John Calvin Anniversary

wolfsbane

Tomorrow, July 10, is the 500th anniversary of the birth of the great Reformer, John Calvin.

His influence on the Church and mankind has been immense. Even Baptists like me thank God for the light his servant brought to a dark world. Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a superb work of theology:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/


“The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon

PDN

It had to happen.

prinz

6th July was the 594th anniversary of the death of Jan Hus, who preached reformation long before it became popular but there was no mention of that in this forum.I feel he deserves a mention if we're going to remember men like Calvin.

Húrin

wolfsbane wrote: »

“The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Surely Spurgeon would need to know what perfection consisted of to make a comment like that?

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Tomorrow, July 10, is the 500th anniversary of the birth of the great Reformer, John Calvin.

Boooooh

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

Boooooh

Now, now :pac:

He wasn't averse to allowing people be put to death though so as far as his system being nearest perfection

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

It had to happen.

'Predestined'

wolfsbane

Húrin wrote: »

Surely Spurgeon would need to know what perfection consisted of to make a comment like that?

Yes - he was comparing it to the Bible's teaching and found it the closest he had encountered. The Bible's teaching is perfect - but of course Spurgeon himself was just as liable to an imperfect understanding of it as was Calvin.

We have not yet attained, but press on toward the mark.

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

Now, now :pac:

He wasn't averse to allowing people be put to death though so as far as his system being nearest perfection

Indeed, he brought with him some of the faulty ideas of his old system. But a vast improvement overall.

Manach

He was the chap who man who deposed Queen Mary? If so, double boo.

PDN

Manach wrote: »

He was the chap who man who deposed Queen Mary? If so, double boo.

Not unless Queen Mary was the Queen of Geneva.

ocianain

Calvin created the Christian police state, his Institutes is a depressing read. Sin could be a capital offense in Geneva, when Geneva was Catholic a priest forgave sin, sin was removed. Under Calvin confession was heard in court and the sinner was removed (executed), good ol' Cal executed his daughter-in-law, yeah, he was a great guy.:rolleyes:

ocianain

Huss was even worse

Tim Robbins

ocianain wrote: »

Huss was even worse

Can anyone post some objective and critical references to Calvin?

Richard Dawkins slated him for predistination, as if it was even more far fetched than creationism.

Does predistination mean everything is worked out in advance, all the scores for the drogs matches for externity PDN, or just whether you go to heaven?

Also for his nasty side:
- Helped some spanish intellectual get killed.
- Believed in witch burning.
Anything else?

On the plus side, what's so good about him? Russell gives a chapter to Augustine and a chapter to Aquainus in History of Westen Philosophy, not so much to Calvin.

So what's so good about him?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can anyone post some objective and critical references to Calvin?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/90247/John-Calvin

Google is your friend.

prinz

Calvinism was based around the absolute power and supremacy of God.
The world was created so that Mankind might get to know Him. Calvin believed that Man was sinful and could only approach God through faith in Christ - not through Mass and pilgrimages.
Calvin believed that the New Testament and baptism and the Eucharist had been created to provide Man with continual divine guidance when seeking faith.
In Calvin’s view, Man, who is corrupt, is confronted by the omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) God who before the world began predestined some for eternal salvation (the Elect) while the others would suffer everlasting damnation (the Reprobates).
The chosen few were saved by the operation of divine grace which cannot be challenged and cannot be earned by Man’s merits. You might have lead what you might have considered a perfectly good life that was true to God but if you were a reprobate you remained one because for all your qualities you were inherently corrupt and God would know this even if you did not. However, a reprobate by behaving decently could achieve an inner conviction of salvation. An Elect could never fall from grace.

However, God remained the judge and lawgiver of men. Predestination remained a vital belief in Calvinism.

from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

He also wanted a theocracy, and ran Geneva basically as the Ayatollah runs Iran from what I can tell. Not my idea of perfection. Deeply suspect imo.

The similarities to the Islamic Republic and to the Taliban are striking tbh.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

He also wanted a theocracy, and ran Geneva basically as the Ayatollah runs Iran from what I can tell. Not my idea of perfection. Deeply suspect imo.

The similarities to the Islamic Republic and to the Taliban are striking tbh.

What's so great about him? Can anyone tell me?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's so great about him? Can anyone tell me?

He took a couple of steps on the journey to reformation.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

He took a couple of steps on the journey to reformation.

He got rid of Bishops and came up the idea of predestination.
Big deal?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He got rid of Bishops and came up the idea of predestination.
Big deal?

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. I think you'll find he had a bigger influence than what you've mentioned.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. I think you'll find he had a bigger influence than what you've mentioned.

Empty vessels make the most noise. These phrases get us nowhere.

Seriously, did this guy come up with anything remotely intellectua (anything like say Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, First Cause argument)?
Doesn't predestination contradict free-will?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Empty vessels make the most noise. These phrases get us nowhere.

Seriously, did this guy come up with anything remotely intellectua (anything like say Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, First Cause argument)?
Doesn't predestination contradict free-will?

Do you need to be spoon fed everything? How about you go find out....

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

Do you need to be spoon fed everything? How about you go find out....

I read your link and found nothing. Anything else I've read about the bloke contained nothing of intellectual merit.

If you asked me why someone I thought had some intellectual talent I could tell you in my own words. In fact, I'd enjoy the question.

So I dind't see a problem posing it.

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can anyone post some objective and critical references to Calvin?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read your link and found nothing. Anything else I've read about the bloke contained nothing of intellectual merit.

Well, depends on your definition of intellectual I suppose. You made a little almost freudian slip in an earlier post using that same word, so I do not know what standard you attach to it unfortunately. If the Encyclopaedia Britannica isn't up to your standards I apologise profusely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you asked me why someone I thought had some intellectual talent I could tell you in my own words. In fact, I'd enjoy the question.

Except you didn't ask for my own words, you asked for objective references ( see above). Use your imagination and find some. Personally I am not an expert in Mr. Calvin so I wouldn't start trying to sate your own impressive intellect with my limited knowledge. What I do know is you have a habit of asking questions which could be quickly answered with an iota of effort on your own part.

wolfsbane

ocianain said:

Calvin created the Christian police state,

That is disputed, for example (p271):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xOm1j8RBtw4C&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=The+European+reformations+By+Carter+Lindberg&source=bl&ots=WzZjx5lO9S&sig=m054DEl3G85FF5SAP0SCQiBOEK4&hl=en&ei=4cJcSrjhLpCQjAfp8KzQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

his Institutes is a depressing read.

Sinners would find it depressing - as they would the Bible. Both depict man as eternally lost and in need of a Saviour.

Sin could be a capital offense in Geneva,

Still can be in the USA, China and several other countries. Depends on the sin.

when Geneva was Catholic a priest forgave sin, sin was removed.

Are you saying murderers got off with a penance?

Under Calvin confession was heard in court

Same today in most democracies.

and the sinner was removed (executed),

OK, most countries use imprisonment for the most serious offences today. Not penance nor execution.

good ol' Cal executed his daughter-in-law,

Have you a reference for that, as I can't find any? I did see where his sister-in-law was banished from Geneva for adultery. Hardly an extreme measure, given the times.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can anyone post some objective and critical references to Calvin?

Here's a good overview:
The Many Faces of John Calvin
http://gregscouch.homestead.com/files/manyfaces.html

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

Except you didn't ask for my own words, you asked for objective references ( see above). Use your imagination and find some. Personally I am not an expert in Mr. Calvin so I wouldn't start trying to sate your own impressive intellect with my limited knowledge. What I do know is you have a habit of asking questions which could be quickly answered with an iota of effort on your own part.

Word...
here's what I mean..
Augustine - came up with philosophical arguments such as just war which are still used today. Undoutably a clever man.
Thomas Aquinas - Gets a chapter in Russell's history of western philosophy - undoutably a clever man.
Anslem - Ontological argument. Undoutably a clever man.
Copernicus - Verfied Gallieo's view of solar system. Undoutably a clever man.
Le Maitre - Proofed Einsteiin wrong. Undoutably a clever man.
C. S. Lewis - Doubful how clever he was. Logic all over the place, but with respect he's not taken very seriously by any philosopher or academic except a subset of christians who probably aren't skilled or that interested in any form of logic.
Calvin - ?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Word...
here's what I mean..
Augustine - came up with philosophical arguments such as just war which are still used today. Undoutably a clever man.
Thomas Aquinas - Gets a chapter in Russell's history of western philosophy - undoutably a clever man.
Anslem - Ontological argument. Undoutably a clever man.
Copernicus - Verfied Gallieo's view of solar system. Undoutably a clever man.
Le Maitre - Proofed Einsteiin wrong. Undoutably a clever man.
C. S. Lewis - Doubful how clever he was. Logic all over the place, but with respect he's not taken very seriously by any philosopher or academic except a subset of christians who probably aren't skilled or that interested in any form of logic.
Calvin - ?

By your definition then you can only be worthwhile and/or 'clever' if you produced a body of intellectual work. Perhaps you should have a look at what he did, the repercussions of what he did, and how others took up the baton he started with and continued his trip. I mean you judge Aquinas as a clever man because he gets a chapter in someone else's book Plenty of people have had a profound effect upon the history of man without ever lifting a pen to discuss their 'philosophies'.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

By your definition then you can only be worthwhile and/or 'clever' if you produced a body of intellectual work. Perhaps you should have a look at what he did, the repercussions of what he did, and how others took up the baton he started with and continued his trip.

I have and I see nothing.
By getting rid of Bishops you could argue he was contributing to democracy, but compare that to what the Greeks had already done 1,500 years earlier.

According to Russell, both Calvin and Luther rubbished Copernicus theory of the Earth going around the Sun. If they played a game of chess, I'd put my money on Copernicus having the edge.

Plenty of people have had a profound effect upon the history of man without ever lifting a pen to discuss their 'philosophies'.

Yes, Socrates (if the accounts from Plato were accurate) never published and had a profound effect on the thinking of man.

But this point is completly irrelevant. Calvin had published. I'm just wondering is there anything which would indicate he was a bright spark or was he up at the Ted Haggard, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel end of the specturm.

ocianain

A google search called "punishment for adultery in calvins geneva" turns up this gem;

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/death_penalty.html

The confession I cited was spiritual, I'm aware of no democracy where one receives spiritual absolution in court. Wouldn't this be a conflict of church and state? Calvin tried to fuse state and religion, Geneva was to become the New Jerusalem. He was more Muslim then Christian, which from the beginning saw a separation between Church and State (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, render to God what is Gods). Calvin was a smart guy, he was not a great philosopher.

Tim Robbins

ocianain wrote: »

Calvin was a smart guy, he was not a great philosopher.

Excuse my Roman Orthodox atheist ignorance, but where is the evidence he was smart?

ocianain

Read his writings, he was also a top student in seminary, he was a very intelligent person. Just shows you brains is no guarantee of good philosophy/theology. By the way, I'm no Calvinist

Tim Robbins

ocianain wrote: »

Read his writings, he was also a top student in seminary, he was a very intelligent person. Just shows you brains is no guarantee of good philosophy/theology. By the way, I'm no Calvinist

But sure millions have come top of their class!

Usually, if someone is regarded as an intellectual, by international standards they come up with something which completly changes the way thinkers think and separates them from all the other millions which come up with something .

Examples:

1. Einstein - relativity
2. Dawkins - Selfish Gene
3. Hawking - Theories on black holes
4. Augustine - Just war
5. Anslem - Ontological argument
6. Calvin - ?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Usually, if someone is regarded as an intellectual, by international standards they come up with something which completly changes the way thinkers think and separates them from all the other millions which come up with something .

Examples:

1. Einstein - relativity
2. Dawkins - Selfish Gene
3. Hawking - Theories on black holes
4. Augustine - Just war
5. Anslem - Ontological argument
6. Calvin - Need for Reformation

QED

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

QED

Eh... That was someone else's idea.

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Eh... That was someone else's idea.

No, it was the ideas and work of many people.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

No, it was the ideas and work of many people.

Well when then what's the big deal about him?

prinz

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well when then what's the big deal about him?

I never said he was a big deal. It took a lot of people to bring Civil Rights and end segregation in the States, do you say 'what's the big deal about Martin Luther King?', it took millions of people to defeat Nazism, do you say 'what's the big deal about Churchill, or De Gaulle for instance... they weren't in the trenches killing and dying. Do you realise how many people were involved in the French and American Revolutions....... . Do you say Washington gets the credit and everyone else was no big deal? I've had enough of this now.Enjoy.

Tim Robbins

prinz wrote: »

I never said he was a big deal. It took a lot of people to bring Civil Rights and end segregation in the States, do you say 'what's the big deal about Martin Luther King?', it took millions of people to defeat Nazism, do you say 'what's the big deal about Churchill, or De Gaulle for instance... they weren't in the trenches killing and dying. Do you realise how many people were involved in the French and American Revolutions....... . Do you say Washington gets the credit and everyone else was no big deal? I've had enough of this now.Enjoy.

Oh come on, don't be getting all moody because your views are being questioned.

I'm just wondering if there was anything of outstanding intellectual merit with Calvin. There doesn't look to be. Maybe we could just agree on that and then discuss was his greatness based more on his ability to lead people (in the same way as the other characters you mentioned were) instead of conflating the issues.

However, I wonder would Churchill, MLK or De Gaulle be considered as great leaders if they believed in witch burning and what appears to be abject mind control of people living in a theocractic state. I doubt it. In some respects you could say Calvin was just as crazy as any Pope.

wolfsbane

ocianain wrote: »

A google search called "punishment for adultery in calvins geneva" turns up this gem;

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/death_penalty.html

The confession I cited was spiritual, I'm aware of no democracy where one receives spiritual absolution in court. Wouldn't this be a conflict of church and state? Calvin tried to fuse state and religion, Geneva was to become the New Jerusalem. He was more Muslim then Christian, which from the beginning saw a separation between Church and State (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, render to God what is Gods). Calvin was a smart guy, he was not a great philosopher.

Thanks for the site. Interesting, but needs taken with a pinch of salt as its sources are hardly impartial.

Yes, I agree that Calvin's Geneva was far from a place of civil and religious liberty. He brought with him the ancient traditions of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the State's duty to punish error. But he based his concept of law on what he believed the Bible taught, not on what the Papacy taught. That allowed revision and reformation as further light emerged.

Subsequent generations struggled with that challenge, and as a Baptist I'm glad to say our view has prevailed.

As to absolution, the courts did not offer any spiritual absolution. They were concerned with outward modification of behaviour. No priestly confessional. They looked for remorse, and reformation of conduct.

Calvin did indeed see it as the state's duty to punish outward sins, including heresy. But he did not see the church and state as one. Both had their separate spheres. As with the Roman Church, it was the state alone that punished - the church identified the offences. Rome regarded the state as a servant in this matter, an instrument to do its bidding, but Calvin regarded them as directly answerable to God, not the church.

I'm unable to assess Calvin as a philosopher, but I'm sure he would have had no interest in such a title. He wanted only to be a pastor and teacher of the faithful. In that he excelled. That is his legacy - the systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church.

BTW, still no ref. to the alleged execution of Calvin's daughter-in-law.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is his legacy - the systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church.

Disagree. I don't think can someone who believed in witch burning can be placed in contradistinction to corruption.

Secondly, what's does "systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church" actually mean? Does it mean encouraging lay people to read the Bible in their own language? Surely that's Luther who deserves the kudos then.

Thirdly, with fear of sparking a massive debate with all the Protestants on this site, if there were no Roman Church, you could argue that there may never have been a NT Canon in the 15th / 16th centuries from which reformers could take their cue.

Yes, the NT Canon could have been decided outside the remit of Roman Church, but it may have died a death had Rome not give it huge political support for over a 1,000 years. Let's say Rome switched to Islam and all of Europe became Muslims. By the time, Calvin and Luther came along, Christianity could have been another religion that had just gone out of date, just like many other religions.

Luther, Calvin didn't invent Christianity, they took an ideology that was ubiquitous and (they probably never examined any other major faith - there's no evidence I know of they did) just made it better or worse depending on your pov.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is his legacy - the systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church.
Disagree. I don't think can someone who believed in witch burning can be placed in contradistinction to corruption.

Punishment of witches was hardly an act of corruption. It might have been open to abuse (false accusations, for example), but it was a reasonable attempt to suppress evil in society. We suppress evil today, imprisoning folk who use heroin, or trade in cannabis, for example. It is only where we no longer believe witchcraft is harmful to society that we ignore it. I think the problem for that age was it believed witches had the power to physically/mentally/spiritually harm others, not just by making them believe in their evil powers. In that understanding, suppression was a sensible response.

Of course, crime then included things that are more properly only sins: heresy, fornication, for example. There is always a judgement to be made where sin leaves off and crime begins. Homosexuality was a crime until fairly recently.

Secondly, what's does "systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church" actually mean? Does it mean encouraging lay people to read the Bible in their own language? Surely that's Luther who deserves the kudos then.

No, that was in effect long before Calvin or Luther. I meant the presentation of an extensive theology that refuted the Roman doctrine and established the Bible once more as the source of all spiritual authority.

Calvin's presentation of the absolute sovereignty of God has been its especial legacy to the world.

Thirdly, with fear of sparking a massive debate with all the Protestants on this site, if there were no Roman Church, you could argue that there may never have been a NT Canon in the 15th / 16th centuries from which reformers could take their cue.

Yes, the NT Canon could have been decided outside the remit of Roman Church, but it may have died a death had Rome not give it huge political support for over a 1,000 years. Let's say Rome switched to Islam and all of Europe became Muslims. By the time, Calvin and Luther came along, Christianity could have been another religion that had just gone out of date, just like many other religions.

I agree - hypothetically the Roman Church was necessary for the survival of the Bible. But so too was the Roman Empire.

In reality, if God had chosen to destroy the Empire in the 1stC, and caused the RCC to vanish under Islam, he would simply have raised up deliverance for the true Church and its Bible elsewhere. Maybe Islam would have adopted the Bible as its own, as the JWs have, and the Saracens, etc. been its protectors.

Luther, Calvin didn't invent Christianity, they took an ideology that was ubiquitous and (they probably never examined any other major faith - there's no evidence I know of they did) just made it better or worse depending on your pov.

I agree. They removed most of the rubbish of tradition that had accumulated over the centuries and had obscured the Scriptures. A return to the faith of the NT was the Reformer's object. Their successors in the faith have extended their good work. As a Baptist I'm happy to acknowledge their impact, as I am the insights of their Anabaptist contemporaries.

ocianain

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the site. Interesting, but needs taken with a pinch of salt as its sources are hardly impartial.

Yes, I agree that Calvin's Geneva was far from a place of civil and religious liberty. He brought with him the ancient traditions of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the State's duty to punish error. But he based his concept of law on what he believed the Bible taught, not on what the Papacy taught. That allowed revision and reformation as further light emerged.

Subsequent generations struggled with that challenge, and as a Baptist I'm glad to say our view has prevailed.

As to absolution, the courts did not offer any spiritual absolution. They were concerned with outward modification of behaviour. No priestly confessional. They looked for remorse, and reformation of conduct.

Calvin did indeed see it as the state's duty to punish outward sins, including heresy. But he did not see the church and state as one. Both had their separate spheres. As with the Roman Church, it was the state alone that punished - the church identified the offences. Rome regarded the state as a servant in this matter, an instrument to do its bidding, but Calvin regarded them as directly answerable to God, not the church.

I'm unable to assess Calvin as a philosopher, but I'm sure he would have had no interest in such a title. He wanted only to be a pastor and teacher of the faithful. In that he excelled. That is his legacy - the systematizing of Biblical theology as an alternative to the corrupt religion that had become established in the Roman Church.

BTW, still no ref. to the alleged execution of Calvin's daughter-in-law.

My bad, I believe it's his sister-in-law.

ocianain

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh come on, don't be getting all moody because your views are being questioned.

I'm just wondering if there was anything of outstanding intellectual merit with Calvin. There doesn't look to be. Maybe we could just agree on that and then discuss was his greatness based more on his ability to lead people (in the same way as the other characters you mentioned were) instead of conflating the issues.

However, I wonder would Churchill, MLK or De Gaulle be considered as great leaders if they believed in witch burning and what appears to be abject mind control of people living in a theocractic state. I doubt it. In some respects you could say Calvin was just as crazy as any Pope.

No pope was as crazy al Calvin, he was a Old Testament Christian, we would call them Christian Zionist now, he wanted Heaven on Earth, an absurdity to any Christian, but a belief quite common within some Protestant circles. Everyone (Christian) who rebels against the Church ends up trying to create Heaven on Earth, Be it Hus, Luther, or, Calvin.

PDN

ocianain wrote: »

My bad, I believe it's his sister-in-law.

You not only confuse a daughter-in-law with a sister-in-law, you seem to get confused between words that start with 'ex-'.

Calvin was instrumental in having his sister-in-law, Anne Le Fert, excommunicated and exiled (for adultery) but she was not executed.

Calvin's Consistory court hadn't the power to execute anyone. It was a religious court whose maximum sanction was excommunication.

The civil authorities in Geneva, like most other places in those days, executed people for various 'offences' including witchcraft and, in one case (Servetus) for heresy. Calvin was, undoubtedly, a supporter and cheerleader of such practices, as were most people of his time, including Popes, bishops and both Protestant and Catholic clergy. That certainly seems unpleasant to us today - but we all tend to be children of the age in which we live.

Geneva in the Sixteenth Century was no bundle of laughs, nor was it a beacon of toleration - which makes it no better or worse than Rome, London or anywhere else at that time. Protestant Christendom (where Church and state operate in an unholy alliance) stinks just as much as Roman Catholic Christendom. Christianity has always functioned best as a counter-cultural movement.

PDN

ocianain wrote: »

No pope was as crazy al Calvin,

I think most people would agree that Stephen VI was a bit crazier than Calvin.

Don't you think you would need to be a little crazy to dig up the corpse of one of your predecessors, subject the rotting cadaver to a trial, then to punish him by chopping off some of his fingers?

ocianain

Interesting that no "witches" were executed by the Spanish Inquisition, know why?

The Inquisition said, "There's no such thing as witches" See Kamen. Catholicism created Western Civilization, as far as I can tell Protestantism gave us poor hymns, a lack of fun (see Puritans) and divorce (Luther basically divorced the Church). Geneva was much worse than Rome, which after all created Western Civilization, at least sin was not a civil matter, it was not confessed in public on ones knees as it was under Calvin's Consistory. It was confessed in private, the sinner received absolution and the instruction, "Sin no more." Catholicism removed the sin, Calvinism the sinner. Calvin, like all religious revolutionaries, regressed, his method of addressing adultery proves this, it's based on Mosaic Law. What does that have to do with Jesus?

ocianain

Looks like a good read,
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/KINADU.html

ocianain

PDN wrote: »

I think most people would agree that Stephen VI was a bit crazier than Calvin.

Don't you think you would need to be a little crazy to dig up the corpse of one of your predecessors, subject the rotting cadaver to a trial, then to punish him by chopping off some of his fingers?

He had it comin'!

ocianain

And of course it should be remembered, or, if it be a fact one was unaware of, acknowledged, that the One True Church never taught a doctrine of impeccability, it taught and teaches, a Doctrine of Infallibility

ocianain

And yes, I do believe anyone who believes they can create Heaven on Earth (without the return of Christ) is crazier than someone who digs up bodies and puts them on trial! There will be no Heaven on Earth before the return of Christ.