powerful a champion of pure doctrine, and so stern a teacher of sound morals, as well at home as in the world, should be so fiercely assailed. Rather ought we to let our admiration dwell on the fact that, standing alone as he did, he was sufficiently mighty to avail himself of that strongest of weapons, the Word of God. Thus, however numerous the adversaries which Satan excited against him (for he never had any but such as had declared war against piety and virtue), the Lord gave His servant sufficient strength to gain the victory over all."Having been for sixteen years a witness of his labors, I have pursued the history of his life and death with all fidelity; and I now unhesitatingly testify that every true Christian may find in this man the noble pattern of a truly Christian life and Christian death; a pattern, however, which it is as easy to calumniate as it would be difficult to follow."It may be asked whether we should consider the aims of a man who wielded power so great and exerted an influence so powerful were dictated by personal ambition, or inspired by zeal for the honor and glory of God. There can be but one answer to such a question. Though the charge of ambition was brought against him, and is still believed by some, it cannot bear the light of historic facts. His "ambition" was that of the apostle who labored so that he might be approved of his Master, and accepted of Him.To these testimonials only one more must be selected,–from the pen of Professor Dorner, of Berlin:"Calvin was equally great in intellect and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sympathy and faithfulness to friends, yielding and forgiving towards personal offenses, but inexorably severe when he saw the honor of God obstinately and malignantly attacked. He combined French fire and practical good sense with German depth and soberness."Your Servant in Christ (for the Third Reformation),Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKSServing Christians worldwide (in over 80 countries) for 19+ years.http://www.swrb.comMANY FREE CHRISTIAN BOOKS at:http://www.swrb.com/newslett/newslett.htm

Hi Chanin, It would be obvious to a CHILD that taking a life just because they disagree with your beliefs is WRONG.Of course.Your reply as a whole has stuck with me and I think that what is difficult here is trying to bridge the gap, fill in the spaces of the event's, circumstances and missing information.From our perspective looking back on this time it seems not only obvious but appalling as you statedthat people were burned alive for there belief's.Of course they also crucified our Lord for the same reason.That Calvin gave only his consent as a witness, not as executioner and asked for a more merciful ending doesn't seem to lessen the offense all that much. It is still troublesome. But we were not alive at that time and I have to wonder at how we would have reacted in those surroundings without the benefit of the structure's of our present Constitution and goverment.It doesn't justify it, I wonder still if there is still not more to this than we know.As it speaks to the original intent of this post, do we still throw the baby out with the bath water?Hope this make's sense.As I stated, 'The dunce of the bunch'

It doesn't justify it, I wonder still if there is still not more to this than we know.You're right about this. Maybe there is alot more than what we know. I can't see that if Calvin was responsible -that the Lord would have seen fit to do something about him- expose him, or worse.I do feel that if he was responsible- that he may have been a hypocrite. Jesus' words do not change- no matter what time we are living in. He means the same thing today as He did when He said them- and when Calvin lived. Actually, the more I get into this whole thing- there is either alot of rumors out there OR I am coming to the conclusion that I totally dislike organized religion. Why can't christians just live like the early church in Acts? Paul would never have agreed to have anyone killed because they didn't agree with him. Actually- that was the old Paul (saul)Before Saul became Paul- who was in charge of his life- Satan! Now that Paul has met jesus and became a changed man, he didn't get his "followers" together and "fight" against those who didn't agree. He did what Jesus did. Became meek, humble, let himself be beaten, imprisoned- all for the sake of the gospel.Just more thoughts. :)

I'm coming in way late, and only read the first three posts, so please excuse any repetition, etc.First, these things have nothing to do with Calvinism per se. Second, Calvinism, as oft presented in the five points, came well after Calvin's death in response to the Remonstrance. Third, this is simply an ad hom argument. It is an informal logical fallacy, an invalid argument.

Did Calvin teach that God's grace is irresistible?In Christ Jeff

Dear Read_the_covenanters, that was a long reading. You wrote;Reading what a man writes or preaches for himself is one of the best ways to judge his character. It is certainly better than listening to his enemies (without knowing both sides of the story), especially when so many ungodly lies have been spread by the evil one against the most faithful servants of the Lord (Calvin included). I had a look into some of the writings of Calvin and found these.We say, then, that Scripture clearly provesthis much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determinedonce for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit tosalvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure todoom to destruction. III.xxi.7 Why did God from thefirst predestine some to death, when, as they were not yet inexistence, they could not have merited sentence of death? III.xxiii.3Whereas the Bible says.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. As I have a choice in believing the Word of God or the Institutes, written by a man, I most certainly will believe the Word of God.Rom 3:21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; Rom 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; Rom 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; Rom 3:26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Rom 3:27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. Rom 3:28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Jeff wrote Did Calvin teach that God's grace is irresistible?Its all part of that package deal. The 'unconditionally elected' are clearly going to be saved whatever happens and as salvation is only possible through grace, then that grace must be irresistable to the unconditionally elected. In many ways it is a tautology. The logic is pretty water-tight given the 'starting position'.For some of us it is the 'starting position' that causes the problems.

Ron I am not aware of what a tautology is. You also say according to logic, it is pretty water-tight given the 'starting position.'My question starting with Adam, based on Calvin's teaching of irresistible grace, did God want Adam to reject Him?In Christ Jeff

Jeff,Sorry, a tautology is 'saying the same thing twice'. It is a grammatical expression.I was only making the point that if you start from Calvin's starting point in this sense is that some are 'unconditionally elected' many of the other points are really just logical deductions. 'saying the same thing in another way'.If we are 'unconditionally elected' is makes refusal impossible and if refusal is impossible then grace is irresistable. Calvin would have called this last things 'effectual calling' rather than irresistable grace.Whether or not Calvin believed that God wanted Adam to reject him is not really part of the 'irresistable grace' thing. It has to do with whether people are 'supralapsarians' or 'infralapsarians'. [Clutch, will explain it to you :-D or if you prefer there is a very simplified version at Infralapsarianism for Dummies.] The Dummies bit was a joke; it pretty complicated stuff. Calvin, apparently, was a Supralapsarian which means he did believe that God intended Adam to sin.

YES , Of course!I will be glad to explain it to the Rookie.1. Last week I could not even spell Infralapsarian. :-( 2. Today, I are one! :-D Clutch :-P