Discipline in Calvin's Geneva
- Thread starter Phil D.
- Start date
- Status
A much better historical account of John Calvin, the man and his true nature, of Geneva, and of Calvin’s part in it is found in the third book of “2,000 Years of Christ’s Power” by N. R. Needham. It’s a thorough treatment by a serious and respected (and Reformed Baptist) church historian.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...l=kn=2000+years+of+Christ%27s+power&sortby=17
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...l=kn=2000+years+of+Christ%27s+power&sortby=17
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Sure. The particular tidbit that Calvin had a child executed was one of the fact-checks I had to search out for the book project I was involved in last year. The author, if I recall, chose to delete it from his book after I informed him precise documentation was too vague and that the account was probably from 1568, after Calvin died.
For my long-winded analysis, see this link: Calvin Beheaded a Child in Geneva? There you will find the trail I followed to determine where Schaff and Durant pulled this story from. The 1568 date can be found in this book.
Last edited:
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
I took a look at this one as well. See, Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.
The reason the name "Claude" was outlawed was because, "Claude was a name that had been popular in Geneva because of devotion to St. Claude, bishop of Bassancon and patron of the neighboring abbey of St. Claude, which attracted numerous Pilgrams." Perhaps some may think Geneva went to far with this sort of Reforming effort, but it does certainly show to what extent they sought to root out Romanism.
Wonder what they would have thought of naming kids Jesus, as common in Spanish speaking nations?
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Great point. I forget who I took this from, but I've since made it my own: I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all.
I'm not one who would simply give Calvin a free pass, and say that everything he did was wonderful (treating him like a Reformed "saint"). On the other hand, I've learned that history is tricky thing, filled with presuppositions, nuances, and bias. The scorn heaped on Calvin (and Luther!) is a great exercise in interpreting the facts of history according to worldview. Consider how pop-historian Wil Durant summarized Calvin: ...we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense" [Will Durant, The Reformation: The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 490].
That conclusion sums up well Durant's treatment of Calvin. Later in his Dual Autobiography, he and his wife jab the Reformation's seeming rejection of the Renaissance "as pagan" and a reversion "to the gloomy theology of saint Paul and Saint Augustine, leading to the predestinarianism of Calvin and Knox, the Puritan regime, and the replacement of papal authority with the authoritarianism of the state in religion in Germany and Great Britain." Durant did not hide the fact that he was not sympathetic to either Calvin or the Reformation.
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Hmm... don't know! I suspect it was not an issue... I'm not sure how many Spaniards were residing in Genva during Calvin's time!
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Since we're recommending books on Calvin's Geneva, here are a few of my picks:
Philip Hughes, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin
Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva
Robert Kingdon, Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin
E. William Monter, Calvin's Geneva
Richard Stauffer, The Humanness of John Calvin
I would be very careful speaking about the child who struck her parents and was executed as if it was some "evil tyrannical" thing to do. Simply because this was a judgment commanded by God in the OT.
Exodus 21:15
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
God would not put this in His law if it was some evil or cruel practice. In fact, He put it there because it was 100% the best thing to do. The same with the judgment on witches.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
I don't believe it is right to be critical on the Civil Magistrate who looks at these judgments God commanded in the OT and adopts the use of them. We shouldn't filter these political things through a enlightenment influenced, libertarian mindset and shout "Tyrant!" so quickly.
Exodus 21:15
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
God would not put this in His law if it was some evil or cruel practice. In fact, He put it there because it was 100% the best thing to do. The same with the judgment on witches.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
I don't believe it is right to be critical on the Civil Magistrate who looks at these judgments God commanded in the OT and adopts the use of them. We shouldn't filter these political things through a enlightenment influenced, libertarian mindset and shout "Tyrant!" so quickly.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Here are some of my thoughts.
Personally I think Calvin is often demonized (wrongly and in some cases very prejudicially) by his detractors. Yes, like all mortals he had his faults, some perhaps quite serious (think also of Luther’s frequent crassness), but he was clearly no monster. With all things considered, I believe he must be deemed a great man of God and even a hero of the faith.
Given his prominence in church history, I do think it is legitimate to scrutinize and, as appropriate, critique Calvin’s actions. The 9th Commandment may predominantly forbid the telling of negative falsehoods, yet as the WLC points out it also comprehends such things as idolizing people (“…thinking or speaking too highly…of ourselves or others…fond admiration…” Q.145).
With respect to the general matter of discipline under consideration here, the Geneva city council was ultimately responsible for determining and passing sentence both for civil and religious offenses. While Calvin did have considerable input and influence with that body—for which he is accountable, and in some cases was arguably over severe—his petitions were actually ignored more often than one might expect. The legendary charge that Calvin was the Pope of Geneva, made by Catholics and some Protestants alike, is simply not credible.
James Swan has done yeoman’s work in searching out the sensational case of a person that was beheaded in Geneva for striking a parent mentioned in the OP, which shows Calvin’s culpability to be at most subsidiary (see link in post #33). Excellent article, James, thank you.
Corporeal and capital punishment for religious offenses was de jur in 16th century Europe. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating figures living within that historical milieu. We may rue the fact that leaders like Calvin failed to oppose or transcend such conventions, and rightly appreciate those who eventually did. But to simply ignore the role that entrenched views and practices played in their affairs is anachronistic at best, certainly nonobjective and distorted, and at worst slanderous.
For myself, I’m very glad the convention of capital punishment for religious offenses in Christianity faded away over time. While the OT Law retains valid and thus valuable general equity in matters it pertains to, I think the mercy displayed by Jesus toward the woman caught in adultery is didactic as well. If everyone that committed sexual impurity, profaned the Sabbath or uttered a blasphemy were still put to death, I think there would be a lot of very, very small churches…
Finally, here are parts of Schaff’s contexed evaluation of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, which I believe is fairly balanced and in some points even insightful. In any event, it is certainly thought-provoking.
Personally I think Calvin is often demonized (wrongly and in some cases very prejudicially) by his detractors. Yes, like all mortals he had his faults, some perhaps quite serious (think also of Luther’s frequent crassness), but he was clearly no monster. With all things considered, I believe he must be deemed a great man of God and even a hero of the faith.
Given his prominence in church history, I do think it is legitimate to scrutinize and, as appropriate, critique Calvin’s actions. The 9th Commandment may predominantly forbid the telling of negative falsehoods, yet as the WLC points out it also comprehends such things as idolizing people (“…thinking or speaking too highly…of ourselves or others…fond admiration…” Q.145).
With respect to the general matter of discipline under consideration here, the Geneva city council was ultimately responsible for determining and passing sentence both for civil and religious offenses. While Calvin did have considerable input and influence with that body—for which he is accountable, and in some cases was arguably over severe—his petitions were actually ignored more often than one might expect. The legendary charge that Calvin was the Pope of Geneva, made by Catholics and some Protestants alike, is simply not credible.
James Swan has done yeoman’s work in searching out the sensational case of a person that was beheaded in Geneva for striking a parent mentioned in the OP, which shows Calvin’s culpability to be at most subsidiary (see link in post #33). Excellent article, James, thank you.
Corporeal and capital punishment for religious offenses was de jur in 16th century Europe. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating figures living within that historical milieu. We may rue the fact that leaders like Calvin failed to oppose or transcend such conventions, and rightly appreciate those who eventually did. But to simply ignore the role that entrenched views and practices played in their affairs is anachronistic at best, certainly nonobjective and distorted, and at worst slanderous.
For myself, I’m very glad the convention of capital punishment for religious offenses in Christianity faded away over time. While the OT Law retains valid and thus valuable general equity in matters it pertains to, I think the mercy displayed by Jesus toward the woman caught in adultery is didactic as well. If everyone that committed sexual impurity, profaned the Sabbath or uttered a blasphemy were still put to death, I think there would be a lot of very, very small churches…
Finally, here are parts of Schaff’s contexed evaluation of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, which I believe is fairly balanced and in some points even insightful. In any event, it is certainly thought-provoking.
Revolution is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this task Calvin was providentially foreordained and equipped by genius, education, and circumstances... Calvin, the Frenchman, would have been as much out of place in Zurich or Wittenberg, as the Swiss Zwingli and the German Luther would have been out of place and without a popular constituency in French-speaking Geneva. Each stands first and unrivaled in his particular mission and field of labor.
...Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had the great advantage of building on their foundation. He had less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a man of action, but superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the stones in the quarries, he polished them in the workshop. They produced the new ideas, he constructed them into a system. His was the work of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather than to plant, God giving the increase.
Calvin’s character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or Zwingli’s, but he left his Church [i.e. the Calvinist branch of Protestantism] in a much better condition. He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern, severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection glowing beneath the marble surface. His name will never arouse popular enthusiasm... But he surpassed them [Luther and Zwingli] in consistency of self-discipline, and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted and still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant Churches of Latin and Anglo-Saxon races.
…History furnishes no more striking example of a man of so little personal popularity, and yet such great influence upon the people [as Calvin]; of such natural timidity and bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and character, and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer and ruler of churches.
Widely as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Christ.
...Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had the great advantage of building on their foundation. He had less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a man of action, but superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the stones in the quarries, he polished them in the workshop. They produced the new ideas, he constructed them into a system. His was the work of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather than to plant, God giving the increase.
Calvin’s character is less attractive, and his life less dramatic than Luther’s or Zwingli’s, but he left his Church [i.e. the Calvinist branch of Protestantism] in a much better condition. He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian stoic: stern, severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection glowing beneath the marble surface. His name will never arouse popular enthusiasm... But he surpassed them [Luther and Zwingli] in consistency of self-discipline, and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted and still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant Churches of Latin and Anglo-Saxon races.
…History furnishes no more striking example of a man of so little personal popularity, and yet such great influence upon the people [as Calvin]; of such natural timidity and bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and character, and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer and ruler of churches.
Widely as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Christ.
From everything I have read (that I trust) this is simply not true of John Calvin.
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Over the years I've encountered non-Reformed people with a negative bent towards Calvin, quick to disparage Calvin's Geneva, yet have no problem with the law of God as presented in the Old Testament. The inconsistency is amazing.
James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
Track down the book I mentioned above, The Humanness of John Calvin by Richard Stauffer... if I recall, originally in French. It's a good balance to the typical negativity attributed toward Calvin. True, Calvin had flaws and sins, but often he's overly caricatured coldly and with negativity. The older I get, the more complicated people become, even those that have been dead for a long time.
Was he right in setting up that government ruling structureas he did though? Should we set up modern City in Same fashion then?
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Fair enough. To one degree or another every author brings their bias to their presentation. I've seen various works about Calvin that I thought were looking through a dark cloud, and others through rose colored lenses. While I probably wouldn't state it as austerely as Schaff did, I get what he means in a relative context.
Calvin set up no civil government at all. He fought for a separate establishment of a independent (if inter-dependent, given the times) church government.
Part of the Reformation's advances (or return to biblical form) was to pry the institutional concerns of the church out from under the thumb of the political class.
Calvin worked his whole ministry within the local governing parameters of the Genevan city-state, which had two governing councils, a Great and a Small. They preexisted his entrance, and were still in place at his death.
Prior to his return to Geneva, his effort to gain ecclesiastical self-rule for the church had failed. He was expelled for his Reforming ways.
When he was asked back, one of his conditions was that the church in Geneva would exercise its own power independent from the state.
So only those who were members of his church and who agreed to have their cases ruled by Biblical Law were under the influence and outreach of the rulers judgements, not general public?
I can't speak for him but I am not sure that was the point Reverend Buchanan was making. The point was that the Civil Authority and rule of Geneva was not set up by Calvin. It was set up by the people before he was there. He wanted to bring Church discipline concerning Church matters before the Church and not before the Civil magistrate. If a civil crime was committed then the Civil Authorities were expected to do their duty. There does seem to be some blurring of the line. From my past reading and memory Calvin had disagreement with Geneva and the Civil Authorities on more than a few instances.
I can't follow your train of thought. You have to start reasoning from some sure, specific fact that you know. If you start reasoning, but at some point learn that your starting point was no fact but an error, you have to go back to the beginning and start reasoning over again, this time with the correct fact as the starting point.
What you can't do: is assume that <X-amount> of what you've accomplished by reasoning is basically OK, and all you have to do is go back and "tweak" some earlier portion of the process, and everything just aligns better.
******************************
The Geneva city-fathers of the mid-16th century made a years-long determination (during which there was lots of disagreements and political fluctuation) to "go with the Reformation instead of staying with Rome," so far as local religion went. The eventual price they paid was radical church-&-state separation. But that's not how things started out.
But one early result, after requesting Calvin's return, was a church government that was free to conduct its internal affairs. Here's something on which this decision had no impact: A local resident's existence under various governmental authority geographically defined.
A person living within Genevan secular jurisdiction was subject to Geneva's laws--no matter if he was a citizen or a refugee. We understand this sort of thing today (except for where certain ideas are under modern assault)--that to be inside certain borders entails subjection to local laws.
Well, given medieval holdover concerning religious identity, residents of particular place were also subject to the church's jurisdiction, the church OF that particular place. "Various denominations" was not a thing.
In medieval ecclesiastical theory, the church govt asserted its primacy over secular govt, so that the state was (supposedly) obligated to obey (in the end) the pope and his bishops. In actual historical fact, there was a centuries long tug-of-war between the authorities of church and state; and the state consistently aimed at controlling the bishopric within its borders. This effectively made church govt adjunct to the state govt.
Leaders of the Reformation often saw all that interconnection of govts as detrimental overall to the church's mission; and so sought freedom for church govt from state domination. The new theory would be: neither govt controls the other, but may and should speak TO the other govt with advisement.
However, no one in a given jurisdiction--such as Geneva--was not under the religious jurisdiction of Geneva's established religion. Bringing in a later notion (fueled by Lockean rationalism) that some person in Geneva had some "freedom" to decide for himself what religious "rules" or jurisdiction he would submit himself to--this is confused anachronism. To abide in 16C Genevan society was to be subject to whatever government(s) held sway there.
And what is this "Biblical Law" of which you speak? It is jargon and terminology that has no connection to the time of church history which is under evaluation. It only clouds the questions even further to speak so curiously.
It seems to me that you are saying here that Calvin authorized to have church matters of discipline and judgment to stay out of the secular courts, but some of his followers became overzealous and blurred that distinction between state and church that he wanted to erect?
Last edited:
Ignoring whatever exceptional cases one wishes to raise and reasons for them, everyone in 16C Geneva was recognized as being "within" the Church of Geneva, as respecting matters of religion. So, if someone had an interest in worship, receiving sacraments, moral supervision, preaching, governance--anything falling under a Christian's life qua Christianity--such a matter was identified as a matter of ecclesiastical supervision.
In that pre-modern era, the sphere of an individual's private life was greatly reduced from how it is regarded today. The sphere of his communal life was massive; and man in relation to others is rendered subject to a communal government in matters common. Just so, consider the flux of life in the USA today, where the State defines more and more of life-as-an-American as communal in nature, and so grows its jurisdictional powers. This trend goes the opposite way of the trend that became pronounced after the 16th century in certain places (usually those impacted by the Reformation); then, places like England and then the N.A. Colonies saw "limited" government enshrined.
So, returning to 16C Geneva, it was simply taken as a "given" that one's communal life as a Christian was subject to degrees of moral supervision. Nor did the Reformers wake up on a morning in the 1540s, and start imagining a Christian society that was significantly less regulated publicly. Who could then imagine that certain areas that had been public (and subject to communal regulation) for generations would, in a relatively short period of time be regarded as private, and outside oversight of church govt?
But this devolution of power is exactly what happened, in virtually all spheres of government, over the course of a few more generations.
I don't know if I am able to understand what you are getting of my explanation, and what you aren't. The Company of Pastors in Geneva were not responsible for civil government, or civil policing, or civil punishment. The City Councils were not responsible for policing or punishing church matters, or governing the church.
At the same time, the City would have on its books civic regulations, laws, that were informed in various ways by the citizenry's religious outlook. So, people in govt passed laws then (as in all ages) that reflected the moral concerns of at least some influential segment of the population. Hence, it was civil legislation, passed not by the church or enforced by it, that outlawed witchcraft and other such things, and imposed penalties for convictions for practicing it; along the lines of having laws against theft or murder or adultery. Back then, it was assumed that the state should enforce certain moral matters pertaining to the 1st Table of the Law, and not more narrowly (neighborly) moral matters of the 2nd Table only.
If you can disentangle from your mind or thinking a vision of the culture of Reformation Europe 500yrs ago that is either fusion of church-&-state, or modern hermetically sealed-off isolated spheres, you may perhaps imagine 16C Geneva (and other places) more accurately. Church govt had achieved a measure of autonomy from state apparatus; but there was still a "Christian society" all around these two governmental structures. And the parties in charge in both institutions spoke and interacted with each other.
They did not govern together (strictly speaking); although what we see from our five-centuries-gone vantage point are coordinations and cooperations that look like that. However, the principle of separation having been engaged, understanding it allows us to interpret a widening gap between the two govts over decades of time subsequent. Until today, we often have the governments of state and church in the West operating in overlapping geographic jurisdictions; but who have very little to say to each other, govt to govt.
Many reformed are less than truthful scholars when it comes to their heroes and they do not so much as produce biographies as they do hagiographies. Simply put, many reformed are unreliable scholars due to an effort to white-wash their heroes. Geneva was repressive in many ways.
Regarding naming once again, we see that the Modern Missions Movement was not successful through those who would levy the civil sword against souls (though overly much is made over a small and failed mission to Brazil from Geneva), but rather the Modern Missions Movement was launched by the Moravians and the gentle example of William Carey, Marshman, and Ward (the Serampore Trio), baptists, who annually swore to uphold the Serampore Compact, a set of missiological principles to govern their practices, among which is this gem about "heathen" names:
"We have thought it our duty not to change the names of native converts, observing from Scripture that the Apostles did not change those of the first Christians turned from heathenism, as the names Epaphroditus, Phoebe, Fortunatus, Sylvanus, Apollos, Hermes, Junia, Narcissus, etc., prove. Almost all these names are derived from those of heathen gods. We think the great object which Divine Providence has in view in causing the Gospel to be promulgated in the world, is not the changing of the names, the dress, the food, and the innocent usages of mankind, but to produce a moral and divine change in the hearts and conduct of men. It would not be right to perpetuate the names of heathen gods amongst Christians, neither is it necessary or prudent to give a new name to every man after his conversion, as hereby the economy of families, neighbourhoods, etc., would be needlessly disturbed. In other respects, we think it our duty to lead our brethren by example, by mild persuasion, and by opening and illuminating their minds in a gradual way rather than use authoritative means. By this they learn to see the evil of a custom, and then to despise and forsake it; whereas in cases wherein force is used, though they may leave off that which is wrong while in our presence, yet not having seen the evil of it, they are in danger of using hypocrisy, and of doing that out of our presence which they dare not do in it."
Regarding naming once again, we see that the Modern Missions Movement was not successful through those who would levy the civil sword against souls (though overly much is made over a small and failed mission to Brazil from Geneva), but rather the Modern Missions Movement was launched by the Moravians and the gentle example of William Carey, Marshman, and Ward (the Serampore Trio), baptists, who annually swore to uphold the Serampore Compact, a set of missiological principles to govern their practices, among which is this gem about "heathen" names:
"We have thought it our duty not to change the names of native converts, observing from Scripture that the Apostles did not change those of the first Christians turned from heathenism, as the names Epaphroditus, Phoebe, Fortunatus, Sylvanus, Apollos, Hermes, Junia, Narcissus, etc., prove. Almost all these names are derived from those of heathen gods. We think the great object which Divine Providence has in view in causing the Gospel to be promulgated in the world, is not the changing of the names, the dress, the food, and the innocent usages of mankind, but to produce a moral and divine change in the hearts and conduct of men. It would not be right to perpetuate the names of heathen gods amongst Christians, neither is it necessary or prudent to give a new name to every man after his conversion, as hereby the economy of families, neighbourhoods, etc., would be needlessly disturbed. In other respects, we think it our duty to lead our brethren by example, by mild persuasion, and by opening and illuminating their minds in a gradual way rather than use authoritative means. By this they learn to see the evil of a custom, and then to despise and forsake it; whereas in cases wherein force is used, though they may leave off that which is wrong while in our presence, yet not having seen the evil of it, they are in danger of using hypocrisy, and of doing that out of our presence which they dare not do in it."
I consider Calvin a hero of the faith. And Geneva was a great beacon of Gospel hope. But let's not imagine that they were not infected by some of the weaknesses of their time. It was a repressive time in general and, yes, they, too, were repressive.
Calvin imprisoned people who criticized him personally (touch not the Lord's annointed, I guess). He punished people in civil courts for ecclesiastical offenses, often trifling. He rules on things legally and publicly that should have been matters of private conscience.
Imagine in our day being arrested and fined for missing church. This is not how you win souls.
Another example is the prohibition of the sick going to springs. Many hot springs are medicinal. Some have lithium in them. Folks have always flocked to them for healing. This is medicine, not witchcraft. To denounce the sick who seek a cure such as this as idolators shows the repressive nature of both the man Calvin and the city Geneva.
That being said, Geneva was probably less repressive than some cities. And the Greek City states and other nations in history were much more repressive despite being impressive. But, I sure would not want to revive any of that. We have a tendency to white-wash the past, but for example, Sparta was a downright evil empire even though we marvel at them now.
We need not hate Calvin to be disturbed at his mistakes. Though overall I believe the excesses of the religious become a long-term encouragement for atheists as they show the intolerance of religion.
I also believe it weakens the trust of people when the reformed blindly rubber-stamp everything that Calvin does or do silly things like charge any criticisms of Calvin as being "9th Commandment Violations" which usually just means I disagree with you and must find a religious excuse to shut you up. Calvin was a public personage, his acts are well-documented, some of the secular sources are more objective than the reformed hagiographies, and he is open to criticism.
There is nothing uncharitable. I have made valid points. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I have done anyone wrong. My points again: 1. The reformed do not always portray their heroes accurately and with warts and all. They white-wash them. Or they will only accept sources that similarly whitewash their heroes and disregard opposing sources, who are often better scholars. 2. If you point this out to some reformed, they will moan "9th commandment Violation...9th Commandment Violation!" even as they say also terrible things about Osteen or other non-reformed pastors. My suggestion is that you engage the argument in this thread and not me as a person.
Have you read this whole thread? Scratching my head over here.
You have made historically inaccurate statements. Your subsequent conclusions can, thus, hardly be regarded as valid.
What is that supposed to mean? Whether I like them has nothing do do with it. You've made factual errors. And you've been uncharitable, claiming, even in spite of your profound misunderstanding of the historical circumstances, that biographers who portray Calvin positively are merely authors of hagiography, dishonest with the facts. These are your brothers in Christ, remember. Slow down before you judge their motives. And, again, acquaint yourself with the history.
What argument? How am I engaging you as a person? Sir, you appear utterly confused.
For clarity, I am opposing two things:
1. The factual errors you have presented, and
2. Your uncharitable statements towards your brethren in Christ, living and dead.
I urge you to step away and cool off. Do your homework. (Don't trust secondary sources only. Look at primary sources wherever possible and identify their biases.) Then come back and reconsider everything you've said here.
1. I have written of events described by respected historians, 4 of them so far (Schaff, Durant, and the two I cited in my reply). More citations can be provided.
2. You saying these are errors do not make them so. Especially if you cherry-pick hagiographic sources which only defend your viewpoint.
3. I am cool as a cucumber. I would assert that maybe you are triggered because I am poking your sacred cow. You appear a bit unhinged by my criticisms.
4. Criticisms are valid of public historical personages.
I suggest you stop focusing on me and focus on the points of the discussion. Or even better, I suggest the same to you, that you step away. You appear quite confused.
Some other quotes which demonstrate that discipline in Calvin's Geneva went too far and confused the spheres of Church and State:
“In March the Anabaptists were banished. In April, at Calvin’s instigation [a house-to-house inspection was launched] to ensure that the inhabitants subscribed to the Confession of Faith. … On October 30 there was an attempt to wring a profession of faith from all those hesitating. Finally, on November 12, an edict was issued declaring that all recalcitrants ‘[who] do not wish to swear to the Reformation are commanded to leave the city’’. …” (Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 200), 128-130.
Will Durant is also a respected historian and he also writes:
"To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established … and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives. … The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height. … Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged: books … of immoral tendency were banned. … To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death … a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558–59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000."
---
Durant continues (agreeing with Schaff):
"All the claims of the popes for the supremacy of the church over the state were renewed by Calvin for his church. … [Calvin] was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new religion had begun. … In Geneva … those … who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant [Calvinist] services, or continued refusal to take the Eucharist was a punishable offense. Heresy again became … treason to the state, and was to be punished with death. … In one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague."
---
The Register of Geneva also tells the story of the city notary John Trolliet, who did not like the doctrine of predestination. The Genevan courts thereafter decreed that nobody should speak against Calvin's Institutes or its doctrine. I am not a fan of banned books or book burnings or fines for reading unapproved literature.
---
Citizen Jacques Gruet was suspected of putting a nasty note in Calvin’s pulpit which called Calvin a “Gross hypocrite …" Gruet was tortured twice daily. After a month Gruet confessed and was beheaded. (J.M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1914), i:443-44).
---
Calvin and witches:
Calvin was not above the supersitions of his own time. The Witch craze was a shameful period of European history and became the fuel of much Freethought later and has ever since been used as a bad example against the medieval Christians. It is widely admitted that the evidence to condemn a witch was often very insubstantial and many of the crimes were but folk remedies for medicine and no actual curses or spells at all.
Geneva killed a lot of "witches" or tortured some to death, and some killed themselves awaiting torture. Calvin approved all of this.
In Calvin's own letter to a friend he speaks of witches: “The Lord tests us in a surprising manner. A conspiracy has just been discovered of men and women who for three years employed themselves in spreading the plague in the city by means of sorcery. … Fifteen women have already been burned, and the men have been punished still more rigorously. Twenty-five of these criminals are still shut up in the prisons. … So far God has preserved our house.” (Cottret's book, 180-181).
Did you get that? The reason for the plague was sorcery. Sounds just like backwards places like Papua. They kill "witches" in my jungle tribe, also, when somebody falls sick and the burden of proof of such witchcraft is quite low. Maybe the tribals ought to torture these "witches" first to gain a confession just like Geneva did.
Cottret continues: “Calvin therefore shares in all respects the fantasies of his entourage. He found occasion to exhort his contemporaries to pursue sorcerers in order to ‘extirpate such a race’’. …. A pair of these henchmen of Satan had just been burned the previous month. …” Calvin even believed that the devil, on at least one occasion, helped rid Geneva of evil, “for in October 1546 he [the devil] bore away through the air (so Calvin himself testifies) a man who was ill with the plague, and who was known for his misconduct and impiety.”
Why the devil would make a man fly away through the air I do not understand, but Calvin certainly believed it.
Conclusion:
Calvin was a hero of the Reformation, but that medieval template still existed.
Instead of the Pope being the supreme leader invested in extraordinary powers in both spheres of Church and State, the temptation was great for some of the lead Reformers to take on similar powers, even as they made attempts to separate Church and State. It was expected at that time.
And Calvin did many reforms to separate Church and State, but it was incomplete in his lifetime and he ruled much in both spheres and even mixed those spheres often and punished ecclesiastical offenses with the civil sword.
As the Protestants decried the Spanish Inquisition, that mindset was so prevalent that the Protestants often set up what can only be called Inquisitions of their own. It was a time of growth and change. While Calvin gets much of the credit for many of these changes, he also fell into the errors of his own time. And we should admit both the good and the bad. All human heroes are flawed. If Reformed people do not admit any of this nuance, it just hurts their case and makes them look naive and unable to tolerate ambiguity and even sin in their leaders.
“In March the Anabaptists were banished. In April, at Calvin’s instigation [a house-to-house inspection was launched] to ensure that the inhabitants subscribed to the Confession of Faith. … On October 30 there was an attempt to wring a profession of faith from all those hesitating. Finally, on November 12, an edict was issued declaring that all recalcitrants ‘[who] do not wish to swear to the Reformation are commanded to leave the city’’. …” (Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 200), 128-130.
Will Durant is also a respected historian and he also writes:
"To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established … and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives. … The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height. … Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged: books … of immoral tendency were banned. … To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death … a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558–59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000."
---
Durant continues (agreeing with Schaff):
"All the claims of the popes for the supremacy of the church over the state were renewed by Calvin for his church. … [Calvin] was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new religion had begun. … In Geneva … those … who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant [Calvinist] services, or continued refusal to take the Eucharist was a punishable offense. Heresy again became … treason to the state, and was to be punished with death. … In one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague."
---
The Register of Geneva also tells the story of the city notary John Trolliet, who did not like the doctrine of predestination. The Genevan courts thereafter decreed that nobody should speak against Calvin's Institutes or its doctrine. I am not a fan of banned books or book burnings or fines for reading unapproved literature.
---
Citizen Jacques Gruet was suspected of putting a nasty note in Calvin’s pulpit which called Calvin a “Gross hypocrite …" Gruet was tortured twice daily. After a month Gruet confessed and was beheaded. (J.M. Robertson, Short History of Freethought (London, 1914), i:443-44).
---
Calvin and witches:
Calvin was not above the supersitions of his own time. The Witch craze was a shameful period of European history and became the fuel of much Freethought later and has ever since been used as a bad example against the medieval Christians. It is widely admitted that the evidence to condemn a witch was often very insubstantial and many of the crimes were but folk remedies for medicine and no actual curses or spells at all.
Geneva killed a lot of "witches" or tortured some to death, and some killed themselves awaiting torture. Calvin approved all of this.
In Calvin's own letter to a friend he speaks of witches: “The Lord tests us in a surprising manner. A conspiracy has just been discovered of men and women who for three years employed themselves in spreading the plague in the city by means of sorcery. … Fifteen women have already been burned, and the men have been punished still more rigorously. Twenty-five of these criminals are still shut up in the prisons. … So far God has preserved our house.” (Cottret's book, 180-181).
Did you get that? The reason for the plague was sorcery. Sounds just like backwards places like Papua. They kill "witches" in my jungle tribe, also, when somebody falls sick and the burden of proof of such witchcraft is quite low. Maybe the tribals ought to torture these "witches" first to gain a confession just like Geneva did.
Cottret continues: “Calvin therefore shares in all respects the fantasies of his entourage. He found occasion to exhort his contemporaries to pursue sorcerers in order to ‘extirpate such a race’’. …. A pair of these henchmen of Satan had just been burned the previous month. …” Calvin even believed that the devil, on at least one occasion, helped rid Geneva of evil, “for in October 1546 he [the devil] bore away through the air (so Calvin himself testifies) a man who was ill with the plague, and who was known for his misconduct and impiety.”
Why the devil would make a man fly away through the air I do not understand, but Calvin certainly believed it.
Conclusion:
Calvin was a hero of the Reformation, but that medieval template still existed.
Instead of the Pope being the supreme leader invested in extraordinary powers in both spheres of Church and State, the temptation was great for some of the lead Reformers to take on similar powers, even as they made attempts to separate Church and State. It was expected at that time.
And Calvin did many reforms to separate Church and State, but it was incomplete in his lifetime and he ruled much in both spheres and even mixed those spheres often and punished ecclesiastical offenses with the civil sword.
As the Protestants decried the Spanish Inquisition, that mindset was so prevalent that the Protestants often set up what can only be called Inquisitions of their own. It was a time of growth and change. While Calvin gets much of the credit for many of these changes, he also fell into the errors of his own time. And we should admit both the good and the bad. All human heroes are flawed. If Reformed people do not admit any of this nuance, it just hurts their case and makes them look naive and unable to tolerate ambiguity and even sin in their leaders.
Last edited:
Never mind. Let those who read the thread make up their minds.
- Status
