Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When persons resort to the genetic fallacy by appealing to John Calvin's life as a supposed refutation of the theological views from Scripture that he systematized, it is clear they are becoming desperate. Such tactics demonstrate these persons are just not qualified to sit at the table where serious theological discourse takes place.
Any notion that Geneva was operating under Calvin as a theocrat is discredited with Farel and Calvin being forced to leave (in a big hurry) in 1538. Calvin's complaint that people named their dogs after him ought to dispel some of the usual aggressive claims that Calvin ruled Geneva.
The plain fact that Calvin did not achieve citizenship until 1559 is significant and overlooked by those hoping to discredit Calvin since they have failed to discredit the theology of the Reformer. Calvin’s Geneva is best understood by actually doing some real homework rather than just copying and pasting from the usual anti-Calvinistic sites (or wing-nut KJBOnlyists like Jack Moorman).
Monter:
Calvin's Geneva
R. Willis:
Servetus And Calvin: A Study Of An Important Epoch In The Early History Of The Reformation
P. E. Hughes:
Calvin and the Consolidation of the Reformation in Geneva (1994).
Scott Manestch:
Calvin's Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609
Afterwards reading someone who actually knows something about Calvin's life would be in order, such as:
T. H. L. Parker:
John Calvin--A Biography
Richard Muller:
The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition
For that matter, why the focus upon Calvin, at a time in history when the gospel was being perverted by so many, nearly all of the leading magisterial reformers defended putting heretics, including Anabaptists, to death. Indeed, Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, and Bullinger and other leading reformers were just as vocal in their defense of such policies. Geneva, like Zurich, was a little different because these were cantons, city-states. Cities in the Empire functioned a little differently. Further, after 1655 Reformed cities were under a special pressure because they weren’t included formally in the Peace of Augsburg and thus were technically illegal. They were already suspected of being soft of heresy (e.g., Anabaptists flocked to Zurich early) and the Reformed reacted in some cases, e.g., Heidelberg in 1572, by trying to demonstrate that they weren’t soft on heresy.
As someone who has actually studied Reformation history, my job isn’t to defend or prosecute Calvin. Rather it is to tell the truth about the past as best I can. Sure, sixteenth-century Geneva was just that: sixteenth century! Relative to modern pluralism it was a miserable place. Relative to other places in sixteenth-century Europe, it was regarded as a hospital. The diaconal ministry of Geneva was famous across Europe/British Isles. Women fled to Geneva for safety. Pilgrims came to Geneva to escape persecution in France, Italy, and the British Isles among other places. The modern, hospitable Geneva that we know via the Red Cross, et al began, in that sense, in the sixteenth century.
Was discipline harsh? Yes! It was the sixteenth century. People weren’t allowed to say and do whatever they wanted in pre-modern Europe. It just wasn’t allowed, anywhere.
Calvin was influential but he was also a pilgrim who was expelled by the Geneva city council and then later recalled, a man who didn’t want to be there and who was hated by a substantial portion of the community, despite the claims of the uninformed that he ruled Geneva. The civil punishments handed by the Genevan council out were just that. The city council did not work for Calvin. He worked for them, but those facts don’t fit the popular anti-Calvinist narrative.
The anti-Calvinist should at least dig deeper find an online version of Schaff's History of Christianity. When it was published, scholarly fact-checking was not as rigorous as it is today, but even Schaff, no friend of Calvin, could not muster up the nonsense being posted about Calvin's personal life.
So either all the recognized authors of historical accounts are all conspiring to maintain a huge cover-up about Calvin, since none of them affirm the nonsense often posted about Calvin, or, just perhaps, these folks simply do not know what they are talking about. :AMR:
As to the Servetus affair, my personal view is that Calvin, as a pastor in Geneva, could have been more public about the verdict, calling for mercy even moreso than he really did. That said, I doubt that this would have accomplished much, given the political climate at the time. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the Reformed faithful consider Calvin, Luther, etc., to be perfect men are mistaken. There has been only one perfect man, the God-man Jesus Christ.
Two accurate sources on the Servetus matter:
Calvin College - Meeter Center - The Michael Servetus Controversy
Thirdmill Answer Servetus
I realize it is easy to mimic the usual anti-Calvin cavils one finds on internet discussion sites. It is much more difficult to dig into the historical records and come to a more informed view.
Barring the quest to avoid being intellectually lazy, I suppose the following will suffice for the usual anti-Calvinist:
View attachment 23529
[Click to Enlarge]
AMR
Any notion that Geneva was operating under Calvin as a theocrat is discredited with Farel and Calvin being forced to leave (in a big hurry) in 1538. Calvin's complaint that people named their dogs after him ought to dispel some of the usual aggressive claims that Calvin ruled Geneva.
The plain fact that Calvin did not achieve citizenship until 1559 is significant and overlooked by those hoping to discredit Calvin since they have failed to discredit the theology of the Reformer. Calvin’s Geneva is best understood by actually doing some real homework rather than just copying and pasting from the usual anti-Calvinistic sites (or wing-nut KJBOnlyists like Jack Moorman).
Monter:
Calvin's Geneva
R. Willis:
Servetus And Calvin: A Study Of An Important Epoch In The Early History Of The Reformation
P. E. Hughes:
Calvin and the Consolidation of the Reformation in Geneva (1994).
Scott Manestch:
Calvin's Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609
Afterwards reading someone who actually knows something about Calvin's life would be in order, such as:
T. H. L. Parker:
John Calvin--A Biography
Richard Muller:
The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition
For that matter, why the focus upon Calvin, at a time in history when the gospel was being perverted by so many, nearly all of the leading magisterial reformers defended putting heretics, including Anabaptists, to death. Indeed, Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, and Bullinger and other leading reformers were just as vocal in their defense of such policies. Geneva, like Zurich, was a little different because these were cantons, city-states. Cities in the Empire functioned a little differently. Further, after 1655 Reformed cities were under a special pressure because they weren’t included formally in the Peace of Augsburg and thus were technically illegal. They were already suspected of being soft of heresy (e.g., Anabaptists flocked to Zurich early) and the Reformed reacted in some cases, e.g., Heidelberg in 1572, by trying to demonstrate that they weren’t soft on heresy.
As someone who has actually studied Reformation history, my job isn’t to defend or prosecute Calvin. Rather it is to tell the truth about the past as best I can. Sure, sixteenth-century Geneva was just that: sixteenth century! Relative to modern pluralism it was a miserable place. Relative to other places in sixteenth-century Europe, it was regarded as a hospital. The diaconal ministry of Geneva was famous across Europe/British Isles. Women fled to Geneva for safety. Pilgrims came to Geneva to escape persecution in France, Italy, and the British Isles among other places. The modern, hospitable Geneva that we know via the Red Cross, et al began, in that sense, in the sixteenth century.
Was discipline harsh? Yes! It was the sixteenth century. People weren’t allowed to say and do whatever they wanted in pre-modern Europe. It just wasn’t allowed, anywhere.
Calvin was influential but he was also a pilgrim who was expelled by the Geneva city council and then later recalled, a man who didn’t want to be there and who was hated by a substantial portion of the community, despite the claims of the uninformed that he ruled Geneva. The civil punishments handed by the Genevan council out were just that. The city council did not work for Calvin. He worked for them, but those facts don’t fit the popular anti-Calvinist narrative.
The anti-Calvinist should at least dig deeper find an online version of Schaff's History of Christianity. When it was published, scholarly fact-checking was not as rigorous as it is today, but even Schaff, no friend of Calvin, could not muster up the nonsense being posted about Calvin's personal life.
So either all the recognized authors of historical accounts are all conspiring to maintain a huge cover-up about Calvin, since none of them affirm the nonsense often posted about Calvin, or, just perhaps, these folks simply do not know what they are talking about. :AMR:
As to the Servetus affair, my personal view is that Calvin, as a pastor in Geneva, could have been more public about the verdict, calling for mercy even moreso than he really did. That said, I doubt that this would have accomplished much, given the political climate at the time. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the Reformed faithful consider Calvin, Luther, etc., to be perfect men are mistaken. There has been only one perfect man, the God-man Jesus Christ.
Two accurate sources on the Servetus matter:
Calvin College - Meeter Center - The Michael Servetus Controversy
Thirdmill Answer Servetus
I realize it is easy to mimic the usual anti-Calvin cavils one finds on internet discussion sites. It is much more difficult to dig into the historical records and come to a more informed view.
Barring the quest to avoid being intellectually lazy, I suppose the following will suffice for the usual anti-Calvinist:
View attachment 23529
[Click to Enlarge]
AMR