John Calvin

Did you know that Calvin is also being accused for being a vicious tyrant who oppressed people under an unbearable dictatorship, and that he had people executed for disagreeing with him?But here are the facts: Calvin never ruled Geneva, because it was a republic with elections. Calvin did not even hold an office, so he couldn't arrest nor punish any citizen. Under this great man, Geneva developed into Europe's greatest concentration of printers and publishing firms.Did you know that Martin Luther is today accused as an anti-Semite, responsible for massacres and the same claim that this man of God Luther, laid the foundations for the holocaust? The closest Luther came to go against Jews was when he spoke out against blasphemy and heresy with individual Jews. Be careful to lend your ears to such, that just want to create unstability and doubt. All these men of God was and some still are slandered. Spurgeon, Edwards, Carey, Livingstone, Whitefield and many more were.I leave you with Calvin's own words: "No greater injury can be inflicted upon men than to ruin their reputation"In His love,Gery(Info from the book: Character Assassins by Peter Hammond)

To me it really doesn’t matter who he hated and who allowed to be put to death. What matters is that Calvin's heretical teachings have done more to harm the Church than any other man since Constantine. In my opinion, we should be concentrating on his un-Biblical and harmful teachings, not who he hated or allowed to burned at the stake.

Thank you Greg. I fully agree on your reply. I know some dear Christian brethren who are in strong Calvinistic churches and some dear Baptist brethren who are very anti-calvinism. But both groups love the Lord Jesus and have met with Him. Their lives bear the fruit of it. And I praise God with you for men like Calvin.In HIm,Gery

Sorry Greg, I respect your opinion, but I would have to HIGHLY & STRONGLY disagree. I feel Calvin's teaching are dangerous, harmful and un-Biblical. I am not saying that that anyone involved in a Calvinistic denomination is a heretic - that is ludicrous. I have studied Calvinistic Theology and have found it un-Biblical, as you have also done the same since you don’t hold to Calvinistic Theology but rather a Arminian theological interpretation. If Calvinistic Theology was Biblical then why aren’t you a Calvinist? His Theology is either Biblical or it is not. I’m sure I won’t change your mind (and am not trying to) , so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But I still hold firmly that John Calvin and his teachings have done more to harm the Church then any other man and his teachings in history. John Calvin's theology is plainly and simply dangerous, harmful and most importantly un-Biblical. I certainly wouldn’t consider John Calvin a soldier of Christ following in the footsteps of Christ and have no desire to follow in the footsteps of Calvin. I am sure there are many, many SI members who hold very similar views of Calvin and his teachings.Sorry Greg, I may be wrong, (or you may be wrong) but that is just the way I see it after extensive study regarding the matter and objectively looking at both points of view.

YeshuaIsMyGd wrote:So, is it 100% a lie?? 'THe anti-semetic Calvin'Here is a quote from the Holocaust museum in your home state of Florida. "Other Protestant leaders, such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, were more tolerant of Jews than Luther, largely because their principal argument was with the Catholics."Looking for what we call anti-semitism in historic European figures, is like looking for hay in a haystack. Have you ever read Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice?" Was William anti-semitic or is his play a portrait of European attitudes toward Jewish people during the reformation?History requires context. For instance, if we start reading the writings of historic figures without understanding their times, we might well conclude that Lincoln was a racist and Churchill was a warmonger.MC

"Other Protestant leaders, such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, were more tolerant of Jews than Luther, largely because their principal argument was with the Catholics."Yes. We have to also remember that these men lived in different times than we do today. We cannot superimpose the light we are walking in on top of an age when the dark ages were just ending. That is NOT to say we are more versed in scripture. Far from it. The Jews do contend that Luther's tractate "On the Jews and Their Lies" aided Hitler in his diabolical efforts which he dubbed "The Final Solution to the Jewish Problem". This was an issue I had to deal with often in my studies with the Messianic Jews. A cursory look at the tractate will speak for itself. I believe it was birthed from the frustration of being unable to persuade the Jews. Either way, these were men. And men are imperfect. I wrote a tractate on this topic once and began with this quote:When I first heard of the tractate “On the Jews and their Lies” by Martin Luther I was overcome with disbelief. It caused me to somewhat question a lot of teachings and things about him that I had held so dearly. But the thing that you must consider is that there are no “Comic Book” figures in scripture. God has allowed nearly every man and woman of God in scripture to be shown in the light of their humanness and frailty. God did not hide David’s sin, nor did He hide Moses’ smiting of the rock. God told us about Elijah’s trip to the cave and Samuels sons who “knew not the Lord.” This list is almost as long as all the names in scripture. God never allows us to view his servants as anything more than what they are- human beings in a fallen world. Paul and Barnabus’ split could have been hidden and so could have Peter’s respect of persons that Paul refers to in Galatians. Men after the apostolic age are no different. They all had issues of some sort or another. Just when we get ready to build a sepulchre...

Hi YeshuaIsmyGod,JOHN CALVIN; WHO MURDERED MICHAEL CALVITUS BY PUBLICLY BURNING HIM AT THE STAKE IN GENEVA SWITZERLAND AND WHO LATER BECAME THE FOUNDER OF PRESBYTERIANISM and THE BAPTISTS; coined the blasphemous "Replacement Theology" which seeks to promote the LIE that "ISRAEL is now replaced by the christian church". The man's name was Michael Servetus. I am thoroughly familiar with the Messianic's position on replacement theology. I would encourage you to use caution with the term. Reason being is that many Christians do not have a real grasp of the issues and most I have ever spoken with do not believe that the Church 'replaced' Israel, but that they are seperate. The whole point of taking on 'replacement theology' is an attempt to distance Messianic Judaism from main stream Christianity for the purpose of seeing the Jews come to faith in Messiah. However, as one person well said, removing mans methods from the carcass will not give life to it. The problem with the Church is not merely a lot of mans methods (however you want to categorize them, Greek, pagan, etc.); but the absence of God's abiding presence. The same reason we struggle to reach the Jews is the same in reaching the Gentiles. It takes a God-consciousness to bring conviction of sin, etc. No amount of cutting out Christmas, Easter, adding Sabbath and such will bring life. "Having begun in the Spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" This is the question, have you begun in the Spirit? Not do we do things in perfect harmony with 1st Centurt Judaism. Religion and methods cannot get us there. One thing I will ask you, did you receive the Spirit of God by the works of the law or the hearing of faith? Religion cannot save folks whether it be Messianic or Greek Orthodox. the only question that matters is "have you received since you believed?" If folks are not 'receiving' adding 1st century methods in place of modern ones is useless exercise. More than anything- we need God to come and dwell among us. If God would just come- all these other things would seem so small.God Bless,-Robert

Calvin was not the author of calvinism. In fact some of his writing would not support the theology of 'calvinistic' churches.Calvinism really originated by followers of Calvin after his death.

Servetus' was the first to believe in pulmonary circulation, but was not taken seriously in his lifetime. It was not until William Harvey's dissections that it was widely accepted by physicians."Yes, this is an interesting portion of the controversy. As I understand it he taught that the 'breath' (spirit) entered the blood in the lungs and those who opposed him believe that the breath entered the blood in the heart. I recall reading that in one of my old medical manuals years ago. I reasoned that they must have believed that the 'life' of the flesh entered the blood in the heart because the heart was considered to be the center of man's being. What Servetus' opposers believed made sense I suppose, but sometimes you just can't connect the dots like that.

the guy Calvin killed?Calvin's opinion was sought. He may have had influence, but he did not have authority. Servetus was considered a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church and the mainstream of the theologians of his day, which were not considered separate from 'state'. In his writings, Calvin sanctioned the death penalty for Servetus, but he did not sanction it without offers of mercy. The idea of religious freedom was not even an issue at this point in history. It was not uncommon that heretics were burned...this is why the Protestants feared for their own lives, because Roman Catholicism still ruled the day in most nations.Enforcing penalties against false teachers in New Testament times cannot be supported by Scripture (although it is supported in the Old Testament under the civil laws of Israel and Judah), however the overwhelming opinion of the sixteenth century was that the eternal torment of the soul and blasphemies against the holiness of God were greater sins than even murder, which many if not most in our day would say is a wrong that justly deserves the death penalty. I'm not saying we should burn heretics... it's not Biblical. I'm only saying that whatever judgment we make of the religious leaders of that day, we can't say their priorities were not in better order than our own. Any influential theologian that was teaching people (people who mostly could not read and were at the mercy of whatever they heard through preaching)heresies that would work against God's truth for their souls was considered dangerous and evil. Remember, the Bible teaches us not to fear those who can harm the body, but rather to fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell.