Calvinists Justify the Known Murderer, John Calvin.

Known Murderer, John Calvin

Incarcerated criminals who’d received lifelong prison sentences often use foolhardy lackeys to do their dirty work for them. Many crimes are committed by proxy, exonerating the mafia masterminds in jail of some of the most heinous murders – thanks to the stupid lackeys who revere, fear and even worship their bosses in prison. It is a well-documented fact that John Calvin wielded great power over civil and ecclesiastical authorities and could sway the masses to dance to his tune like a proper Pied the Piper (No, I’m not referring to John Piper).

A master of the art of organization, Calvin had been able to transform a whole city, a whole State, whose numerous burghers had hitherto been freemen, into a rigidly obedient machine; had been able to extirpate independence, and to lay an embargo on freedom of thought in favour of his own exclusive doctrine. The powers of the State were under his supreme control; as wax in his hands were the various authorities, Town Council and Consistory, university and law-courts, finance and morality, priests and schools, catchpoles and prisons, the written and the spoken and even the secretly whispered word. His doctrine had become law, and anyone who ventured to question it was soon taught-by arguments that burked discussion, by the arguments of every spiritual tyranny, by jail, exile, or burning at the stake-how in Geneva only one truth was valid, the truth of which Calvin was the prophet.

But the sinister power of this zealot extended far beyond the walls of Geneva. The Swiss federated cities regarded him as their chief political member; throughout the western world the Protestants had appointed this “violentissimus Christianus” their commander-in-chief; kings and princes vied with one another in wooing the favour of a militant ecclesiastic who had established in Europe a Church organization second in power only to that ruled by the Roman pontiff. Nothing could happen in the political world without his knowledge; very little could happen there in defiance of his will. It had become as dangerous to offend the preacher of St.-Pierre as to offend emperor or pope. 

“The Right to Heresy” or “How Calvin Killed a Conscience” – Castellio against Calvin

It baffles the mind and often borders on the bizarre to see how Calvinists who call themselves loving and obedient sheep and followers of Jesus Christ fight tooth and nail to defend their hero, the murderer and serial killer – JOHN CALVIN (French: Jean Calvin, born Jehan Cauvin: 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564).

Many Calvinists who have been defending the doctrines of John Calvin their entire life are now beginning to sing another song. Instead of defending the doctrines of grace, they are doing everything in their power to defend John Calvin. The song is called “How to Justify a Murderer.” The main reason for their U-turn is – wait for it –  the INTERNET. Yep! that’s right – the INTERNET. The internet is single-handedly the best proof that Bible prophecy is the truth and nothing but the truth. Listen up!

Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:3)

The Amplified Bible says it thus:

Whatever you have spoken in the darkness shall be heard and listened to in the light, and what you have whispered in [people’s] ears and behind closed doors will be proclaimed upon the housetops.

I trust that you’ve noticed the connection between the internet and the Bible? The internet by far has made the most significant contribution to the uncovering of John Calvin’s murderous activities in Geneva, even more than all the books written on the subject put together. Believe it or not, some of the most zealous Calvinists are now beginning to admit – on the INTERNET – that Calvin was a murderer, and indeed a serial killer par excellence.

Many lesser-known Calvinists, but of no lesser importance, are trying to put some distance between themselves and John Calvin. “OK Mr Serial Killer, we are so sorry for having to put you in our imaginative prison but don’t fret; we revere, honour and adore your “Institutes” so much that we will personally undertake the task of telling people that God never loved them and that his Son never died for them on the cross.”  Some South African Calvinists who no longer want to be known as Calvinists and yet still approve of his doctrines openly admit that they do not condone his atrocious crimes. Others claim that history bears witness to the fact that he never killed Servetus.

Shall we then page through some of the best and well-known encyclopedias to see what HISTORY tells us?

Servetus forwarded the manuscript of an enlarged revision of his ideas, the Christianismi Restitutio, to Calvin in 1546 and expressed a desire to meet him. After their first few letters, Calvin would have nothing more to do with him and kept the manuscript. He declared to his eloquent French preacher colleague Guillaume Farel that if Servetus ever came to Geneva he would not allow him to leave alive.

A rewritten version of Servetus’ manuscript was secretly printed in 1,000 copies at Vienne in 1553. In discussing the relationship between the Spirit and regeneration in that book, Servetus almost incidentally made known his discovery of the pulmonary circulation of blood. In the book, Servetus argued that both God the Father and Christ his Son had been dishonoured by the Constantinian promulgation of the Nicene Creed, thus obscuring the redemptive role of Christ and bringing about the fall of the church; Servetus felt he could restore the church by separating it from the state and by using only those theological formulations that could be proved from Scripture and the pre-Constantinian fathers.

When some of Servetus’ letters to Calvin fell into the hands of Guillaume de Trie, a former citizen of Lyon, he exposed Servetus to the inquisitor general at Lyon. Servetus and his printers were seized. During the trial, however, Servetus escaped, and the Catholic authorities had to be content with burning him in effigy. He quixotically appeared in Geneva and was recognized, arrested, and tried for heresy from Aug. 14 to Oct. 25, 1553. Calvin played a prominent part in the trial and pressed for execution, although by beheading rather than by fire. (Was he the first ISIS terrorist who would rather have dissenters beheaded than scorched to death?). Despite his intense biblicism and his wholly Christocentric view of the universe, Servetus was found guilty of heresy, mainly on his views of the Trinity and Baptism. He was burned alive at Champel on October 27. His execution produced a Protestant controversy on imposing the death penalty for heresy, drew severe criticism upon John Calvin, and influenced Laelius Socinus, a founder of modern Unitarian views. () (Emphasis and parenthesis added).

Encyclopaedia Britannica

As you can see, John Calvin, opted for an execution by decapitation, the more humane Islamic way, than by fire, the more inhumane Roman Catholic way. Murder by proxy? You bet! John Calvin never ventured to pollute his hands with the impure blood of his non-elected enemies. He graciously let others do the job for him and they graciously performed his wishes to the letter.

At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).^[27] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, “It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity.“^{[28] . . .}
As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government, in an attempt to find some plausible excuse to disregard this legal reality, had consulted with other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen.) They universally favoured his condemnation and suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.^[31] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. The party called the “Libertines“, who were generally opposed to anything and everything John Calvin supported, were in this case strongly in favour of the execution of Servetus at the stake (while Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead). In fact, the council that condemned Servetus was presided over by Perrin (a Libertine) who ultimately on 24 October sentenced Servetus to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.^[32] When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation as a traitor rather than by fire as a heretic, Farel, in a letter of 8 September, chided him for undue lenience.^[33] The Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.“^[34]

Calvin agreed that those whom the ruling religious authorities determined to be heretics should be punished:

“Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man’s authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.” [35] (Wikipedia) (Emphasis added)

Servetus, Michael , 1511-53, Spanish theologian and physician.His name in Spanish was Miguel Serveto. In his early years he came in contact with some of the leading reformers in Germany and Switzerland-Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer,Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, and probably Martin Luther. But he held views, concerning the Trinity in particular, that brought condemnation from the theologians of the Reformation as well as from those of the Roman Catholic Church. When he published Detrinitatis erroribus (1531) and De trinitate (1532), the feeling of opposition was so strong that he assumed the name of Michel DE Villeneuve, from the family home, Villanueva, and spent some time in Lyons, working on an edition of Ptolemy’s geography and other scientific works, then in Paris studying medicine. There he is said to have seen John Calvin. He became well-known for his ability in dissection and had unusual success as a physician; he discovered that some of the blood circulates through the lungs. From 1541 to1553 he lived in the palace of the archbishop of Vienne as his confidential physician. When (1553) he had a work setting forth his ideas of Christianity secretly printed, investigation was begun by the Inquisition. Servetus, arrested, tried, and condemned, escaped from prison. Several months later, while making his way to Italy, he was seized in Geneva by Calvin’s order. There, after along trial, in which Calvin’s condemnation was a stern factor, he was burned on Oct. 27, 1553. 

See biographies by R. H. Bainton (1953) and J. F. Fulton (1954)

As you can see the internet is replete with abundant and highly reputable scholarly evidence that John Calvin was responsible for the death of Michael Servetus, albeit a murder by proxy because he resourcefully manipulated the authorities, in much the same way the Roman Catholic church manipulated kings and queens. Despite these damnable evidences against John Calvin, these Calvinists accuse the authors of some of the best and most reliable encyclopedias of bearing false witness. Have they studied “The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59” (translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy) that meticulously bears witness to the following incidents?

• During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.
• From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.
• During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offenses amounted to four hundred and fourteen.
• One burgher smiled while attending a baptism: three days imprisonment.
• Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.
• Some working men ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water.
• Two burghers played skittles: prison.
• Two others diced for a quarter bottle of wine: prison.
• A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city.
• Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.
• A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbor a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance.
• Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: four-and-twenty hours on bread and water.
• A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.
• A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung around his neck.
• Another sang riotously in the street: was told ‘they could go and sing elsewhere,’ this meaning he was banished from the city.
• Two bargees had a brawl: executed.
• A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
• A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.
• Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.
• Each offense, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.”

Have they studied the issues presented in the sources quoted in Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol. 8:

• “The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”
• Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.
• A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’
• A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’
• Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
• Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.
• A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.
• A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.
• A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
• A banker was executed for repeated adultery. (Compare this incident with Paul’s handling of the man who committed adultery with his father’s wife – 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 2:1-7)
• A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.
• Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft.

Have our dearest Calvinist friends studied the issues from Other Sources:

• Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).
• Martin Luther said of Calvin’s actions in Geneva, “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).
• “About the month of January 1546, a member of the Little Council, Pierre Ameaux, asserted that Calvin was nothing but a wicked man – who was preaching false doctrine. Calvin felt that his authority as an interpreter of the Word of God was being attacked: he so completely identified his own ministry with the will of God that he considered Ameaux’s words as an insult to the honour of Christ. The Magistrates offered to make the culprit beg Calvin’s pardon on bended knees before the Council of the Two Hundred, but Calvin found this insufficient. On April 8, Ameaux was sentenced to walk all round the town, dressed only in a shirt, bareheaded and carrying a lighted torch in his hand, and after that to present himself before the tribunal and cry to God for mercy” (F. Wendel, Calvin, pp. 85, 86).

Truly, we may ask:

“Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” (James 3:11)

CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY ON WHOSE SIDE YOU PREFER TO BE – MICHAEL SERVETUS OR JOHN CALVIN

Contrary to Calvin’s own views on infant baptism, many Calvinists unflinchingly take sides with Michael Servetus who called paedobaptism “an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity. Fortunately, time machines are merely a figment of the imagination. Were it possible to send people back into the past, we could probably have sent these anti-paedobaptist Calvinists back to 1553 so that they could find out first-hand wha the truth is and how Calvin treated those who regarded infant baptism a deception to be of the devil. On the other hand, they could probably have pleaded with Calvin to spare Servetus’ life with whom they wholeheartedly agree on infant baptism.

The million dollar question is: Whose side would they have taken if they’d been at Michael Servetus’ infamous trial – his or John Calvin’s? I doubt whether they would have taken Servetus’ side because they would certainly have ended up on the stake with him for their opinion on infant baptism. However, I doubt whether they would have been bold enough to cry out “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.“^[34] 

Calvinists have no need of this kind of emotionalism because God sovereignly “monergisms” them with mercy. Why then should they cry out for mercy when it is given to them monergistically? Surely any plea for mercy wold immediately defame God’s sovereignty who declares “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15). By virtue of their election, there is no need for them to cry out for mercy. Should they, like Michael Servetus burn like a steak tied to a stake, God’s mercy is already sovereignly bestowed on them, Poor Servetus, his plea for mercy must have fallen on deaf ears because he was not one of the elect.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIN AND HIGH TREASON?

Calvinists seem to have a problem with articulating the true meaning of words, to the extent that they not only make a distinction between “world” and “world,” “all” and “all”,” “whosoever” and “whomsoever” but also between high treason and sin. In our introductory video, Jerry Johnson admits that John Calvin was a sinner but firmly asserts that Michael Servetus was much much worse because he committed high treason against the community, the church, and Christ. Before I continue, I would like to focus your attention on one little thing Jerry Johnson said toward the end of his video.

Until next week, this is Jerry Johnson standing contra mundum, and with the City Council of Geneva, against the world. (The expression “contra mundum” means to stand against or in defiance of all general opinion).

This is glaringly yet another one of the Calvinists’ “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” oxymorons. I want you to put on your thinking caps for a moment, as our beloved and revered Calvie, Paul Washer would say. Calvinists assert that the word “world” in John 3:16 and in many other passages in Scripture do not refer to the entire world (the whole of mankind) but only to the world of the elect. If it were true that “world” is limited to the world of the elect only, Jerry Johnson’s final remark in the video would have to be changed to read as follows: “Until next week, this is Jerry Johnson standing contra mundum, and with the City Council of Geneva, against the world of the elect.” What did Jesus say about a house that is divided against itself? “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25).

High treason may be defined as a deliberate act – by word of mouth, in writing or any other means – to misrepresent the intrinsic character/personality of someone with an intent to present him/her in a light other than the one the person himself/herself presents to others. High treason, therefore, involves the deliberate misrepresentation of a sovereign king or queen or person in leadership of a country so as to damage their cause/purpose and the well-being of their subjects. Let us now scrutinize Calvinism and the doctrines of grace in the light of this particular definition of high treason.

DOES CALVINISM MISREPRESENT THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE SOVEREIGN GOD, THE TRINITY?

GOD IS (THE ESSENCE) OF LOVE

God never revealed Himself as the God of love. He is not an Entity or a Person who merely possesses the ability to show forth love and compassion. He IS love – the very essence of love. In this sense He can say of Himself “I AM LOVE,” (1 John 4:8 and 16), the very fountain of love. Yes, of course He is also the essence of righteousness, holiness and justice but it is his love that motivated Him to create the angelic beings, the entire cosmos and also mankind in his own image. His entire being is focused on loving his creation and especially his creatures. Even his hatred of sin and rebellion emanates from his love because sin separates his creatures from Him with whom He wishes to be in a relationship. In reality God who is the very essence of love cannot do otherwise but love all of humanity without exception, and indeed, so much that He gave his Son to die for the sins of humankind as a whole.

Calvinists rarely talk about God being the very essence of love. “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin hardly ever mentions God’s love. Their wrong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, especially in his alleged choice of a select few, predestined for salvation, tarnishes his essence which is love. To them love is not conditioned on who He is (the essence of love) but on who his creatures are in his sight. If you are an elect He unconditionally loves you but if you are a reprobate He unconditionally hates you. Hence their wrong exegesis of Romans 9:13: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

True love is to desire the very best – not only for those whom you love and who love you – but even for your worst enemies, and the best you can wish for them is that they be saved. Paul of Tarsus was relentlessly persecuted by his own people and yet he was prepared to suffer an eternity in hell for the sake of the salvation of his brethren after the flesh.

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Romans 9:1-3)

THIS IS TRUE LOVE

Paul and Silas were put in prison for their doctrinal steadfastness on how one is saved and what it means to be saved. Their sincere and intense love for Christ’s gospel (doctrine) of salvation inspired them to face even the worst of persecutions, prison and death. It was love that compelled them to preach the Gospel (doctrine of salvation) (2 Corinthians 5:14). You cannot proclaim the Gospel if Christ’s love does not propel you to do so.

The mistake all Calvinists make, is to draw a distinction between God’s love and God’s doctrine. The truth is that God’s doctrine is God’s love revealed and God’s love is God’s doctrine in action. Therefore, to assume that love is merely part of doctrine and to suggest that love is not as important as doctrine is not entirely correct. Love is not a part of God’s doctrine. It IS His doctrine. That’s precisely why John 3:16 is the most quoted verse in the entire history of mankind; “For God so loved the world (a concise doctrinal statement, decree or declaration) that he gave his only begotten Son (doctrine of his love in action), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In what way is God’s love merely a part of his doctrine in this particular passage in Scripture?

Nonetheless, Calvinists have no other option but to interpret God’s love and doctrine in the way they do because, according to them, God does not love the non-elect. Show me where the non-elect are included in the abbreviation of the doctrines of grace as we find it represented in the acronym “TULIP?” Let’s briefly look at it.

• TOTAL DEPRAVITY (YES; THE NON-ELECT ARE AS TOTALLY DEPRAVED AS THE ELECT).
• UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (YES; THEY WERE UNCONDITIONALLY ELECTED TO SPEND AN ETERNITY IN HELL, EVEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD).
• LIMITED ATONEMENT (NO; THE ATONEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE ELECT ONLY)
• IRRESISTIBLE GRACE (NO; GOD DOES NOT BESTOW HIS IRRESISTIBEL GRACE ON THE NON-ELECT)
• PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (NO; THEY ARE NOT SAINTS BUT THE REPROBATE)

The hatred Calvinists so easily contrive for non Calvinists (the non-elect) is an extension of John Calvin’s murderous disposition. How do they jusitfy their hatred? To emulate God and to defend his sovereignty they have no other choice (excuse the pun) to hate unbelievers (the non-elect) because God hates them.

So what do we have so far:

1. Do not expect forgiveness from Calvinists.
2. Do not expect love from Calvinists.

Ok then… but this is to be expected, they are a cult of course.

A serial killer is traditionally defined as a person who has killed three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a “cooling off period”) between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer (John Calvin)

Pread read all articles on Calvinism here.